Inhaltsverzeichnis - European Parliament
TEXTS ADOPTED
at the sitting of
Tuesday
27 September 2011
P7_TA-PROV(2011)09-27 PROVISIONAL EDITION PE 473.468
CONTENTS
TEXTS ADOPTED
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0396
Trade in agricultural and fishery products between the EU and Palestine ***
(A7-0300/2011 - Rapporteur: Maria Eleni Koppa)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (07770/2011 – C7-0100/2011 – 2011/0042(NLE)) 1
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0397
EU-Mexico agreement on certain aspects of air services ***
(A7-0298/2011 - Rapporteur: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States (05735/2011 – C7-0067/2011 – 2008/0161(NLE)) 2
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0398
EU-Cape Verde Fisheries Partnership Agreement ***
(A7-0299/2011 - Rapporteur: Pat the Cope Gallagher )
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde (09793/2011 – C7-0228/2011 – 2011/0097(NLE)) 3
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0399
EU-US Memorandum of Cooperation in civil aviation research and development ***
(A7-0301/2011 - Rapporteur: Herbert Reul)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (09390/2011 – C7-0141/2011 – 2011/0021(NLE)) 5
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0400
Extension of the scope of the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States ***
(A7-0077/2011 - Rapporteur: Sophie Auconie)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council regulation concerning the extension of the scope of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (17787/2010 – C7-0025/2011– 2010/0206(APP)) 6
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0401
EU research and innovative funding
(A7-0302/2011 - Rapporteur: Marisa Matias)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on the Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding (2011/2107(INI)) 7
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0402
European Schools system
(A7-0293/2011 - Rapporteur: Jean-Marie Cavada)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on the European Schools system (2011/2036(INI)) 22
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0403
Future EU cohesion policy
(A7-0287/2011 - Rapporteur: Michael Theurer)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds: lessons learnt for the future cohesion policy of the EU (2010/2305(INI)) 31
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0404
European disaster response: role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance
(A7-0283/2011 - Rapporteur: Elisabetta Gardini)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (2011/2023 INI)) 42
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0405
Professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States ***I
(A7-0076/2011 - Rapporteur: Sophie Auconie)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States (COM(2010)0377 – C7-0186/2010 – 2010/0204(COD)) 54
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0406
Dual-use items and technology ***I
(A7-0028/2011 - Rapporteur: Jörg Leichtfried)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology (COM(2008)0854 – C7-0062/2010 – 2008/0249(COD)) 88
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0407
Tourism in Europe
(A7-0265/2011 - Rapporteur: Carlo Fidanza)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe (2010/2206(INI)) 120
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0408
European road safety
(A7-0264/2011 - Rapporteur: Dieter-Lebrecht Koch)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on European road safety 2011-2020 (2010/2235(INI)) 134
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0409
Dam infrastructure in developing countries
(A7-0213/2011 - Rapporteur: Nirj Deva)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on financing of reinforcement of dam infrastructure in developing countries (2010/2270(INI)) 149
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0410
Assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges
(A7-0284/2011 - Rapporteur: Gabriele Zimmer)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges (2010/2100(INI)) 157
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0411
Unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings
(A7-0269/2011 - Rapporteur: Rafał Trzaskowski)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings (2011/2090(INI)) 170
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0412
New trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy
(A7-0255/2011 - Rapporteur: Daniel Caspary)
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy (2010/2152(INI)) 172
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0413
Establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes
(P7_DCL(2011)0015)
Declaration of the European Parliament of 27 September 2011 on the establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes 185
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0396
Trade in agricultural and fishery products between the EU and Palestine ***
Committee on International Trade
PE467.323
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (07770/2011 – C7-0100/2011 – 2011/0042(NLE))
(Consent)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the draft Council decision (07770/2011),
– having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union, of the one part, and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part, providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products and fish and fishery products and amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (07769/2011),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0100/2011),
– having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0300/2011),
1. Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0397
EU-Mexico agreement on certain aspects of air services ***
Committee on Transport and Tourism
PE464.733
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States (05735/2011 – C7-0067/2011 – 2008/0161(NLE))
(Consent)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the draft Council decision (05735/2011),
– having regard to the draft Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States (07158/2/2009),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 100(2), 218(8) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0067/2011),
– having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0298/2011),
1. Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United Mexican States.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0398
EU-Cape Verde Fisheries Partnership Agreement ***
Committee on Fisheries
PE464.993
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde (09793/2011 – C7-0228/2011 – 2011/0097(NLE))
(Consent)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the draft Council decision (09793/2011),
– having regard to the draft for a new Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde (09791/2011),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council, pursuant to Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0228/2011),
– having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budgets (A7-0299/2011),
1. Consents to the conclusion of the Protocol to the Agreement;
2. Calls on the Commission to forward to Parliament the minutes and the conclusions of the meetings of the Joint Committee provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement, as well as the multiannual sectoral programme provided for in Article 3 of the new Protocol and the corresponding annual evaluations; calls on the Commission to facilitate the participation of representatives of Parliament as observers in the meetings of the Joint Committee; calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament and the Council, within the last year of application of the new Protocol and before the opening of negotiations for its renewal, a full evaluation report on its implementation, without imposing unnecessary restrictions on access to this document;
3. Calls on the Commission and Council, in the context of their respective competences, to keep Parliament immediately and fully informed, at all stages of the procedures related to the new Protocol and its renewal, pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 218(10) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of Cape Verde.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0399
EU-US Memorandum of Cooperation in civil aviation research and development ***
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
PE469.756
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (09390/2011 – C7-0141/2011 – 2011/0021(NLE))
(Consent)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the draft Council decision (09390/2011),
– having regard to the Memorandum of Cooperation Nat-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (06458/2011),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0141/2011),
– having regard to Rules 81, 90(7) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0301/2011),
1. Consents to conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0400
Extension of the scope of the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States ***
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
PE454.641
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the draft Council regulation concerning the extension of the scope of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (17787/2010 – C7-0025/2011– 2010/0206(APP))
(Special legislative procedure – consent)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the draft Council regulation (17787/2010),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0025/2011),
– having regard to Rule 81(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0077/2011),
1. Consents to the draft Council regulation;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0401
EU research and innovative funding
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
PE464.836
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on the Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding (2011/2107(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular the articles relating to research,
– having regard to the Commission Green Paper ‘From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding’ (COM(2011)0048),
– having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on the interim evaluation of the seventh EU programme for research, technological development and demonstration[1],
– having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on innovation Union: transforming Europe for a post-crisis world[2],
– having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2010 on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes[3],
– having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked Funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 concerning the European Fund of Regional Development and the Seventh Framework Programme (FP) for Research and Development in cities and regions as well as in the Member States and the Union[4],
– having regard to the report of the Committee of Experts ‘Towards a world class Frontier Research Organisation – Review of the European Research Council’s Structures and Mechanisms’ of 23 July 2009,
– having regard to the report of the Group of Independent Experts ‘Mid-Term Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF)’ of 31 July 2010,
– having regard to the final report of the Expert Group ‘Interim Evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme’ of 12 November 2010,
– having regard to the Commission communication of 9 February 2011 entitled ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Response to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities and to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility’ (COM(2011)0052),
– having regard to the conclusions of the Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research Activities (FP7), including the risk-sharing finance facility, by the 3074th EU Council meeting on competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) of 9 March 2011,
– having regard to the Commission's Communication of 20 April 2009 entitled 'Moving the ICT frontiers: A strategy for research on future and emerging technologies in Europe' (COM(2009)0184),
– having regard to its motion for a resolution of 9 June 2011 on marking the centenary of the award of the Nobel Prize to Marie Skłodowska-Curie[5],
– having regard to the EU 2020 flagship initiative ‘A Resource-efficient Europe’ (COM(2011)0021),
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality(A7-0302/2011),
A. whereas, on the basis of the budget review, the Commission has decided to launch a debate to improve the efficiency of research and innovation funding at regional, national and EU levels, and to handle the allocation of financial resources for EU research and innovation programmes as an EU top priority,
B. whereas the EU has established the objective of increasing spending on R&D to 3% of EU GDP by 2020, and whereas, given that many countries are still a long way from achieving this goal, increased public and private investment in R&D is particularly important,
C. whereas the current trends show strong pressure to freeze or even reduce the European budget associated with a period of severe constraints on national public budgets, and whereas R&D&I is one of the areas where European cooperation has been shown to have real added value in contrast to certain other budget posts, showing the need to reallocate the EU's available resources,
D. whereas we are currently experiencing an economic, social and environmental crisis (which is affecting EU Member States in very different ways), and whereas research (in its fundamental and applied dimensions), education and innovation are crucial instruments for both economic recovery and job creation through the achievement of the EU 2020 flagship initiatives, as well as for the definition of a sustainable and inclusive growth model,
E. whereas the EU and its Member States must provide themselves with the means to respond collectively to the major social, economic, environmental, demographic and ethical challenges facing the people of Europe, such as the ageing population, health, food supply, sustainable development, important ecological issues, etc, and whereas the solutions to these issues should provide an incentive to individuals to take more responsibility for their actions,
F. whereas other regions and countries of the world are increasingly investing in R&D&I, and whereas EU investment in this domain should therefore be oriented towards a reinforcement of scientific capacity, encouragement of investment by industry and an improvement in overall EU competitive capacity; whereas the creation of a consistent set of support tools along the whole “innovation chain" is needed, ensuring proper balance between the academically oriented research, the applied scientific research and innovation,
G. whereas, although EU funding for R&D&I has been increasing, scientifically and technologically more developed EU Member States are still able to absorb the greatest slice of the available resources under the various Framework funding schemes and programmes (including large-scale projects), perpetuating the under-representativeness of some Member States and their regions in terms both of access to funding and of participation; whereas, in the interest of completing the European Research Area (ERA), the emergence of excellence in all parts of the Union needs to be aimed at, and whereas the Structural and Cohesion Funds are the prime instrument to achieve this,
H. whereas there are still significant and growing inequalities within the EU in terms of national levels of R&D funding capacities, industrial structures and higher education systems, and whereas those differences are partly mirrored in overall participation in FP7; whereas balancing mechanisms should be put in place in order to enhance the research and innovation capacities of all Member States and European regions,
I. whereas the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) should be modelled on the same general principles as the ERA, capitalising on the enormous untapped potential for coordinating the 27 different national research strategies and programmes and reducing unnecessary fragmentation,
J. whereas the great importance of SMEs for the EU economy and employment is not mirrored in their level of participation in EU R&D&I funds; whereas the participation of SMEs in R&D&I collaborative projects should reach a level of 15% and whereas, recognising that collaborative work with industry has encouraged significant investment in R&D&I by industry, simplification and cutting red tape are a necessary condition for reaching this aim and increasing the participation of industry as a whole,
K. whereas poverty-related and neglected diseases hamper economic development, especially in developing countries; whereas such diseases affect more than a billion people and cause millions of deaths every year,
L. whereas over 60 % of students graduating from universities are women, but the majority of senior positions in universities (e.g. PhD posts and professorships) are still held by men,
M. whereas since the start of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2007, 1 700 projects have been selected to receive funding from the ERC, representing some EUR 2.5 billion in grants, and almost 90% of these grants went to male candidates,
N. whereas a highly problematic ‘glass ceiling’ seems to exists for female researchers, meaning that the share of female researchers decreases with seniority,
O. whereas in the educational systems of many Member States gender stereotypes still prevail in research areas such as the natural sciences[6];
1. Welcomes the European Commission Green Paper defining a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for funding in research and innovation, and considers that the new CSF core should be the articulation of the EU research programmes and funding schemes, based on the Community research and innovation policies and the Member States’ research programmes; believes that the CSF should follow an integrated approach, which aims to become more attractive and easy to access for all participants;
2. Takes the view that EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds have different aims and, as such, should be kept separate;
3. Acknowledges the relatively low participation in FP7 of certain Member States, as well as the persistence of a research and innovation performance gap between European regions, despite the efforts made via the Structural Funds to enhance their R&D capacity; is convinced that the potential for excellence of all regions needs to be harnessed; is therefore of the opinion that new approaches are necessary to assist underperforming regions and Member States to achieve excellence and smart regional specialisation;
4. Calls on the Commission to maximise all relevant synergies between the CSF, the Structural Funds, the European Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund and to develop a multi-fund approach, while respecting their different objectives; is convinced that cohesion instruments could strengthen the development of excellence and capacity building by a better compatibility with research and innovation policies at regional level; believes that this will allow a stairway of excellence to be developed, leading these regions to fully participate in the CSF, based on quality and excellence;
5. Suggests that this new approach could include funding of activities aimed at: modernising universities, purchase of scientific equipment, local technology transfer, support to start-ups and spin-offs, dissemination of the results of R&D&I projects, increased programme capacity for trans-national researcher training, the foundation of cutting-edge research centres, the building up of networks of excellence and clusters, or peer-reviewed trans-regional collaborative R&D and innovation activities; believes that certain Support Actions of FP7 have proved successful as bridging activities and should be preserved in the CSF;
6. Calls on the Member States to consider funding ERC, Marie Curie or collaborative projects proposals that have met the criteria of excellence but cannot be funded owing to lack of European funds;
7. Highlights the importance of maintaining appropriate instruments with which to support the development of the institutional capacity of the regions with regard to research and innovation policy, since the regional level is a strategic link for effectively integrating FP funding with that of the Structural Funds and also in view of their strong links to local businesses, services and research and training centres;
8. In the light of the future gearing of cohesion policy to the Europe 2020 Strategy, calls for the ‘innovation’ priority to be binding on both Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions, and for that priority to be reflected in the funding allocated at all levels;
9. Believes that local and regional authorities should be encouraged to innovate, notably via the continuation and strengthening of initiatives of the type ‘Regions of Knowledge’, ‘Living Labs’ and ‘Smart Cities’, in which the territorial dimension of Research and Development is fostered;
10. Draws attention to the importance of maintaining convergence policies, and asks the Commission to build stairways to excellence for those Member States and regions that are economically and socially more vulnerable and are underrepresented in the FP, on the basis of their respective strengths and according to effective and clear criteria, aiming at substantially increasing their human capital and research capacity;
11. Takes the view that announcing a competition for the foundation of cutting-edge research centres in disadvantaged regions is a suitable instrument for developing the European Research Area; considers that the award of aid in the form of a competition boosts dynamism and creativity, which can lead even in structurally weak regions to the successful creation of research and technology sites providing future-oriented jobs; considers that the candidates for the competition should be teams comprising one internationally recognised research institute and one disadvantaged region each, and that the scientific approaches underlying the proposals for foundations should be assessed on the principle of excellence; considers that, at the same time, the region should be required to come up with a viable overall approach constructing, for example with the help of structural funds and by creating an appropriate framework, an infrastructure amenable to research and innovation;
12. Recommends that the Commission analyse the possibility of setting up an all-European common fund financed by the Structural Funds to promote collaborative European research;
13. Is convinced that the credibility of the Framework Programme is based on scientific quality, and therefore considers excellence the main criterion for research funding; recalls that the nature of excellence differs with the type of participant or the very nature of the research and innovation project (the excellence criterion for a research institution is not the same as for an individual researcher or for an SME, and also differs between fundamental and applied projects); stresses that technical improvement, innovation, pilot projects and market creation should be considered important criteria for industrial and applied research, where relevant;
14. Calls for better coordination and synergy between local and regional, national and European cross-border research and innovation strategies, respecting the specificities of the different contexts and, at the same time, reinforcing the possibilities for complementarities and cooperation between them; believes that access to and sharing of information and best practices, enhanced joint programming efforts, simple, flexible rules and instruments and, where appropriate, convergence of the latter is of key importance to increasing the effectiveness of funding, and possibly of co-funding;
15. Is convinced that Europe has an obligation to make use of its great potential in research, technology and innovation and to contribute to solutions to the global societal challenges, namely:
– the demographic changes as an ageing society in Europe, including age related diseases and family policies, a growing world population, neglected diseases, nutrition/food security, urbanisation, mobility, social cohesion and migration,
– the transition to sustainable management of scarce resources, including water, land use and soil management, mitigation of climate change, preservation of biodiversity, marine ecosystems and forestry, renewable energies, energy efficiency and energy security, critical raw materials and other biological and physical natural resources,
– a strong, stable and equitable economic base, including economic recovery, the enhancement of education and training and of fundamental and applied knowledge in all disciplines from social sciences and humanities, through other domains such as biological and medical sciences and research for the civil security of citizens and infrastructures, to key technologies in order to boost the EU's economy and employment;
Believes that the CSF should focus on addressing those societal challenges in a comprehensive way through a balanced set of instruments covering the whole spectrum of education and training, research and innovation activities;
16. Recalls the importance of ensuring the continuity of successful instruments between the FP and the CSF, in particular in the collaborative programmes; invites the Commission to assess in due course the effectiveness of existing instruments towards the achievement of specific policy goals and to adapt those of which the effectiveness or distinctive contribution is not clearly demonstrated;
17. Calls for an independent audit to be carried out, for example by the European Court of Auditors together with national courts of auditors, on the effectiveness of public expenditure on research undertaken by the Member States, the EU and local authorities;
18. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the visibility of the EU added value in research and innovation;
19. Calls for a concerted public and private effort at European and national level to reach the European target of 3 % of GDP on R&D expenditure; calls on the EU Institutions and the Member States to agree without further delay on a specific roadmap for achieving this target;
20. Stresses that efforts should be made to align spending within the CSF as far as possible with the overarching policy objectives under the Europe 2020 Strategy; calls for clear coordination with the new initiatives, such as the Innovation Union and other relevant Flagship Projects;
21. Recalls that the future funding of research and innovation should serve the goal of completing the ERA by creating more synergies and better cooperation between different R&D&I policies and funding programmes among the EU, Member States, and local authorities;
Towards a new Common Strategic Framework (CSF)
22. Underlines the fact that at the core of the CSF should be the idea that the differing nature and scale of R&D&I projects, together with the multiplicity of funding schemes, must be organised in such a way that coherence, broad representativeness, articulation, simplification and complementarity are ensured, building stairways to excellence;
23. Notes that, in order to allow all researchers to take part in CSF projects, administrative rules covering contracting procedures should take into account the different national rules on universities and research centres; stresses in particular that the co-financing mechanism should not operate to the detriment of universities and research institutes, and that under no circumstances should universities be placed at a disadvantage compared with other actors;
24. Calls on the Commission to set up a simple and accessible system to accelerate innovation, to invest in R&D&I projects on fighting the grand societal challenges and to have a truly holistic approach, focusing attention on the various crucial stages of the innovation and value chain (from material provider to end-user product);
25. Is convinced that different tasks within the CSF should be tackled separately but in close articulation and partnership with each other: the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) to operate mainly as a network of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs); the innovation-related parts of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) to concentrate on its strength in supporting innovative SMEs; the next FP to embrace research as a whole; and the structural/cohesion funds to be used in closer cooperation and in a more targeted way, but kept separate; takes the view that collaborative projects should remain the backbone of the CSF;
26. Stresses the need to enhance the flexibility of the common strategic framework, not only so that appropriations can be moved between the individual chapters and calls, but also so that the CSF is flexible enough to allow appropriations to be allocated to meet major societal challenges that arise during the budget period;
27. Calls for a clear definition of the overall funding system and for a tighter integration of research, education and innovation; since European R&D&I policy creates European added value, and in order to reach the Europe 2020 objectives, calls for the EU research and innovation programmes’ budget for the next financial period to be doubled as of 2014 (excluding the budget devoted to R&D&I within the Structural Funds and the EIB) as the appropriate response to the current economic crisis and to the great shared challenges; believes that an increased public research budget should aim at delivering wider societal benefits and improved competitiveness; reiterates the need to strengthen and develop the R&D&I-friendly role of all EU instruments, including by means of closer cooperation with the EIB and by simplifying procedures for access to funding; suggests, therefore, a new organisational model based on three different layers of funding aimed at stability and convergence:
1st Layer: Capacity building and infrastructure
28. This layer should cover the EU funds associated with infrastructure (in the wider sense, including the institutional one) and capacity building;
29. The funding scheme within this layer includes the part of the FP concerned with the Capacities Programme and Marie Curie initiatives, the European funding components of research infrastructures and projects, access to loans by the EIB (covering projects over EUR 50 million and RSFF), grants associated with the abovementioned components of the FP, and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with infrastructure;
30. Calls for the role of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) as an internal supplier of scientific and economic analyses for development policy in line with the Europe 2020 strategy to be strengthened;
31. Stresses that in the future large-scale European investment projects (ITER, Galileo, Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) should be funded outside the FP, creating autonomous budget lines for them, in order to guarantee a transparent and reliable financing structure whilst controlling and limiting their potential for cost over-runs; suggests that they should be partially funded through the issuing of project bonds by the EIB;
32. Highlights the pivotal role of large-scale research infrastructures for the development of the ERA and calls for the overall EU funding available for research infrastructures to be raised, especially where there is the greatest scope for European added value, for the funding to be extended after the preparatory phase and for open and excellence-based access to them to be guaranteed;
2nd Layer: Research, Potential, Collaboration and Consolidation
33. This layer should be the space for overall research, both fundamental and applied, including the social sciences and humanities; coordination participants are mainly universities and research centres/institutes; the industrial sector, in particular SMEs, and innovative non-profit organisations should be encouraged to participate and cooperate with academia and public research centres and to act as coordinators, if appropriate; this layer represents the largest share of the FP and should be aimed at developing the strong scientific basis in both basic and applied research that is needed for innovation to spur;
34. The key words here are originality and relevance of the idea, quality and potential for scientific excellence and added-value of projects, including high-risk research and projects concerning “non-technological innovation and social innovation”; the business plan and market potential are positive factors to be considered but not necessary conditions for approval;
35. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by the EU FP grants system and cooperation with Structural Funds associated with R&D&I; synergy of these two funding sources and simplification of interactions between projects financed by the EU and external funding bodies would be beneficial; grants should primarily be aimed at public and private research institutes and innovative SMEs;
36. Calls for a more flexible funding scheme in order to make the Cooperation theme more attractive for SMEs, whereby SMEs would be able to join collaborative projects during the projects implementation where possible, and an open budget line for this should be available for the project; believes that in this way the SME can see the opportunities more clearly since the timeframe from entering the project to market results is shortened;
37. Recalls that the European Research Council (ERC) has proved to be successful in promoting scientific excellence and a strengthening element of the ERA; calls for further improvements to the ERA’s structures and mechanisms and a boost to its instruments; stresses the need to substantially increase the proportion of the budget dedicated to grants both to young and female researchers, and to researchers from innovative SMEs (both research groups and individuals), as well to strengthen Marie Curie actions and initiatives, thus reinforcing mobility (by introducing a “fifth freedom” of knowledge), career progression and collaboration between academia, public research institutes and industry, as well as access to major research infrastructures; calls on industry to become more involved in doctoral and postdoctoral research programmes; calls for the implementation of the necessary measures to guarantee decent working conditions for scientific workers in the EU, making Europe more internationally attractive to researchers, counteracting the exodus of specialists and achieving excellence in Europe;
38. Underlines that the mobility of researchers in Europe should be given priority and calls for a strengthening of measures (such as pension portability and social security provisions, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, measures to reconcile family and work life, and research vouchers following researchers moving to another Member State) that will contribute to the mobility of European researchers, help stem the 'brain drain' and make the prospect of a research career in the EU more attractive; calls for the introduction of a mobility component in the ERC grants where appropriate; calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up their effort to facilitate rapid mutual recognition of academic curricula;
39.Believes there is further potential for extending the scope of the ERC concept to collaborative and multidisciplinary research projects, provided they maintain a bottom-up nature and scientific excellence is kept as the major selection criterion;
40. Welcomes the steady progress towards a balanced participation of men and women in the Framework Programme; agrees that measures to boost female participation should be reinforced throughout project lifecycles and that the Commission should reinvigorate its approach to promoting female scientists and should aim to galvanise Member States into addressing gender gaps, with particular attention to overcoming gender-specific obstacles; underlines that the 40 % target for female participation in the Programme and Advisory Committees should be implemented; calls on the Commission to establish, together with the European Institute for Gender Equality, a Gender Action Plan with gender indicators and targets and to monitor its implementation;
41. In line with gender mainstreaming, stresses the need for researchers at all levels to be given the opportunity to postpone the start of a grant or to suspend work on it, for reasons of maternity leave, paternity leave or parental leave, in respect of projects where this is possible, and to have the option of extending the validity of a grant agreement, for the same reasons, in respect of projects where time is not of the essence; calls on the Member States to grant researchers these options;
42. Stresses that full implementation of the European Research Area necessitates legislative measures that enable all EU players to participate in the national programmes, with individual states’ calls for tenders being opened to all and steps being taken to harmonise rules, procedures, contracts and assessment criteria;
3rd Layer: Market and innovation towards common goals
43. This layer should be the space for developing and fostering market uptake of innovative products and services and generation of public benefits; industry, especially innovative SMEs, plays a pivotal role here in developing novel products, services and processes;
44. In view of the need to encourage young people to participate in research and innovation activities and support young entrepreneurs who contribute to R&D&I activities and make use of the results for their local or regional communities' economic and social development, calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue with the Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs, also in the context of the future multiannual financing framework, and to increase the funding allocated to that programme;
45. Recognises that particular attention should be devoted to SMEs’ involvement, in order to enable the exploitation of new ideas and opportunities in a flexible and effective way as they emerge, opening new avenues for innovation; stresses that a sector-specific definition of SMEs is a prerequisite for their successful participation in the CSF; notes that the success of innovation activities depends also on the skills and experience of management staff;
46. Underlines the need to improve SMEs' local and European access to research and innovation services; is of the opinion that successful programmes, such as Eurostars, have gained important experience in responding to the needs of innovative companies and should therefore be reinforced; calls on efforts at all levels aiming at bringing innovative solutions to specific public sector needs, by engaging small businesses in competitions for ideas that result in short-term development contracts;
47. The funding scheme within this layer is covered by EU funding provided through the EIT, funding associated with CIP, access to credit enhancement by the EIF, specific loans from the EIB (mainly covering projects under EUR 50 million), and cooperation with the Structural Funds associated with entrepreneurship; funding of the EU's innovation policy has, however, a missing link: appropriate funding instruments that respond to the specificities of SMEs; believes that the ERA would greatly benefit from the creation, after due consideration of an impact assessment, of an EU SME Programme, conceived as a specialised branch of the EIB entirely devoted to SME innovation projects;
48. Recalls that the European Institute of Innovation and Technology has proved to be successful and a strengthening element of the European Research Area; (Ex AM 165)stresses the need for KICs with a more narrow focus and consequently a more concentrated network with a smaller sized budget, which also enables more SME participation due to lower annual contribution costs; believes that these smaller KICs can create a single focal point in the EU as a meeting place for scientists from all over the EU in order to better compete on the global market;
49. In order further to increase the participation of SMEs in the programmes, believes that some funding instruments and actions should be considered:
– soft loans, which are reimbursed in the event of success, excluding administrative costs;
– efforts to provide comprehensive funding for SMEs (particularly in the seed and start-up phase) that will cover the full innovation cycle, including for accessing R&D services and advice;
– the RSFF to be applied in such a way that granting of smaller funds is possible via national intermediates;
– easier access to risk and venture capital;
– greater participation of SMEs in the setting of the research agendas;
50. Calls for new and innovative methods of financing to be tested, such as EU project bonds and vouchers for EU innovation, which would allow businesses to spend those resources directly at accredited research centres; such vouchers should not be subject to cost reporting because their use would be certified by the centres where the vouchers are spent; the accreditation centres could be set up on a national or regional basis and validated by a European body such as, for example, the JRC; takes the view that the JRC’s contribution to innovation under the Framework Programme should include enhanced cooperation with industry;
51. Welcomes the EU Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme whose purpose is to identify technology-oriented public sector challenges and fund R&D projects in order to develop new solutions to both old and emerging problems;
o
o o
52. Takes the view that not all innovation is research-based and that not all research has innovation as its goal; believes in consequence that the proposed reorganisation should cover the full spectrum of activities related to innovation, from concept to market, including non-technological, eco- and social innovation; believes that this should include the promotion of innovative practices (such as innovative and pre-commercial public procurement, inducement prizes, IPR policies and lead market initiatives) and the facilitation of their widespread dissemination; recalls that standardisation should be taken into account in addressing grand challenges and shaping priority areas of CSF, but should not be a new separate instrument or activity;
53. Notes the success of the CIP so far and highlights the vital importance of continuing and further expanding the programme, particularly in order to strengthen innovative SMEs as the driver of the European economy;
54. Stresses, however, that some of the CIP instruments could become the natural extension of the future framework programme, providing continuity for European research and innovation projects; takes the view that the technology developed under framework programme projects could be extended to innovative projects:
– disseminating their use in various industrial and service sectors,
– launching further additional applications in related or complementary fields;
55. Recalls that the very competitive nature of research, scientific, technological and innovation work and the maintenance of local scientific and innovative capacity building depend on the existence of some level of duplication and fragmentation, without which collaborative research would be undermined;
56. Underlines that in order to more effectively attract private investment and to ensure that research and development most effectively contribute to enhancing European competitiveness, appropriate measures should be taken in the Framework programme to establish a strong, efficient regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property rights at an early stage in the research process;
57. Strongly encourages the implementation of training programmes for all potential participants, particularly on the application of management rules, and calls on the Commission to develop criteria for the selection, evaluation and assessment of training projects, bearing in mind inter alia the stairways to excellence; urges the Commission to take a proactive approach to help public bodies, especially those established in under-represented Member States, to improve their management system by carrying out assessments and to issue recommendations for these bodies to improve their funding applications and project management;
58. Reiterates that simplification of the management of European research funding requires a quantum leap; believes that a key element in simplification is to shift from the current control-based to a more trust-based and risk-tolerant approach, which is of particular benefit for SMEs; calls for the implementation of all identified simplification measures in the new CSF, including an increased margin of tolerable risk of error, a broad acceptance of usual accounting practices, the use of lump sums and flat rates (on a voluntary basis), simplification of the application and contractual procedures and of the rules on pre-financing and the eligibility of costs, a significant reduction of the financial and scientific reporting requirements, shortening of the time-to-contract to maximum 6 months and a significant reduction of the time-to-grant and time-to-pay, and more flexibility for participants in how they organise and manage their projects and choose their partners;
59. Is convinced that simplification should lead to a reduction in the combination of funding rates and indirect costs calculation methods across financing schemes without, however, abolishing the differentiation applying for universities, research organisations and industry;
60. Recommends defining a limited set of common (administrative, financial and organisational) rules and principles that are easy to interpret and that would apply to all EU R&D&I programmes and instruments;
61. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make access to European research programmes easier, for example by setting up a single contact point, establishing a principle of ‘one project, one document’ and setting up a forum for exchange of good practice; in this respect, reiterates the need for an easily accessible single entry point to advice and financial support for potential participants; criticises the current lack of transparency and information on upcoming calls for proposals for research projects, which results in researchers and institutes being unable to properly prepare themselves and therefore impedes their participation;
62. Points out that a coherent policy towards creating a European knowledge-based society implies strengthening the links between education, research and innovation; emphasises that the CSF should address and integrate the entire knowledge chain via, for example, infrastructure development, standardisation, training programmes and measures to support key technologies; encourages all collaboration between universities, businesses and research institutes and believes that skills and technology transfer is a vital component; asks for practical instruments to be provided to foster the transfer of technology from research to industrial application, both in services and in the manufacturing sectors;
63. Calls for stronger intergovernmental participation under the Joint Programming Measures, which would strengthen cooperation in research, development and innovation throughout Europe;
64. Pointing out the importance of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) and European Technology Platforms (ETPs), recommends offering a specific common framework for all PPPs with clear, simplified common conditions, clearly separating the role of the private sector and the public sector; stresses the need to take effective measures to improve transparency and open access to such instruments by SMEs and the public research sector; invites the Commission to carry out an in-depth analysis of the state of the art, impact and relevance of the currently running different formats of PPPs before consolidating or supporting the establishment of additional ones, in order to improve their governance to ensure better involvement of a greater variety of stakeholders both in setting the research agenda and ensuring access to newcomers; is also convinced that those instruments should be clearly driven by public priority objectives (valuing societal and sustainability results) and be leveraging real private investments;
65. Stresses that the CSF should be an attractive funding mechanism for both private and public sector actors (including also NGOs and CSOs); believes that all participants in high impact R&D&I projects and ETPs should play a role in the priority-setting discussion and have access to research infrastructures;
Some guidelines for the next Framework Programme
66. Favours moving towards a ’science-based’ approach and calls for a trust-based attitude towards researchers and a more risk-tolerant attitude towards participants at all stages of the funding system, including science valorisation and innovation; asks for an appropriate funding model for academic research in the next FP;
67. Believes that the CSF should not be limited to focusing on research-driven or technology-based innovation alone, but that it should support different sources of innovation; points out that many companies – especially SMEs – use other sources of innovation such as clients, markets, users and, not least, employees, and that this form of innovation is often of a more practical nature and is focused on solving specific problematic issues related to processes, services or products, since the proposed solutions are often found by the employees that are closest to the production process, markets and clients; believes, therefore, that the EU should strengthen practice-oriented, employee-driven innovation;
68. Urges the Commission to ensure that overhead costs under HORIZON 2020 are revised; asks the Commission, therefore, to analyse what percentage the overhead costs represent in FP7 and to come forward with proposals to keep it as low as possible;
69. Calls for collaborative research (the current Cooperation Programme) to be kept at the heart of the FP, reinforcing synergies to increase and accelerate the impact and dissemination of research projects performed in cooperation with partners of excellent global standing, both from within and from outside the EU; believes that funding of collaborative research should have greater thematic flexibility (broader calls) and user-friendly funding arrangements in order to attract outstanding scientists and to respond to the needs of both large consortia and smaller groups; believes that the whole innovation chain from exploratory research to large scale pilot projects and demonstrations should be covered, with dedicated ring-fenced budgets to sectors which have developed a strategic vision in order to address societal challenges with long-term investment cycles, where appropriate;
70. Voices its scepticism about the effectiveness of utilising the funds for creating research networks of excellence and organising conferences and events and calls for a strengthening of electronic networking measures for research and innovation and the dissemination of research results via the Internet;
71. Expresses its scepticism about whether it is often possible to finance a single proposal per call, resulting in a waste of the resources invested in their preparation and evaluation and the non-funding of excellent ideas; calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of funding excellent, non-selected proposals, through an additional research budget (matching research funds) which will also involve Member States and regional and structural funds;
72. Calls for consolidation of multi- and transdisciplinary research and recognition of the social dimension of research; in this context, recalls that grand societal challenges should be dealt with – apart from technological responses – by means of European research in social sciences and humanities and social innovation, which remain a pivotal asset in successfully addressing those challenges; believes therefore that both an independent subject area covering ‘social and economic sciences and the humanities’, and inclusion of it as an increased component in all agenda-driven actions should be secured in the CSF;
73. In order further to attract the interest and involvement of citizens and civil society in research, calls for the continuation of the Science in Society theme as a stand-alone and for its horizontal expansion to cover the great societal challenges; in addition, believes that the Commission should support further development and wider dissemination of guidelines on ethics, and the further development of instruments designed for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs);
74. Calls for research priorities and objectives to be set in a more transparent and participatory way, through the balanced involvement of players, including the scientific community, researchers (also from smaller research organisations), the public sector, CSO organisations and SMEs; calls for the creation of a specific platform for dialogue between CSOs and researchers for discussing research priorities areas in specific sectors; believes that specific platforms for closer interaction of SMEs and researchers should also be promoted;
75. Believes that not only economic, but also societal, ethical and sustainability assessment and evaluation of the specific research programmes is an important process that must be improved and more widely promoted, at both European and Member State level; supports the Commission's initiatives in this field, such as the development of Responsible Research and Innovation principles, and encourages their further promotion and uptake;
76. Calls for a balance to be kept between bottom-up (such as the current FET-open scheme) and top-down projects (‘grand societal challenges’), as well as for smaller bottom-up projects and bottom-up collaborative research to be facilitated; takes the view that lower entry barriers for collaborative projects would lead to a reinforcement of scientific capacity; believes that strategic priorities must be combined with emerging problems; asks the Commission to study the balance between bottom-up and top-down projects and to consider it both from a social and a financial point of view; stresses the need to consult and work together with researchers, industry and civil society actors, in order to set the research agendas;
77. Is in favour of small and medium-sized projects forming the focus of future research funding; believes that small and medium-sized projects are easier and less costly for universities and SMEs to manage; and that they will also enable to increase the hitherto unsatisfactory success rates of applications;
78. Believes that, when certain societal needs are not being met by our present innovation models, new public licensing schemes and innovation inducement prizes can be used to focus research in these areas and to assure the efficacy of public expenditure; calls on the Commission to launch as soon as possible a pilot initiative for inducement prizes in the medical sector;
79. Calls for coherent coverage of the full R&D&I chain though the implementation of transparency rules and clear coordination between the different Commission DGs dealing with research and innovation funding;
80. Calls for an intensification of international cooperation, where appropriate, with the strategic partners of the European Union, including fast growing countries such as the BRICS countries, on a reciprocal basis, in order to better tackle global challenges; recalls that participation of third-country researchers would be encouraged by more simplified procedures and significantly shorter lead times for applications; stresses the need for a stronger scientific capacity building in neighbouring countries, based on a better coordination of the Common Strategic Framework with EU neighbourhood policy instruments; believes that effective reinforcement of capacity building and the establishment of fair and comprehensive partnerships with developing countries is crucial to boosting their sustainable development;
81. Considers that cooperation with third countries in the domain of research with possible dual use should be avoided with any country that does not respect human rights, UN resolutions and international law;
o
o o
82. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0402
European Schools system
Committee on Culture and Education
PE464.749
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on the European Schools system (2011/2036(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union,
– having regard to the Commission report to Parliament entitled ‘The European Schools’ system in 2009’ (COM(2010)0595),
– having regard to the Convention defining the statute of the European Schools[7],
– having regard to its resolution of 8 September 2005 on options for developing the European Schools System[8],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities[9],
– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which came into force on 3 May 2008 and was ratified by the European Union on 23 December 2010, in particular Article 24 thereof[10],
– having regard to the annual report by the Secretary-General of the European Schools presented to the Board of Governors at its meeting of 12, 13 and 14 April 2011 in Brussels[11],
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0293/2011),
A. whereas Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity,
B. whereas the preamble to the 1994 Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools states that the European Schools system is ‘sui generis’ and constitutes a form of cooperation between the Member States and between them and the European Communities while fully acknowledging the Member States' responsibility for the content of teaching and the organisation of their educational system, and for their cultural and linguistic diversity,
C. whereas Article 1 of the Convention allows for other children to attend the Schools within the limits set by the Board of Governors, who, according to point II.7 of Chapter XII of the Digest of Decisions of the Board of Governors, can award Category I status to "Staff of any Community organisation set up by an act of the Community Institutions and staff in the service of other organisations recognised by the Board of Governors",
D. whereas the European Schools enable pupils to affirm their cultural identity and to attain a high level of knowledge of at least two languages, including their mother tongue, which they are encouraged to learn from an extremely early age, highlighting the importance of multiculturalism and fostering mutual understanding and mutual respect,
E. whereas the European Schools cannot be put in the same category as international schools because, rather than existing to offer parents the option of a particular type of schooling for their children, they meet a need to educate children in their mother tongue, and to develop the European dimension in education,
F. whereas the European Schools’ way of operating, based from the outset on an intergovernmental convention, should be improved and the system will have to be given a legal basis that will allow it to be simplified and to become more transparent and effective,
G. whereas the reform of the European Schools system was approved by the Board of Governors in April 2009,
H. whereas the experience of over 50 years of functioning of the European Schools has shown the system and its educational model to be unique and attractive; whereas one of the aims of the reform is to open up that system and the European Baccalaureate to other pupils in the Union, whereas the aims of the reform cannot be attained successfully without a fundamental change in the legal status on which the whole system is based,
I. whereas the Commission report on the European Schools' system in 2009[12] pointed to persisting and worsening systemic problems, such as the lack of seconded teachers or delays in, or non-provision of, sufficient infrastructure at the schools’ locations, which have a direct effect on the quality of education, enrolment policies, the quality of life of students, parents and teachers and financial aspects of the functioning of the Schools,
J. whereas in the Schools in Brussels and Luxembourg the lack of school buildings and infrastructure is detrimental to the quality of education and prevents the Schools being opened up to children other than the children of EU institutions staff; whereas it is necessary to ensure that all pupils receive the same quality of education regardless of mother tongue, school location or category,
K. whereas the main aim of the 2009 reform of the European Schools was to open them up to a wider and more diverse intake, while at the same time ensuring the system’s long-term viability,
L. whereas the educational model on which the European Schools are based should be promoted in the Member States, since it provides added value, and made an integral part of their educational systems,
M. whereas it is difficult to bring together within the same educational system – geared solely towards the European baccalaureate examination – students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, who may have very different talents and capacities, and whereas it is thus necessary to provide appropriate support for students with special educational needs (SEN),
N. recognising the need to consider the introduction of a school-leaving certificate other than the European baccalaureate for students wishing to specialise in vocational courses,
O. whereas, in its resolution of 8 September 2005, one of the things that Parliament called for was a pilot project for an SEN resource centre; whereas the sum of EUR 200 000 was earmarked for that purpose in the 2008 EU budget and whereas the money was eventually used to fund a study of policy and practice with regard to SEN provision in the European Schools,
P. whereas Article 4 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools stipulates that, in order to help bring students from the various language sections together and to foster mutual understanding between them and to improve students’ language skills, certain lessons will be taught in any Community language, where circumstances justify its use, to joint classes of the same level,
Q. whereas, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, the Schools are funded essentially by contributions from the Member States in the form of the secondment of teachers, which in 2010 made up 21% of the European Schools’ budget, and a balancing contribution from the EU, to cover the difference between the Schools’ overall expenditure and their total income from other sources, which in 2010 made up 58% of the budget; whereas the European Schools are also dependent, via their Board of Governors, on an intergovernmental executive,
R. whereas Article 25 also provides that the European Schools’ budget may include a financial contribution decided on by the Board of Governors acting unanimously,
S. whereas the economic crisis has had repercussions on the financing of the European Schools and the Commission has therefore called for reforms to rationalise costs in the Schools, but whereas this should not be allowed to affect the education of vulnerable children with learning difficulties and special needs, and should not affect teaching in mother tongue or bring about a reduction in the teaching of languages other than French, German and English,
T. whereas, following the two most recent EU enlargements, the number of students without a language section (SWALS) is continuing to grow, but whereas they should not be penalised in any way owing to the fact that they do not have a language section,
U. whereas the increase in the number of European School pupils is a direct consequence of the EU institutions’ post-2004 recruitment policy, which resulted in employing staff below the age of 30; in the meantime these young officials have established families and subsequently enrolled their children in European Schools,
V. whereas the SWALS are given learning support in the language of the language section in which they enrol, so as to be able to follow the classes, and classes in their mother tongue, a few hours a week being the very minimum necessary to maintain ties to their mother tongue and culture,
W. whereas a special levy on the salaries of officials, intended to be used inter alia for the European Schools, was introduced in 2004 for the declared purpose of reflecting the costs of social policy, improved working conditions and the European Schools,
General considerations
1. Regrets that the European Schools are often wrongly considered to be elitist schools, a luxury rather than a necessity, when their mission is in fact to provide mother-tongue education for students whose parents may be required to change their place of work or return to their country of origin, as well as to develop the European dimension in education;
2. Recalls that this specific educational system enables pupils to study all subjects (particularly the sciences) in their mother tongue with qualified teachers or, in the case of SWALS, with the necessary learning support and classes to maintain their mother tongue;
Organisation and spread of the European baccalaureate system
3. Believes that this specific system of education enables pupils to study all subjects in a multicultural, multilingual environment, with qualified teachers, while retaining their mother tongues;
4. Takes the view that the European Schools, which constitute an excellent educational showcase based on a tried and tested teaching approach, should become an example of one of the best possible forms of schooling in Europe, based on the dissemination of European culture, values and languages, and whereas incorporating certain elements of this model, such as the emphasis on foreign-language knowledge, into the national and regional education systems would assist professional mobility and help to foster multilingualism and European integration;
5. Believes that European Schools play a valuable role in their communities;
6. Considers that the European Schools should also function as promoters of multiculturalism and multilingualism, and as models for the protection and promotion of languages of lower international usage; believes that the small number of pupils requiring education in a given language should not lead to education in that particular language being discontinued, bearing in mind that mother-tongue education constitutes the founding principle of the European Schools;
7. Draws attention to the need to make the European Schools’ syllabus more compatible with national education systems in order to facilitate the swift reintegration of pupils returning to their countries of origin;
8. Takes the view that the budgetary restrictions that the Schools will have to accept must be accompanied by a real increase in their management autonomy – by, for example, allowing the schools to find other funding – and in the resources for exercising that autonomy, in accordance with the aims set out at the time of the reform in 2009; takes the view also that the organisational reform that is to be implemented should not negatively affect the founding principles of the European Schools;
9. Takes the view that giving each of the European Schools a greater degree of budgetary autonomy may be an effective way of improving the management of the resources allocated to them; stresses that this must only be implemented following an assessment by the Commission to ensure that a greater degree of autonomy would benefit the schools.
10. Emphasises that the European Schools are currently in a legal limbo, which manifests itself in the unclear legal and jurisdictional status of acts adopted by the Schools' bodies, insufficient possibilities to challenge those acts before national courts, no possibility of recourse to the European Ombudsman;
11. Considers that the current intergovernmental legal status of the European Schools has reached its limits and requires profound change; considers that this change should be of such a nature as to allow Union action to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without superseding their competence, and to adopt legally binding acts to that end within the meaning of Articles 2 and 6 TFEU;
12. Stresses the need to give the European Schools the foundation of an adequate legal base, within the EU’s area of competence, and hopes that the Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Culture, together with the Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education – responsible under Annex VII of its Rules of Procedure for the promotion of the system of European schools – can be involved in any discussions on the subject and in any consideration of the future of the Schools;
13. Considers that the European Schools should be brought under the umbrella of the Union; considers that an appropriate legal basis in this regard could be Article 165 TFEU, which reads: ‘The Union should contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity’, and further specifies the aims of the Union's action, which correspond to the aims of the European Schools;
14. Urges the Board of Governors to think further ahead about infrastructure requirements and to take measures that will allow real demand for the European Schooling to be met; calls on the Member States and the Commission to encourage the development of Type II and Type III Schools;
15. Encourages the Member States and regional governments with legislative powers in education to promote the concept of European Schools on their territory by organising campaigns to increase awareness of European education, promoting the European baccalaureate and creating pilot establishments, as provided for in the 2009 reform, with the aim of opening up the system with a view to promoting access to European studies and the European baccalaureate throughout the Member States;
16. Invites the Member States to cooperate when developing their national syllabuses, drawing on the educational experience of the European Schools, so as to bring the national systems and the European School system closer together; highlights the particular role of languages, history and geography syllabuses in fostering a common European identity; repeats its request to the Member States to promote the inclusion – in studies at baccalaureate level or equivalent – of a specific subject on the background, goals and functioning of the European Union and its institutions, which will help young people to feel more involved in the process of European integration;
17. Invites the Member States to pursue collective consideration of how best to realise the aim of opening up the system;
18. Recommends that the Member States promote within their own educational systems certain concepts borrowed from the European School system, to encourage the emergence of European citizenship from a very young age;
19. Calls on the Central Enrolment Authority to establish an exchange forum for all parents who have not secured a place for their children in their school of choice, so that they can be transferred to the desired school by means of exchanges with other pupils;
20. Points out that, under Article 5 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, students who hold the European baccalaureate can apply to any university in the EU, with the same rights as nationals of the country in question who hold equivalent qualifications, and urges the Member States to ensure that the relevant provisions are complied with, so that the European baccalaureate is automatically recognised in all Member States, thereby preventing discrimination of any kind between pupils of European Schools and those in possession of equivalent national qualifications;
21. Urges the Member States to ensure that all their universities and higher education institutions apply the same requirements when recognising the education of students from European Schools as for students from national schools and that these students receive the same credits for their education, in order to have equal chances and opportunities when applying for higher education;
22. Encourages the Member States and regional governments with legislative powers in education to homologate a relevant proportion of their public school system so that it can award students the European baccalaureate diploma when they finish secondary school;
23. Encourages the Board of Governors to develop more actively the European Schools by following the examples of the best schooling systems in the world as demonstrated by PISA studies, and encourages twinning between the European School and national schools as a means of promoting student and teacher exchanges and raising awareness of the European Schools system in the Member States, along the lines of the Comenius programme;
Budgetary aspects
24. Notes that revenue is static or falling, particularly in connection with enrolment from contract bodies or families outside the Community institutions, who are now being turned away because of lack of places, and urges that new solutions be sought in the light of the new financial resources available from mobility workers from private-sector and other international institutions;
25. Notes the need to rationalise the Schools’ management costs, but points out that attempts to curb expenditure must not call into question fundamental principles that form the basis of the European Schools concept, such as mother-tongue teaching by native speakers, must not affect the core curricula, such as science and mathematics, and must not take place at the expense of educational quality; stresses that equal and equivalent teaching conditions for children of all language communities in the European Schools must be guaranteed;
26. Calls on the European Union to define its budget contribution so that these principles are respected, and so that there is adequate provision for students with special educational needs (SEN) or other learning difficulties which require specific support, and to provide a detailed breakdown of the funds allocated for students with SEN in order to ensure optimal use of those funds; invites the Commission, before deciding on any budgetary changes, in cooperation with the Schools and parent/teacher associations, to draw up an impact assessment of the various options for rationalisation of the system, including examining the educational aspects;
27. Considers that, in the short term, the European Union’s commitments should be honoured, while, at the same time, account should be taken of the prevailing climate of budgetary restrictions at both Union and Member State level; notes that the 2012 draft budget provides for a 1.7 % increase in funding for the European Schools, at a time when budgetary difficulties have led the Commission to propose a freeze on its own administrative expenditure and a 1.3 % increase in administrative expenditure for the European institutions generally; undertakes to scrutinise the appropriations on the budget lines in question in order for all budgetary needs to be met;
28. Emphasises that the Union's involvement in the European Schools is disproportionately little compared to the financial contribution from its budget;
29. Points out that the proposed cuts in the budgets of the European Schools constitute a serious threat to the quality of education and the proper functioning of the European Schools, and therefore opposes any budgetary cuts;
30. Considers that many of the systemic problems amount to non-fulfilment of the obligations of the Member States; points to the non-existent legal guarantees of Member States' fulfilment of their obligations under the Convention;
31. Notes that some states are increasingly going back on their obligations regarding the secondment of teachers, particularly because of the difference between the percentage of children of their nationality being taught and the contribution that they are being asked to make to the Schools’ budget;
32. Points out that the cost-allocation mechanism must also help to encourage a fairer system with regard to payment of the school fees charged to parents who do not work for the European institutions or for companies that have an agreement with the European Schools;
33. Asks the Commission to consider introducing a system of reserve lists for filling those posts that cannot be filled by teachers on secondment and those which need to be filled by locally recruited staff, in order to ensure that needs are met with regard to teacher numbers and that educational quality and continuity are guaranteed;
34. Encourages the creation, once the quota of students is reached, of new language sections so the SWALS can be educated in their mother tongue and there is no discrimination with regard to students from other language sections, with a consequent reduction of the costs associated with the SWALS’ particular status;
35. Notes with concern that the lack of seconded staff must be compensated by local recruitment of staff whose salaries are paid by the Schools; calls on the Board of Governors to ensure that the Member States who do not contribute financially by seconding teachers pay an equivalent financial contribution to the Schools’ budget;
36. Considers that the current funding system places a disproportionate burden as regards secondment and supply of infrastructure on certain Member States, and calls on the Board of Governors to review the way in which the Schools are funded and the recruitment of teachers;
37. Reaffirms that the European Schools must be financed on a sound and adequate basis so that the commitments made in the Convention and in the Staff Regulations of Officials and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union can be fulfilled and the quality of the education provided, as well as equal and equivalent teaching conditions for children of all language communities in the European Schools, can be guaranteed. Notes, in this regard, the recent petition by the parents’ and teachers’ associations of the Brussels European Schools pointing out the serious threats posed by the proposed cuts to the quality of education and the proper functioning of the European Schools and therefore opposing any budget cuts;
38. Calls on the Commission to take steps to define the percentage of the special levy assigned to the European Schools;
39. Emphasises the long-term importance of making the European Union’s financial contribution more transparent and doing more to guarantee openness and diversity in the schools, while also introducing a sustainable financing system; calls on the Commission, in this context, to specify for which purposes the special levy has been used; asks the Commission to submit to it an update on implementation of the 2009 reform and on the financing requirements for the coming years, especially in respect of the buildings policy;
Educational aspects
40. Wishes – in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, which aims to bring pupils of the different language sections together by offering joint classes of the same level in certain subjects – to see general use of the working languages for teaching all non-fundamental subjects, without this being detrimental to those whose mother tongue is not one of working languages;
41. Maintains that there is an intrinsic value in teaching certain subjects in the ‘less widely used’ national languages spoken by a small number of EU citizens;
42. Stresses the need for an external evaluation of the European Schools’ syllabuses, which would not result in additional costs to the Schools, and the importance of implementing the ongoing baccalaureate reforms;
43. Requires that the recruitment of local staff meet the excellence criteria, that the quality of teaching, training and replacements in case of absence be ensured, and that the Board of Governors ensure that the professional abilities of such staff are evaluated by inspectors;
44. Considers that special training programmes and professional workshops for teachers coming from the different national systems should be organised in order to prepare them –– in accordance with common standards and criteria – for the work within the European Schools’ system;
45. Reaffirms that provision for students with special educational needs remains a priority and that the European Schools must do everything possible to improve their capacity for educating students with disabilities; asks the Board of Governors, in this regard, to ensure that coefficients are applied to this category of student when calculating class sizes and to ensure full integration of such students;
46. Calls on the Board of Governors of the European Schools to implement the recommendations on students with special educational needs made following the 2009 study by a team of Swedish experts, and to draw up an SEN action plan;
47. Stresses the need to work out a properly functioning system to help students with disabilities during their integration process in the European Schools (e.g. assistance by special teachers) in order to ensure their parents’ mobility;
48. Notes that the official 2.7 % failure rate reported by the Board of Governors does not reflect the great disparity in results across the European Schools, where there has for many years been an abnormally high failure rate in the French language section; calls on the Board of Governors to examine the educational and financial causes and consequences of this malfunction, of the failure rate in general and of the on-going high rates of children repeating a year;
49. Calls, once again, on the Board of Governors to work on providing alternatives for those students who drop out of preparation for the European baccalaureate, and to consider the creation of a school-leaving certificate other than the baccalaureate for students who wish to specialise in vocational courses; argues that any new certificate must undergo impact assessment and that it must be ensured that it adds value to existing qualification frameworks;
50. Reaffirms that provision for students with special educational needs must continue to be a priority, particularly as the European Schools still offer only one type of school-leaving certificate and therefore need to ensure that maximum support is provided with a view to preventing academic failure insofar as possible, so that students do not then risk finding themselves without other options if, for language or other reasons, they cannot take alternative courses in their host country’s national education system;
o
o o
51. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States and the Board of Governors of the European Schools.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0403
Future EU cohesion policy
Committee on Regional Development
PE464.796
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds: lessons learnt for the future cohesion policy of the EU (2010/2305(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 174 to178 thereof,
– having regard to the Commission’s Communication of 26 January 2011: ‘Regional Policy Contributing to Sustainable Growth in Europe 2020’ (COM(2011)0017),
– having regard to the Commission’s Staff Working Document on Regional Policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020 (SEC(2011)0092),
– having regard to the Commission’s Staff Working Paper of 25 October 2010: ‘Cohesion Policy: Responding to the economic crisis, a review of the implementation of cohesion policy measures adopted in support of the European Economic Recovery Plan’ (SEC(2010)1291),
– having regard to the Commission’s Communication of 31 March 2010: ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic Report 2010 on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013’ (COM(2010)0110),
– having regard to the Commission’s Staff Working Document of 31 March 2010: ‘Accompanying document to the Commission’s Communication of 31 March 2010 –Cohesion policy: Strategic Report 2010 on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013’ (SEC(2010)0360),
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission on ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund as regards simplification of certain requirements and as regards certain provisions relating to financial management[13],
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 437/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund as regards the eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities[14],
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 397/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund as regards the eligibility of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in housing[15],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 284/2009 of 7 April 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund concerning certain provisions relating to financial management[16],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2009 of 19 January 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund concerning certain provisions relating to financial management[17],
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund[18],
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999[19],
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999[20],
– having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund[21],
– having regard to the Council Decision of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (2006/702/EC)[22],
– having regard to the Council conclusions on the Strategic Report of 2010 by the Commission on the Implementation of the Cohesion Policy Programmes adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 June 2010,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 July 2010: ‘How to foster efficient partnership in the management of cohesion policy programmes, based on good practices from the 2007-2013 cycle’ (ECO/258),
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Cohesion policy: strategic report 2010 on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013’ of 1-2 December 2010 (CdR 159/2010),
– having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the Report 2010 on the implementation of the cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013[23],
– having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2010 on achieving real territorial, social and economic cohesion within the EU – a sine qua non for global competitiveness?[24],
– having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on the implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation 2007-2013: the results of the negotiations on the national cohesion strategies and the operational programmes[25],
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0287/2011),
A. whereas absorption capacity is the extent to which a Member State and its regions are able to spend the financial resources allocated from the Structural and Cohesion Funds in an effective and efficient manner, and whereas this capacity is necessary for making a maximum contribution to economic, social and territorial cohesion with the resources available from the EU funds,
B. whereas the EU’s cohesion policy is crucial for promoting the harmonious development of the EU and whereas, despite the progress achieved in reducing inequalities in development between regions, there remain major differences in terms of their level of economic, social and regional development,
C. whereas the most disadvantaged regions and microregions lack the financial and human resources and administrative support needed to make good use of the EU funds accessible to them,
D. whereas EU regional policy is a vital instrument in promoting economic and social cohesion, and whereas it enables the EU to take measures to reduce regional disparities, promote real convergence and stimulate development, quality employment and social progress, and also benefits less developed regions,
E. whereas absorption capacity is not a parameter but a variable and whereas it differs widely between and within the different Member States and regions, so that individual solutions are necessary to increase this capacity,
F. whereas aiming at absorbing as much financial support as possible requires continuous efforts by the Member States and management authorities and the involvement of the local and regional levels of administration at every stage of the process, as well as appropriate capacity within institutional structures and efficient management and control systems,
G. whereas administrative capacity, especially in terms of project planning and implementation, is a key issue for absorption capacity and needs to be strengthened, with particular emphasis on those Member States lagging behind and that have low absorption rates,
H. whereas the rules relating to Structural and Cohesion Funds are, by their very nature, complex and therefore difficult to transpose properly into national law and to comply with, and are liable to lead to errors, so that Member States and regions spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to manage and control these errors, and therefore these rules need to remain stable over time in order to promote a better sense of ownership; whereas, however, simplification of the implementation of financial instruments should be encouraged,
I. whereas, in spite of a reduction in the number of errors and in the misappropriation of structural funding, the measures taken by the Member States need to be reinforced to reduce the misappropriation of funding and recover sums unduly paid,
J. whereas the Member States that joined the EU in the current programming period in particular are facing substantial difficulties as regards absorption resulting from the significant increase in the amount of funds available in comparison with the pre-accession funds and the shortcomings of the administrative structures for setting up, supporting and evaluating projects,
K. whereas the lack of visibility regarding the levels of uptake of short- and medium-term funds is an obstacle to absorption capacity and whereas better transparency is needed at all levels of governance,
L. whereas the European Social Fund (ESF) provides vital support for labour market policies and plays an important role in promoting social inclusion, and whereas its funding needs to be considerably stepped up,
1. Points to the efforts made to ensure an acceleration in absorption capacities and budgetary implementation of cohesion policy during 2010, despite the aforementioned problems, and acknowledges the positive effect of the cohesion-policy-related interventions by the European Economic Recovery Plan in speeding up implementation of programmes and accelerating provision of financing to beneficiaries; asks the Commission to continue these interventions in the period 2014-2020;
2. Points out that absorption problems have been caused by the following main factors:
− difficulties with completing the compliance assessment procedures concerning the new management and control system, that generally fall at the beginning of the programming period;
− global economic recession,which has a direct effect in the form of the budgetary restraint measures applied to public budgets and difficulties in obtaining internal financing;
− insufficient resources to co-finance projects;
− delays in the establishment and introduction of EU and national rules or related guidance, and incomplete or unclear rules;
− delays in the translation of the guidance notes and in obtaining clarification from the Commission, and inconsistency of Commission guidance;
− over-complicated and over-strict national procedures, and frequent changes therein;
− the need to establish new institutions institutions to implement programmes, which can delay their launch and running;
− insufficient separation between the authorities in the Member States, hierarchy problems between the institutions and internal difficulties over the allocation of tasks and responsibilities;
− insufficient involvement of the regional and local level in the establishment of the operational programmes;
− limited staff numbers, inadequately trained staff at national and regional level, and difficulties with staff retention;
− difficulties with establishing information technology systems;
− disproportion between the degree of control and the scale of the project;
− insufficient initial preparation for implementation of projects, and missing project pipeline;
− politically motivated changes in investment priorities;
3. Considers that many of the problems identified could be avoided by involving, right from the start of the programming stage, all the relevant players at national, regional and local level, in order to match the proposals in future framework documents and operational programmes as closely as possible to their needs, hence enabling a greater and clearer contribution to be made to meeting EU objectives;
4. Reiterates the need for simplification and flexibility of rules and procedures at both EU and national level in order to facilitate access to EU funds for project organisers and to promote sound management of those funds by the administrative services, without creating major difficulties for the beneficiaries; believes that simplification will contribute to the speedy allocation of funds, higher absorption rates, increased efficiency and transparency, fewer implementation errors and reduced payment periods; considers that a balance needs to be struck between simplification and the stability of rules, procedures and controls; notes that, in any case, providing potential applicants and beneficiaries with sufficient information is a necessary precondition for successful implementation;
5. Stresses that increasing the absorption rates can only lead to effective results if the Community regulatory framework is adhered to;
6. Takes the view that special emphasis should be placed on aspects relating to delivery of results and achievement of objectives, without detracting from the constant attention that should be awarded to checking inputs; believes, in line with existing provisions on the implementation, control and payment systems, that a better balance should be found between, on the one hand, the rules and procedures required for ensuring the legality and regularity of EU expenditure and, on the other, making cohesion policy more performance-oriented and cost-efficient;
7. Calls for programming, monitoring and evaluation of cohesion policy to be streamlined with a view to improving the advisory role of the Commission and decreasing the administrative burden related to control and audit;
8. Takes the view that a stronger focus should be placed on punishing fraud rather than formal irregularities; calls for a more flexible and differentiated approach depending on the seriousness of the irregularity identified;
9. Stresses that application of the proportionality principle to control procedures determined by the scale of the project should be strengthened by simplifying the requirements governing information to be supplied and monitoring when implementing small-scale projects and programmes; points out, however, that simplified rules must not have a negative impact on transparency and responsibility; calls for the coordination of audit activity to be reinforced and improved, for redundant controls to be removed in Member States which have an adequate fund management system and for the single audit principle to be adopted in the next programming period and that, as with the ‘contract of confidence’ principle, it should be implemented as often as possible;
10. Stresses the paramount importance of timely adoption of the multiannual financial framework and of clear and definitive rules and guidance for the Member States, in order to avoid start-up difficulties and delays related to the drawing up of national rules and the implementation of the ex-ante conditionalities by the Member States at the beginning of the next programming period; considers it necessary for the Commission to provide technical support to ensure that these are also well understood at Member State level; stresses that the duration of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) is a key issue for cohesion policy and for absorption capacity, because an MFF that is too short creates obstacles for those projects that both run for a longer duration and are the most substantial from the development point of view;
11. Calls on the Member States to transpose Community legislation more rapidly into national law; stresses the importance of mobilising trained personnel in sufficient numbers to address challenges on the ground more effectively;
12. Stresses the benefits of and the need for greater synergy and complementarity between all the shared management funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD and EFF) and the EDF in the case of certain European regions which neighbour ACP countries; takes the view that flexibility between the ERDF and the ESF should be encouraged so as to facilitate the financing of integrated projects, while taking into account the specific nature and objectives of each of these funds; stresses that harmonisation of rules and procedures would lead to simplified delivery systems and encourage participation by potential beneficiaries in EU co-funded programmes; recalls in this context the potential of cross-financing, which is not yet being fully exploited;
13. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the ESF is used in a more efficient way today, to respond to the ongoing socio-economic challenges brought about by the financial recession, at all levels and in all Member States, and to ensure that the future ESF makes a meaningful, targeted contribution to implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy in the fields of employment and social inclusion as a visible, transparent, efficient, flexible, simple and user-friendly instrument that is brought to bear to develop human capital, while reflecting the specificities and needs of Member States and regions;
14. Stresses that efforts need to be concentrated on a limited number of priorities – the most urgent among them being reducing record levels of unemployment in the internal market, with special reference to jobs for young people and women – in order to ensure that EU-wide projects are implemented more efficiently and that the impact and potential of the ESF are maximised, thus supporting the Europe 2020 strategy, while emphasising that the different situations in the Member States need to be taken into account and, moreover, that there is a need to strengthen ESF financial autonomy and to foster its flexibility in order to address current employment challenges;
15. Calls on the Member States to encourage and maintain an extensive dialogue with all stakeholders at national, regional and local level in order better to identify the needs of the labour market, improve the employability of socially disadvantaged groups and, at the same time, take adequate account, in relation to formulating policy goals in connection with cohesion policy, of regional and local needs and ensure that they are reflected in the ESF’s objectives; calls for special attention to be paid to the training and education of people in low-skilled jobs, in order to improve the employability of this group;
16. Calls on the Member States to improve awareness and accessibility of the ESF and to update project-building capacities in order to contribute to the creation of new, decent jobs and more effective social inclusion;
17. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the integrated approach for local and regional development projects, encouraging the development of bottom-up local initiatives for the ESF and making it possible to combine several sources of financing: operational programmes, national programmes and private resources at the individual project level;
18. Regrets that owing to lengthy administrative procedures and complicated rules, especially in some Member States, implementation of the ESF is slower than foreseen and that this discourages many potential beneficiaries from applying for funding; calls for the ESF objectives to be brought into line with the real requirements of a labour market that is in need of investment in upgrading vocational training and in measures to protect craft trades;
19. Calls on the Commission to review the level of co-financing to reflect better the level of development, EU added value, types of action, beneficiaries, their absorption capacities and development opportunities; calls, to this end, for an adequate Community budget to be allocated to cohesion policy at a time when national and local contributions are being hampered by national budgetary austerity policies; regrets the fact that a proportion of the ESF money available is not being used, while noting that in some Member States there is significant progress; calls, therefore, on the Member States to create mechanisms for helping the small beneficiaries (typically grassroot NGOs and SMEs) to prepare successful applications and mentoring them during the implementation period, thereby ensuring a more efficient process;
20. Calls on the Member States, on the basis of clear rules, to use to a greater extent the possibility of advance payments to ESF beneficiaries;
21. Stresses the need for a continuous, strong and dedicated focus on the actual outcomes and results of the ESF-financed development programmes through improvements to evaluation, monitoring and indicator systems at Community, national, regional and local level, which should cover not only spending levels but also the quality of the policies pursued; calls on the Commission to take account of the uncertainty factors affecting long-term return-to-work projects;
22. Emphasises the importance that certain reforms can have in some Member States in increasing the absorption capacity and therefore the need for them to be negotiated between the Commission and the Member States concerned when defining the development and investment partnership contract, so as to make them a binding condition for the states; points out, in particular, the importance of decentralisation and of empowerment of regional and local authorities;
23. Supports the view that the regulatory architecture of cohesion policy should allow greater flexibility in organising operational programmes in order to better reflect the nature and geography of development processes; suggests that Member States and regions be given enough flexibility to select a number of their own priorities and draw up appropriate policy mixes;
24. Calls on the Member States to pay more attention to project preparation and to draw up a project pipeline so that the risk of cost overrun can be minimised and a high absorption rate attained;
25. Notes that the institutional capacity of the public sector at national, regional and local level and the technical and administrative capacity of the participating public authorities and beneficiaries are key to the successful development, implementation and monitoring of the policies needed to reach Europe 2020 targets;
26. Calls on the Member States, supported by the Commission and in coordination with local and regional authorities, to pay attention to better management of human resources by making further efforts to attract and retain qualified staff to manage EU funds, by promoting high-quality training for them, and by avoiding any replacement of staff unless this is strictly necessary and guided by the sole aim of improving their effectiveness and consequently the absorption capacity; recalls in this regard the possibilities for using funds from the ESF and technical assistance for building capacity necessary for programme implementation and follow-up; stresses the importance of one-stop shops at decentralised level to assist the partners in the programme; calls on the Member States to create ‘European One-Stop Shops’ as close as possible to the citizens with a view to helping with Cohesion Fund applications, both for local authorities and EU citizens;
27. Notes that a high degree of continuity in management and control systems and capacity is necessary in order to build on acquired management experience and knowledge and calls therefore on the Member States to take measures to avoid fluctuations in the administrative staff dealing with the management of funds;
28. Calls on the Commission to enhance its assistance to those Member States whose absorption rates, being under the EU's average, show a lack in terms of absorption capacity; believes that such enhanced assistance and close cooperation should continue at least until the countries concerned reach a level of expertise sufficient to produce results without external special aid;
29. Invites the Member States to establish exchange fora or networks among their implementation structures with a view to discussing experiences and difficulties and exchanging best practices; invites the Member States also to help beneficiaries address more demanding control requirements by providing them with support, in particular by using technical assistance loans to train and support those economic and social actors that are eligible to benefit from these funds; proposes that a percentage of the amounts allocated for the technical assistance operational programmes be used for such actions;calls on the Member States to devise and organise training courses for potential fund beneficiaries;
30. Points out the importance of inter-regional cooperation programmes and of programmes such as INTERACT and URBACT in identifying and disseminating best practices and in training the political and administrative actors in the optimum use of the funds; calls for actions promoting regional planning and effective use of funds to be eligible for appropriations under the ‘inter-regional cooperation’ part of the Territorial Cooperation Objective;
31. Calls on the Commission to establish an EU-wide cooperation programme based on experience with the twinning programme in order to improve cooperation between regions with high absorption and regions with low absorption and to facilitate the dissemination of best practices;
32. Suggests that an Internet-based platform be established for beneficiaries, local and regional stakeholders and government institutions to exchange best-practices and information on obstacles, problems and their possible solutions;
33. Calls on the Commission to explore the introduction of harmonised information and communication systems, bearing in mind the differences between the management and control systems of the Member States and calls, to that end, for the implementation of uniform software to monitor the use of funds in the context of the territorial cooperation programmes;
34. Calls on the Commission to use the information and communication systems to develop an early warning system on the absorption of the funds and to deliver at least an annual report containing information on the absorption of Regional and Structural Funds for each region, enabling the European Parliament and the Council to monitor the implementation of Cohesion Policy;
35. Calls on the Commission to cooperate actively with the EIB, in particular on setting up Community initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of cohesion policy and strengthening the impact of the Structural Funds by guaranteeing funding to support the financing of SMEs;
36. Believes that, owing to their greater flexibility, ‘public-private partnerships at regional and local level’ prepared well in advance and in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, will contribute to increasing absorption capacity and to resolving difficulties with co-financing; recommends that the Member States clarify and simplify their national legislation to facilitate such partnerships; emphasises that democratic control over public-private partnerships must be guaranteed;
37. Calls on the Commission to verify the existence and examine the efficiency of the legislative bases for the implementation of PPP projects and, where appropriate, to recommend to those Member States which have not adopted such legislative measures that they prepare and adopt as soon as possible, with a view to permitting the mobilisation of resources from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for PPP projects in the next programming period, procedures for efficient implementation of these projects at regional and local level;
38. Points out that most SMEs, and especially small and micro enterprises, cannot access Structural Funds on their own due to current administrative and financial constraints and that they need support and advice from their representative organisations at regional and national level; considers that a simplification of the rules and procedures is essential to ensuring their access to Structural Funds; calls for the Small Business Act, its ‘think small first’ and ‘only once’ principles and the proportionality principle to be applied at all levels of decision-making to define investment priorities and the design of management, audit and control procedures in order to ensure better absorption of the funds;
39. Stresses the importance of partners as defined in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 for the capacity to absorb funds; calls on the Member States fully to inform and provide support to citizens, representatives of civil society, associations and non-governmental organisations, and regional and local authorities about financing possibilities, eligibility for co-financing from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the co-financing rules, the rules on reimbursement, and where to find calls for proposals, and to promote their commitment to exploiting funding opportunities;
40. Stresses the positive effects of using financial instruments provided by the European Investment Bank, such as Jessica, in order to expand the overall financial resources without increasing direct public funding;
41. Reiterates that the mechanisms of multi-level governance and the partnership principle are key elements in the effectiveness of operational programmes and in high absorption capacity; calls on the Members States, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and of their institutional autonomy, to reinforce consistently the partnership and transparency principle while establishing and implementing the operational programmes, and to involve therefore the regional and local levels and civil society from the outset, in a binding, comprehensive and sustainable manner, in defining and designing investment priorities, in all phases of the establishment of operational programmes as well as in their implementation and evaluation phases;
42. Calls on the Commission to have a more open debate on the measures envisaged for accelerating the absorption of the Structural and Cohesion funds; suggests, in this regard, that the Committee of the Regions might be invited to give a yearly opinion on the absorption capacity in all the Member States;
43. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, while supporting the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy in all Member States, cohesion policy reduces disparities between regions and micro-regions, takes due account of the specific needs of the outermost regions and promotes harmonious development in the EU, including by bringing additional targeted instruments and measures to bear in areas which still fall far short of European standards;
44. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Member States.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0404
European disaster response: role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
PE462.621
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (2011/2023 INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which states that ‘the Union shall encourage cooperation between Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disasters’,
– having regard to Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the solidarity clause), which lays down that ‘the Union and the Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or victim of a natural or man-made disaster’,
– having regard to Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the 1994 Oslo Guidelines, reviewed in 2001, on the use of foreign military and civil defence assets in disaster relief,
– having regard to the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, signed on 18 December 2007 by the Presidents of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Commission,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council of 26 October 2010 entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (COM(2010)0600),
– having regard to the Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council of 5 March 2008 on reinforcing the Union’s disaster response capacity (COM(2008)0130),
– having regard to the report by Michel Barnier entitled ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe Aid’, published in May 2006,
– having regard to the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010 welcoming the objectives outlined in the Commission’s Communication of 26 October 2010 aiming at a more predictable, effective, efficient, coherent and visible European response to disasters,
– having regard to the Council conclusions of December 2007 inviting the Commission to make the best use of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism and to strengthen cooperation between Member States,
– having regard to Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom, of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument[26] and Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom, of 8 November 2007 amending Council Decision 2001/792/EC of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism[27],
– having regard to its resolutions of 14 December 2010 on setting up an EU rapid response capability[28], of 10 February 2010 on the recent earthquake in Haiti[29], of 16 September 2009 on forest fires in the summer of 2009[30], of 19 June 2008 on stepping up the Union’s disaster response capacity[31] and of 4 September 2007 on this summer’s natural disasters[32],
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on Development, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0283/2011),
A. whereas the European Union and its Member States are faced with many risks, for example: earthquakes and tsunamis; fires, including forest fires; flooding and landslides; industrial and nuclear accidents; terrorist attacks; natural disasters and major pandemics; whereas there has been a dramatic increase in the number and severity of these natural and man-made disasters affecting the Union and its citizens, as well as other countries and regions around the world, as tragically demonstrated by the recent severe catastrophe in Japan, which was hit by a combination of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe, with a corresponding increase in the loss of life and in economic, social and environmental damage and damage to cultural heritage, and whereas we cannot exclude the possibility of such outlier events of a non-predictable magnitude happening at any time, in which case the European disaster response would be extremely useful, as national capacities could be challenged to their limits,
B. whereas situations of extreme drought and forest fires have increased in frequency and scale in Europe, which means that the relevant scientific research needs to be further developed, with a view to improving risk assessment mechanisms, systems of prevention and means of combating these phenomena,
C. whereas the increasing rate of climate change and depletion of natural capital will further increase the likelihood of more frequent and more intense natural disasters,
D. whereas in 2008, the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledged the link between disaster risk reduction and climate change in the Bali Action Plan,
E. whereas in 2010, the UNFCCC Cancun Adaptation Framework formally recognised disaster risk reduction as an essential element of climate change adaptation and encouraged governments to consider linking adaptation measures to the Hyogo Framework for Action,
F. whereas the recent tragedies, such as the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan floods, have demonstrated that the main tools available to the EU for responding to disasters (humanitarian aid and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism) proved to be working well for what they were designed for and given the circumstances, but whereas there is a vital need to further reinforce the coordination of the response to disasters affecting the European Union, both within and outside its borders, as well as scope for improvement in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and visibility of the EU assistance as a whole,
G. whereas, moreover, during a number of crises, particularly the tsunami of 26 December 2004, many questions were raised about the lack of systematic scenarios or protocols at European level for responding to the risks and the inadequate visibility of Europe’s action in relation to the overall effort,
H. whereas various arrangements involving pre-identified Member States’ assets and EU-funded assets have been successfully tested in pilot schemes initiated by the European Parliament[33],
I. whereas the European Parliament has consistently called on the Commission to present legislative proposals on the creation of an EU Civil Protection Force, fully respecting the subsidiarity principle, and thus complementing Member States’ efforts, in line with Article 196 TFEU,
J. whereas the solidarity clause under Article 222 of the TFEU establishes the obligation for Member States to assist each other in the event of a natural or man-made disaster on EU territory,
K. whereas immediate coordination, coherence and communication within the EU and with international actors is crucial; whereas the current European coordination on the ground of several teams with differing chains of command inevitably leads to duplicating efforts and overlaps and proves costly in terms of human resources, coordination and efficiency; and whereas, given the context of the economic and financial crisis, the European Union must develop a protection system based on the sharing and rationalisation of existing resources without any increase in overall expenditure,
L. whereas, in the wake of the recent disaster in Japan, the Japanese government asked the EU to form a single compact civil protection team, coordinated by the Commission, for the distribution of aid, rather than sending several civil protection teams from different Member States at different times; whereas stepping up operational coordination during that disaster made it possible to improve EU assistance as a whole in terms of cost-effectiveness, coherence and visibility,
M. whereas political coherence must be ensured at EU level in view of the respective institutional roles without hindering or slowing down disaster response operations, and whereas this should be built on existing mechanisms without creating new structures,
N. whereas a culture of disaster prevention and preparedness should be mainstreamed in development policies, plans and programmes, in order to address some of the underlying causes of disasters,
O. whereas real-time prevention needs to be developed at all operational stages: monitoring, including through use of satellite data; issuing earlywarnings; sounding the alarm and subsequently responding and assisting the population potentially at risk,
P. whereas the EU supports the central role of the United Nations, in particular that of the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in coordinating international relief in third countries
Q. whereas an integrated European all-hazards approach, aimed at responding to crises at all stages of their life cycles, is the most effective strategy to deal with disasters; whereas this approach should link disaster prevention (including mitigation and risk reduction), preparedness, response and recovery, within the broad context of sustainable development; whereas it is of great importance to put in place operational tools such as an operational risk prevention plan (including reference procedures and planning tools); whereas there is a need for the EU to make real investments in the prevention and prediction of risks and whereas the EU should pursue an equally ambitious approach with regard to disaster prevention and preparedness as well as response,
R. whereas the Regulation establishing the Solidarity Fund contains prior conditions which hinder and delay the Fund’s use in certain disaster situations, particularly in relation to the amounts and types of eligible expenditure, as well as the inflexibility of the deadlines and procedures,
S. whereas, during a crisis, it is essential for rescue teams to have access to precise information as soon as possible so as to distribute basic necessities, equipment and critical resources, and whereas telecommunications are therefore the most important link in the crisis management chain,
T. whereas conventional communications links and resources may be overwhelmed or destroyed in a crisis situation,
U. whereas the usefulness of the European Space Policy and the positive results achieved by the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme (GMES) launched by the Commission to use satellite data and information, and its practical application in the civil protection sector and also through the Emergency Response Core Service, has already been recognised by the Commission and the Member States,
1. Welcomes the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ and its objectives; emphasises that the proposals outlined in the Communication should be further examined to fulfil the expectations for an enhanced, coordinated, consistent, effective, cost-efficient and visible cohesive and comprehensive European response;
2. Underlines the need to rationalise and simplify the functioning of current European disaster response and to optimise the resources available for common benefit, whilst encouraging all Member States to contribute and thus guarantee European solidarity; considers, accordingly, that the EU’s reaction capacity should form part of an integrated multi-risk approach; moreover,it should carry out ‘bottom-up’ delegated resources and information management:in other words, the initiative could come from the Member States, which would provide voluntary resources and expertise;
3. Invites the Commission, when setting up the European disaster response capability, to take into account the Solidarity Clause and its implementation arrangements, which need to be adopted as a matter of urgency and which will ensure a more effective and coherent response to disasters inside and outside the European Union;
4. Reiterates the need for the Solidarity Fund Regulation to be revised so as to adapt the eligibility criteria to the characteristics of each region and each disaster, including slowly-evolving disasters such as drought, and enable mobilisation to be more flexible and timely;
5. Reasserts that disaster preparation, prevention and response cannot be dissociated from each other and that it would therefore be advisable to consolidate an integrated approach to tackling catastrophes;
6. Endorses the need for a qualitative shift from the current ad hoc coordination to a predictable and pre-planned system within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism based on pre-identified assets available for immediate deployment in EU disaster relief operations and on any other means and resources which Member States may consider appropriate for deployment; stresses the need to introduce a system for monitoring, supervising and developing EU action in disaster relief operations;
7. Calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals as soon as possible for establishing, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, an EU civil protection force, based on the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and enabling the Union to bring together the resources necessary for providing civil protection and immediate emergency relief aid to the victims; believes that the EU response should build on the existing roles and capacities of European civil protection forces and ensure that current gaps and bottlenecks are addressed;
8. Agrees that the European disaster response should build both on a European emergency response capacity through the strengthening of the European Civil Protection Mechanism based on the capacities and availability of pre-identified and therefore predictable Member States’ emergency assets and on a European emergency response centre as the cornerstones of such a strategy, as outlined in the Communication of 26 October 2010; underlines that these developments should follow an all-hazards approach, bringing together all relevant players – in particular civil society – including non-governmental organisations and volunteers, for joined-up action, and should exploit synergies among the various existing tools and instruments;
9. Considers that the all-hazards approach should go hand in hand with greater flexibility in reacting to the different categories of risk, which need to be considered on a case-by-case basis; this in turn calls for the development of a decentralised capacity for analysis and the planning of measures required in the light of the nature, probability and seriousness of the risks;
10. In addition, calls for the EU’s disaster reaction capacity to make use of Europe’s outermost regions and overseas territories, which can form bases for facilitating logistics operations and, for pre-positioning of the EU’s resources in every ocean;
11. Calls on the Commission to draw up and forward to Parliament a list of Community instruments funding disaster prevention activities, with a view to evaluating the possibility of incorporating disaster prevention programmes to a greater extent in existing EU funding programmes, as requested by the Council in its draft conclusions on a Community framework on disaster prevention within the EU (document No 15394/09 of 12 November 2009);
12. Emphasises that the European disaster response system should respect the principle of subsidiarity both of the Member States (who should be able to use their own assets, especially in any case of conflicting national needs) and of the United Nations, i.e. that it should respect the national, regional and local competences of each Member State on the one hand – taking into account the crucial role those authorities play in the disaster-management cycle, particularly as in many Member States legislative power is exercised at a local or regional level – and the coordinating role played by the United Nations in disaster relief operations when acting outside the EU on the other; points out that this strategy should be complementary to that of the UN, which sees clear value added in creating a European pole with a response capability;
13. Points out that the cross-border nature of disasters implies that the EU should coordinate its resources and work with third countries, not least in its neighbourhood where Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) countries are concerned;
14. Supports the Commission’s proposal to establish a European emergency response capacity, including arrangements to guarantee the more predictable availability of Member States’ key assets, inter alia by setting up a pool of pre-identified assets, available within pre-agreed response times, to be deployed under a voluntary commitment by Member States to make those assets available on a voluntary basis for European disaster relief interventions both inside and outside the Union at national, regional and local level; takes the view that, in this way, and by assisting people affected by natural disasters such as major fires, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and tidal waves, and also by accidents at sea, oil spills or nuclear risks, the European added value of EU interventions will be considerably enhanced;
15. Points out that certain areas, such as coastal, insular and mountainous areas, are extremely vulnerable on account of their geography, and calls for special attention to be paid to these areas;
16. Notes that the European regions situated on the EU’s borders may be affected by disasters occurring in regions which are part of third countries, in which case intervention is even more difficult; proposes that specific measures be developed to support these regions and that special attention be paid to disasters caused by people or industrial accidents, which require different strategies;
17. Believes that particular attention should be paid to fires, for which targeted strategies and actions are needed;
18. Affirms the need to adhere to the ‘polluter pays’ principle as regards liability for environmental damage and the recovery of costs related to disaster response from private entities responsible for damage;
European Emergency Response Capacity
19. Considers that the pool of pre-identified capacities, resources and assets made available on a voluntary basis for EU disaster relief interventions, both inside and outside the Union, will constitute the nucleus of the EU relief capability, which could be complemented by additional ad hoc offers from the Member States; recommends that a clear and detailed scheme of incentives should be designed in order to permit Member States to commit sufficient capacities to the voluntary pool without increasing the overall spending of the Member States;
20. Asks for the creation, within the future EU Civil Protection Force, of specific mechanisms which will enable the EU to deal with instances of large-scale pollution caused by offshore oil and gas installations;
21. Recalls the central role of the United Nations in coordinating the disaster response efforts of the international community;
22. Underlines that a stronger EU disaster response capacity will provide a coherent EU contribution to the overall UN-led relief effort and coordination role;
23. Affirms that EU-funded assets managed by Member States should further supplement the Member States’ assets available for relief operations; notes that these should build on models developed through preparatory actions which have been successfully tested in recent emergencies both inside and outside Europe, such as the multinational flood response unit for the Baltic countries and the supplementary tactical reserve for aerial fire-fighting;
24. Calls on the Commission, along with the Member States, to identify existing capacity gaps. The creation of EU-level assets should be considered, avoiding any form of competition and/or overlap with national assets, in order to fill existing capacity gaps where they would result in significant savings for the EU as a whole or enable access to assets that are not available for Member States acting alone, thus offering a good model for burden-sharing;
25. Considers that it is also important to identify shortcomings in resources and to clarify precisely how the EU could contribute to Member States’ efforts to improve their preparedness; takes the view that more effective utilisation of existing resources will prevent the creation of additional financial and administrative red tape, especially in the context of regional and local administration;
26. Calls on the Commission to aim at EU involvement in terms of the provision of resources, capacities and coordination in connection with disasters which take place in the EU and directly affect its citizens;
27. Takes the view that the main focus should be on making full and timely use of the financial resources available, as well as on simplifying all the administrative procedures involved in mobilising those resources; considers that steps must also be taken to ensure that emergency humanitarian assistance reaches people affected by disasters without delay;
28. Considers advanced planning and the preparation of operations by developing reference scenarios and mapping Member States’ assets potentially available for deployment in EU disaster relief operations and contingency planning as key elements of an enhanced EU disaster response and essential for rapid deployment and immediate appropriate response to each emergency; calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement these measures immediately and without prejudice to other actions; calls, finally, on the Commission to launch a feasibility study on the merits of setting up, allocating European research budget funding to, and naming European reference laboratories to combat bioterrorism and identify victims;
29. Calls in particular for adequate planning for specific contingencies to respond to man-made disasters related to oil spills, nuclear installations or involving hazardous substances both on land and at sea;
European Emergency Response Centre
30. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to merge the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) and ECHO humanitarian aid crisis room to create a genuine 24/7 Emergency Response Centre as a planning and operational coordination platform as a step in the right direction and calls for this also to be implemented in real-time cooperation by the Member States, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, in the areas of monitoring, issuing early-warnings and sounding the alarm; calls on the Commission to strengthen the Centre to enable it to serve as the central hub for prompt and effective coordination of all European in-kind assistance as well as financial humanitarian aid contributions; stipulates that it should function as the single entry point for requests for assistance related to all types of natural and man-made disasters in order to allow a coherent EU response;
31. Calls for an effective merging of the ECHO crisis room and the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC), whilst ensuring adequate funding;
32. Calls on the Commission to actively involve the new European Emergency Response Centre in the two Community tools to protect forests from forest fires: EFFIS and EFFICS;
33. Calls on the Commission to coordinate actions in case of emergency, simplifying and optimising the existing universal service and the 112 emergency number;
34. Insists that decisions on deploying assets from the pool of assets be made quickly by the Emergency Response Centre along with Member States, in order to ensure predictable, immediate and effective assistance to victims and avoid delays, duplications and overlaps;
35. Believes that a list of the key assets that could be made available by Member States for the EU emergency response to these scenarios should be identified and mapped;
36. Calls for clarity and coherence of EU action in view of the respective institutional roles of the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action Service (EEAS) which should be mindful of their respective powers and respect the limits of each others’ mandates; calls therefore on the Commission and the EEAS to develop appropriate working arrangements and transparent rules with a view to ensuring, where possible, close cooperation and coordination of issues pertaining to EU disaster response, building on existing mechanisms without slowing down relief operations; underlines the need for flexible, simple and rapid inter-service coordination involving only the relevant services, which should respond within a very short timeframe whilst avoiding red tape; emphasises that EU humanitarian aid should be provided irrespective of all political considerations, while adhering to internationally agreed humanitarian principles;
37. Emphasises the increased risk of disasters caused by forest fires, primarily because of climate change, which is instrumental in the outbreak of large forest fires; calls on the Commission to set up a special unit within its new European Emergency Response Centre to deal with this risk;
38. Emphasises that, as a last resort and in compliance with the Oslo Guidelines, the use of military means under civilian oversight often constitutes an important contribution to disaster response, particularly for specialised assets, strategic lifting or heavy engineering; stresses that coordination of the use of all the capabilities available – civil and military – and Member States’ crisis management assets should be enhanced in order to avoid costly duplications;
Logistics and transport and telecommunications
39. Recognises that the use of military assets – transport, logistics, security – to support humanitarian operations may provide key back-up, particularly in the case of large-scale natural disasters; reiterates that these military assets should be used in very specific circumstances and as a last resort, in accordance with United Nations recommendations;
40. Calls for shared, effective logistics arrangements, notably including the EU-funded all-purpose technical assistance and support teams (TAST) that could support any EU or Member States’ officials and teams on the ground, notably in cases of collapsed local infrastructure;
41. Calls for technical assistance and support teams to be mobilised in the event of disasters and for recommendations to be made on the way in which those teams can provide more effective support to those affected by disasters;
42. Proposes, with a view to maximising efficiency and the proper use of existing capacity, that thought be given to pooling the consular resources of the Member States in order to improve the speed and quality of our global response by making optimum use of the resources already available; recommends in this respect that an assessment be made of the different Member States’ consular capacities in order to take stock of the European Union’s current worldwide resources;
43. Asks that the existing relief systems coordinated by the United Nations be taken into account, whilst calling for improved, strengthened, more cost-effective and well-coordinated transport for all in-kind assistance to disaster sites, in particular through streamlined simplified procedures, an increased co-financing rate and the introduction of new ways of allowing access to additional transport capacities, possibly through framework contracts;
44. Recalls the existing monitoring and prevention tools (especially in-situ observation devices) such as those provided by the European Union’s Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme or the INSPIRE and GALILEO programmes which could monitor areas potentially at risk and thus prepare more effectively for providing disaster relief to the victims; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of equipping the EU with a dedicated and secure telecommunications capacity and integrated crisis management solutions ranging from prevention to recovery; calls on the Commission to make optimum use of the existing and future solutions and capacity provided by telecommunications satellites in order to facilitate the development of services for citizens in the fields of public security and emergency response, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, Member States and stakeholders (private operators, industry);
45. Calls on the Commission to develop a communication and information network, exploring in particular the use of telecommunications capacity, including satellites, in order to give rescue teams access to rapid and detailed information to facilitate the effective distribution of basic necessities and of equipment essential for social reorganisation in the wake of disasters;
Communication, Visibility, Training, Research
46. Calls for a comprehensive communications strategy, involving all EU institutions, Member States, social partners and civil society that will improve the overall visibility and transparency of European actions in beneficiary countries as well as among European citizens, while ensuring that disaster relief is never subordinate to trading or political and strategic concerns; considers that this strategy should seek to simplify and standardise communication methods and tools; proposes to this end the establishment, for example, of a standard dress code and logo in conjunction with national badges for all European staff and the appointment of a single spokesperson responsible for communications concerned with emergency response; calls for any communications strategy to ensure a clear distinction between humanitarian assistance and military activities;
47. Emphasises that information is another vital component of an effective disaster prevention and response policy at all levels and that the changing risk scenario requires a continuous updating of knowledge, solid and comparable data on the frequency of occurrence, risks and the associated consequences of disasters and related analytical tools; therefore calls for coordinated action, greater availability and systematic dissemination of technical and scientific information and expertise and the sharing of best practices, including studies and putting into practice lessons learnt, such as the experience gained through projects implemented in the past under the Community’s INTERREG initiative;
48. Highlights the need to raise awareness of the procedures to be adopted when faced with disaster situations, paying particular attention to training young people, from school age on; calls on the Commission to foster, with the involvement of schools and specific voluntary associations, the culture of planning, prevention and resilience which is a prerequisite for optimising civil protection work;
49. Points to the key role of regional and local authorities, which are in the front line when disasters – above all, cross-border disasters – occur, and whose involvement can raise the EU’s visibility among its citizens; therefore calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States involve their regional and local authorities in disaster response from an early stage, building on the multi-level governance model applied in the area of cohesion policy, through a win-win communication strategy for all the actors involved in the response mechanism;
50. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop a clear information and prevention system for all European citizens when they travel, both within the EU and outside the Member States; proposes, to this end, that European passports bear the 112 emergency number with clear indications of its EU-wide accessibility, so that it may be used by travellers within the EU, as well as a reference to Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which lays down that ‘every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State (...)’, which can be used by travellers to non-Member States;
51. Calls for efforts to communicate the pan-European emergency call number ‘112’ more effectively to European citizens and third-country nationals in the EU, particularly by making use of written and audiovisual media and public notices, so that all citizens can use it automatically to report any disaster that occurs in the territory of the EU;
52. Considers that the dedicated training of European staff and experts in disaster response would make it possible, through ‘common core’ training and specialised modules, to develop awareness of common European working methods and response procedures; in this framework, recommends joint disaster response exercises between civil and military logistic units;
Disaster Response, preparedness and prevention
53. Notes that preventing disasters is often more cost-effective than combating them; therefore, stresses the vital need to complement the policy for enhancing the EU’s emergency reaction capacity by stepping up the EU’s and Member States’ risk prediction and prevention policies and encourages the Commission to prepare a comprehensive and innovative EU strategy on disaster risk reduction; calls for sufficient resources to be dedicated to early identification of possible disasters and asks the Commission to ensure that the revision of the Structural Funds and the Solidarity Fund are used to encourage the development of policies and investments in these areas; furthermore, calls for improved education on disaster prevention, investment in the prevention of disasters and climate change, appropriate legislation on water management and efficient risk management and for close monitoring of the implementation of the Floods Directive at regional and local level; points out, in this context, that regional and local authorities play a key role in disaster prevention by implementing risk prevention strategies at territorial level, including joint interventions involving teams from different countries;
54. Reiterates its position that, in view of the interconnections between drought, forest fires and desertification, the Commission should present a proposal, similar to the Floods Directive, to promote the adoption of an EU policy on water scarcity, drought and adaptation to climate change; also reiterates, in this context, the importance of establishing the European Drought Observatory, which would be responsible for studying, mitigating and monitoring the effects of drought;
55. Reiterates, likewise, its call for the Commission to adopt a directive on preventing and managing fires, which should include the regular collection of data, preparation of maps and identification of areas at risk, preparation of fire risk management plans, identification by the Member States of the resources allocated and facilities available, coordination of the various administrations, minimum requirements for training crews and establishment of environmental responsibility and the corresponding penalties;
56. Considers that further exploitation of the opportunities offered in the context of the European Territorial Objective is of crucial importance; believes, in this connection, that the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) can constitute an important instrument for further strengthening transnational, cross-border and interregional cooperation, even with countries which are not EU Member States; sees the development of interregional cooperation across national borders as evidence of the particularly important contribution made by the regions to rapid assistance for the purposes of civil protection; considers that this fruitful cooperation extends, inter alia, to the shared aim of mapping risks and assessing potential threats, and that it is here that the EU can make a valuable and visible contribution to even more effective and efficient cooperation, above all by improving coordination;
57. Points out that, in the European Year of Volunteering, it would be symbolic and worthwhile to support those countries which seek to promote such activities and organisations;
58. Invites the Commission to bring forward ambitious legislative proposals to that effect as quickly as possible but not later than by the end of 2011;
°
° °
59. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0405
Professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States ***I
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
PE454.357
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States (COM(2010)0377 – C7-0186/2010 – 2010/0204(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0377),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 133 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0186/2010),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2010[34],
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0076/2011),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
P7_TC1-COD(2010)0204
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 September 2011 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 133 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
▌
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank[35],
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure[36],
Whereas:
(1) The introduction of the euro has considerably increased the need for cross-border transport of cash by road. Within the euro area, banks, the large retail sector and other professional cash handlers should be able to contract with the cash-in-transit (CIT) company that offers the best price and/or service and to take advantage of the cash services of the nearest national central bank (NCB) branch or CIT cash center, even if it is located in another Member State. Furthermore, a large number of Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter 'participating Member States') have arranged, or may want to arrange, for euro banknotes and coins to be produced abroad. The very principle of a single currency implies the freedom to move cash between ▌participating Member States.
(2) Due to the marked differences between Member States' national law, it is generally very difficult to carry out the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States. This situation is in contradiction to the principle of the free circulation of the euro and is to the detriment of the principle of freedom to provide services, which are among the fundamental principles of the European Union.
(3) This Regulation is the response to the possible presentation of harmonisation instruments for the transport of cash, as expressed in Article 38(b) of ▌Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market[37].
(4) With a view to improving CIT security for both the CIT security staff involved and the public, use of the intelligent banknote neutralisation system (IBNS) should be encouraged and, after a thorough analysis of the potential impacts by the Commission, should be capable of being developed in a manner entailing harmonisation of IBNS among the participating Member States, without prejudice to the rules set out in this Regulation on applicable transport arrangements.
(5) In view of the particular dangers to the health and life of both CIT security staff and the general public that are associated with the activity of transporting cash, it is appropriate that the cross-border transport of euro cash be subject to holding a specific cross-border CIT-licence. Such a licence should be held in addition to the national CIT licence that is required in most participating Member States, the form of which this Regulation does not harmonise. It is, moreover, appropriate that CIT companies established in those participating Member States which do not have a specific approval procedure for CIT-companies in addition to their general rules for the security or transport sectors, demonstrate a minimum experience of 24 months of regularly transporting cash in the Member State of establishment without infringing national law before they are granted a cross-border CIT licence by that Member State. Such an approach would increase mutual confidence between Member States.
(6) In order to avoid the duplication of obligations and the introduction of an unnecessarily burdensome procedure, it is furthermore appropriate to provide that the holder of a cross-border CIT licence is not ▌ required also to hold a Community licence for the international carriage of goods by road, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market[38].
(7) The professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States should fully comply with ▌ this Regulation or ▌ with the law of the Member State of origin, the host Member State and, if applicable, the Member State of transit.
(8) This Regulation is designed to allow the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States under conditions that guarantee the security of the transaction, the safety of the CIT security staff involved and of the public and the free movement of euro cash. In accordance with normal market practice, it is also appropriate to allow a limited value of non-euro cash to be transported in the same CIT vehicle.
(9) In view of the specific requirements facing cross-border CIT workers, it is appropriate that they follow a specific cross-border training module as detailed in Annex VI. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the cross-border training module should not include the elements already covered by compulsory training required for carrying out the domestic CIT activity.
(10) Due to the specific conditions in the CIT sector, it is difficult to ▌ organise safe multi-day euro cash deliveries. It is therefore appropriate that a CIT vehicle carrying out the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road return to its Member State of origin on the same day ▌ .
(11) The Commission should put forward a proposal to amend the definition of 'daytime' and/or of the minimum required length of ad-hoc initial training laid down in this Regulation in the event that the social partners at Union level agree ▌ that another definition is more appropriate.
(12) According to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 ▌ , the number of operations that may be carried out in the host Member State following the international carriage from another Member State is limited to three cabotage operations within seven days. However, due to the specific characteristics of the CIT sector, it is normal practice for a CIT vehicle to carry out a much larger number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups per day. It is therefore appropriate to derogate from Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 by not imposing any limit upon the number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups that a CIT vehicle may carry out in a host Member State during a single day.
(13) ▌ National rules governing the behaviour of ▌ CIT security staff outside a CIT vehicle and governing the security of euro cash delivery/pick-up locations should not ▌ cover the possible use of banknote neutralisation systems in combination with the transport of banknotes in a fully-armoured CIT vehicle not equipped with IBNS.
(14) ▌ Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services[39] covers posting situations where an undertaking provides transnational services on its own account and under its direction under a contract concluded between the undertaking and the party for whom the services are intended.
(15) Considering the specific nature of CIT transport services, there is a need to provide for the analogous application of Directive 96/71/EC to all cross-border euro cash transport services in order to provide legal certainty for operators and ensure the practical applicability of the Directive in that sector.
(16) Due to the specificity of the transport activities concerned and the occasional character of some of those activities, the analogous application of the minimum protection rules laid down in Directive 96/71/EC should be limited to the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, as referred to in Article 3(1)(c) of that Directive and these should be guaranteed for the duration of the whole working day in order not to impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the operators. As referred to in Directive 96/71/EC, and within the limits of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the concept of minimum rates of pay is defined by the national law or practice of the Member State where the worker is posted. Where, as a result of contracts, regulations, administrative provisions or practical arrangements, a CIT worker carries out cross-border transport for more than 100 working days in a calendar year in another Member State, it is appropriate that the minimum protection rules laid down in ▌Directive 96/71/EC apply ▌ to such a worker mutatis mutandis.
(17) The application of minimum protection rules in the host Member State should be without prejudice to the application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to the worker under the law, collective agreement or employment contract in the worker's Member State of origin.
(18) For the purpose of establishing the relevant minimum protection rules, it is appropriate that the provisions on information cooperation in Article 4 of Directive 96/71/EC ▌ apply mutatis mutandis. In this respect, Member States should be able to avail themselves of the administrative cooperation and exchange of information provided for in Directive 96/71/EC.
(19) This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community[40].
(20) ▌ In order to take into account technological progress and possible new European standards, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the amendment of the technical rules on standards in regard to the IBNS, the armouring of CIT vehicles, bulletproof vests and weapons strong-boxes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level and of the social partners. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
(21) In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective, namely to facilitate the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
SECTION I
COMMON RULES GOVERNING ALL CROSS-BORDER TRANSPORT OF EURO CASH BY ROAD
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "participating Member States" means those Member States whose currency is the euro;
(b) "cross-border transport of euro cash by road" means the professional transport, either for remuneration on behalf of third parties or carried out within a cash-in-transit (hereinafter "CIT") company, by a CIT vehicle by road of euro banknotes ▌ or coins from a participating Member State ▌ , for supplying euro banknotes ▌ or coins to, or collecting them from, one or more locations in one or more other participating Member States, and in the Member State of origin – without prejudice to the transport of a maximum of 20 % of non-euro cash in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle – where the majority of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups made by a CIT vehicle during the same day is carried out on the territory of the host Member State or, in the case of point-to-point transport, where the transport takes place between two different participating Member States;
(c) " ▌ cross-border CIT licence" means a licence delivered by the granting authority of the Member State of origin ▌ which authorises the holder to carry out the cross-border transport of euro cash by road between participating Member States in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Regulation;
(d) "granting authority" means the authority in the Member State of origin in charge of issuing the cross-border CIT licence;
(e) "Member State of origin" means the participating Member State in whose territory the CIT company is established. The CIT company is considered to be established if it is actually pursuing an economic activity, in accordance with Article 49 TFEU, for an indefinite period, through a stable infrastructure from where the business of providing services is actually carried out;
(f) "host Member State" means one or more participating Member States in which a CIT company provides the service of delivering and/or picking up euro cash other than its Member State of origin;
(g) "Member State of transit" means one or more participating Member States other than the ▌'Member State of origin which is crossed by the CIT vehicle in order either to reach the host Member State or to return to the Member State of origin;
(h) "daytime" when refering to transport means transport carried out between 6.00 and 22.00;
(i) "CIT security staff" means the employees instructed to drive the CIT vehicle in which the euro cash is being carried or to protect its contents;
(j) "CIT vehicle" means a vehicle used for the professional transport of euro cash by road;
(k) "vehicle of ordinary appearance" means a CIT vehicle which has a normal appearance and does not bear any distinctive signs indicating that it belongs to a CIT company or that it is used for the purposes of transporting euro cash;
(l) "point-to-point transport" means ▌ transport from one secure location to another ▌ without any intermediate stops;
(m) "secured area" means a delivery/pick-up point for euro cash located within a building and secured against unauthorised access in terms of ▌ equipment (anti-intrusion systems) and access procedures for persons;
(n) "secure location" means a location within a secured area, which is accessible to CIT vehicles and in which CIT vehicles can be loaded and unloaded in a secure manner;
(o) to "neutralise" a banknote means to mutilate or damage it by staining or by other means as specified in Annex II;
(p) "intelligent banknote neutralisation system" or "IBNS" means a system that meets the following conditions:
(i) the banknote container continuously protects the banknotes by means of a euro cash neutralisation system, from a secured area to the euro cash delivery point or from the euro cash pick-up point to a secured area,
(ii) the CIT security staff is not able to open the container outside the pre-programmed time periods and/or locations or to change the pre-programmed time periods and/or locations ▌ where the container can be opened once the euro cash transport operation has been initiated,
(iii) the container is equipped with a mechanism for permanently neutralising the banknotes if any unauthorised attempt is made to open the container, and
(iv) ▌ the requirements laid down in Annex II are complied with;
(q) "end-to-end IBNS" means IBNS that is ▌ equipped for end-to-end use, namely the banknotes remain inaccessible to CIT security staff at all times and are under continuous protection by the IBNS from secured area to secured area or, for cassettes for Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) or other types of cash dispensers, from a secured area to the interior of the ATMs or the other types of cash dispensers;
(r) ▌ "A1" and "B1", when refering to the level of language skills, mean the levels established by the Council of Europe's Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, as referred to in Annex VII;
▌
(s) "EU official languages" means the languages referred to in Article 1 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community[41].
Article 2
Exclusions
1. The transport of euro banknotes and coins shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where it is:
(a) carried out on the account of, and between, NCBs, or between banknote printing works and/or mints of participating Member States and the relevant NCBs; and
(b) escorted by the military or the police.
2. The exclusive transport of euro coins shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation where it is:
(a) carried out on the account of, and between, NCBs, or between mints of participating Member States and the relevant NCBs; and
(b) escorted by the military or the police or by private security staff in separate vehicles ▌.
Article 3
Place of departure, maximum duration and
number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups
1. Cross-border transport of euro cash provided in accordance with this Regulation shall be carried out during the daytime.
2. A CIT vehicle carrying out cross-border transport of euro cash shall start its journey from its Member State of origin and shall return to it on the same day.
3. By derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, point-to-point transport may be carried out within a time-slot of 24 hours, provided that night-time transport of euro cash is ▌ allowed under national rules of the Member State of origin, of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State.
4. By way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, there shall be no limit to the number of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups that a CIT vehicle may carry out in a host Member State during the same day.
Article 4
Cross-border CIT licence
1. A company wishing to undertake cross-border transport of euro cash by road shall apply for a cross-border CIT licence from the granting authority in its Member State of origin.
2. The cross-border CIT licence shall be granted for a period of five years by the national granting authority, provided that the applicant company meets the following conditions ▌:
(a) it is approved to carry out CIT transport within its Member State of origin or, if the Member State has no specific approval procedure for CIT companies in addition to its general rules for the security or transport sector, it is able to provide evidence that it has had regular business transporting cash for at least 24 months within its Member State of origin prior to the application with no infringements of that Member State's national law governing such activities;
(b) its managers and the members of its board do not have a relevant entry in a criminal record and are of good repute and integrity, according to, for instance, relevant police records;
(c) it has a valid civil liability insurance to cover at least third-party damage to life and property, regardless of whether the cash transported is insured thereunder;
(d) the applicant company, its CIT security staff, vehicles ▌ and ▌ security procedures employed in or applied for the purposes of cross-border transport of euro cash ▌ comply with ▌ this Regulation or, where expressly referred to in this Regulation, with national law specifically relating to the transport of cash.
3. The cross-border CIT licence shall be drawn up in accordance with the model and the physical characteristics defined in Annex I. CIT security staff in CIT vehicles engaged in the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road shall, at all times, be able to show the inspection authorities the original or a certified copy of a valid cross-border CIT licence.
4. The cross-border CIT licence shall allow the company to carry out cross-border transport of euro cash under the terms of this Regulation. By way of derogation from Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, the holder of such a licence shall not be required to possess a Community licence for the international carriage of goods by road.
Article 5
CIT security staff
1. All members of the CIT security staff shall satisfy the following requirements:
(a) they do not have a relevant entry in a criminal record and are of good repute and integrity according to, for instance, relevant police records;
(b) they ▌ have a medical certificate certifying that their physical and mental health is adequate for the task to be performed;
(c) they ▌ have successfully followed at least 200 hours of ad hoc initial training, not including any training on the use of firearms.
The minimum requirements for the ad hoc initial training referred to in point (c) are set out in Annex VI. CIT security staff shall follow further training activities in the areas set out in point 3 of Annex VI, at least every three years.
2. At least one member of the CIT security staff in the CIT vehicle shall have at least A1-level language skills in the languages used by the local authorities and the population in the relevant areas of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State. The CIT vehicle shall, furthermore, be in constant radio contact, via the CIT company's control centre, with someone who has at least B1-level language skills in the languages used by the local authorities and the population in the relevant areas of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State, so as to ensure that effective communication with the national authorities is possible at all times.
Article 6
Carrying of weapons
1. ▌ CIT security staff shall comply with the law of the Member State of origin, of the Member State of transit and of the host Member State as regards the carrying of weapons and the maximum permitted calibre.
2. When entering the territory of a Member State whose law does not allow CIT security staff to be armed, any weapons in the possession of the CIT security staff shall be placed in an on-board weapons strong-box which meets the European standard EN 1143-1. Such weapons shall remain inaccessible to the CIT security staff throughout the journey across that Member State's territory. They may be removed from the weapons strong-box when entering the territory of a Member State whose law allows CIT security staff to be armed and shall be removed from it when entering the territory of a Member State whose law requires CIT security staff to be armed. Opening the weapons strong-box shall require remote intervention by the CIT vehicle's control centre and shall be conditional upon verification by the control centre of the vehicle's exact geographical location.
The requirements set out in the first subparagraph shall also apply if the type or the calibre of the weapon is not allowed under the law of the Member State of transit or of the host Member State.
3. Where a CIT vehicle whose Member State of origin does not allow CIT security staff to carry arms, enters the territory of a Member State ▌ whose law requires CIT security staff to carry arms, the CIT company shall ensure that the CIT security staff on board is provided with the required weapons and that they fulfil the minimum training requirements of the host Member State.
4. CIT security staff who are armed or who travel in a CIT vehicle with arms on board shall have a professional weapons licence or authorisation issued by the national authorities of the Member State of transit and/or the host Member State, where those Member States allow CIT security staff to be armed, and fulfil all the national requirements for that professional weapons licence or authorisation. For that purpose, Member States may recognise the professional weapons licence or authorisation of the other Member State.
5. Member States shall establish a single central national contact point to which CIT companies established in other Member States may submit applications for a professional weapons licence or authorisation for their CIT security staff. Federal Member States may establish contact points at State level. Member States shall inform the applicant of the outcome of the application within three months from the submission of a complete application file.
6. In order to make it easier for CIT security staff who are employed by a company established in another Member State ▌ to fulfil the national requirements for obtaining a professional weapons licence or authorisation, Member States shall provide for validation of equivalent professional weapons training followed in the Member State where the applicant's employer is established. If this is not possible, Member States shall ensure that the necessary professional weapons training is provided on their own territory in an EU official language which is an official language of the Member State where the applicant's employer is established.
Article 7
CIT vehicle equipment
1. CIT vehicles ▌ shall ▌ be equipped with a global navigation system. The CIT company's control centre shall be able ▌ continuously and accurately to locate its vehicles.
2. CIT vehicles shall be equipped with appropriate communication tools to allow contact to be made at any time with the control centre of the CIT company operating the vehicles and with the competent national authorities. The emergency numbers to contact the police authorities in the Member State of transit or in the host Member State shall be available in the vehicles.
3. CIT vehicles shall be equipped in a manner that allows the registration of the time and location of all euro cash deliveries/pick-ups in order to make it possible ▌ for the proportion of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups referred to in Article 1(b) to be checked at any time.
4. Where CIT vehicles are equipped with IBNS, the IBNS used shall comply with ▌Annex II and shall have been homologated in a participating Member State. In reply to a request for verification made by the authorities of the Member State of origin, ▌ the host Member State or the Member State of transit, undertakings carrying out cross-border transport of euro cash in CIT vehicles using IBNS shall supply written evidence of approval of the IBNS model used within 48 hours.
Article 8
Role of the national police forces
This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of national rules that require:
(a) cash-transport operations to be notified to the police in advance;
(b) ▌ CIT vehicles to be equipped with a device that allows them to be tracked at a remote distance by the police;
(c) high-value point-to-point transport to be escorted by the police.
Article 9
Rules to ensure the security of the cash delivery/pick-up locations
in the host Member State
This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of national rules governing the behaviour of ▌ CIT security staff outside a CIT vehicle and the security of the locations where ▌ cash is delivered and/or picked up in the Member State concerned.
Article 10
Removal of neutralised banknotes from circulation
CIT companies operating under ▌ this Regulation shall remove from circulation all ▌ banknotes that may have been ▌ neutralised ▌ that they encounter while carrying out their activities. They shall hand over those banknotes to the appropriate NCB branch of their Member State of origin and provide a written statement on the cause and nature of the neutralisation. If those banknotes are collected in a host Member State, the NCB of the host Member State shall be informed by the NCB of the Member State of origin ▌.
Article 11
Mutual information
1. Member States shall submit to the Commission the rules referred to in Articles 8 and 9 as well as information on which IBNS have been homologated by them and shall immediately inform the Commission of any change affecting those rules and homologations. The Commission shall ensure that those rules as well as a list of homologated IBNS are published in all the EU official languages which are the official languages of the relevant participating Member States through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing swiftly all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.
2. Member States shall keep a register of all the companies to which they have delivered a cross-border CIT licence and shall inform the Commission about its content. They shall update the register, including in relation to any decision to suspend or withdraw a licence pursuant to Article 22 and shall immediately inform the Commission of such update. To facilitate information-sharing, the Commission shall set up a central secured database containing data on licences issued, suspended or withdrawn, which shall be accessible to the relevant authorities of the participating Member States.
3. In implementing Article 5(1)(a), the Member State of origin shall take due account of information concerning the criminal record, repute and integrity of CIT security staff that is communicated to it by the host Member State.
4. ▌ Member States shall inform the Commission about their specific training requirements for CIT security staff for the purpose of the ad-hoc initial training referred to in Article 5(1)(c). The Commission shall ensure that that information is published in all the EU official languages which are the official languages of the relevant participating Member States through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.
5. Member States shall ▌ inform the Commission of the addresses and other contact details of the national contact points referred to in Article 6(5) and of ▌ relevant national law. The Commission shall ensure that this information is published through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.
6. Where a Member State withdraws the professional weapons licence or authorisation that it has delivered to a member of the CIT security staff of a company established in another Member State, it shall inform the granting authority of the Member State of origin thereof.
7. Member States shall inform the Commission of the addresses and other contact details of the relevant authorities referred to in Article 12(2). The Commission shall ensure that this information is published through the appropriate channels, with a view to informing all the actors involved in a CIT cross-border activity.
Article 12
Information prior to the start of cross-border transport
1. A company holding or having submitted an application for a cross-border CIT licence shall inform the granting authority at least two months before it begins its cross-border activity of the Member States in which it will carry out CIT transport. The Member State of origin shall subsequently immediately notify the Member States concerned that the cross-border activity is to start.
2. A company that intends to carry out cross-border cash transport shall provide in advance the relevant authority or authorities indicated by the host Member State with information on the type or types of transport it will use, the names of the persons who may carry out such transport and the type of any weapons carried.
SECTION 2
SPECIFIC RULES FOR EACH TYPE OF TRANSPORT
Article 13
Applicable transport arrangements
1. With respect to the cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road carried out on its territory, each Member State shall allow:
(a) at least one of the options laid down in Article 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18; and
(b) those options laid down in Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 that are comparable to the transport arrangements allowed for domestic CIT transport.
Article 17 shall apply to all Member States as regards point-to-point transport.
2. With respect to the cross-border transport of euro coins by road carried out on its territory, each Member State shall allow:
(a) at least one of the options laid down in Article 19 or 20; and
(b) those options laid down in Articles 19 and 20 that are comparable to the transport arrangements allowed for domestic CIT transport.
3. Transport which includes both euro banknotes and coins shall be covered by the transport arrangements for the cross-border transport of euro banknotes.
4. As regards the application of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 18, a Member State may decide that only end-to-end IBNS may be used on its territory for the servicing of off-premises ATMs or other types of off-premises cash dispensers, provided that the same rules apply for domestic CIT transport.
5. Participating Member States shall notify the Commission of the transport arrangements which are applicable in accordance with this Article. The Commission shall publish a corresponding information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. The applicable transport arrangements shall take effect one month after publication of the information notice. Participating Member States shall use the same procedure when new transport arrangements become applicable pursuant to this Article.
6. If a host Member State or a Member State of transit finds that an IBNS displays serious deficiencies as regards the technical characteristics normally required, namely that the cash can be accessed without triggering the neutralisation mechanism or the IBNS has been modified after homologation in such a way that it no longer fulfils the homologation criteria, it shall inform the Commission and the Member State that granted the homologation and may ask that new tests be carried out on that IBNS. Pending the results of those new tests, Member States may provisionally prohibit the use of that IBNS on their territory. They shall, without delay, inform the Commission and the other participating Member States thereof.
Article 14
Transport of banknotes in an unarmoured CIT vehicle
of ordinary appearance equipped with IBNS
Companies holding a ▌ cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using an unarmoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) the vehicle is of ordinary appearance;
(b) there are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle;
(c) none of the CIT security staff wears a uniform.
Article 15
Transport of banknotes in an unarmoured CIT vehicle
with a clear marking indicating that it is equipped with IBNS
Companies holding a cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using an unarmoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) the vehicle and banknote containers bear very clear markings indicating that they are equipped with IBNS and those markings correspond to the pictograms depicted in Annex III;
(b) there are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.
Article 16
Transport of banknotes in a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS
Companies holding a ▌cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) the cabin of the vehicle is armoured to withstand at least gunfire from firearms in accordance with the specifications set out in Annex V;
(b) the vehicle and banknote containers bear very clear markings indicating that they are equipped with IBNS and those markings correspond to the pictograms depicted in Annex III;
(c) the cabin of the vehicle is equipped with a bulletproof vest for each member of the CIT security staff on board, at least respecting the norm VPAM class 5, NIJ IIIA or an equivalent standard;
(d) there are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.
The CIT security staff may wear the bulletproof vests referred to in point (c) during the transport and shall wear them where required by the law of the Member State where they are situated.
Article 17
Transport of banknotes in a fully-armoured CIT vehicle not equipped with IBNS
Companies holding a ▌cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using a fully-armoured CIT vehicle not equipped with IBNS, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) the parts of the vehicle in which the CIT security staff are present are ▌armoured to withstand at least gunfire from firearms in accordance with the specifications set out in Annex V;
(b) the cabin of the vehicle is equipped with a bulletproof vest for each member of the CIT security staff on board, at least respecting the norm VPAM class 5, NIJ IIIA or an equivalent standard;
(c) there are at least three CIT security staff per vehicle.
The CIT security staff may wear the vests referred to in point (b) during the transport and shall wear them where required by the law of the Member State where they are situated.
Article 18
Transport of banknotes in a fully-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS
Companies holding a ▌ cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro banknotes by road using a fully-armoured CIT vehicle equipped with IBNS, in accordance with Article 16(b) and Article 17(a) and (b).
There shall be at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.
Article 19
Transport of coins in an unarmoured CIT vehicle
Companies holding a ▌ cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro coins by road using an unarmoured CIT vehicle carrying only coins, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) the vehicle is of ordinary appearance;
(b) there are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle;
(c) none of the CIT security staff wears a uniform.
Article 20
Transport of coins in a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle
Companies holding a ▌ cross-border CIT licence may carry out cross-border transport of euro coins by road using a cabin-armoured CIT vehicle carrying only coins, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) the ▌ cabin of the vehicle is armoured to withstand at least gunfire from firearms in accordance with the specifications set out in Annex V;
(b) the ▌ vehicle bears very clear markings indicating that it is carrying only coins and those markings correspond to the pictogram depicted in Annex IV;
(c) the cabin of the vehicle is equipped with a bulletproof vest for each member of the CIT security staff on board, at least respecting the norm VPAM class 5, NIJ IIIA or an equivalent standard;
(d) there are at least two CIT security staff per vehicle.
The CIT security staff may wear the bulletproof vests referred to in point (c) during the transport and shall wear them where required by the law of the Member State where they are situated.
▌
SECTION 3
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 21
Compliance
During the period of validity of a cross-border CIT licence, Member States of origin ▌ shall ensure that the rules laid down in this Regulation are complied with, including via random inspections without prior notification to the company. Such inspections may also be carried out by host Member States.
Article 22
Penalties
1. Where the competent national authorities find that there has been an infringement of one of the terms under which the ▌ cross-border CIT licence was granted, the granting authority may send a warning to the company concerned, ▌ impose a fine, ▌ suspend the licence for a period ranging from two weeks to two months or ▌ withdraw the licence completely, depending on the nature or severity of the infringement. The granting authority may also prohibit the company concerned from applying for a new licence for a period of up to five years.
2. The Member State of transit or the host Member State shall communicate any infringement of this Regulation - including infringements of the national rules referred to in Articles 8 and 9 - to the competent national authorities of the Member State of origin, which shall decide on an appropriate penalty. The Member State of transit or the host Member State may furthermore impose a fine in case of infringement of the national rules referred to in Articles 8 and 9 or of the applicable transport arrangements referred to in Article 13. It may prohibit CIT security staff that have committed such infringements from carrying out cross-border cash transport on its territory if the infringement can be imputed to them.
3. The Member State of transit or the host Member State may suspend the right of a CIT company to transport euro cash by road on its territory for a maximum period of two months, pending a decision by the granting authority of the Member State of origin which shall be taken within that same period, where the CIT company:
(a) has not complied with the provisions of this Regulation relating to the minimum number of CIT security staff per CIT vehicle or relating to weapons;
(b) ▌ carries out its transport activity in a way that constitutes a danger to public order; or
(c) has committed repeated infringements of this Regulation.
4. The Member State that issued the professional weapons licence or authorisation may impose penalties on the CIT security staff in accordance with its national rules in case of infringement of its national weapons law.
5. The penalties shall ▌ be proportionate to the severity of the infringement.
Article 23
Emergency security measures
1. ▌ A Member State may decide to introduce temporary security measures going beyond those provided for in this Regulation in the event of an urgent problem affecting significantly the security of CIT operations. Such temporary measures shall affect all CIT transport in all or part of the national territory, shall apply for a maximum period of four weeks and shall be notified immediately to the Commission. The Commission shall ensure their swift publication through the appropriate channels.
2. The prolongation of the temporary measures provided for in paragraph 1 beyond a period of four weeks shall be subject to prior authorisation by the Commission. The Commission shall decide whether to grant such prior authorisation within 72 hours of receipt of a request.
Article 24
Remuneration of CIT security staff carrying out cross-border transport
CIT security staff carrying out cross-border transport in accordance with this Regulation shall be guaranteed the relevant minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, in the host Member State in accordance with Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC. If the relevant minimum rates of pay in the host Member State are higher than the wage paid to the employee in the Member State of origin, the relevant minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, of the host Member State shall apply for the whole working day. If transport is carried out in more than one host Member State during the same day and more than one of those Member States have higher relevant minimum rates of pay than the wage applied in the Member State of origin, the highest of those minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, shall apply for the whole working day.
However, where, as a result of contracts, regulations, administrative provisions or practical arrangements, a CIT worker carries out cross-border transport for more than 100 working days, wholly or partially spent ▌ in a calendar year in another Member State, the terms and conditions of employment referred to in ▌ Directive 96/71/EC shall be applied fully for all the working days spent wholly or partially in that host Member State in that calendar year.
For the purpose of establishing the relevant terms and conditions of employment, Article 4 of Directive 96/71/EC shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Article 25
Committee on the cross-border transport of euro cash
1. A Committee on the cross-border transport of euro cash shall be established. It shall be chaired by the Commission and gather two representatives per participating Member State ▌ , together with two representatives of the European Central Bank.
2. The Committee shall meet at least once a year to exchange views on the implementation of this Regulation. For this purpose, it shall consult the stakeholders in the sector, including the social partners, and take their views into account as appropriate. It shall be consulted on the preparation of the review referred to in Article 26.
Article 26
Review
By ...* and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Regulation ▌. For that purpose, it shall consult the stakeholders in the sector including the social partners followed by the Member States. The report shall, in particular, examine the possibility of establishing common training requirements for the carrying of arms by CIT security staff and of amending Article 24 in the light of Directive 96/71/EC, take due account of technological progress in the area of IBNS, consider the potential added value of granting Union CIT licences on a group basis and assess whether this Regulation needs to be revised accordingly.
Article 27
Amendment of technical rules
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 28 concerning amendments to Annex II and to the technical rules on the standards applicable to the armouring of CIT vehicles ▌and to bulletproof vests referred to in Articles 16, 17, 18 and 20, and to weapons strong-boxes referred to in Article 6(2), with a view to taking into account technological progress and possible new European standards.
Article 28
Exercise of the delegation
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.
2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 27 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from ...*.
3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 27 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified therein. It shall take effect on the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or on a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 27 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
Article 29
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force 12 months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.
Done at
For the European Parliament For the Council
The President The President
[…] […]
ANNEX I
MODEL FOR CROSS-BORDER CIT LICENCE
EUROPEAN UNION
(Colour Pantone pink 176, format DIN A4 cellulose paper 100g/m2 or more)
(First page of the licence)
(Text in (one of) the EU official language(s) which is an (are) official language(s)
of the Member State issuing the licence)
|Distinguishing sign of the Member State (1) issuing the licence | |Name of the granting authority |
LICENCE No …
(or)
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY No
for the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road
|This licence entitles (2) |..............................................................................................................|
| |............................... |
|...................................................................................................................................................|
|...................................................................................................................................................|
|.............................................................................................. |
to engage in the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road, for journeys or parts of journeys carried out within the territory of the Union, as laid down in Regulation (EU) No (.../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of ...(( on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States (3)((( and in Council Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of ...(((( concerning the extension of the scope of Regulation (EU) No (.../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4)((((( and in accordance with the general provisions of this licence.
|Particular remarks: |.........................................................................................................................|
| |..................................... |
|...................................................................................................................................................|
|............................................... |
|This licence shall be valid for a five-year period, from...........................................|to.............................................|
| |............. |
|Issued |on.....................................................................................|
|in..........................................................|......................... |
|...., | |
|................................................................................ (5) |
_______________
(1) The distinguishing signs of the Member States are: (BE) Belgium, (BG) Bulgaria, (CZ) Czech Republic, (DK) Denmark, (DE) Germany, (EE) Estonia, (IE) Ireland, (EL) Greece, (ES) Spain, (FR) France, (IT) Italy, (CY) Cyprus, (LV) Latvia, (LT) Lithuania, (LU) Luxembourg, (HU) Hungary, (MT) Malta, (NL) Netherlands, (AT) Austria, (PL) Poland, (PT) Portugal, (RO) Romania, (SI) Slovenia, (SK) Slovakia, (FI) Finland, (SE) Sweden, (UK) United Kingdom.
(2) Name or business name and full address of the cash-in-transit company.
(3) OJ ….
(4) OJ ….
(5) Signature and seal of the granting authority.
(Second page of the licence)
(Text in (one of) the EU official language(s) which is an (are) official language(s)
of the Member State issuing the licence)
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This licence is issued under Regulation (EU) No...(/2011.
It entitles the holder to engage in professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road, as defined in Regulation (EU) No...*/2011, for journeys or parts of journeys carried out within the territory of the Member States covered by Regulation (EU) No...*/2011 and subject to the conditions laid down in this licence.
This licence is valid for the holder only and is non-transferable.
The original of this licence must be kept by the cash-in-transit company.
A certified copy of this licence must be kept in the cash-in-transit vehicle.
The original or a certified copy of this licence must be presented at the request of any authorised inspecting officer.
Without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No...*/2011, the holder must comply with the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force within the territory of each Member State, in particular with regard to transport and traffic.
ANNEX II
INTELLIGENT BANKNOTE NEUTRALISATION SYSTEM (IBNS)
I. Definitions and general provisions
▌
An IBNS may contain either banknotes (packaged or unpackaged) or one or several cassettes for ATMs or other types of cash dispensers.
An IBNS must have been homologated in a participating Member State in order to be used for cross-border transport of euro cash under this Regulation. The homologation must be made according to an existing European specific standard. As long as there is no such standard, the homologation must be made in accordance with this Annex.
II. IBNS approval procedure
(a) In order to be homologated, the IBNS must have passed various tests in a test laboratory that has been approved or recognised by a participating Member State. It must furthermore be accompanied by instructions for its use, which indicate the operating procedures and conditions that ensure the effectiveness of the destruction or neutralisation of the banknotes.
These tests must make it possible to ascertain that the following technical characteristics of the IBNS are satisfactory:
(i) Main required functions of the monitoring system
– ▌ permanently to monitor and record the instructions concerning the conditions for access to, and use of, the IBNS;
– ▌ continuously to verify compliance with these instructions and detect anomalous situations;
– ▌ automatically and immediately to neutralise the banknotes in the event of non-compliance with the instructions, detection of anomalous situations or opening of the container outside the pre-programmed time periods and/or locations.
(ii) Location where the monitoring system may be programmed and influence of CIT security staff on how the IBNS operates
An IBNS must be programmed only in a secured area. An end-to-end IBNS must only be programmed in a secure location.
CIT security staff must not have any means whatsoever of influencing the operation of the IBNS outside the pre-programmed time periods and/or locations. However, where there is a time-delay system for triggering the neutralisation, the CIT security staff may re-initiate the time delay once.
(iii) Location where the IBNS may be opened (for end-to-end systems)
An IBNS must only be opened in the pre-programmed destinations.
(b) The IBNS must be retested every five years, even where the national approval is issued for an unlimited period. If the new tests are not conclusive, the homologation ceases to be valid for cross-border transport under this Regulation.
(c) In order to pass the tests, one of the following results must be achieved upon performance of the tests:
– ▌it was not possible to access the banknotes and there was no damage to the IBNS, the mechanism of which remained operational; or
– ▌the IBNS was damaged but it was not possible to access the banknotes without triggering the neutralisation system.
III. Testing procedures
The method used to carry out the tests and the standards establishing the result which the systems tested must achieve are laid down in this Annex. However, adjustments may be made at national level so as to bring them into line with the existing test protocols followed by the laboratories in each Member State. In order for the IBNS to be homologated, the IBNS-manufacturer must ensure that the results of the testing procedures in this Annex are transmitted to the homologating authority.
(a) Test of IBNS' resistance to different attack scenarios
Member States must carry out six of the various tests simulating attack scenarios▌, while the other tests may also be carried out in accordance with the applicable national rules.
For each of the tests carried out, the result must be a pass within the meaning of point II(c).
– compulsory tests:
1 cutting of the power supply;
2 breaking into the container;
3 opening the container by destructive means (e.g. sledgehammer);
4 rapid cutting ('guillotining');
5 immersion in liquid;
6 gradual and immediate exposure to extreme temperatures (hot and cold): e.g. cooling in liquid nitrogen and heating in a preheated oven.
– recommended tests that may also be carried out:
7 resistance to firearms (e.g. with 12-bore cartridges);
8 use of chemicals;
9 free drop;
10 exposure to significant electromagnetic surges;
11 exposure to significant electrostatic surges.
(b) Effectiveness of neutralisation of banknotes
The neutralisation processes currently used are staining, chemical destruction and pyrotechnical destruction. Since technological developments may occur, the list of processes used is non-exhaustive and purely indicative.
Following any unauthorised attempt to access the banknotes via the various forms of attack, the banknotes must be either destroyed or stained. A minimum of three tests must be carried out.
100 % of the banknotes must be irreversibly neutralised. It must furthermore be apparent for any holder of the banknotes that they have been subject to neutralisation.
A minimum of 10 % of the surface area of both sides of each banknote must be stained if the banknotes are in safe-bags. If the banknotes are not in safe-bags, a minimum of 20 % of the surface area of both sides of each banknote must be stained. For destruction systems, a minimum of 20 % of the surface area of each banknote must be destroyed in both cases.
(c) Content of the tests for banknotes' resistance to cleaning – for IBNS using staining
For such 'cleaning', use must be made of different products or combinations of products. Different scenarios must be arranged so as to vary the temperature and duration of cleaning. Two procedures must be used for these cleaning tests:
– cleaning must be carried out immediately after staining; and
– cleaning must be carried out 24 hours after staining.
These tests must be carried out on a representative sample of real banknotes used in the euro area.
One of the following results must be obtained at the end of these tests:
– the cleaning leads to destruction of the banknotes;
– the cleaning leaves ink visible on a surface area of at least 10 % of each banknote (density test of the ink used);
– the cleaning leads to the mutilation of both the banknotes' original colours and its security features.
IV. Safety guarantees for the systems used
Chemical substances released from IBNS in order to neutralise banknotes may be subject 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) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency[42]. That Regulation addresses risks to human health and the environment of substances manufactured, imported or used on their own, in a mixture, or in an article.
In order for the IBNS to be homologated, the manufacturer must verify whether it has to register or notify substances contained in its products or to communicate information on safe use to its customers. The manufacturer may also have legal obligations resulting from the inclusion of these substances in the candidate list of substances of very high concern or in the list of substances subject to authorisation set out in Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. These obligations refer not only to the listed substances on their own or in mixtures, but also to their presence in articles.
A certificate must be supplied to the homologating authority of the Member State by the IBNS manufacturer, which includes the results of this verification and which lists the substances or elements used to ensure destruction or neutralisation of the banknotes and attests that they do not pose a serious risk to health in the case of inhalation by, or contact with, the skin of the CIT security staff or of the NCB staff. The certificate must furthermore indicate possible precautionary measures to be taken. The homologating authority must transmit the certificate to the NCBs of the participating Member States with respect to IBNS homologated by it.
To this effect, the certificate may include an analysis of the risks of exposure to the chemicals, i.e. maximum permissible duration of exposure for a quantity to be determined.
ANNEX III
IBNS PICTOGRAMS
Pictogram for CIT vehicles equipped with IBNS
|[pic] |
Pictogram for banknote containers equipped with IBNS
|[pic] |
ANNEX IV
PICTOGRAM FOR CIT VEHICLES CARRYING EXCLUSIVELY COINS
[pic]
ANNEX V
ARMOURING SPECIFICATIONS
The minimum armouring requirement referred to in Section 2 of this Regulation means that the armouring of the CIT vehicle is able to resist gunfire from a rifle of Kalashnikov type with a calibre of 7,62 mm x 39 mm using full steel jacket (plated) iron core ammunition with a mass of 7,97 grams (+/- 0,1 gram) with a velocity of at least 700 metres/second at a firing distance of 10 metres (+/- 0,5 metres).
ANNEX VI
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF INITIAL TRAINING FOR CIT SECURITY STAFF THAT CARRY OUT CROSS-BORDER EURO CASH TRANSPORT
CIT workers taking part in professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between Member States in the euro area must:
(1) fully follow and complete at least the appropriate initial training as provided by their national regulations of reference and/or the relevant collective labour agreements or, in the absence thereof, the national CIT/security association's or internal company's training courses;
(2) successfully pass the examinations following this initial training or any procedure aimed at testing the learning outcome;
(3) fully follow and complete the additional and obligatory training module as provided for in this Annex consisting of at least:
– cross-border CIT procedures
– Union law on CIT
– applicable national law covering CIT of the Member States of transit and the host Member States
– driving rules for CIT in the Member States of transit and the host Member States (including right for CIT vehicles to use specific driving lanes)
– national security protocols in case of attack in the Member States of transit and the host Member States
– organisation and operating procedures of CIT transport protected by IBNS technology of the Member States of transit and the host Member States
– applicable national operational protocols, rules and regulations of the Member States of transit and the host Member States
– national protocols in case of emergency of the Member States of transit and the host Member States in case of breakdown, road accidents, and technical and mechanical failures of any CIT equipment and vehicle
– national administrative procedures and company rules within the Member States of transit and the host Member States regarding communication with the control point etc. of all Member States transited and of all host Member States
– information and training regarding cooperation and appropriate protocols with national, regional and local police forces including with regards to checks carried out on CIT vehicles and security staff
– applicable national and Union law and/or applicable collective agreements regarding working time, number of breaks necessary, working conditions, wages applicable
– applicable national and Union law and/or applicable collective agreement stipulations regarding CIT security staff rest periods – when needed, how often, duration of each break period, secure location, communication with control centres, etc
– applicable security rules for deliveries/pick-ups (secure location, pavement risk management etc.)
– national law of reference regarding the use of weapons and their storage
– offensive and defensive driving techniques
– relevant training on the use of GPS, telephone and other technical equipment/systems used in cross-border CIT transport
– national health and safety regulation in the Member States of transit and the host Member States relevant for workers transporting valuables and travelling with large vehicles by road and protocols in case of injury or sickness of employees
– first aid training.
The training must furthermore include the following items:
– preventive and remedial measures in the areas of stress management and third party violence
– risk assessment at work
– language training as necessary to fulfil the language requirements set out in Article 5(2).
ANNEX VII
COUNCIL OF EUROPE'S COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES: LEVELS
User B1: Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
User A1: Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0406
Dual-use items and technology ***I
Committee on International Trade
PE443.007
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 September 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology (COM(2008)0854 – C7-0062/2010 – 2008/0249(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0854),
– having regard to Article 133 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled "Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures" (COM(2009)0665),
– having regard to Article 294(3) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0062/2010),
– having regard to Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items (recast), pursuant to which Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology has been repealed with effect from 27 August 2009,
– having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 18 July 2011 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 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0028/2011),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out[43];
2. Approves the joint statement by Parliament, the Council and the Commission annexed to this resolution;
3. Takes note of the Commission statement annexed to this resolution;
4. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
P7_TC1-COD(2008)0249
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 September 2011 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (recast)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European-Commission,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure[44],
Whereas:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items (recast)[45] requires dual-use items (including software and technology) to be subject to effective control when they are exported from or transit through the Union, or are delivered to a third country as a result of brokering services provided by a broker resident or established in the Union.
(2) It is desirable to achieve uniform and consistent application of controls throughout the Union in order to avoid unfair competition among Union exporters, harmonise the scope of Union General Export Authorisations and conditions of their use among Union exporters and ensure efficiency and effectiveness of the security controls in the Union.
(3) In its communication of 18 December 2006, the Commission put forward the idea of the creation of new Union General Export Authorisations in a bid to ▌enhance the industry's competitiveness and establish a level playing field for all Union exporters when they export certain specific dual-use items to certain specific destinations while at the same time ensuring a high level of security and full compliance with international obligations.
(3a) On 5 May 2009, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (recast). Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 has been repealed with effect from 27 August 2009. The relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 continue to apply only for export authorisation applications made before 27 August 2009.
(4) In order to create new Union General Export Authorisations for the export of certain specific dual-use items to certain specific destinations, the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 need to be amended by the addition of new Annexes.
(5) The competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established should be provided with the possibility of prohibiting the use of the Union General Export Authorisations under the conditions set out in Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 as amended by this Regulation ▌.
(5a) Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, arms embargoes under the Union’s common foreign and security policy are adopted by Council decisions. Pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, the legal effects of common positions adopted by the Council under Title V of the Treaty on European Union prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are to be preserved until they are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties.
(6) Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 is hereby amended as follows:
(-1) In Article 4(2), the introductory wording is replaced by the following:
"2. An authorisation shall also be required for the export of dual-use items not listed in Annex I if the purchasing country or country of destination is subject to an arms embargo decided by a decision or a common position adopted by the Council or a decision of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations and if the exporter has been informed by the authorities referred to in paragraph 1 that the items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for a military end-use. For the purposes of this paragraph, "military end-use" shall mean:".
(1) Article 9 is amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
"1. Union General Export Authorisations for certain exports as set out in Annexes IIa to IIg are established by this Regulation. The competent authorities of the Member State where the exporter is established can prohibit the exporter from using these authorisations if there is reasonable suspicion about his ability to comply with an authorisation or with a provision of the export control legislation.
The competent authorities of the Member States shall exchange information on exporters deprived of the right to use a Union General Export Authorisation, unless they determine that the exporter will not attempt to export dual use items through another Member State. The system referred to in Article 19(4) shall be used for this purpose."
(b) In paragraph 4, point (a) is replaced by the following:
"(a) exclude from their scope items listed in Annex IIh";
(ba) In paragraph 4, point (c) is replaced by the following:
"(c) not be used if the exporter has been informed by his authorities that the items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for any of the uses referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 4 or in paragraph 2 of Article 4 in a country subject to an arms embargo decided by a decision or a common position adopted by the Council or a decision of the OSCE or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, or if the exporter is aware that the items are intended for the abovementioned uses.".
(1a) In the first sentence of Article 11(1), the reference to "Annex II" is replaced by a reference to "Annex IIa".
▌
(2a) In Article 12(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:
"(b) their obligations under sanctions imposed by a decision or a common position adopted by the Council or by a decision of the OSCE or by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations".
(2b) In Article 13, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:
"6. All notifications required under this Article shall be made via secure electronic means including the system referred to in Article 19(4).".
(2c) In Article 19, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
"4. A secure and encrypted system for the exchange of information between Member States and, whenever appropriate, the Commission shall be set up by the Commission, in consultation with the Dual-Use Coordination Group set up under Article 23. The European Parliament shall be informed about the system's budget, development, provisional and final set-up and functioning, and network costs.".
(2d) In Article 23, the following paragraph is added:
"3. The Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the activities, examinations and consultations of the Dual-Use Coordination Group, which shall be subject to Article 4 of 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.".
(2e) Article 25 is replaced by the following:
"Article 25
1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in implementation of this Regulation, including the measures referred to in Article 24. The Commission shall forward the information to the other Member States.
2. Every three years the Commission shall review the implementation of this Regulation and present a comprehensive implementation and impact assessment report to the European Parliament and the Council on its application, which may include proposals for its amendment. Member States shall provide to the Commission all appropriate information for the preparation of the report.
3. Special sections of the report shall deal with:
(a) the Dual-Use Coordination Group and cover its activities. Information that the Commission provides on the Dual-Use Coordination Group's examinations and consultations shall be treated as confidential pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Information shall in any case be considered to be confidential if its disclosure is likely to have a significantly adverse effect upon the supplier or the source of such information;
(b) the implementation of Article 19(4), and shall report on the stage reached in the set-up of the secure and encrypted system for the exchange of information between Member States and the Commission;
(c) the implementation of Article 15(1);
(d) the implementation of Article 15(2);
(e) comprehensive information provided on the measures taken by the Member States under Article 24 and notified to the Commission under paragraph 1 of this Article .
4. No later than 31 December 2013, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report evaluating the implementation of this Regulation with a specific focus on the implementation of Annex IIb, Union General Export Authorisation No EU002, accompanied by, if appropriate, a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation, in particular as regards the issue of low-value shipments.".
(2f) The following Article is inserted:
"Article 25a
Without prejudice to the provisions on mutual administrative assistance agreements or protocols in customs matters concluded between the Union and third countries, the Council may authorise the Commission to negotiate with third countries agreements providing for the mutual recognition of export controls of dual-use items covered by this Regulation and in particular to eliminate authorisation requirements for re-exports within the territory of the Union. These negotiations shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures established in Article 207(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, as appropriate.".
(3) The Annexes are amended as follows:
(a) Annex II is renumbered as Annex IIa and is amended as follows:
(-i) the title is amended to read:
"Union General Export Authorisation No EU001 - exports to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, including Liechtenstein, and United States of America - Issuing authority: European Union";
(i) Part 1 is amended to read:
"This export authorisation is in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation and covers all dual use items specified in any entry in Annex I to this Regulation, except those listed in Annex IIh.";
(ii) Part 2 is deleted.
(iii) Part 3 is renumbered as Part 2 and is amended as follows:
- The word "Community" is amended to read "Union".
- The word "Switzerland" is amended to read "Switzerland, including Liechtenstein".
- The words "the Community General Export Authorisation" are replaced throughout by "this authorisation" or "this general export authorisation";
(b) Annexes IIb to h, as set out in Annex to this Regulation, are inserted.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at
For the European Parliament For the Council
The President The President
ANNEX
"Annex IIb
UNION GENERAL EXPORT AUTHORISATION No EU002
Exports of certain dual-use items to certain destinations
Issuing authority: European Union
Part 1 - Items
This general export authorisation is in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation and covers the following items set out in Annex I to this Regulation:
- 1A001
- 1A003,
- 1A004
- 1C003 b -c
- 1C004
- 1C005
- 1C006
- 1C008
- 1C009
- 2B008
- 3A001a3
- 3A001a6-12
- 3A002c-f
- 3C001
- 3C002
- 3C003
- 3C004
- 3C005
- 3C006
Part 2 - Destinations
This export authorisation is valid throughout the Union for exports to the following destinations:
- Argentina
- Croatia
- Iceland
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Turkey
Part 3 — Conditions and requirements for use
▌
2. This authorisation does not authorise the export of items where:
(1) the exporter has been informed by the competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established that the items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part(
(a) for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons,
(b) for a military end use as defined in Article 4(2) of this Regulation in a country ▌subject to an arms embargo imposed by a decision or a common position adopted by the Council or a decision of the OSCE or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, or
(c) for use as parts or components of military items listed in national military lists that have been exported from the territory of the Member State concerned without authorisation or in breach of an authorisation prescribed by the national legislation of that Member State;
(2) the exporter, under his obligation to exercise due diligence, is aware that the items in question are intended, in their entirety or in part, for any of the uses referred to in subparagraph (1); ▌
(3) the relevant items are exported to a customs-free zone or ▌a free warehouse which is located in a destination covered by this authorisation;
3. Exporters must mention the EU reference number X002 and specify that the items are being exported under Union General Export Authorisation EU002 in box 44 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) ▌.
4. Any exporter who uses this authorisation must notify the competent authorities of the Member State where he is established (as defined in Article 9(6) of this Regulation) of the first use of this authorisation no later than 30 days after the date when the first export takes place or, alternatively, and in accordance with a requirement by the authority of the Member State where the exporter is established, prior to the first use of this general export authorisation. Member States shall notify the Commission of the notification mechanism chosen for this general export authorisation. The Commission shall publish the information notified to it in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.
Reporting requirements attached to the use of this general export authorisation and the additional information that the Member State from which the export is made might require on items exported under this authorisation are defined by Member States.
A Member State may require the exporters established in that Member State to register prior to the first use of this general export authorisation. Registration shall be automatic and acknowledged by the competent authorities to the exporter without delay and in any case within ten working days of receipt, subject to the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of this Regulation.
Where applicable the requirements set out in the second and third paragraphs of this point shall be based on those defined for the use of national general export authorisations granted by those Member States which provide for such authorisations.
▌
Annex II c
UNION GENERAL EXPORT AUTHORISATION No EU003
Export after Repair / Replacement
Issuing authority: European Union
Part 1 - Items
1-1) This general export authorisation is in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation and covers the following items:
All dual-use items specified in any entry in Annex I except those listed in paragraph 1-2 below:
(a) where the items were re-imported into the customs territory of the Union for the purpose of maintenance, repair or replacement, and are exported or re-exported to the country of consignment without any changes to their original characteristics within a period of five years after the date when the original export authorisation has been granted, or
(b) where the items are exported to the country of consignment in exchange for items of the same quality and number which were re-imported into the customs territory of the Union for maintenance, repair or replacement within a period of five years after the date when the original export authorisation has been granted.
1-2) Items excluded:
(a) All items specified in Annex IIh,
(b) All items in sections D and E ▌,
(ba) Items specified in:
- 1A002a
- 1C012a
- 1C227
- 1C228
- 1C229
- 1C230
- 1C231
- 1C236
- 1C237
- 1C240
- 1C350
- 1C450
- 5A001b5
- 5A002a2 to 5A002a9
- 5B002 Equipment as follows:
(a) Equipment specially designed for the "development" or "production" of equipment ▌specified by 5A002a2 to 5A002a9
(b) Measuring equipment specially designed to evaluate and validate the "information security" functions of equipment specified by 5A002a2 to 5A002a9
- 6A001a2a1
- 6A001a2a5
- 6A002a1c
- 6A008l3
- 8A001b
- 8A001d
- 9A011
Part 2 - Destinations
This export authorisation is valid throughout the Union for exports to the following destinations:
|Albania |Mexico |
|Argentina, |Montenegro |
|Bosnia and Herzegovina |Morocco |
|Brazil |Russia |
|▌ |▌ |
|Chile |Serbia |
|China (including Hong Kong and Macao) |Singapore |
|Croatia |▌ |
|The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |South Africa |
|French Overseas Territories |South Korea |
|Iceland |▌ |
|India |Tunisia, |
|Kazakhstan |Turkey |
| |Ukraine |
| |United Arab Emirates |
| |▌ |
Part 3 — Conditions and requirements for use
1. This authorisation can only be used when the initial export has taken place under a Union General Export Authorisation or an initial export authorisation has been granted by the competent authorities of the Member State where the original exporter was established for the export of the items which have subsequently been re-imported into the customs territory of the Union for the purposes of maintenance, repair or replacement. This general authorisation is valid only for exports to the original end-user.
2. This authorisation does not authorise the export of items where:
(1) the exporter has been informed by the competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established that the items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part,
(a) for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons,
(b) for a military end-use where the purchasing country or country of destination is subject to an arms embargo imposed by a decision or a common position ▌adopted by the Council or a decision of the OSCE or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, or
(c) for use as parts or components of military items listed in the national military list that have been exported from the territory of the Member State concerned without authorisation or in breach of an authorisation prescribed by the national legislation of that Member State;
(2) the exporter is aware that the items in question are intended, in their entirety or in part, for any of the uses referred to in sub-paragraph (1);
(3) the relevant items are exported to a customs-free zone or a free warehouse which is located in a destination covered by this authorisation;
(4) the initial authorisation has been annulled, suspended, modified, or revoked;
(4a) the exporter, under his obligation to exercise due diligence, is aware that the end use of the items in question is different from that specified in the original export authorisation.
3. On exportation of any of the items pursuant to this authorisation, exporters must:
(1) mention the reference number of the initial export authorisation in the export declaration to customs together with the name of the Member State that granted the authorisation. This should be mentioned together with the EU reference number X002 and a specification that the items are being exported under Union General Export Authorisation EU003 in box 44 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD);
(2) provide customs officers, if so requested, with documentary evidence of the date of importation of the items into the Union, of any maintenance, repair or replacement of the items carried out in the Union and of the fact that the items are being returned to the end user and the country from which they were imported into the Union.
4. Any exporter who uses this authorisation must notify the competent authorities of the Member State where he is established (as defined in Article 9(6) of this Regulation) of the first use of this authorisation no later than 30 days after the date when the first export takes place or, alternatively, and in accordance with a requirement by the authority of the Member State where the exporter is established, prior to the first use of this general export authorisation . Member States shall notify the Commission of the notification mechanism chosen for this general export authorisation. The Commission shall publish the information notified to it in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.
Reporting requirements attached to the use of that authorisation and additional information that the Member State from which the export is made may require on items exported under that authorisation are defined by Member States.
A Member State may require the exporter established in that Member State to register prior to the first use of that authorisation. Registration shall be automatic and acknowledged by the competent authorities to the exporter without delay and in any case within ten working days of receipt of the registration request.
Where applicable the requirements set out in the second and third subparagraphs shall be based on those defined for the use of national general export authorisations granted by those Member States which provide for such authorisations.
5. ▌This authorisation covers items for "repair", "replacement" and "maintenance". This may involve coincidental improvement on the original items, e.g. resulting from the use of modern spare parts or from use of a later built standard for reliability or safety reasons, provided that this does not result in any enhancement to the functional capability of the items or provide the items with new or additional functions. ▌
▌
Annex IId
UNION EXPORT AUTHORISATION No EU004
Temporary export for exhibition or fair
Issuing authority: European Union
Part 1 - Items
1. This general export authorisation is in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation and covers any items specified in any entry in Annex I to this Regulation except:
▌
(a) All items specified in Annex IIh
(b) All items in section D (this does not include software necessary to the proper functioning of the equipment for the purpose of the demonstration)
(ba) All items in section E
(bb) Items specified in:
- 1A002a
▌
- 1C002.b.4
- 1C010
- 1C012.a
- 1C227
- 1C228
- 1C229
- 1C230
- 1C231
- 1C236
- 1C237
- 1C240
- 1C350
- 1C450
▌
- 5A001b5
- 5A002a2 to 5A002a9
- 5B002 Equipment as follows:
(a) Equipment specially designed for the "development" or "production" of equipment ▌specified by 5A002a2 to 5A002a9
(b) Measuring equipment specially designed to evaluate and validate the "information security" functions of equipment specified by 5A002a2 to 5A002a9
- 6A001
- 6A002a
- 6A008l3
- 8A001b
- 8A001d
- 9A011
Part 2 - Destinations
This authorisation is valid throughout the Union for exports to the following destinations:
Albania, Argentina, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, ▌Chile, China (including Hong Kong and Macao), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, French Overseas Territories, Iceland, India, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, ▌Russia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates
Part 3 - Conditions and requirements for use
-1. This authorisation authorises the export of items listed in Part 1 on condition that the export concerns temporary export for exhibition or fair and that the items are re-imported within a period of 120 days after the initial export, complete and without modification, into the customs territory of the Union.
-1a. The competent authority of the Member State where the exporter is established (as defined in Article 9(6) of this Regulation) may on request of the exporter waive the requirement that the items are to be re-imported as stated in paragraph -1 above. For the waiver procedure, the procedure for individual authorisations laid down in Article 9(2) and Article 14(1) of this Regulation shall apply accordingly.
1. This ▌authorisation does not authorise the export of items where:
(1) the exporter has been informed by the competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established that the items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part,
(a) for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons,
(b) for a military end-use where the purchasing country or country of destination is subject to an arms embargo imposed by a decision or a common position ▌adopted by the Council or a decision of the OSCE or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, or
(c) for use as parts or components of military items listed in the national military list that have been exported from the territory of the Member State concerned without authorisation or in breach of an authorisation prescribed by the national legislation of that Member State;
(2) the exporter is aware that the items in question are intended, in their entirety or in part, for any of the uses referred to in sub-paragraph (1);
(3) the relevant items are exported to a customs-free zone or a free warehouse which is located in a destination covered by this authorisation;
(4) the exporter has been informed by a competent authority, or is otherwise aware (e.g. from information received from the manufacturer), that the items in question have been classified by the competent authority as having a protective ▌national security classification marking, equivalent to or above CONFIDENTIEL UE;
(4a) their return, in their original state, without the removal, copying or dissemination of any component or software, cannot be guaranteed by the exporter, or where a transfer of technology is connected with a presentation;
(4b) the relevant items are to be exported for a private presentation or demonstration (e.g. in in-house showrooms);
(4c) the relevant items are to be merged into any production process;
(4d) the relevant items are to be used for their intended purpose, except to the minimum extent required for effective demonstration, but without making specific test outputs available to third parties;
(4e) the export is to take place as a result of a commercial transaction, in particular as regards the sale, rental or lease of the relevant items;
(4f) the relevant items are to be stored at an exhibition or fair only for the purpose of sale, rent or lease, without being presented or demonstrated;
(4g) the exporter makes any arrangement which would prevent him from keeping the relevant items under his control during the whole period of the temporary export.
2. Exporters must mention the EU reference number X002 and specify that the items are being exported under Union General Export Authorisation EU004 in box 44 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) ▌.
3. Any exporter who uses this authorisation must notify the competent authorities of the Member State where he is established (as defined in Article 9(6) of this Regulation) of the first use of this authorisation no later than 30 days after the date when the first export takes place or, alternatively, and in accordance with a requirement by the authority of the Member State where the exporter is established, prior to the first use of this general export authorisation. Member States shall notify the Commission of the notification mechanism chosen for this general export authorisation. The Commission shall publish the information notified to it in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.
Reporting requirements attached to the use of that authorisation and additional information that the Member State from which the export is made may require on items exported under that authorisation are defined by Member States.
A Member State may require exporters established in that Member State to register prior to the first use of that authorisation. Registration shall be automatic and acknowledged by the competent authorities to the exporter without delay and in any case within ten working days of receipt of the registration request.
Where applicable the requirements set out in the second and third subparagraphs shall be based on those defined for the use of national general export authorisations granted by those Member States which provide for such authorisations.
4. For the purpose of this authorisation, "exhibition or fair" means commercial events of a specific duration at which several exhibitors make demonstrations of their products to trade visitors or to the general public.
▌
Annex IIf
UNION GENERAL EXPORT AUTHORISATION No EU 005
Telecommunications ▌
Issuing authority: European Union
Part 1 - Items
This export authorisation is in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation and covers the following items in Annex I:
1. The following items of Category 5 Part l:
(a) Items, including specially designed or developed components and accessories therefore specified in 5A001b2 and 5A001c and d.
(b) Items specified in 5B001 and 5D001, where test, inspection and production equipment is concerned and software for items mentioned under a).
2. Technology controlled by 5E001a, where required for the installation, operation, maintenance or repair of items specified under 1 and intended for the same end user.
▌
Part 2 - Destinations
This export authorisation is valid throughout the Union for exports to the following destinations:
▌
Argentina, China (including Hong Kong and Macao), Croatia, India, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine.
Part 3 - Conditions and requirements for use
1. This authorisation does not authorise the export of items where:
(1) the exporter has been informed by the competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established that they are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part,
(a) for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons,
(b) for a military end-use where the purchasing country or country of destination is subject to an arms embargo imposed by a decision or a common position ▌adopted by the Council or a decision of the OSCE or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, or
(c) for use as parts or components of military items listed in the national military list that have been exported from the territory of the Member State concerned without authorisation or in breach of an authorisation prescribed by the national legislation of that Member State;
(ca) for use in connection with a violation of human rights, democratic principles or freedom of speech as defined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by using interception technologies and digital data transfer devices for monitoring mobile phones and text messages and targeted surveillance of internet use (e.g. via Monitoring Centres and Lawful Interception Gateways);
(2) the exporter, under his obligation to exercise due diligence, is aware that the items in question are intended, in their entirety or in part, for any of the uses referred to in subparagraph 1.
(2a) the exporter, under his obligation to exercise due diligence, is aware that the items will be re-exported to any destination other than those listed in Part 2 of this authorisation, those listed in Part 2 of the EU 001 or Member States.
2. This authorisation may not be used where the relevant items are exported to a customs-free zone or a free warehouse which is located in a destination covered by this authorisation.
2a. Exporters must mention the EU reference number X002 and specify that the items are being exported under Union General Export Authorisation EU005 in box 44 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD).
3. Any exporter who uses this authorisation must notify the competent authorities of the Member State where he is established (as defined in Article 9(6) of this Regulation) of the first use of this authorisation no later than 30 days after the date when the first export takes place or, alternatively, and in accordance with a requirement by the authority of the Member State where the exporter is established, prior to the first use of this general export authorisation. Member States shall notify the Commission of the notification mechanism chosen for this general export authorisation. The Commission shall publish the information notified to it in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.
Reporting requirements attached to the use of this authorisation and additional information that the Member State from which the export is made may require on items exported under that authorisation are defined by Member States.
A Member State may require exporters established in that Member State to register prior to the first use of that authorisation. Registration shall be automatic and acknowledged by the competent authorities to the exporter without delay and in any case within ten working days of receipt of the registration request.
Where applicable the requirements set out in the second and third subparagraphs shall be based on those defined for the use of national general export authorisations granted by those Member States which provide for such authorisations.
Annex IIg
UNION GENERAL EXPORT AUTHORISATION No EU006
Chemicals
Part 1 - Items
This export authorisation is in accordance with Article 9(1) of this Regulation and covers the following items included in ▌Annex I:
1C350:
1. Thiodiglycol (111-48-8);
2. Phosphorus oxychloride (10025-87-3);
3. Dimethyl methylphosphonate (756-79-6);
5. Methylphosphonyl dichloride (676-97-1);
6. Dimethyl phosphite (DMP) (868-85-9);
7. Phosphorus trichloride (7719-12-2);
8. Trimethyl phosphite (TMP) (121-45-9);
9. Thionyl chloride (7719-09-7);
10. 3-Hydroxy-1-methylpiperidine (3554-74-3);
11. N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-aminoethyl chloride (96-79-7);
12. N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-aminoethane thiol (5842-07-9);
13. Quinuclidin-3-ol (1619-34-7);
14. Potassium fluoride (7789-23-3);
15. 2-Chloroethanol (107-07-3);
16. Dimethylamine (124-40-3);
17. Diethyl ethylphosphonate (78-38-6);
18. Diethyl-N,N-dimethylphosphoramidate (2404-03-7);
19. Diethyl phosphite (762-04-9);
20. Dimethylamine hydrochloride (506-59-2);
21. Ethyl phosphinyl dichloride (1498-40-4);
22. Ethyl phosphonyl dichloride (1066-50-8);
24. Hydrogen fluoride (7664-39-3);
25. Methyl benzilate (76-89-1);
26. Methyl phosphinyl dichloride (676-83-5);
27. N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-amino ethanol (96-80-0);
28. Pinacolyl alcohol (464-07-3);
30. Triethyl phosphite (122-52-1);
31. Arsenic trichloride (7784-34-1);
32. Benzilic acid (76-93-7);
33. Diethyl methylphosphonite (15715-41-0);
34. Dimethyl ethylphosphonate (6163-75-3);
35. Ethyl phosphinyl difluoride (430-78-4);
36. ethyl phosphinyl difluoride (753-59-3);
37. 3-Quinuclidone (3731-38-2);
38. Phosphorus pentachloride (10026-13-8);
39. Pinacolone (75-97-8);
40. Potassium cyanide (151-50-8);
41. Potassium bifluoride (7789-29-9);
42. Ammonium hydrogen fluoride or ammonium bifluoride (1341-49-7);
43. Sodium fluoride (7681-49-4);
44. Sodium bifluoride (1333-83-1);
45. Sodium cyanide (143-33-9);
46. Triethanolamine (102-71-6);
47. Phosphorus pentasulphide (1314-80-3);
48. Di-isopropylamine (108-18-9);
49. Diethylaminoethanol (100-37-8);
50. Sodium sulphide (1313-82-2);
51. Sulphur monochloride (10025-67-9);
52. Sulphur dichloride (10545-99-0);
53. Triethanolamine hydrochloride (637-39-8);
54. N,N-Diisopropyl-(Beta)-aminoethyl chloride hydrochloride (4261-68-1);
55. Methylphosphonic acid (993-13-5);
56. Diethyl methylphosphonate (683-08-9);
57. N,N-Dimethylaminophosphoryl dichloride (677-43-0);
58. Triisopropyl phosphite (116-17-6);
59. Ethyldiethanolamine (139-87-7);
60. O,O-Diethyl phosphorothioate (2465-65-8);
61. O,O-Diethyl phosphorodithioate (298-06-6);
62. Sodium hexafluorosilicate (16893-85-9);
63. Methylphosphonothioic dichloride (676-98-2).
1C450 a:
4. Phosgene: Carbonyl dichloride (75-44-5);
5. Cyanogen chloride (506-77-4);
6. Hydrogen cyanide (74-90-8);
7. Chloropicrin: Trichloronitromethane (76-06-2);
1C450 b:
1. Chemicals, other than those specified in the Military Goods Controls or in 1C350, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms;
2. N,N-Dialkyl [methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso)] phosphoramidic dihalides, other than N,N-Dimethylaminophosphoryl dichloride which is specified in 1C350.57;
3. Dialkyl [methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso)] N,N-dialkyl [methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso)]-phosphoramidates, other than Diethyl-N,N-dimethylphosphoramidate which is specified in1C350;
4. N,N-Dialkyl [methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso)] aminoethyl-2-chlorides and corresponding protonated salts, other than N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-aminoethyl chloride or N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-aminoethyl chloride hydrochloride which are specified in 1C350;
5. N,N-Dialkyl [methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso)] aminoethane-2-ols and corresponding protonated salts; other than N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-aminoethanol (96-80-0) and N,N-Diethylaminoethanol (100-37-8) which are specified in 1C350;
6. N,N-Dialkyl [methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso)] aminoethane-2-thiols and corresponding protonated salts, other than N,N-Diisopropyl-(beta)-aminoethane thiol which is specified in 1C350;
8. Methyldiethanolamine (105-59-9).
Part 2 - Destinations
This authorisation is valid throughout the Union for exports to the following destinations:
Argentina, Croatia, Iceland, South Korea, Turkey, ▌Ukraine ▌.
Part 3 - Conditions and requirements for use
1. This authorisation does not authorise the export of items where:
(1) the exporter has been informed by the competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established that they are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part,
(a) for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons,
(b) for a military end-use where the purchasing country or country of destination is subject to an arms embargo imposed by a decision or a common position ▌adopted by the Council or a decision of the OSCE or to an arms embargo imposed by a binding resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations, or
(c) for use as parts or components of military items listed in the national military list that have been exported from the territory of the Member State concerned without authorisation or in breach of an authorisation prescribed by the national legislation of that Member State;
(2) the exporter, under his obligation to exercise due diligence, is aware that the items in question are intended, in their entirety or in part, for any of the uses referred to in subparagraph 1;
(2a) the exporter, under his obligation to exercise due diligence, is aware that the items will be re-exported to any destination other than those listed in Part 2 of this authorisation, those listed in Part 2 of the EU001 or Member States.
2. This authorisation may not be used when the relevant items are exported to a customs-free zone or a free warehouse which is located in a destination covered by this authorisation.
2a. Exporters must mention the EU reference number X002 and specify that the items are being exported under Union General Export Authorisation EU006 in box 44 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD).
▌
4. Any exporter who uses this authorisation must notify the competent authorities of the Member State where he is established (as defined in Article 9(6) of this Regulation) of the first use of this authorisation no later than 30 days after the date when the first export takes place or, alternatively, and in accordance with a requirement by the authority of the Member State where the exporter is established, prior to the first use of this general export authorisation. Member States shall notify the Commission of the notification mechanism chosen for this general export authorisation. The Commission shall publish the information notified to it in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.
Reporting requirements attached to the use of this authorisation and additional information that the Member State from which the export is made may require on items exported under that authorisation are defined by Member States.
A Member State may require exporters established in that Member State to register prior to the first use of that authorisation. Registration shall be automatic and acknowledged by the competent authorities to the exporter without delay and in any case within ten working days of receipt of the registration request.
Where applicable the requirements set out in the second and third subparagraphs shall be based on those defined for the use of national general export authorisations granted by those Member States which provide for such authorisations.
▌
Annex IIh
(List referred to in Article 9(4)(a) of this Regulation and Annexes IIa, IIc and IId to this Regulation)
The entries do not always provide a complete description of the items and the related notes in Annex I. Only Annex I provides a complete description of the items.
The mention of an item in this Annex does not affect the application of the General Software Note (GSN) in Annex I.
- All items specified in Annex IV.
- 0C001 "Natural uranium" or "depleted uranium" or thorium in the form of metal, alloy, chemical compound or concentrate and any other material containing one or more of the foregoing.
- 0C002 "Special fissile materials" other than those specified in Annex IV.
- 0D001 "Software" specially designed or modified for the "development", "production" or "use" of goods specified in Category 0, insofar as it relates to 0C001 or to those items of 0C002 that are excluded from Annex IV.
- 0E001 "Technology" in accordance with the Nuclear Technology Note for the "development", "production" or "use" of goods specified in Category 0, insofar as it relates to 0C001 or to those items of 0C002 that are excluded from Annex IV.
- 1A102 Resaturated pyrolised carbon-carbon components designed for space launch vehicles specified in 9A004 or sounding rockets specified in 9A104.
- 1C351 Human pathogens, zoonoses and "toxins".
- 1C352 Animal pathogens.
- 1C353 Genetic elements and genetically modified organisms.
- 1C354 Plant pathogens.
- 1C450a.1. amiton: O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl] phosphorothiolate (78-53-5) and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts.
- 1C450a.2. PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (382-21-8).
- 7E104 "Technology" for the integration of flight control, guidance and propulsion data into a flight management system for optimisation of rocket system trajectory.
- 9A009.a. Hybrid rocket propulsion systems with total impulse capacity exceeding 1.1 MNs.
- 9A117 Staging mechanisms, separation mechanisms and interstages usable in "missiles"."
ANNEX
Statement by the Commission:
The Commission intends to review this Regulation no later than 31 December 2013, in particular as regards assessing the possibility of introducing a General Export Authorisation on low-value shipments.
Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on low-value shipments:
This Regulation does not affect the National General Export Authorisations on low value shipments issued by Member States in accordance with Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0407
Tourism in Europe
Committee on Transport and Tourism
PE450.742
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe (2010/2206(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism’ (COM(2003)0716),
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘A renewed EU Tourism Policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism’ (COM(2006)0134),
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism’ (‘Agenda 21’) (COM(2007)0621),
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe’ (COM(2010)0352),
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),
– having regard to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European statistics on tourism (COM(2010)0117),
– having regard to the Madrid Declaration ‘Towards a socially responsible tourism model’ adopted at the informal meeting of Ministers on 15 April 2010,
– having regard to the Council Conclusions of 12 October 2010 on ‘Europe, the world’s n°1 tourist destination - a new political framework for tourism in Europe’ (14944/10),
– having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Europe, the World’s No. 1 Tourist Destination: a new political framework for tourism in Europe’ (CoR 342/2010),
– having regard to the Council Recommendation of 22 December 1986[46] on ‘Fire safety in existing hotels’ (86/666/EEC),
– having regard to Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990[47] on package travel, package holidays and package tours,
– having regard to Directive 2006/123/EC[48] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market,
– having regard to Council Directive 2009/47/EC[49] of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax,
– having regard to the Commission Decision of 9 July 2009[50] establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label for tourist accommodation service (2009/578/EC),
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010[51] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel,
– having regard to its Resolution of 8 September 2005[52] on new prospects and new challenges for sustainable European tourism,
– having regard to its Resolution of 29 November 2007[53] on a renewed EU Tourism Policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism,
– having regard to its Resolution of 16 December 2008[54] on the regional development aspects of the impact of tourism on coastal regions,
– having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2011[55] on practical aspects regarding the revision of EU instruments to support SME finance in the next programming period,
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Culture and Education (A7-0265/2011),
A. whereas the tourism sector accounts for 10 % of GDP and 12 % of total employment, making it the third most substantial socio-economic activity in the EU; whereas the sector is largely made up of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, is the main resource for some EU regions, such as the islands, and plays a key role in the economic development and economic, social and regional cohesion of the EU and in achieving the goals of the EU 2020 strategy,
B. whereas tourism also contributes to human enrichment, exchange, welfare, wellbeing, culture and social cohesion; whereas, therefore, the focus should be on a qualitative approach,
C. whereas the European Union is the world’s No 1 tourist destination in terms of international arrivals and this lead position must be reinforced by tackling the challenges created by, firstly, greater global competition and a market demand that is continually changing and secondly, the need to ensure increased and more lasting sustainability,
D. whereas tourism in Europe faces many challenges: the global economic crisis, the competitiveness of other destinations outside the EU and the diversity of tourist attractions on offer, the effects of climate change and seasonal fluctuations in tourist activity, demographic developments in Europe, the growing impact of information and communications technologies and many unforeseen events affecting the industry from time to time,
E. whereas tourism contributes to promoting Europe and its cultural and linguistic heritage, while still respecting diversity, and to maintaining shared values and consolidating a sense of European identity, European belonging and European citizenship; whereas tourism development has a key role to play in enhancing the regional dimension within the EU,
F. whereas Europe’s diversity, multifacetedness and multiculturalism offer maximum growth for any form of thematic tourism, and the development and promotion of forms of diversified tourism may be the only effective response to the distortions, the problems and the deterioration to which the model of unregulated and undifferentiated mass tourism is leading,
G. whereas, under the Lisbon Treaty (Article 195), tourism has become a specific competence of the EU, allowing the latter to support and complement actions within the Member States by encouraging the creation of an atmosphere that is conducive to developing tourism enterprises and fostering cooperation between Member States, while excluding any harmonisation of the legal and regulatory provisions of the Member States,
H. whereas, on the basis of this new competence and in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, an EU strategy with clear and ambitious goals needs to be drawn up,
I. whereas in order to ensure that the new competences and the future tourism policy of the EU have the effectiveness and visibility that European citizens and our visitors require, they will not only need a strategy and action plan but must also be adequately resourced in the EU’s 2014-2020 financial programme,
J. whereas the economies of the outermost regions and some island regions of the EU depend almost entirely on air transport in view of their extreme remoteness and isolated nature, calling for measures adapted to their dependence on that transport mode,
1. Welcomes the policy strategy presented by the Commission, which sets out 21 specific actions to reinvigorate the sector; considers that this document and its implementation plan provide a solid basis from which to develop an EU policy on competitive, modern, high-quality, sustainable tourism that is accessible to all; encourages the Commission, in the context of the implementation plan, to set as soon as possible specific timetables for implementing the actions and achieving the targets; asks the Member States to cooperate by submitting programmes for each action in accordance with the competent national, regional or local authorities; calls on the Commission to focus on priority actions which are innovative and entail a European added value;
2. Believes that the basis for the EU tourism strategy lies firstly in a package of specific measures solely concerning the tourism sector, and secondly, given the cross-cutting nature of tourism, in coordination with other related policy sectors in order to achieve a system which genuinely promotes tourism; considers, moreover, that a precise assessment is needed of how measures in other sectors impact tourism and calls for an integrated approach with a view to developing synergies both between the different sectoral policies and the various financing instruments;
3. Deplores the lack of coherence within the Commission with regard to tourism policy; considers it essential that the Commission should arrange for a coordinating and integrating approach among the Directorates-General concerned;
4. Stresses the need for close cooperation between the EU, international, national, regional and local authorities on the one hand and between the institutions as a whole and stakeholders in the sector on the other, with a view to addressing cross-cutting tourism-related issues, whilst respecting the principle of subsidiarity; recalls that in regard to tourism many European regions and municipalities have direct powers and therefore play a central role in implementing projects and specific actions; hopes, also in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, to see regions and municipalities cooperate more closely with each other and play a sustainable, direct and effective part in developing the new tourism policy; believes that, for the same period, specific programming instruments such as strategies for macro-regions could enhance intra- and inter-regional tourism and foster the attractiveness and visibility of European regions and municipalities;
5. Calls on the Commission to consider introducing two new principles for tourism: ‘interregionality’ and ‘complementarity’, in order to promote joint planning and cooperation between tourist services within a single geographical area, i.e. either between neighbouring regions belonging to different Member States or at a specific thematic level between regions linked by common elements;
Competitive, modern and good quality tourism
6. Takes the view that tourism should be regarded as part and parcel of the EU’s industrial policy and innovation policy and asserts once more that reinvigorating tourism is a strategic and vital objective for employment in the various Member States; stresses in this connection the importance of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which both contribute to innovation from below and stability in the sector and guarantee the quality, diversity and authenticity of the regions where they are rooted; encourages the Commission to promote this approach more in European tourism services;
7. Calls on the Commission to collect and publish good tourism practices each year;
8. Agrees with the Commission’s proposal that a ‘Europe Brand’ should be developed in conjunction with the Member States, local and regional authorities and national tourism agencies, in order to promote Europe as a whole worldwide as a tourist destination; to this effect, calls on the Commission to launch publicity campaigns in cooperation with Member States and the competent tourism agencies; emphasises that any promotion initiatives should respect and highlight Europe’s territorial diversity while avoiding favouring any European destinations over others, and takes the view that the ‘Europe Brand’ should not prevent the different regions, cities and local entities from being able to promote their own image freely;
9. Welcomes the ‘European heritage label’ initiative as a tool giving prominence to some of the important sites in the history of European integration; stresses the need for coordination between this initiative and the UNESCO heritage sites and other historic routes; considers coordination with other comparable initiatives, such as the Europa Nostra Award, to be necessary in order to avoid overlapping; calls on the Commission to point out to Member States that sites which receive the ‘European heritage label’ must always remain open and accessible, with provision even being made for skeleton staff;
10. Calls on the Commission to support the inclusion on the World Heritage List of popular traditions within the Member States, including culinary traditions, with a view to preserving them for future generations and establishing a European strategy for the promotion of popular traditions at European and international level;
11. Calls on the Commission to assess the impact that the EU’s European Capitals of Culture programme is having on tourism and to report to Parliament on whether governance approaches, funding arrangements and procedures for involving cultural bodies and associations should be reviewed, with a view to investing in durable and sustainable processes and partnerships;
12. Stresses the importance of collaborating, for instance through partnerships or the conclusion of international air transport agreements, with non-EU countries, in particular neighbouring countries and the BRIC countries, which represent a market of several million potential new tourists; emphasises in this respect the importance of continuing efforts to increase the visibility, quality, competitiveness and diversification of the European tourism industry and calls for the development of joint European marketing activities and combined tourism products in order to attract visitors from these new source markets;
13. Considers it advisable, while respecting the EU’s rights and duty to control entry across its own borders, for the European institutions and the Member States to develop, in the context of the common visa policy, a long-term strategy for more coordinated and simplified visa procedures, with consideration given to establishing common consular desks/centres at EU level to ensure that visa procedures are implemented on time and bureaucratic costs reduced; to this end, further to the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS), calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of deploying the EU delegation offices in the world in order to issue tourist visas in collaboration with the national embassies of the Member States and to explore additional ways of simplifying the issue of tourist visas, such as ‘group tourist visas’ for organised groups and easier access for business travellers;
14. Asks the Member States, in view of various emergency situations that place tourists abroad in danger, to consider, in close cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS), whether it would be appropriate to codify a uniform procedure for issuing notices advising against travel, creating a single European code for the seriousness of the situations concerned and acknowledging in worst-case scenarios the right of operators to apply for Community aid, within the limits of the funds available;
15. Calls on the Commission to draw conclusions from recent emergencies, such as the volcanic eruption, and to draw up specific scenarios for EU crisis management, so that coordination and uniform action in all Member States with regard to information and the measures to be taken become the rule;
16. Stresses the need to foster innovation and technological development in micro-enterprises and SMEs so that they may more effectively market their products and promote destinations; urges the Commission to create an ‘ICT and Tourism’ platform, launching a specific pilot project by the end of 2011 to boost the participation of micro-enterprises and SMEs in the digital supply chain, following on from the experience of other sectors such as textiles, transport and logistics and the automobile industry; calls for initiatives designed to promote e-commerce in the industry and eliminate remaining barriers to the development thereof within the internal market; calls on the Member States, moreover, to develop high-speed internet throughout their territory in order to enable advanced services to be developed and operators to become interoperable;
17. Calls for the entrepreneurial spirit to be promoted and supported in the industry, giving special attention to women and young people, and for access to funding, especially to microloans, to be facilitated for SMEs and self-employed workers;
18. Calls on the Commission to promote a specific innovation incubator for businesses in the tourism sector;
19. Considers that the sustainability of the tourism sector will greatly benefit from a more coordinated approach to R&D and from promoting innovative products and services; underlines the fact that the development of the tourism industry is directly linked to promoting energy efficiency and renewable technologies;
20. Urges the Commission to create a Virtual Tourism Monitoring Centre that links up not just research institutions, but also enterprises and public authorities, with the aim of driving forward market research through use of competitive intelligence systems, providing enterprises and public bodies with forward-looking information on the development of supply and demand and creating the conditions for improved strategic positioning of enterprises and the public sector;
21. Calls on the Commission to assess, in close cooperation with Member States and national actors in the sector, what innovative actions they can take in order to promote ad hoc European holiday packages during major historic, cultural and sporting events that certain Member States will be hosting in the next few years, such as the Olympic Games, the Universal Expositions and others, with a view to promoting destination ‘Europe’ with all its rich diversity; takes the view that European and international events of different kinds should be promoted in conjunction with existing local tourist amenities;
22. Believes that the potential of the European Travel Commission’s (ETC) web portal should be developed to maximise its availability and full accessibility (information in all EU official languages and the principal non-EU languages, with particular regard to the BRIC countries, use of formats accessible by the visually impaired and with information in sign language for the deaf, and use of all technological applications) and make it a genuine European tourism platform, with easy access to national, regional and local tourism portals in the individual Member States; believes, moreover, that the portal should give greater visibility to the European Quality Label system, as well as to best practices and to initiatives such as Calypso, NECSTouR and EDEN, and that it should inform tourists about their rights in different circumstances;
23. Calls on the Commission to assess in conjunction with the Member States the possibility of creating a ‘European Tourism Card’ for the purpose of encouraging tourists from within and outside the EU who travel in Europe to do so regularly, by offering information including a list of their rights, discounts and dedicated services;
24. Considers that the European Union is founded on cultural and linguistic diversity and that it is therefore important to promote access to tourist sites by providing visitors with tools for facilitating their visit and helping them to understand, such as audio guides or brochures offering explanations in at least two EU official languages, particularly where the sites visited are receiving structural funding;
25. Calls on the Commission to assess, in cooperation with tourism stakeholders, the feasibility of a ‘European quality tourism label’, identifying common quality criteria; considers that this should come about by coordinating the best experience already gained in different Member States and by industry associations, in order to create an umbrella label complementary to national labels and recognised on an opt-in basis;
26. Believes that a proliferation of labels must be avoided and that their number must be reduced, to prevent possible confusion on the part of consumers and excessive burdens on enterprises, and to make the labels more easily recognisable; calls on the Commission to assess existing labels in terms of their reliability, transparency and monitoring of compliance; calls furthermore on the Commission, Member States and stakeholders to promote existing instruments and best practices and to assess in the long term whether the ‘European quality label’ and the ‘Eco-label for tourist accommodation service’ could be gradually merged under the heading of one label, with sustainability as an essential criterion of quality;
27. Asks the Commission to promote a specific initiative to harmonise gradually the accommodation classification systems (hotels, guesthouses, rented rooms, etc.) through the identification of common minimum criteria, starting from the positive experiences of industry associations (ex. Hotelstars Union) and representatives of the sector; considers that such gradual harmonisation could enhance both Europe’s visibility as tourist destination and the information provided to tourists; calls on the European hospitality industry to:
– pursue its efforts towards a gradual harmonisation of hotel classification, taking into account accessibility criteria;
– cooperate with, and regularly inform, the Institutions of progress achieved;
28. Stresses the importance of paying due attention to the question of safety in various types of accommodation, particularly in regard to fire safety regulations and carbon monoxide safety measures; takes the view, therefore, that incentives should be given for adherence to the MBS (Management, Building and System) method, without prejudice to national regulations in force, in line with the 1986 Council recommendations, or that alternative regulatory actions should be taken wherever self-regulation fails; highlights, furthermore, the important role of the training of hotel staff on emergency planning and fire safety management, and stresses the need for systematic collection of data on accommodation safety; underlines the importance of always bearing in mind the needs of people with disabilities and people with reduced mobility, including in terms of training on disability awareness in fire prevention and safety of accommodation;
29. Considers that the Commission, in collaboration with the tourism industry and the social partners, should prepare a map of existing professional skills (Tourism Skill Competence Framework) as a starting point from which practical steps to match employment market supply and demand in the tourism sector in Europe can be developed;
30. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, to encourage mobility and to exploit and promote lifelong learning, vocational and university training schemes and apprenticeships in the tourism sector, to maintain close contact with the world of research and business and to put more emphasis on innovation in tourism in the 8th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development; believes that Community programmes such as ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs’ and ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ represent unique opportunities for acquiring professional and training skills, as well as enhancing career options, and should therefore be further developed and promoted, taking account also of the possibility of revising them so that they educate on best practices related to, among other things, customer care, accessibility and sustainability;
31. Urges the Commission to monitor more precisely the implementation of the Services Directive in the Member States with regard to tourism;
32. Asks for improved mutual recognition by the Member States of professional qualifications in the tourist industry, in order to allow those already working in the sector and those planning to do so to find the best job opportunities and to foster their mobility in the industry; believes that this would help tackle the problems of the seasonal nature of work in this sector, on the one hand, and undeclared work on the other;
33. Emphasises the close link between tourism and transport and asks the Commission and the Member States to make every effort to modernise national, regional and cross-border infrastructure for the different modes of transport, with a particular focus on the progress and timely implementation of Trans-European Transport Networks projects and on the completion of the Single European Sky with a view to more efficient air traffic management; considers it important to encourage co-modality and adopt suitable measures to manage tourism flows, in particular during seasonal peaks and emergencies of different kinds;
34. Urges the Commission to promote the use of more sustainable means of transport, for instance through the combination of public transport, rail, cycling and walking; calls on the Commission among other things to facilitate and support, including in the context of the Trans-European Transport Networks, the development of connections with islands, rural areas, mountainous areas, the outermost regions and, more generally, with less accessible destinations;
35. Stresses the need to promote integrated electronic ticket sales systems for the various means of transport, which would stimulate the system’s intermodality, facilitate international travel between Member States, guarantee freedom of movement and remove obstacles to the completion of the internal market; takes the view that during the development process there must be a focus on the special access requirements of people with disabilities;
36. Welcomes the EU legislation on passenger rights, particularly with regard to passengers with reduced mobility, and asks the Commission to put forward, in the short term, an ambitious and consistent legislative framework with a set of common rules covering all transport modes combined with specific rules to take account of the particularities of each one;
37. Calls on the Commission to assess the feasibility of a Charter of tourists’ rights and responsibilities comprising principles with regard to accessibility, provision of information, transparent pricing, compensation, etc.; calls on Member States to set up an independent arbitration system so that consumers can also genuinely secure respect for these rights;
Sustainable and diversified tourism
38. Underlines that tourism policy must consistently incorporate sustainable development: the social, economic and environmental needs of the present generations must be met without losing sight of the interests of future generations;
39. Welcomes the Commission’s readiness to diversify the types of tourism available, which would help offset the effects of seasonality; stresses, in particular, the importance of the collaboration already underway with the Council of Europe to promote cultural, historical, religious, environmental and landscape tourism by means of themed routes/itineraries which not only exploit our continent’s historical and cultural roots, but also contribute to the development of an alternative style of tourism that is sustainable and accessible to all; believes that the use of sustainable means of transport, including cycling and sailing, should be encouraged in connection with a number of routes;
40. Takes the view that in order to differentiate European tourism from that of other countries or continents, it is crucial to link the traditional tourism sector with what the territory has to offer in terms of products and services and tangible and intangible assets;
41. Believes that the Commission and the Council of Europe, in close cooperation with the Member States and regional and local authorities, should continue to support, including by financial means, the development of new ‘European Routes’ and the maintenance of existing ones, including on islands and in coastal, mountainous and outermost regions; takes the view that these circuits should highlight the European identity, through the promotion and linkage of symbolic sites, such as cathedrals, castles, universities, archaeological sites and industrial settlements, as well as symbolic European figures and advocates; urges the Commission and the Member States to take all appropriate measures to safeguard Europe’s heritage and assets for future generations;
42. Encourages the Commission to facilitate networking and cooperation between EU regions in order to link up existing regional, national and European cycle routes and increase sustainable, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly cycling tourism in the EU;
43. Stresses the importance of networks such as NECSTouR and EDEN in regard to the exchange of good practice between European regions and the promotion of sustainable destinations; insists furthermore on the need to create, in close collaboration with the Tourism Sustainability Group (TSG) and local and regional authorities, a system of common indicators for the sustainable management of tourist destinations;
44. Takes the view that, given the history of the European continent, the Commission should promote more vigorously Europe’s industrial heritage, whose potential has not been sufficiently recognised; emphasises that the development of Europe’s industrial heritage, as a major area of cultural interest, could also benefit secondary destinations and contribute to achieving a more sustainable, diversified and evenly spread tourism sector in Europe, through the preservation, transformation and rehabilitation of the industrial sites;
45. Takes the view that rural tourism and agritourism should be properly supported, being sectors that improve the quality of life, bring economic and income-source diversity to rural areas, create jobs in these regions, keep people there and thus prevent depopulation and establish a direct link with the promotion of traditional, ecological and natural food products; observes, in this respect, the importance of ensuring full access to the transport network and to the Internet and IT infrastructure in these areas; believes that this will help to achieve the objective of promoting new forms of tourism, extending the tourist seasons and redistributing tourism activities between areas of high tourism concentration and areas with strong but insufficiently exploited tourism potential;
46. Considers that there is a need to improve farmers’ marketing capacity and their access to local markets, thus enabling companies in the catering sector to buy the local produce they need more easily;
47. Highlights the way in which nature tourism contributes to the sector’s sustainable development; considers concentrating on natural resorts and protected areas in order to make them more accessible for tourists, including through the development of transnational circuits that respect the environmental heritage and local biodiversity, to be important;
48. Points out that the development of new inland waterways can contribute to the sustainable development of cultural tourism, nature tourism and recreational tourism;
49. Recalls that culture, education, youth and sports-related travel is becoming increasingly popular, and therefore calls on the Member States and local and regional authorities to support such forms of tourism by being more flexible and adapting to new types of consumer resulting from demographic change and in order to take into account new forms of tourism geared to the expectations voiced by consumers; draws attention to the major role which sport plays in promoting tourism, with both spectators and participants travelling to events, and calls for the introduction of specific policies to promote and support sports tourism;
50. Calls on the Commission to promote a cross-cutting Community initiative on the environmental impact of tourism, with particular reference to European biodiversity, the waste cycle, energy and water saving, a healthy diet and the use of land and natural resources, in order to distribute information and useful materials, raise public awareness and reduce the impact of tourism on the environment;
51. Welcomes voluntary industry efforts to understand and reduce the impact of tourism on the environment and on destinations, such as the partly EU-funded Travelife Sustainability System, an innovative scheme which helps consumers to make sustainable choices and industry to understand and manage its impacts in the supply chain;
52. Encourages the Commission to support innovative initiatives of tourism SMEs and preserve and improve the wealth of biodiversity by promoting ecotourism;
53. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of designating a European day of responsible and sustainable tourism, by organising in all Member States information meetings to promote forms of viable tourism and responsible behaviour by tourists;
54. Underlines the great impact of climate change on Europe’s tourist areas, especially the most vulnerable ones, notably coastal regions, islands and mountain regions; considers that strategies should be drawn up to prevent and counteract this, among other things by encouraging innovation and diversification in tourism services, enhancing natural risk prevention and mitigation policies, adapting infrastructures, anticipating the impact of water shortage and safeguarding the sustainability of the fauna, flora and landscape of the areas concerned;
55. Points out that coastal regions represent the principal tourist destination in Europe and that it is therefore important to give due consideration to spatial planning methods in coastal areas, the risks of extensive urbanisation, the need to maintain the quality and sustainability of coastal areas, their heritage and tourist service infrastructure; stresses that adequate funds need to be invested in a coastal, island and marine tourism strategy in order to protect the European coastline from erosion, safeguard its environmental and animal heritage and improve water quality, all with the aim of developing sustainable and good-quality beach and underwater tourism; in this respect, welcomes the Commission initiative to develop a strategy for sustainable coastal and marine tourism, and calls for the development of similar specific strategies for the islands, mountain regions and other vulnerable areas;
56. Reasserts the importance of beach tourism as a feature of some European coastal regions; calls on the Commission to examine whether the Directive 2006/123/EC is having a negative impact on SMEs in this sector and, if deemed necessary, to propose measures to alleviate this impact and ensure that the specific characteristics of this professional category are taken into account in the application of the Directive; calls, moreover, on the Member States to examine, in cooperation with the competent authorities, the introduction of compensatory measures to alleviate the damage inflicted on tourist operators by the introduction of new legislation resulting in the loss of acquired rights and losses linked to unamortized investments in refurbishing facilities or ensuring they conformed with the legislation previously in force; takes the view that these actions are required in order to safeguard investments made by operators and to improve the quality of customer services;
57. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support, under an integrated maritime policy, the development of port infrastructure, both with a view to adapting port terminals to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and in order to ensure interconnections with other modes of transport and links with tourist services in the hinterland, which are essential factors in maritime passenger transport, cruise ship tourism and recreational craft tourism; within this framework, calls on Member States to lift any restrictions they might have;
58. Takes note of the fact that demographic developments in Europe will give rise to continuing growth in health tourism and in spa tourism in particular; calls on the Commission, in view of the fact that there are a variety of Community rules covering spa-tourism issues, to consider the possibility of tabling a single legislative proposal on spa tourism in order to give the sector a controlled organic structure, encouraging its competitiveness and specifying immediately that spa companies operating in the Member States, as providers of health services, are excluded from the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC; stresses the relevance of the new legislation on cross-border healthcare and considers that these must be enforced in strict compliance with the criteria and conditions imposed by the new legislative framework, in order to ensure fully satisfactory implementation;
59. Emphasises the economic importance of ‘shopping tourism’; stresses that, for a large number of tourists, this form of tourism is one of the main reasons for holidaying in the EU, which is home to world-leading companies and brands in the luxury sector; notes that while this sector is growing rapidly, the EU faces strong competition from other international tourist destinations which offer, for example, facilities for tax-free shopping or reimbursement of VAT; recommends, therefore, in cooperation with the luxury sector and tourism professionals, working on new measures and services to enable the EU to retain its attractiveness and competitiveness;
60. Stresses the need to promote European business tourism in the EU and the world, given its economic importance for certain places in Europe and the number of services linked to hosting and organising trade fairs, exhibitions, conferences and other business events (hotel and catering, shops, transport, communication and event-management agencies, etc.);
61. Recalls that ethically responsible tourism is an objective that cannot be ignored; welcomes the code of ethics produced by the World Tourism Organization (WTO) and trusts that this will soon be adopted by the Commission and the Member States; is delighted in this regard to see the proposal by the Commission to extend the national jurisdiction of Member States to cover the sexual abuse of minors abroad, thereby punishing sexual tourism;
Tourism for all
62. Emphasises that the inherently seasonal nature of tourism can give rise to precarity in terms of employment and working conditions; calls, in that connection, for the development of a specific policy to assist seasonal workers, involving, in particular, measures to extend tourist seasons by diversifying tourist activities;
63. Calls on the Commission to draw up a plan to foster a progressive reduction in the seasonal nature of tourism; in this context, encourages the Commission to build on the results, so far positive, of the preparatory action ‘Calypso’ and invites the Commission and the Member States to continue with this action, allowing disadvantaged people, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, young people and low-income families to have easier access to holidays, particularly during the low season and when travelling across national borders; calls, in this connection, for physical accessibility, adequate services and reliable information to be further planned for and incorporated into tourism products; considers that inspiration can be drawn from numerous existing good practices which stress easy accessibility and empowerment;
64. Stresses the importance of ensuring, under a new EU strategy on disability, access for people with disabilities, not just with regard to transport but also with regard to accommodation, catering, information accessible to everyone and tourist services in general; stresses that clear information should subsequently be provided about the measures taken; calls on the Commission to make sure that accessibility for all is guaranteed with regard to all products and services related to tourism;
65. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage the implementation of programmes restoring, preserving and protecting sites of cultural, historical or environmental interest with a view to improving their accessibility to tourists; encourages young people to volunteer for these programmes in 2011, the European Year of Volunteering, and beyond;
66. Calls on the Commission to promote also so-called VFR tourism (Visiting Friends and Relatives) as an important way of enhancing integration in European culture;
Tourism and resources
67. Calls on the Commission to coordinate, extend and raise the profile of financial instruments managed by various directorates-general and intended to boost the competitiveness of tourism, and to check they are being correctly used, particularly with reference to the ERDF, the EAFRD, the ESF and the EFF; considers that in a context of budgetary restrictions it is essential to build synergies between the various existing financial instruments, which must be adapted to the changes in tourism and clientele, the diversification of tourism-related activities and the needs of local development; moreover, asks the Commission to develop clear signposting for the financial support available for tourism-related projects, as well as to set up a readily accessible inter-DG database to raise awareness and information about tourism projects co-financed by the EU;
68. Emphasises that tourism should continue to play an important role in cohesion policy within the framework of the 2014-2020 financial perspective; calls for the next financial perspectives and Structural Fund regulations to include among their priorities the rehabilitation of tourist areas that have fallen into decline in order to guarantee their competitiveness and sustainability;
69. Encourages, furthermore, the Member States and local and regional bodies to take full advantage of the vocational training tools offered by the ESF and other Community, national, regional and local funds; believes it essential that the Member States and other bodies know they should develop calls specifically for tourism based on the priorities set out in the Structural Funds;
70. Asks that a specific tourism programme, targeting in particular micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, be established in the 2014-2020 financial perspectives, encouraging partnerships between firms and public-private partnerships on pan-European tourism projects, and at the same time encourages SMEs to invest in that sector;
71. Insists on the need to ensure that pilot projects in the tourism sector continue to be supported post 2011, and if necessary to evaluate new ones to assist in the realisation of the new strategy;
Other important issues for the tourist sector
72. Observes that tourism businesses need comparable, high-quality statistical data for purposes of long-term planning of supply and demand structures and in order to develop tourist destinations; calls therefore on the Commission, insofar as it lies within its power, to ensure that these data are available for the whole of Europe; deplores the fact that no official statistics are kept on rural and farm tourism, and that the only information available is based on estimates; welcomes the measures being contemplated to consolidate the social and economic knowledge base in the field of tourism, in respect of which additional financial outlay and red tape should be eschewed insofar as possible;
73. Requests that the Commission table by September 2011 a legislative proposal revising the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC, in order to ensure that consumers and firms in the sector have a clear legal framework both for standard situations and for exceptional situations caused, for example, by certain climatic and natural phenomena, or by political troubles; stresses that the whole concept of package travel is long since outdated and urges the Commission, during its revision, to make the same legislation applicable to all parties offering tourism services; stresses that the quality of a service provided to a consumer and fair competition should be prime factors in this context;
74. Highlights the opportunity this presents for a reduced VAT rate on tourism to be progressively harmonised across the Member States as a necessary condition for transparent competition among tourist companies within the EU and with non-EU countries; welcomes in this respect the discussion that started with the publication of the Green Paper on the future of VAT;
75. Calls on the Member States to bear in mind the adverse effects of the growing tendency to subject tourists travelling to the EU or within the Member States to higher rates of taxes, such as fuel tax, security charges and airport, city and port taxes, in particular during the low season; underlines that if an additional tax on tourism is to be applied, it will have to be duly publicised in order to increase the level of awareness for tourists and operators;
76. Calls on the Council of the European Union to speed up adoption of the proposal for a directive on modernisation of the special TOMS VAT scheme, providing for an opt-in mechanism able to wipe out the competitive distortion between various categories of operators in the sector, as disparities in national laws currently have serious consequences;
77. Stresses the need for an active competition policy monitoring any trend towards concentration of the sector or abuse of a dominant position;
78. Calls on the Commission to submit an integrated tourism strategy by the end of 2012, in line with and in addition to the current strategy and its implementation plan;
79. Considers that a technical task force specifically for tourism should be set up in Parliament in order to follow closely the implementation of actions proposed by the Commission and of Parliament proposals;
°
° °
80. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0408
European road safety
Committee on Transport and Tourism
PE456.969
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on European road safety 2011-2020 (2010/2235(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘A sustainable future for transport: Towards an integrated, technology-led and user friendly system’ (COM(2009)0279),
– having regard to the Commission White Paper entitled, ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system’ (COM(2011)0144),
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020’ (COM(2010)0389),
– having regard to the Council Conclusions of 2 and 3 December 2010 on the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020’ (16951/10),
– having regard to the Commission study[56] assessing the Third European Road Safety Action Programme,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020’ (CdR 296/2010),
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘Towards a European road safety area’ (CESE 539/2011),
– having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 64/255 of 10 May 2010 on improving global road safety,
– having regard to its resolution of 29 September 2005 on the European Road Safety Action Programme: halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: a shared responsibility[57],
– having regard to its resolution of 27 April 2006 on road safety: bringing eCall to citizens[58],
– having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2007 on the Third European Road Safety Action Programme – mid-term review[59],
– having regard to its resolution of 23 April 2009 on the Intelligent Transport Systems Action Plan[60],
– having regard to its resolution of 23 April 2009 on an action plan on urban mobility[61],
– having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2010 on penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport[62],
– having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2010 on a sustainable future for transport[63],
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0264/2011),
A. whereas in 2009 more than 35 000 people were killed and more than 1 500 000 injured in road accidents in the European Union,
B. whereas statistically for every fatal accident there are a further four accidents that lead to permanent disabilities, 10 that cause serious injuries and 40 that cause slight injuries,
C. whereas the social cost of road accidents is estimated at EUR 130 billion per year,
D. whereas the target set in the Third Action Programme of halving the number of road deaths in the EU by the end of 2010 was not achieved, although the number has been substantially reduced,
E. whereas social acceptance of road accidents is still relatively high in the EU, and whereas the number of people killed each year is equivalent to the toll which would result from 250 crashes involving medium-sized airliners,
F. whereas on the one hand increasingly serious efforts need to be made to reduce the number of road accident victims further, and on the other hand care must be taken to ensure that indifference does not set in as the total falls,
G. whereas road safety is the responsibility of society as a whole,
H. whereas only 27.5 % of the measures outlined in the Third Action Programme have been fully implemented, and whereas significantly more ambitious targets and measures are therefore needed to improve road safety than have been proposed by the Commission up to now,
I. whereas the legislative framework for regulations and directives based on scientific data has not yet been fully utilised, and whereas implemented European law can help save lives,
J. whereas many legislative measures to improve road safety, such as Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management, have already been adopted and will come into force over the next few years,
K. whereas the Commission failed to submit a proposal for a new action programme before the Third Road Safety Action Programme expired,
L. whereas the likelihood of being killed in a road accident is nine times higher per kilometre travelled for pedestrians, seven times higher for cyclists and 18 times higher for motorcyclists than for people travelling by car,
M. whereas some 55 % of fatal accidents occur on rural roads, 36 % in urban areas and 6 % on motorways,
N. whereas if commuter travel to and from work is included, 60 % of fatal occupational accidents are road accidents,
O. whereas the number of road deaths has fallen constantly but the number of fatal accidents involving motorcyclists is stagnating and in many places rising,
P. whereas travel by public transport is many times safer than travel by private vehicle,
Q. whereas lorry blind spots represent a lethal hazard for cyclists and pedestrians,
R. whereas the European Union is facing a process of demographic change, so that due account must be taken of the mobility needs of elderly people in particular,
S. whereas new technological developments, for example the introduction of hybrid vehicles and electric propulsion systems, are creating new challenges for the rescue services,
T. whereas the implementation of European, national, regional and local measures must be closely coordinated,
U. whereas the Road Infrastructure Safety Directive 2008/96/EC requires the implementation of road safety audits and safety inspections as part of regular road maintenance; and whereas this directive only applies to Trans-European Network (TEN-T) road infrastructure, leaving many national and local roads unregulated,
V. whereas regular inspections of all European roads by competent entities are an essential element in the prevention of possible dangers for road users,
W. whereas the data available concerning the causes of accidents and injuries is crucial to improving road safety, as demonstrated by, inter alia. the VERONICA projects,
Basis
1. Welcomes the Commission communication under consideration here, but calls on the Commission, by the end of 2011, to develop its proposals into a fully fledged action programme incorporating a detailed set of measures with clear timetables for their implementation, monitoring instruments, so that the effectiveness of the measures can be regularly checked, and provision for a mid-term review;
2. Endorses the Commission’s view that if road safety is to be improved, a coherent, holistic and integrated approach is required, and calls for road safety issues to be addressed in all relevant policy areas, such as education, health, environmental and social policy and police and judicial cooperation;
3. Calls on the Commission to improve the framework conditions for safer and more environmentally benign transport, such as walking, cycling, bus or rail, so as to encourage their use.
4. Proposes, as a matter of priority, that an EU Road Safety Coordinator should be appointed, as part of the European Commission, by 2014, who should:
– promote – as a recognised personality in the field of road transport safety – current, and initiate innovative new, road safety projects with his experience, expertise and skills
– coordinate road safety measures within the Commission and between the Member States
– facilitate at a high political level the preparation, implementation and enforcement of effective and coherent road safety policies in line with the EU objectives
– oversee particular projects such as the harmonisation of indicators, data and, as far as possible, national road safety plans
– promote the exchange of best practice and the implementation of road safety provisions in cooperation with all stakeholders, Member States and their regional and local authorities
– liaise between the relevant political and academic levels in order to allow scope for a multidisciplinary approach;
5. Calls on the Commission to set up a cooperation forum where prosecutors, law enforcement authorities, victims’ associations and road safety monitoring centres can exchange information on best practices and cooperate more closely on improving implementation of road safety legislation, at both national and transnational levels;
6. Emphasises that particular attention must be paid to the proper implementation and more effective enforcement of existing laws and measures; points out, at the same time, that the scope for legislative measures at EU level has not yet been exhausted;
7. Regrets that the EU budget for road safety measures has been cut significantly in recent years and calls on the Commission to reverse this trend;
8. Wholeheartedly endorses the objective of halving by 2020 the total number of road deaths in the EU by comparison with 2010, and calls for further clear and measurable targets to be set for the same period, in particular
– a 60 % reduction in the number of children under the age of 14 killed in road accidents,
– a 50 % reduction in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in road collisions, and
– a 40 % reduction in the number of people suffering critical injuries, on the basis of a uniform EU definition to be developed quickly;
Ethical aspects
9. Emphasises that every EU citizen not only has a right to individual road use and safe road transport, but above all also has a duty to contribute to road safety by means of his or her own behaviour; considers that the public authorities and the EU have a moral and political obligation to adopt measures and actions to tackle this social problem;
10. Reiterates its view that a complementary, long-term strategy is needed which goes beyond the period covered by the communication under consideration here and has the objective of preventing all road deaths (‘Vision Zero’); being aware that this is not feasible without the extensive use of technology in road vehicles and the development of proper networks for ITS, calls on the Commission to develop the central features of such a strategy and to present them within the next three years;
11. Maintains that respect for life and the human person should find expression in a shared cultural and ethical process whereby the road would be deliberately construed as a human community;
12. Calls on the Commission and Member States officially to recognise the third Sunday in November as the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, as the United Nations and World Health Organisation have already done, in order to raise public awareness of this issue;
Proven practices and their implementation in national plans
13. Calls on the Commission to do more to encourage exchanges of knowledge and proven practices among the Member States so that more of them can be incorporated into national, regional, and local road safety plans, thus enabling activities to be established on as solid a methodological footing as possible, thereby contributing to the creation of a European road safety area;
14. Calls on the Commission to review the European Road Safety Charter and to encourage the introduction of similar charters at regional and local level;
15. Emphasises that clear, quantifiable objectives act as fresh incentives to improve road safety and are essential if comparisons of the progress made by individual Member States are to be drawn up and the implementation of road safety measures is to be monitored and assessed; takes the view that an attempt should be made to quantify the contribution made by individual Member States to reaching the target in 2020; considers that this contribution should be used as a guide when setting the priorities for national road safety policies;
16. Supports the Commission in its efforts to persuade the Member States to draw up national road safety plans; calls for the drafting and publication of such plans on the basis of harmonised joint guidelines to be made compulsory; emphasises, however, that the Member States should be given considerable leeway to tailor their respective measures, programmes and objectives to national circumstances;
17. Calls on the Commission to designate a special year for safe commercial road transport without delay;
18. Calls on the Commission to draw up a best practice manual on medical care of the injured at the scene of traffic accidents to ensure they receive faster and more effective medical treatment, which is a key factor in the survival of the most seriously injured;
19. Calls on the Commission to draw up, in conjunction with the social partners, a strategy to cut the number of accidents suffered by workers on the way to and from work; calls on the Member States and the Commission to encourage businesses to draw up road safety plans; calls on the Commission to do its utmost to ensure that certificates can be issued under the European Road Safety Charter to businesses that introduce road safety plans for their workers;
Improving indicators and data
20. Regards high-quality, comparable data covering all road users including cyclists and pedestrians as a prerequisite for a successful road safety policy;
21. Calls on the Commission to have a study drawn up on the economic and social impact of road deaths and injuries on society in the EU Member States;
22. Calls on the Commission, by the end of 2013, to apply as part of the SafetyNet project a set of additional, harmonised indicators on the basis of which monitoring can be improved and meaningful comparisons of the progress made by individual Member States drawn up;
23. Calls on the Commission to draw up by 2012 a proposal to improve the data available concerning the causes of accidents and injuries, as well as anonymised data on the extent of injuries and their subsequent development; calls further for detailed multi-disciplinary accident research to be carried out in representative traffic areas in all the Member States, with European Union support;
24. Calls on the Commission to draw up within two years definitions of the terms ‘critically injured’, ‘seriously injured’ and ‘slightly injured’ with a view to making comparisons of measures and their impact in the Member States possible;
25. Calls for the development of a genuine EU road safety monitoring centre whose task it would be to prepare a summary of existing initiatives on data collection, to make a proposal aimed at improving exchanges of data, as well as to collate data from existing databases and the knowledge gained through the implementation of EU projects such as SafetyNet, VERONICA or DaCoTa and to make it available to everyone in a readily comprehensible, annually updated form;
26. Calls on the Member States to honour existing commitments to transfer data and to make concrete progress towards the exchange of data in the case of cross-border traffic offences; calls on the Member States to harmonise data collection systems using real-time transmission software for sensitive data, to be phased in by 2014;
Areas for action
Improving road users’ training and behaviour
27. Emphasises that care, consideration for others and mutual respect and observance of rules, which is directly related to the need for systematic improvement in the quality of training by driving schools and the quality of the procedure for issuing driving licences, are fundamental to road safety;
28. Takes the view that greater importance should be attached to the concept of lifelong learning in the area of road transport, and therefore supports the activity of safe driving centres as an effective form of systemic training of drivers in all occupational and leisure-time contexts; takes the view that traffic education and road user training programmes should already start from an early age in the family and at school and should include cycling, walking and using public transport;
29. Calls for measures to improve the training of new drivers, such as accompanied driving from the age of 17, or the introduction of a Graduated Driver Licensing system for driver training which involves practical instruction even after a driver has passed his or her test; calls, further, for the introduction of compulsory safety training for young and new road users so that they can gain practical experience in coping with a variety of dangerous situations;
30. Calls, in the context of driver training, as one of the main elements in the education of novice drivers that will achieve and improve road safety, for urgent attention to be paid to the main causes of road deaths and serious injuries, such as speeding, driving while drunk or under the influence of drugs or certain medications that affect driving ability, failure to wear a seat belt or other protective equipment such as helmets for users of two-wheel vehicles, the use of mobile communications devices while driving, and tiredness;
31. Is convinced of the need for a better education of novice drivers regarding the role of tyres in road safety and the need for observing basic rules for proper tyre maintenance and tyre use; calls on the Member States, therefore, to implement in a proper and timely manner the Driving Licence Directive and the provisions therein covering mandatory inclusion of a section on tyre knowledge, as well as one on basic car maintenance in general, in the driving test exams;
32. Considers that, in car driving lessons, greater attention should be devoted to the phenomenon of motorised two-wheeled vehicles and their visibility;
33. Calls for driving instruction and driving tests to give more priority to the securing of loads in private transport;
34. Calls for a obligatory refresher courses on first aid every 10 years for all driving licence holders;
35. Encourages the Member States to introduce special penalty points systems for the most dangerous offences, as the most efficient supplement to financial fines;
36. Recommends, as a reintegration measure, the fitting of alcolocks to the vehicles of road users who already have more than one drink-driving conviction;
37. Calls for an eye test for all drivers in categories A and B every 10 years and for drivers older then 65 years every 5 years; calls on the Member States to establish an obligatory medical check for drivers at a certain age, to identify the physical, mental and psychological ability required to continue driving on the basis of their statistical accident data for the respective age groups;
38. Calls on the Commission to draw up, every three years, EU road safety campaigns on a specific topic and to systematically use the communication channels which have grown up as a result of the implementation of the Road Safety Charter for these campaigns;
39. Calls on the Commission to tackle as part of road safety the number of road deaths at level crossings, where accidents are often caused by inappropriate behaviour on the part of road users, including excessive risk taking, lack of attention and failure to understand road signs;
Harmonising and enforcing road traffic rules
40. Calls for determined efforts to harmonise road signs and road traffic rules by 2013; points out that signs should be maintained in good condition so as to ensure that they are clearly visible and are replaced in good time, where this is necessary owing to changes in conditions;
41. Calls on the Commission to adopt as swiftly as possible the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) specifications for priority actions relating to road safety and security set out in Article 3, letters (b) to (f), of Directive 2010/40/EU on Intelligent Transport Systems;
42. Regards the enforcement of existing rules as a central pillar of the EU’s road safety policy; calls for an improved exchange among the Member States in connection with offences against traffic regulations in the individual Member States and for such offenders to be prosecuted in accordance with the national law in force, and calls on the Member States in that connection to set annual national targets for checks on speeding, drink-driving or driving whilst under the influence of drugs and the wearing of seat belts and helmets, and to take determined action to ensure that such checks are carried out;
43. Points to the important role played by the TISPOL organisation in exchanging proven practices for the enforcement of traffic regulations;
44. Emphasises that a harmonised and effective approach to checks is essential for the transposition of the social rules in road transport (Regulation No 561/2006 and Regulation 3821/85/EC), which are enormously important for road safety; calls once again on the Commission, therefore, to act on the demands made by Parliament in its resolution of 18 May 2010 on penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport;
45. Calls on the Commission to review legislation on driving and rest times in order to allow long-distance lorry drivers to spend their weekly rest periods at home, always providing that this can be achieved without compromising the European Union’s road safety objectives; believes that restrictions on the movement of freight transport need to be harmonised across the European Union;
46. Welcomes the adoption at second reading of the Directive on the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, which represents a further step to improving road safety with a clear EU added value; looks forward to the Commission’s report on the application of this Directive, and to new legislative proposals for improving cross-border enforcement that will include all Member States;
47. Calls on the Commission to support, as a first step, the development of techniques for apprehending drivers under the influence of drugs and medicines which influence their fitness to drive and to propose as a second step EU legislation to prohibit driving whilst under the influence of drugs or the above mentioned medicines, with effective enforcement;
48. Calls for an EU-wide harmonised blood alcohol limit; recommends a 0 ‰ limit with a small, scientifically based range of tolerance for measurement for newly qualified drivers in the first 2 years and for professional drivers at all time;
49. Calls for the introduction of monitoring equipment by means of which speeding offences by motorcyclists can be systematically detected and punished;
50. Calls for a Europe-wide ban on the manufacture, import and distribution of systems that warn drivers of traffic checks (e.g. radar warning and laser jamming devices, or navigation systems that automatically signal traffic checks);
51. Calls for the introduction of an EU-wide ban on the practice of texting, emailing or web browsing while driving a motorised vehicle, which should be enforced by Member States using the best available technology;
52. Calls on the Commission to draw up, within two years, a legislative proposal for a harmonised approach on winter tyres for passenger cars, buses and lorries in EU regions, taking into account the weather conditions in each Member State;
53. Looks to the Commission, by 2015, to review the implementation of the third driving licence directive and bring it into line with changing circumstances, and calls, inter alia, for due account to be taken of the fact that the private use of M1 vehicles with a weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes – in particular mobile homes – is de facto no longer possible; calls for training in driving mobile homes with a weight only marginally in excess of the 3.5-tonne limit to be open not only to persons with the category C licence intended for drivers of commercial vehicles, but also to persons with the category B licence intended for private road users;
54. Strongly recommends the responsible authorities to introduce speed limits of 30 km/h in residential areas and on all one-lane roads in urban areas which have no separate cycle lane, with a view to protecting vulnerable road users more effectively;
Making road transport infrastructure safer
55. Wholeheartedly supports the Commission’s proposal to make EU funding available as a matter of principle to infrastructure projects which comply with EU directives on road safety and tunnel safety, including the construction of lower-class roads; calls in this connection for efforts in border sectors to be concentrated in particular on reducing the number of highly dangerous sections, accident black spots and level crossings;
56. Reiterates that a well-preserved road infrastructure contributes to reducing fatalities and injuries of road users; calls on the Member States to preserve and develop their road infrastructure through regular maintenance and innovative methods such as intelligent road markings that display safety distances and the direction of travel, and passively safe road infrastructure; stresses that norms for signposting, in particular regarding road works, must be respected as they are crucial for a high level of road safety.
57. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to pay greater attention to road design, to support the implementation of cost-effective measures already available and to encourage research that will enable policy-makers to understand better how road infrastructure should develop in order to improve road safety and to accommodate the specific needs of an ageing population and vulnerable road users;
58. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is focusing its attention on the most vulnerable user groups (two-wheel vehicle users, pedestrians, etc.), where accident figures are still too high; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the industry to bear these kinds of users in mind when designing road infrastructure and equipment, so that roads built are safe for all users; calls, in the context of road planning and maintenance, for greater consideration to be given to infrastructure measures to protect cyclists and pedestrians, e.g. traffic separation measures, the expansion of cycle path networks and barrier-free access arrangements and crossings for pedestrians;
59. Calls on the Commission to ensure that roadwork sites are made safer through guidelines for designing and equipping sites, which should be standardised, as far as possible, at the European level, so that motorists are not faced with new, unfamiliar circumstances in each country; calls for guidelines, which should include proper signing, removal of original road markings, use of protective fencing and barriers, marking lane routing with warning beacons or bend signs and markings, avoiding very narrow bends and ensuring safety at night;
60. Emphasises the need for adequate road surfaces which enhance skid resistance, climatic and meteorological performance, and visibility and which require low maintenance, thereby increasing infrastructure user safety;
61. Calls for widespread use of signs showing vehicles’ speed at a given moment, and for efforts to make signs more visible and comprehensible by avoiding combinations of signs which are difficult to understand;
62. Emphasises the importance of ensuring that national road infrastructure not included in the TEN-T network is improved from the point of view of road safety, in particular in the EU regions with low-quality infrastructure and poor traffic safety levels;
63. Calls on the Commission to identify, and on the Member States to implement, suitable measures to prevent accidents on rural roads, in rural areas and in tunnels, and to reduce the damage they cause;
64. Urges the Commission and Member States to call on their national, regional and local authorities to design their roads in such a way that they do not present any hazards to motorised two-wheeled vehicles; points out that the standard guard rails used on European roads are a death trap for motorcyclists, and calls on the Member States to take prompt action (including replacing the existing guard rails) to refit dangerous stretches of road with rails with upper and lower elements as well as with other alternative road barrier systems, in accordance with Standard EN 1317, in order to lessen the repercussions of accidents for all road users; draws attention to the danger posed to motorcyclists by tarmac patches, which offer much less grip than the normal asphalt road surfaces;
65. Calls on the Commission to encourage guidelines for promoting best practice in traffic-calming measures, based on physical and optical innovation, inter alia by applying EU co-financed research and development projects to traffic calming with a view to reducing accidents, noise pollution and air pollution;
66. Calls on the Member States to draw up, and regularly update, a map of the most dangerous ‘black spots’ in their road networks, which should be made available to the public and be accessible via car navigation systems;
67. Takes the view that the concepts of the ‘self-explaining road’ and the ‘forgiving roadside’ are integral to road safety policy and should therefore be promoted by means of EU funding and ongoing exchanges of best practice;
68. Calls on the Member States to make the addition of a rumble strip an integral part of road-building and repair work;
69. Draws attention to the particular dangers posed by level crossings, and calls on the Member States, when building or rebuilding such crossings, to incorporate a level change or, on minor roads, to install full-width barriers;
70. Points to Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Safety Infrastructure Management with reference to the need for a sufficient number of safe parking areas next to motorways; emphasises the importance of observing driving and rest periods, and of the introduction of a harmonised sanction regime, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to make both a sufficient number of parking areas (quantity criterion) and of secure safe parking areas which meet minimum social standards and are provided with maintenance and assistance services (quality criteria) available to professional HGV drivers; calls for such parking areas to be provided for when road infrastructure is at the planning stage, or to be upgraded, and for the building costs to be considered eligible for co-financing under Community programmes (for example the TEN-T programme);
71. Calls for a ban on overtaking by lorries on dangerous sections of motorways;
72. Calls on Members States and road operators to provide appropriately designed facilities to improve safety which are all well equipped with road signs and well lit, and thus more user-friendly, especially for motorcyclists and cyclists;
Putting safer vehicles on the road
73. Recommends that fitting of alcolocks – with a small, scientifically-based range of tolerance for measurement – to all new types of commercial passenger and goods transport vehicles be made compulsory; calls on the Commission to prepare by 2013 a proposal for a Directive for the fitting of alcolocks, including the relevant specifications for its technical implementation;
74. Calls on the Commission to continue to focus on improving the passive safety of vehicles, for example through state-of-the-art crash management systems, in particular to improve compatibility between large and small cars and between heavy goods vehicles and cars or light-duty vehicles; calls for continued emphasis to be placed on reducing the seriousness of collisions with vulnerable road users; calls on the Commission to propose a revision of the EU legislation on front-underrun protective devices in such a way as to define the optimum energy absorption capacity and height of the underrun protective devices needed to provide effective protection for car drivers in the event of a collision;
75. Calls on the Commission to present within two years a report on the issue of the extent to which improved passenger protection through the use of strengthened A, B and C pillars in vehicles compromises the driver’s all-round vision and whether this has an impact on the safety of vulnerable road users;
76. Calls on the Commission to present within two years a report on the safety aspects of electromobility, including ‘e-bikes’ and ‘pedelecs’;
77. Calls on the Commission to submit by 2013 a proposal designed to ensure that every new vehicle is fitted as standard equipment with an improved seat-belt reminder system for the front and rear seats which gives both auditory and visual warnings;
78. Calls on the Commission to assess the usefulness of installing warning systems against fatigue and to make them compulsory if appropriate;
79. Calls on automobile manufacturers, when developing electric cars and other new propulsion systems, to pay particular attention to protecting both vehicle occupants and first-aid workers and members of the rescue services effectively against new sources of danger they may face in the event of an accident;
80. Calls on the Member States to monitor imported motor vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle accessories, components and spare parts effectively and substantively in order to ensure that they are suitable and meet stringent European consumer protection standards;
81. Calls on the Commission to consider in detail the possible link between improved vehicle safety technology and reduced driver risk awareness and to submit a report on this matter to Parliament within two years;
82. Calls on the Commission to establish a single European area for regular technical inspections of all motorised road vehicles and their safety-related electronic systems; expects the most stringent, uniform standards to form the basis for such inspections; expects independent inspection bodies certified on the basis of a harmonised standard to be responsible for carrying out inspections and issuing roadworthiness certificates; expects the mutual recognition of such roadworthiness certificates to be guaranteed;
83. Calls on the Commission to lay down within two years common standards for technical checks to be performed on vehicles which have been involved in serious accidents;
84. Calls on the Commission to promote higher vehicle safety standards, such as in car vehicle technology, as a means of preventing collisions; emphasises the important role played by intelligent traffic systems (ITSs) in reducing the number of road accident deaths, reiterates the ecological potential of smart cars and smart roads, as well as R&D pilot projects for V2V and V2R devices; and calls on both the Commission and the Member States to focus on the use of ITSs, not only on roads which form part of the TEN;
85. Calls on the Commission to lay down common standards for vehicle tyres, in particular for tread depth of tyres and tyre pressure, and to introduce corresponding checks; supports the inclusion of tyre checks in the regular roadworthiness tests performed on vehicles; supports more effective enforcement of tyre-related rules by means of more frequent roadside inspections; calls on the Commission to propose specifications for Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS) with a view to ensuring that tyres are used properly, which will bring benefits both for road safety and the environment;
Using modern technologies for vehicles, infrastructure and the emergency services
86. Calls for details on ‘state of road’ information, information on sections of road that are extremely dangerous or unusual and of the traffic rules currently in force in individual Member States (for example concerning the speed limits regime and maximum authorised BAC level) to be made available to road users before and during journeys, for example through the use of smart traffic systems; expects that the potential of the European Satellite Navigation System Galileo will be fully exploited in this field;
87. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal, including a timetable and a detailed approval procedure, by the end of 2012 providing for the phased introduction, initially in rented vehicles and subsequently also in commercial and private vehicles, of an integrated accident recorder system with a standardised readout which records relevant data before, during and after accidents (‘Event Data Recording’); stresses, in that connection, the need to protect individuals’ personal data and to use the data recorded exclusively for accident research;
88. Calls on the Commission to draw up a proposal to fit vehicles with ‘intelligent speed assistance systems’ which incorporate a timetable, details of an approval procedure and a description of the requisite road infrastructure;
89. Calls on the Commission to support actions that stimulate customers to take up innovative vehicle-safety technologies, many of which are not yet mandatory but have demonstrable safety benefits, when they purchase vehicles; calls on insurance companies to show greater readiness to offer favourable rates to drivers whose vehicles are fitted with safety systems which have been shown to prevent accidents or reduce the damage they cause;
90. Calls on the Commission to conduct a study into new technologies which can help to improve road safety, such as innovative (e.g. adaptive) headlight systems;
91. Urges the Commission to speed up its evaluation and revision of Directive 2007/38/EC; calls for technological advancement to be taken into account by fitting all lorries with special rear-view mirrors, camera/monitor devices or other technical instruments that eliminate blind spots, so as to prevent, in particular, accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians who find themselves in the driver’s blind spot;
92. Welcomes the Commission’s stated aim of paying special attention to the safety of motorcyclists;
93. Regards the phased, mandatory introduction of anti-brake-locking systems on all new motorcycles as an important measure which could substantially reduce the number of serious motorcycle accidents;
94. Calls on the Member States to take steps to ensure that the requirements imposed on commercial vehicles are stepped up in line with technical conditions, e.g. regarding tiredness- and distraction-warning devices;
95. Recommends the fitting of air conditioning systems to all newer types of long-distance lorries and to older types on the basis of technical feasibility; takes the view that these systems should also work when the motor is at rest, in order to guarantee appropriate rest for the driver in the vehicle; calls on the European Commission to clarify the term ‘suitable sleeping facilities’ in regard to Article 8.8 of Regulation 561/2006.
96. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it intends to speed up the introduction of ‘eCall’, and calls on the Commission, over the next two years, to consider whether it should be extended to cover motorcycles, heavy goods vehicles and buses, with particular regard to the special needs of persons with disabilities, and, if appropriate, make corresponding proposals;
97. Calls on the Commission to draw up measures to support and protect members of the rescue services in the event of accidents, such as the possibility of identifying or retrieving on-the-spot information about the engine type of the vehicle, passive safety equipment such as airbags, or the use of specific material, as well as all other relevant technical rescue information on each car model, in order to accelerate the rescue operation;
Protecting vulnerable road users
98. Calls for greater account to be taken of the protection of vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists, pedestrians, road maintenance workers, cyclists, children, elderly people and people with disabilities as an integral aspect of road safety, for example through the use of innovative vehicle and infrastructure technologies; calls for greater attention to be paid to the needs of elderly people and people with reduced mobility as road users; calls, in that connection, on Member States to develop programmes which forestall old-age-related accident risks and make it easier for elderly people to remain active road users; recommends the use of road safety barriers with smooth surfaces and the introduction of special lanes for vulnerable users;
99. Invites the Commission, the Member States and local authorities to promote ‘safe routes to school’ schemes in order to increase the safety of children; indicates that, in addition to the introduction of speed limits and the establishment of a school traffic police, the suitability of vehicles used as school buses and the professional skills of drivers must also be assured;
100. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support cycling and walking as mode of transport in their own right and an integral part of all transport systems;
101. Calls on the Member States:
– to make the carrying of warning jackets for all vehicle occupants compulsory and
– to encourage cyclists, especially at night outside built-up areas, to use crash helmets and wear warning jackets or comparable clothing as a means of improving their visibility;
102. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal laying down minimum requirements in respect of lights and reflective devices which must be met by bicycle manufacturers;
103. Recommends that children up to the age of three travelling in vehicles should be secured in rear-facing child seats;
o
o o
104. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0409
Dam infrastructure in developing countries
Committee on Development
PE460.737
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on financing of reinforcement of dam infrastructure in developing countries (2010/2270(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on the World Bank’s energy strategy for developing countries[64],
– having regard to the ‘World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change’,
– having regard to the 2011 report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), entitled ‘Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone. Summary for Decision Makers’,
– having regard to the 3rd UN World Water Development Report, 2009,
– having regard to the 2008 report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), entitled ‘The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries’,
– having regard to the 2007 report of the UNEP Dams and Development Project entitled ‘Dams and Development: Relevant practices for improved decision-making. A compendium of relevant practices for improved decision-making on dams and their alternatives’,
– having regard to the World Commission on Dams Final Report, entitled ‘Dams and Development: a new framework for decision-making’, of 16 November 2000,
– having regard to the UNEP report entitled ‘High Mountain Glaciers and Climate Change’, of 8 November 2010,
– having regard to the 2008 UNEP report entitled ‘Freshwater under threat. South Asia. Vulnerability Assessment of Freshwater Resources to Environmental Change’,
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0213/2011),
A. whereas by current estimates there are more than 50 000 large dams, 100 000 smaller dams and 1 million small dams worldwide,
B. whereas international standards define a large dam as higher than 15 metres, and a small dam, generally, as lower than 15 metres,
C. whereas some 589 large dams were built in Asia from 1999 to 2001 and, as of 2006, 270 dams of 60 metres or larger were planned or under construction,
D. whereas the licence to construct the world's third largest dam, the Belo Monte dam in Brazil, was granted despite serious environmental concerns, as the dam will flood 500 square kilometres, thus causing severe damage to the Amazon's invaluable ecosystem and biodiversity and displacing 50 000, mainly indigenous people,
E. whereas the European Investment Bank has been involved in a number of large dam projects, including in Asia (in countries such as Laos and Pakistan),
F. whereas water is vital for agriculture, only 5% of Africa’s cultivated land is irrigated, less than 10% of the potential of hydropower has been tapped and only 58% of Africans have access to safe drinking water,
G. whereas poor water resource management in Africa has led to excessive soil erosion, increased costs of water treatment, rapid siltation of reservoirs, decline in economic life and disruption of water supplies,
H. whereas large hydropower projects account for 25% of the proposed emissions reduction credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
I. whereas development of decentralised water infrastructure is a prerequisite for water security in Africa and for meeting the targets of the Millennium Development Goals; whereas improvement of storage methods is needed to enable reliable water supply during droughts and to retain excessive water during periods of flooding; whereas average per capita storage capacity in Africa is about 200 cubic meters a year, much less than that of developing countries in other regions,
J. whereas, from 2007 to 2008, support for trade-related infrastructure (TRI) increased strongly (up 75%) and, although commitments have fluctuated extensively in this area, the 2008 figure of close to EUR 5 billion in total is a record high,
K. whereas the World Bank is the largest external financier in the water sector, with a portfolio of USD 20 billion in water-related projects under implementation in more than 100 countries,
L. whereas dams, that fundamentally alter rivers and the use of natural resources, have a significant impact on human communities, riverine and wetland ecosystems and biodiversity,
M. whereas the report of the World Commission on Dams of 16 November 2000 concludes that, while large dams have failed to produce as much electricity, provide as much water, or control as much flood damage as foreseen, they have had huge social and environmental impacts, and efforts to mitigate these impacts have been largely unsuccessful,
N. whereas dams reservoirs emit greenhouse gases, including methane due to the rotting of vegetation,
O. whereas the UN estimates that by 2050 2 billion people will live under the threat of severe flood damage,
P. whereas the World Commission on Dams estimates that some 40-80 million people have been physically displaced by dams worldwide,
Q. whereas the World Commission on Dams concludes that large dams have led in many cases to significant and irreversible loss of species and ecosystems; and whereas understanding, protecting and restoring ecosystems at river basin level is essential to foster equitable human development and the welfare of all species,
1. Considers that, globally, no other natural hazard has proved more destructive to property or cost more human lives than floods over the past century, despite the billions of dollars spent on flood management;
2. Highlights that water is a scarce natural resource, which gives rise to equity consideration in its allocation; stresses therefore that rethinking the management of freshwater resources, in the context of climate change, is undoubtedly a key challenge facing the world;
3. Points out that there has been a documented increase in the frequency of serious floods throughout the second half of the 20th century and that flooding will prove a critical issue in the coming decades;
4. Notes that the least developed countries (LDCs) are the most vulnerable to the effects of flooding; supports the recommendations of UNEP to deal with flooding, according to which improved land management must be combined with improved storage methods that rely on traditional and more current scientific knowledge; advocates the rehabilitation and restoration of critical ecosystems ranging from forests to wetlands, which can enhance water supplies and act as buffers against extreme climatic events such as flooding;
5. Highlights that global warming will affect patterns of precipitation, impacts on glaciers and ice, representing therefore a growing challenge in terms of food security;
6. Notes also that, owing to the acceleration of glacial melting especially prevalent in the Himalayas and the Andes, mountainous regions are increasingly at threat from floods and avalanches; points out, however, that glacial melt is not the only factor affecting water flows in the Himalayas, but that timing and intensity of the monsoon, other rainfall and especially land use practices such as deforestation, overgrazing, agricultural systems and settlement patterns are determinant; in particular, stresses that deforestation frequently increases the rate and speed of the flow of water into major channels, while floods arising from ‘glacier lake outburst floods’ (GLOFs) are often exacerbated by unsustainable land use practices;
7. Considers it essential to adopt a multi-pronged flood strategy in regions where there is a critical threat of floods posed by unstable glacial lakes, exacerbated by the effects of global warming on precipitation patterns and by black carbon deposits, proved to accelerate glacial retreat; deplores, accordingly, the utter lack of flood prevention measures in many LDCs; but warns against relying on large dams to prevent flood damage, especially in a context of climate change, ín which extreme precipitation events are likely to increase the intensity and frequency of flash floods, thereby raising concerns about dam safety;
8. Stresses that dam construction must be assessed in terms of its impact on river flows, the rights of access to water and river resources, and whether the dam will uproot existing settlements, disrupt the culture and sources of livelihood of local communities, or deplete or degrade environmental resources;
9. Underlines that the World Commission on Dams concludes, in its report entitled ‘Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making’ of 16 November 2000, that the economic profitability of large dam projects remains elusive, as the environmental and social costs of large dams were poorly accounted for in economic terms;
10. Points out that glacial retreat causes naturally occurring glacial lakes to expand rapidly to a point where they risk bursting as glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs); welcomes the priority that the South Asia programme of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, in partnership with the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, has given to the issue of GLOFs;
11. Recalls the tragic disaster of 1941, when the city of Huaraz, Peru, was destroyed by the bursting of a glacial dam, causing 4 500 deaths;
12. Recalls that floods in LDCs threaten not only lives but also the areas’ development; recalls that a GLOF, which occurred in 1985 and originated from a glacial lake in Khumbu Himal, Nepal, destroyed the almost completed Namche Small Hydel Project;
13. Stresses that the ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) has identified over 8 000 glacial lakes in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas alone, 203 of which, because of the nature of their location and the instability of their naturally occurring dam walls (moraines), are considered to be potentially dangerous;
14. Underlines that in South Asia an estimated 1.3 billion people rely on the 10 identified perennial river systems, which are fed by rainfall and runoff from melting snow and glaciers in the Himalayas; urges that the EU prioritise the region so as to forestall future humanitarian disasters caused by the increasing frequency of water-related hazards;
15. Further stresses that downstream areas in LDCs thrive on the natural resources of river basins and are some of the most intensely rich agricultural areas in the world; recalls that both China’s and India’s rapid economic growth is in part due to their joint status as the world’s leading rice producers, with the majority of their output coming from the river basins of the Ganges, the Yangtze and the Yellow River, all at threat from GLOFs;
16. Notes that balanced investment in demand-side management measures, land management, improved water capture and storage methods and institutions is needed to increase the sustainable and efficient use of water, to mitigate the effect of recurrent floods and droughts, and to achieve basic water security as a platform for Africa’s economic development; asks for priority to be given to investments that focus on growth, reduce rural poverty, build climate resilience and adaptation and foster cooperation in international river basin;
17. Notes that there is no known method of reinforcing natural glacial lakes, but notes that the UNEP report on 'High Mountains Glaciers and Climate Change' (2010) mentions other methods to mitigate the effects of an outburst flood by using siphons and constructions of open channels and tunnels in order to lower the water level in the glacial lakes and by controlling the water flow into the local river system to use the water reservoir as a resource;
18. Takes the view that, unless high-producing agricultural areas are protected from the effects of flooding, emerging economies could see an abrupt turnaround in their development and a rapidly growing food security problem; recalls that, while the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas is expected, first of all, to increase river flows for 2-3 decades, the flows will decrease substantially in the longer term; deems therefore essential to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to address droughts in the future;
19. Takes the view that investment in capacity building is necessary as sound water management institutions can ensure sustained returns on water efficiency investments and optimize the allocation and use of water by multiple economic sectors and across administrative and political borders;
20. Strongly supports the recommendations of the WCD according to which priority should be given to optimising the performance of existing infrastructure before building any new projects; considers that periodic participatory reviews should be carried out for existing dams to assess issues including dam safety and the possibility of dam decommissioning;
21. Highlights that, without detailed current information concerning areas at risk from water-related hazards, implementing early warning systems, monitoring glacial lakes and provide mountainous regions with practical measures for adaptation and mitigation of climate change will prove an insurmountable task; supports the initiative called Himalayan University Consortium, started by local universities to cooperate with further scientific studies in the matter;
22. Notes that most dams are designed on the basis of historical data of river flows, with the assumption that the pattern of flows will remain the same as in the past; points out that climate change has introduced huge uncertainties in the basic parameters affecting dam projects (as climate change is not just about averages, but also about extremes); points out also that climate change is likely to exacerbate further the problems connected with sedimentation, whose accumulation behind these dams also deprives downstream plains of nutrients that are essential to soil fertility;
23. Stresses that major infrastructure facilities, vital to promoting the EU’s policy objectives of sustainable development and enhanced food security in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals, are increasingly at risk from the effects of flooding, and must be safeguarded; recommends that financing agencies (bilateral aid agencies, multilateral development banks, Export Credit Agencies, EIB), should ensure that any dam option for which financing is approved results from an agreed process of ranking of alternatives regarding irrigation, water storage and hydropower and respect the WCD guidelines; further stresses that hydropower plants are also particularly at risk from flash floods and avalanches;
24. Points out that small water storage facilities can increase climate resilience by providing cost-effective solutions to water supply and drought mitigation and improve food security by increasing agricultural productivity; points out that small storage options include off-stream reservoirs, networks of multipurpose small reservoirs and groundwater storage;
25. Stresses that there is little evidence to establish that big dams are the only, the best or the optimal solution to the electricity question as they do not necessarily improve access to power for the poor and vulnerable sections of society;
26. Recalls the obligations on Policy Coherence for Development; also stresses that greater attention should be paid to the impact of dams on populations living downstream, for which dam building might lead to fundamental changes, such as a loss of food security;
27. Encourages financing institutions and the EU to finance capacity building and training in improved land management and improved water management storage methods that take into account scientific and technological knowledge and the revival of old knowledge such as ancient traditional irrigation systems, as outlined in the UNEP report entitled ‘High Mountain Glaciers and Climate Change’; considers that all financing from the EU should contribute to the promotion of the EU’s policy objectives of sustainable development and food security, in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals;
28. Stresses that constructing and reinforcing dams in LDCs is not enough to safeguard vulnerable areas and calls for a concerted effort in dealing with the root of the problem, not merely the symptoms, thus preventing the wasteful spending of EU taxpayers’ money;
29. Calls on the EU, in addressing the root causes of the increased frequency and intensity of floods, to make further commitments in greenhouse gas reductions so as to meet its objective of limiting climate change to 2°C above the preindustrial level;
30. Urges the EU to widely implement and promote emission reduction measures targeting black carbon, such as the recovery of methane from coal, oil and gas extraction and transport, methane capture in waste management and the use of clean-burning stoves for residential cooking, which will contribute to combating climate change and to reducing glacial retreat;
31. Reiterates its conviction that small hydropower dams are more sustainable and economically viable than large hydropower; in particular, stresses that decentralised, small-scale options (micro hydro, home-scale solar electric systems, wind and biomass systems) based on local renewable resources are more appropriate in rural areas far away from centralised supply networks;
32. Stresses that black carbon remains as prevalent a cause of glacial retreat as carbon dioxide; recalls, in particular, that black carbon and ozone in the lower atmosphere are harmful air pollutants which damage health, reduce life expectancy and exacerbate the melting of snow and ice around the world, including in the Arctic, the Himalayas and other glaciated and snow-covered regions; highlights the fact that ozone is also the most important air pollutant responsible for reducing crop yields, and thus affects food security; notes that methane is an important precursor to ozone formation and that reductions of methane emissions also reduce the formation of ozone;
33. Urges immediate action be taken with a view to reducing black carbon and methane emissions, mainly through the promotion of research and investments in technology aimed at reducing polluting emissions, as a fast-action method of halting glacial and snow melting; recommends that, given the short atmospheric life of black carbon and methane, combined mitigation by means of fast-action strategies could dramatically and rapidly alleviate the threat of GLOFs;
34. Calls on the EU to promote existing technology that drastically reduces black carbon emissions; stresses that regulations banning slash-and-burn tactics in forests, enforcing stringent and regular vehicle emissions tests, limiting biomass burning and monitoring the annual emissions of power plants must be supported and encouraged; calls on the EU to promote the 16 different measures to reduce emissions of black carbon and methane that are set out in the UNEP report entitled 'Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone', with a view to achieving both air quality improvements and near-term climate benefits in its dialogue with developing countries and working towards a broadening of different existing regional air pollution prevention agreements on the basis of the work within the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP);
35. Calls on the EU to promote the establishment of a global early warning system for floods, landslides and tsunamis (possibly under the auspices of the UN) and to ensure that this information reaches remote areas and the most vulnerable segments of the population in developing countries;
36. Points at the on-going negotiations to include black carbon in the revision of the Gothenburg Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) as a model and stresses the need to follow up the UNEP report entitled 'Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone' by elaborating a Global Action Plan to reduce the emissions of short-lived climate forcers;
37. Calls on the EU, given the transboundary nature of GLOFs, to foster inter-country dialogues with a view to developing policies that deal with natural disasters and to encourage the appropriate investments to protect the countries of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas region from flooding; urges recognition of the fact that this is not an issue faced by one country but by many and, as such, calls for a multilateral approach in its resolution;
38. Recommends the formation, as a matter of urgency, of a cross-border agency, established under the auspices of the United Nations, with the express purpose of sharing available data, addressing the problems and causes of transboundary water-related hazards and proposing appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures; stresses that, without such an adjudicating agency at the helm, critical negotiations on flood prevention and alleviation may prove insurmountable between conflicting countries; emphasises that glacial regions, so often the source of flood events, are considered to be points of strategic importance, forming boundaries between nations, and that, as a result, the affected parties might prove reticent in sharing vital information;
39. Points out that dam building projects have an impact on international security; stresses that those impacts can be negative by creating cross-border conflicts, social unrest and harm to the environment; recalls, however, that energy and water supply issues can have a positive impact by fostering dialogue between bordering states or regions as well;
40. Stresses that any planning of dams should be evaluated according to five values: equity, efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainability and accountability; urges, more broadly, that the decision-making process on dams take fully into account the notion of human rights; recalls, in particular, that, where projects affect indigenous and tribal peoples, such processes must be guided by their free, prior and informed consent; calls for thorough impact assessments which fully evaluate the environmental and social costs of dam projects to be conducted in a transparent manner, with public participation, prior to the approval of any dam project;
41. Expresses its concern that the World Bank has spent over USD 100 billion on the construction of dams, mainly for large-scale export-oriented hydropower projects, which have led to the displacement of an estimated 40-80 million people, the loss of livelihoods, damage to ecosystems and the creation of massive debt burdens for developing countries;
42. Emphasises that people who have been displaced due to the construction of dams should not merely receive financial compensation but that their ability to secure their long-term livelihood needs to be ensured;
43. Calls for the comprehensive, transparent and participatory evaluation of the full range of options available to reduce the impacts of floods and meet water and energy needs, with priority given to ecosystem-based solutions and to making existing systems more effective and sustainable;
44. Urges the EU to pursue policies of ‘soft-path’ management to deal with floods; recognises that flood conditions are not static and as such require a flexible approach; calls for the improvement of flood forecasting, the flood-proofing of individual buildings and the development of floodplain storage and bypass systems;
45. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0410
Assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges
Committee on Development
PE448.856
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges (2010/2100(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the obligations contained in the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, particularly Article 11 thereof on the right to food, to which all EU Member States are party,
– having regard to the 1996 World Food Summit (Rome declaration) objective of reducing by half the number of people suffering from hunger by 2015,
– having regard to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in September 2000, and in particular to Millennium Development Goal 1 on the principle of the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger,
– having regard to the Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council of 22 May 2008 in Geneva, on ‘The negative impact on the realisation of the right to food of the worsening of the world food crisis, caused inter alia by the soaring food prices’,
– having regard to the Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission on the humanitarian aid of the European Union entitled ‘The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid’,
– having regard to the Food Aid Convention signed in London on 13 April 1999, whose objectives are to contribute to world food security and to improve the ability of the international community to respond to emergency food situations and other food needs of developing countries,
– having regard to the declaration of the World Summit on Food Security of 2009 and the preparation by the FAO of the ‘Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and other Natural Resources’,
– having regard to the FAO ‘Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security’,
– having regard to the interagency report for the G20 on food price volatility entitled ‘Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses’, which was submitted to the French presidency of the G20 on 2 June 2011,
– having regard to the ‘EU land policy guidelines’ from November 2004,
– having regard to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020, published jointly by the OECD and the FAO on 17 June 2011,
– having regard to the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security signed in 2003, in which African governments committed themselves to allocate a minimum of 10% of their annual national budgets to agriculture,
– having regard to the World Bank’s World Development Report 2008: ‘Agriculture for Development’,
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘The CAP towards 2020’,
– having regard to the most recent FAO Biannual Food Outlook Report (June, 2011),
– having regard to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report published on 15 April 2008,
– having regard to the L’Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security adopted on 10 July 2009,
– having regard to the UN Social Protection Floor Initiative,
– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982,
– having regard to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries of 1995,
– having regard to the FAO annual review The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010,
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1337/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries[65],
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on ‘An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges’ (COM(2010)0127) adopted on 31 March 2010 and to the Council Conclusions adopted on 10 May 2010,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on ‘Humanitarian Food Assistance’ (COM(2010)126) adopted on 31 March 2010 and to the Council Conclusions adopted on 10 May 2010,
– having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2007 on rising feed and food prices[66], to its resolution of 22 May 2008 on rising food prices in the EU and the developing countries[67], as well as to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on rising food prices[68],
– having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2007 on advancing African agriculture - Proposal for agricultural development and food security in Africa[69],
– having regard to its resolution of 13 January 2009 on the Common Agricultural Policy and Global Food Security[70],
– having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2009 on the FAO Summit and food security[71],
– having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2010 on the EU Coherence for Development policy and the Official Development Assistance Plus concept[72],
– having regard to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly resolution on food security adopted in Kinshasa on 4 December 2010[73],
– having regard to the eight recommendations to the G20 published by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food on 29 January 2011,
– having regard to the report entitled ‘Agroecology and the Right to Food’ by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presented before the UN Human Rights Council on 8 March 2011,
– having regard to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0284/2011),
A. whereas the number of people suffering from hunger amounted to 925 million in 2010 according to the FAO; whereas, globally, underweight prevalence in children under 5 years old is at 26 percent and more than one third of under-five child deaths are attributable to undernutrition; whereas only half of all developing countries (62 out of 118) are on track to achieve the MDG target; whereas the global economic downturn and rising food and fuel prices have worsened the food situation in many developing countries, especially the least-developed countries, thus partly setting back the last decade’s progress on poverty reduction,
B. whereas hunger and malnutrition are the main causes of human mortality and the greatest threats to world peace and security,
C. whereas, according to the recent publication of January 2011 by the FAO Food Price Index, there has been a month-on-month rise in food prices since August 2010, following a trend over the last ten years, with levels now higher than during the food price peak of 2008; whereas the volatility of commodity prices is impacting greatly on low income countries and the poorest and most vulnerable and marginalised segments of the populations of developing countries,
D. whereas global demand for agricultural products is expected to increase by 70 % by 2050 which will need to be produced using less water and pesticides, with less agricultural land available and applying sustainable agro-ecological production methods, while the world’s population is forecast to reach nine billion by then; whereas food insecurity is further exacerbated by speculation on commodities, land degradation, water scarcity, climate change, global land acquisitions and land tenure insecurity, particularly for the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population, global seed monopolies, demands for agro-fuels and energy-related policies,
E. whereas 85 % of the world’s assessed fish stocks are either fully exploited, overexploited or depleted, and whereas the dependency on fish as a source of animal protein in low-income food-deficit countries is at least 20 %, according to FAO’s ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010’,
F. whereas agriculture provides employment and a livelihood for more than 70 % of the labour force, mainly women, in developing countries; whereas the World Bank estimates that growth in the agricultural sector is twice as effective at reducing poverty as growth in other sectors, but having regard also to the importance of investing in rural non-farm sector growth and job creation,
G. whereas evidence shows the potential of small- and medium-scale agricultural systems in increasing overall food production; whereas focusing only on export production in developing countries tends to have negative impacts, especially on women as smallholder farmers,
H. whereas the defence of private property and the rule of law are basic requisites with a view to raising private investment in agriculture,
I. whereas owing to lack of access to loans or microcredit for investment in improved seeds, fertilisers and irrigation mechanisms, small-scale farmers in developing countries face serious obstacles to increased agricultural output; whereas the state plays a crucial role in sustainable development and in building up production and processing capacities,
J. whereas the share of official development assistance (ODA) allocated to agriculture internationally has fallen dramatically over the last three decades,
K. whereas the EU has responded quickly to the 2008 food crisis through the creation of the Food Facility; whereas the impact of such measures on the structural causes of hunger and food insecurity and on small and medium-sized family farms, particularly those run by women, has been difficult to measure, considers that further extension of this Food Facility, or additional allocation of funding to it, should not be automatic, but decided based on an independent impact assessment of the funds disbursements’ efficiency in improving food security in all the beneficiary countries,
L. whereas the consequences of undernutrition, such as poor foetal growth or stunting in the first two years of life, lead to irreversible damage, including shorter adult height, lower attained schooling, reduced adult income and decreased offspring birth weight, must still be seen as a major problem for sustainable development in many countries of the south,
M. whereas there has been a renewed political emphasis on food security since 2008 which has led to a multiplication of initiatives at the international level, which calls for a comprehensive global strategy,
EU policy framework on food and nutrition security: a human-rights-based approach to sustainable agriculture
1. Stresses that the number of people suffering from hunger is unacceptable and regrets that the overall international efforts have so far fallen short of achieving MDG 1; calls for urgent steps to be taken to fulfil internationally binding commitments and make the right to adequate and nutritious food a reality;
2. Emphasises that political stability is the prerequisite for improved food security, and therefore calls on all the parties involved to show the political will needed to guarantee that stability;
3. Welcomes the Commission communication on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges; considers, however, that the world food crisis represents, in addition to a humanitarian disaster on an unprecedented scale, a major threat to peace and security worldwide, and that, even though credit should be given to the Commission’s commitment to seeking out solutions that could lift a billion people out of extreme poverty, the European Union and the Member States must, as a matter of urgency, make new investments in agriculture and rural development, above all in view of the new CAP text, introducing dedicated mechanisms for building sufficiently large world stocks of basic foodstuffs, removing their own barriers to trade, and reducing the debt of the countries most affected; believes that the Commission should take greater account of the question of food security in some countries when calculating development aid;
4. Welcomes the two communications from the Commission on humanitarian food assistance and food security; calls for the two communications to be implemented in a coherent and coordinated way in order to better address the root causes of hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity, along with the issue of food distribution amongst and within countries, with a particular focus on the poorest and marginalised segments of society; calls on the Member States to support the process of the development of the implementation plan in support of the Food Security Policy Framework and to adopt it once completed; welcomes the fact that special attention is paid to those who are hardest hit in disasters, namely women and children; considers that when a crisis occurs, it is essential to ensure the community’s capacity to obtain food in the short and the long term ;recalls that emergency mechanisms must not be a long-term solution; expresses deep concerns about the negative effects of such mechanisms, especially on local economies; emphasises that a sustainable development policy should be based on long-term and cooperation approaches ;
5. Stresses the importance of strengthening the link between relief, rehabilitation and development; calls for more resources to be deployed in order to ensure the continuity of aid and for the debate to focus on the flexibility and complementarity of existing financial instruments; advocates enhanced dialogue and coordination between humanitarian organisations and development agencies;
6. Calls on the EU to assess the development impact of its CAP reform proposals in order to improve coherence between the CAP and EU development policy objectives;
7. Calls on the EU to increase support in favour of sustainable smallholder, peasant and medium-scale agriculture producing, primarily, for local consumption in its development aid programmes and to invest in participatory nationally led plans which should be implemented on a local level in cooperation with farmers and their representatives, local and regional authorities and civil society organisations; emphasises the need for increased public investments in research for sustainable agro-ecological production systems that also improve the productivity and competitiveness of the agricultural and rural sector;
8. Insists on the need for a partnership approach with the whole range of development stakeholders on food security, in particular local and regional authorities and civil society organisations; underlines the fact that because of their proximity to the territories and local populations, and their capacity to coordinate actions from different actors, the local and regional authorities play an essential role as an intermediary and a development platform; emphasises that the Structured Dialogue between the Institutions and civil society organisations should be extended to food security issues;
9. Calls on the Commission, the Member States and other development aid donors, including NGOs, to target their investment more closely on the agricultural sector in order to provide local people with a reason not to move elsewhere;
10. Reiterates the importance of promoting agriculture in the developing world and the importance of allocating an appropriate share of EU overseas development assistance (ODA) to the agriculture sector; regrets that there has been a dramatic reduction in the level of development aid allocated to agriculture since the 1980s and welcomes the recognition of the need to reverse this trend; calls on the Commission to prioritise agriculture in its development aid, including assistance to farmers in accessing markets;
11. Recalls that since less-favoured communities tend to derive their subsistence from agriculture, the development of sustainable agriculture and serious consideration of the assessments in the IAASTD is a necessary condition for realising Millennium Development Goal 1; believes that small farming in particular can offer a response to the challenge of food security by means of strengthening the vital role played by women, via on-the-spot processing and the widespread use of loans and microcredits, and involving small producers’ cooperatives as key players in the definition of effective agricultural and commercial policies;
12. Points out that the development of the farming sector requires long-term investment throughout the entire value chain, from producer to consumer, which means providing the necessary infrastructure, such as roads, market linkages and information on the markets themselves and on the scope for product diversification;
13. Believes that a support strategy for developing countries must include a plan for education and training, oriented towards job creation, which will enable young people to study sustainable agricultural science with a view to developing better-quality, specialised and sustainable forms of production, thus containing the drift from the countryside and reducing poverty;
14. Emphasises, in that connection, how important it is that farmers, in addition to meeting their own food needs, should generate the income they need for education and investment;
15. Stresses that it is crucial to involve local agricultural organisations in the different stages of implementing an agricultural policy in the developing countries, and that the European Union should therefore strive to strengthen local associations, so as to ensure that the interests of local communities are protected;
16. Agrees that EU assistance programmes should focus on sustainable, primarily small- and medium- scale food production, as recommended in the IAASTD report, and on approaches that strengthen biodiversity, prevent the degradation of fertile land and promote low-external-input (LEI) practices while increasing agricultural output in developing countries, which can be achieved through better access for smallholders and medium-scale farmers to loans and microcredits with fair interest rates and conditions;
17. Considers that the EU should contribute to promoting the use of seeds from local varieties which are adapted to climatic conditions in developing countries and which can be easily stored, traded and supplied to farmers, as they are free of intellectual property rights;
18. Calls on the EU and developing countries to develop joint research and training capacities in sustainable farming methods and new technologies, notably through public-private partnerships and joint ventures, including producing value addition at the point of food collection and storage through packaging and processing;
19. Insists on the need to reinforce research on a basis of public funding and to transmit know-how in the field of sustainable agriculture, promoting activities which strengthen the position of smallholder farmers in optimising agri-outputs, adapting to the challenges posed by climate change and the increased demand on resources;
20. Calls for the establishment of mechanisms that protect forests, indigenous people, wetlands and traditional agricultural practices in exporting third countries.
21. Considers, in view of the growing global population and increasing pressure on natural resources, that it is essential to establish more sustainable, energy-saving and efficient forms of production at world level; demands that the allocation of aid by the EU and Member States be tied to the development of sustainable and energy self-sufficient agricultural production systems, and that a part of this aid contribute to the setting up of facilities for generating renewable energy (for example based on wind and sun) and good water management;
22. Stresses that in the context of the UN Climate Change Fund negotiations the EU should push to ensure that a substantial part of the monies allocated to developing countries is effectively used to reinforce local agricultural policies, with due regard for sustainable social and environmental development;
23. Stresses that if smallholder farmers, especially women, in developing countries are to become not only sustainable, but are to also fulfil their production potential they must have greater access to microcredit, including non-profit microcredit, for investment in improved seeds, fertilisers and irrigation mechanisms and the necessary range of crop protection tools to protect their harvests from pests and diseases;
24. Emphasises the importance of scaling up both nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive activities and policies and to better align donor interventions in this sector at country, EU, and international level;
25. Stresses the need to give small farmers in developing countries greater access to property rights, allowing small land owners to prove ownership and as such posses collateral for the loans required to elevate their production;
26. Calls on the Commission to support the development of agro-processing capacities in partner countries in order to reduce post-harvest losses, extend the shelf-life and preservation of food and develop better storage facilities, thus preventing losses from spoiling, which are currently very high in developing countries worldwide, improve local market access and create decent work for the local population; calls on the EU and its Member States to make every effort to facilitate the transfer to developing countries of technology, expertise and support for capacity building;
27. Calls on the Commission to take into account the role of arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL), with a special focus on livestock, since the largest supply of meat for the more urbanised areas is provided by the ASAL regions;
28. Recalls that access to adequate food is a universal human right; urges partner countries to implement the FAO voluntary guidelines on the right to food;
29. Recalls that agricultural development must be grounded in the right to food and the right to produce food; insists that the EU must recognise and defend the necessity for developing countries to achieve food security (both in quantitative and qualitative terms), and their right to be as self-sufficient as possible; underlines in this regard the EU commitment to gradually phase out export subsidies, in parallel with similar measures being taken by WTO partners; stresses in parallel the need for ensuring equal access of local populations to food in these countries;
30. Recalls the importance of the food security concept, defined as the capacity of a country or a region to democratically implement its own agricultural and food policies, priorities and strategies by means of a sustainable agricultural model; recalls that current production capacities in some developing countries may not cover needs and that achieving long-term food security requires a reduction in import dependencies by building up these domestic capacities;
31. Recalls the importance of an approach to food security governance which entails a global framework that refocuses on food policy beyond food aid, inter-donor and donor recipient cooperation with enhanced local partnership, as well as the crucial role of recipient country policies in committing to provide basic public goods such as internal peace and investment in rural infrastructure;
32. Welcomes the resolve to integrate the nutritional dimension into EU programmes; calls on the Commission to draw up a specific Communication on this dimension; calls for the permanent inclusion of the nutrition aspect in food security policies and interventions in the agriculture sector;
33. Calls on the Commission to recognise the fundamental role of women, as smallholder farmers, in food and nutrition security, and to invest in programmes which specifically support them; recalls that women’s importance in achieving nutrition security for themselves and their children has still to be properly acknowledged and, therefore, that women’s livelihoods have to be secured and knowledge about adequate nutrition increased; insists that the EU strategy should also focus on the implementation of actions to ensure that the most vulnerable, especially in rural areas, can benefit from agriculture training opportunities, education on nutrition, good health and work conditions and a safety net if it is needed ;
34. Calls on the Commission and international organisations such as the FAO to continue their ongoing consultation processes with global civil society and non-state actors, in particular with farmers’, fishermen’s and breeders’ organisations, the involvement and contribution of whom is vital with a view to adopting specific measures to improve food production;
35. Takes the view that, in the light of FAO population projections indicating that, by 2025, more than half of the developing world’s population (some 3.5 thousand million people) will be living in urban areas, a policy of support for urban horticulture could offer a pathway out of poverty, given the low start-up costs, short production cycles and high yields per unit of time, land and water, and could make the new cities greener;
36. Urges the EU to support the UN social protection floor initiative, which would help satisfy the basic food needs of impoverished populations;
37. Urges the Commission to focus on undernutrition, particularly maternal and infant undernutrition, and to integrate sound and multi-sectoral nutrition strategies into its development policy;
38. Highlights the statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food that farmer participation is vital to the success of agroecological practices and stimulates continued learning for farmers; therefore encourages food producers in the developing countries to become involved in global and local NGOs and farmers’ cooperatives;
39. Calls on the Commission and the Council to promote and work towards the implementation of innovative financial instruments, such as an international tax on financial transactions; recalls that these instruments should be additional to the UN goal of 0.7% of GNI devoted to development cooperation; emphasises, at the same time, the need for developing countries to step up their own efforts in the area of taxation, mainly as regards tax collection and the fight against tax evasion;
Effective measures against food price volatility and uncontrolled land acquisition: limit speculation in food and agricultural commodity markets
40. Expresses its concern that 2008, the year of the global food crisis, was also the greatest wheat-producing year in world history, and emphasises against this background the negative role of speculation on commodity price indexes;
41. Draws attention to the structural causes of price volatility and strongly emphasises that speculation on derivatives of essential food commodities has significantly worsened price volatility; endorses the conclusions of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food regarding the role played by large investors in influencing commodities price indexes;
42. Stresses that recently a host of other unpredictable factors have also negatively impacted upon stability in the food markets, including the catastrophe in Japan, an unprecedented wave of political unrest engulfing many countries in North Africa and the Near East, another strong increase in oil prices, and prolonged uncertainty in financial markets and in the global economy have all had an impact;
43. Believes that financial speculation and increased liberalisation of financial markets and trade in agricultural products greatly contribute to price volatility and that regulatory mechanisms are needed to ensure a degree of market stability; considers that market transparency should be improved to ensure fair remuneration for farmers and a viable sector that will deliver food security; calls in particular for clear identification of actors involved in the food trade and for an in-depth analysis of transmission mechanisms of speculation on food products on local and world markets;
44. Urges the Commission and the Members States to take concrete action to effectively tackle financial speculation on grain and food;
45. Believes that commodity derivatives are different from other financial derivatives and that access to this market should be better regulated;
46. Believes that the European Union should take steps to restore world food stocks, which after reaching record lows in 2007 have contributed to speculation which has been affecting the prices of agricultural products at world level, with alarming effects on developing countries;
47. Calls for the increase, better management and storage of physical grain and food reserves at national and regional level and a strengthening of international coordination and monitoring, thereby countering food price volatility and enabling a better and faster response to food crises;
48. Expresses deep concern regarding the large-scale land acquisitions that are currently carried out by foreign investors in developing countries, which is also to the detriment of local smallholder and medium-scale farmers and to local, regional and national food security; therefore calls on the EU to encourage governments of developing countries to commit to land reform in order to secure the land titles of indigenous farmers and small and medium farmers, especially women, and to prevent land-grabbing practices by corporations;
49. Stresses that the land should be accessible to all and that it is necessary to protect the land, tenancy and land use rights of small local farmers and the access of local communities to natural resources, in order to prevent further land takeovers, as is already happening to an alarming extent in certain regions of the world, especially Africa;
50. Hopes that European aid and action programmes will make the most of local farmers’ knowledge of food production;
51. Encourages the adoption of the FAO voluntary guidelines on land acquisitions and ensuring their participatory implementation, but also calls for strict binding national and international regulations on land acquisitions; stresses that contract negotiations should be made transparent allowing for the participation of parliaments and elected representatives of local and regional authorities after consultation of civil society;
52. Considers it necessary to ensure that local communities and institutions have the negotiating powers and capacities enabling them to develop local farming; proposes drawing up a code of conduct to urge investors to focus their efforts on raising agricultural productivity and improving the livelihoods of local communities;
53. Draws attention to the acquisition not only of land but also of fishing licences that is practised by foreign investors; stresses the need for transparency and allowing participation in the contract negotiations for national parliaments and civil society, as well as the need to keep a list of agreements concluded in the public domain;
54. Calls for the establishment of mechanisms which prevent the ‘pricing out’ of local farmers and their ability to produce food for local populations;
55. Reminds the Commission and partner countries of the positive effects of agro-ecological production systems regarding climate change mitigation and that long-term food security relies on dealing with the environmental impact of production, so that natural resources and food supplies are protected; stresses, however, that the main purpose of agricultural aid to regions with urgent food insecurity or hunger must be to increase food production and access to food;
56. Welcomes the efforts of the G20 in tackling price volatility and food security;
57. Expresses its deep concerns regarding the decline of natural resources and the maintaining of effective conditions for agricultural production, including soil quality, water access and the prevention of environmental pollution; insists on the fact that all stakeholders, particularly farmers, local and regional authorities and civil society organisations, should play a significant role in the development of a sustainable agricultural development strategy;
Policy Coherence for Development: impact of EU policies on global food security
58. Believes that food security should not be jeopardised by the development of agrofuels; calls therefore for a balanced approach that gives priority to the new generation of agrofuels using farm and forestry waste (straw and other crop waste, animal manure, biogas, etc.) instead of food crops, to avoid a situation of competition between food and energy production; considers also that the EU should make sure that agrofuel imports from developing countries respect sustainability criteria;
59. Urges the adoption of a more global perspective in the design of the CAP post-2013 which should adhere to the principle of ‘do no harm’ to food markets in developing countries;
60. Calls on the Commission to carry out a CAP impact assessment that will analyse its external impact on international food markets and food security in developing countries
61. Urges the Commission to investigate the problem of food waste inside the EU, as up to 40 % of the available food, including food produced in developing countries and exported to the EU, is thought to be thrown in the dustbin, and to propose effective measures to tackle the problem and improve consumption patterns;
62. Calls for the complete phasing-out of export subsidies;
63. Insists that the Commission make sure that the external dimension of the current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is mainstreamed with EU development policies;
64. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is being respected in countries where the EU has Fisheries Partnership Agreements, especially regarding the recommendation to grant preferential access for local artisanal fishers to resources;
65. Emphasises that the fisheries sector in many countries is crucial for employment and food security and that all developing countries should therefore be eligible for EU sector support for the development of their own sustainable fisheries industry, research, control and enforcement to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries;
66. Calls for reforms that will expand market access opportunities for developing countries and allow them to perform competitively in their own national and regional markets;
67. Recalls that the European Union should ensure maximum consistency between its cooperation and development policies and its trade policies, taking account of the needs and concerns both of the EU Member States and of the developing countries;
68. Believes that the EU should support regional integration and the sustainable development of local agrofood markets in developing countries and especially regional commercial agreements promoting the development of viable and sustainable production and processing capacities at local level, and dedicate a substantial part of its development aid to this purpose;
69. Reiterates concerns that the EU’s trade strategy which sometimes fails to provide a pro-development approach; calls therefore for fair and pro-development trade agreements, as they are an essential element of a global food security response;
70. Recalls that food security requires coherence and coordination of the various sectoral policies at EU level, namely development policy, the CAP, the common trade policy, energy policy and research programmes;
71. Believes that the Commission should support protein crops in the European Union so as to give the Union greater autonomy, thus contributing to the diversification of agriculture in the developing countries, which often have agricultural policies operating purely on the basis of exports and access to external markets, to the detriment of the wellbeing and needs of local communities;
72. Urges the Commission to focus on development concerns in the ongoing EPA negotiations, broaden developing countries’ room for manoeuvre with regard to trade rules and, in particular, apply safeguard clauses in order to achieve endogenous, sustainable development of economic capacity in developing countries; recalls that developing countries' use of export restrictions and infant industry protection are development tools that can be used to enhance local production and food security; demands that the Commission takes a strong pro-development position in WTO negotiations; calls on the Commission to apply a human rights-based approach to international trade negotiations and to apply human rights impact assessments to agreements with third countries;
73. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support a needs-based convention in which the level of donors’ food assistance commitments are linked to people’s needs and guaranteed local purchase volumes in recipient countries;
74. Expresses its deep concern about the lack of transparency, of information provided and of participation of relevant stakeholders in the current FAC negotiations;
°
° °
75. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0411
Unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings
Committee on Constitutional Affairs
PE460.608
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings (2011/2090(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the letter of 8 December 2009 from the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs to the Chair of its Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation[74],
– having regard to the answers by the Council and the Commission respectively to Written Question P-3977/2010 and E-3981/2010,
– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0269/2011),
A. whereas the Court of Justice has the clear and exclusive competence to rule on the interpretation of Union law, be it primary or secondary,
B. whereas the Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed that declarations are not legally binding,
C. whereas the Council has the duty to inform Parliament fully of its position in the context of legislative procedures[75],
D. whereas under the Treaty the institutions are required to practise mutual sincere cooperation[76],
E. whereas unilateral statements by Member States or the Council might adversely affect Parliament’s legislative powers, are damaging to the quality of Union legislation and undermine the principle of legal certainty,
F. whereas no statement entered in the minutes of meetings of the Council or of the conciliation committee at any stage of the legislative procedure can pre-empt the outcome of negotiations between the two branches of the legislative authority,
1. Reaffirms that statements and declarations which are not incorporated into a legal text but which concern it, regardless of whether they are issued by one or more Member States, have no legal force and may undermine the coherence of Union law and its clear interpretation;
2. Insists that unilateral statements must not diminish or compromise the need for all States to observe systematically the discipline of publishing correlation tables, setting out the ways and means EU law is to be transposed into domestic law, in the interests of the efficient and transparent implementation of legislation across the whole of the Union;
3. Calls for all statements to be notified to Parliament, and with regard to statements by Member States, for them not to be published in series L of the Official Journal of the European Union;
4. Calls on the Council to forward the minutes of the legislative part of its meetings to Parliament at the same time as to the national parliaments and Member State governments;
5. Reserves the right to use any lawful means at its disposal should unilateral statements have been deliberately intended to produce legal effects;
6. Calls on the Council and Commission to enter into negotiations with Parliament, on the basis of Article 295 TFEU, with a view to updating the Joint Declaration on practical arrangements for the codecision procedure (now ordinary legislative procedure) in order to take account of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and to clearly delimit the scope of unilateral statements;
7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0412
New trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy
Committee on International Trade
PE460.634
European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy (2010/2152(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612),
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘EU 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Global Europe: competing in the world. A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),
– having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on Europe 2020[77],
– having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the state of play in the EU-India Free Trade Agreement negotiations[78],
– having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on EU-Japan trade relations[79],
– having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on EU-Canada trade relations[80],
– having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on European international investment policy[81],
– having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on the Free trade agreement between the EU and the Republic of Korea[82],
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘Contributing to Sustainable Development: the role of Fair Trade and non-governmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes‘ of 5 May 2009 (COM(2009)0215),
– having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on trade policy in the context of climate change imperatives[83],
– having regard its resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements[84],
– having regard its resolution of 25 November 2010 on corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements[85],
– having regard its resolution of 21 October 2010 on the European Union’s trade relations with Latin America[86],
– having regard its resolution of 21 September 2010 on trade and economic relations with Turkey[87],
– having regard to its resolution of 16 June 2010 on EU 2020[88],
– having regard to its resolution of 26 March 2009 on an EU-India Free Trade Agreement[89],
– having regard to its resolution of 5 February 2009 on Trade and economic relations with China[90],
– having regard to its resolution of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade[91],
– having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade[92],
– having regard to the Commission communication of 17 October 2008 entitled ‘The outermost regions: an asset for Europe‘,
– having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2008 on Trade in services[93],
– having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2008 on trade in raw materials and commodities[94],
– having regard to its resolution of 24 April 2008 on ‘Towards a reform of the World Trade Organisation’[95],
– having regard to its resolution of 19 February 2008 on the EU’s Strategy to deliver market access for European companies[96],
– having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2007 on the trade and economic relations with Korea[97],
– having regard to its resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe - external aspects of competitiveness[98],
– having regard to its resolution of 12 October 2006 on economic and trade relations between the EU and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an Interregional Association Agreement[99],
– having regard to its resolution of 28 September 2006 on the EU’s economic and trade relations with India[100],
– having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2006 on EU-US transatlantic economic relations[101],
– having regard to the Presidency conclusions following the European Council meeting of 17-18 June 2010,
– having regard to Rules 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Development, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on the Internal market and consumer protection (A7-0255/2011),
The Union’s and the United States’ share in the world’s relative GDP[102] is declining while the emerging countries are rapidly increasing their performance
A. whereas, while the Union accounted for 25% of world GDP in the year 2000 (measured at purchasing power parity (PPP)) at the launch of the Lisbon Strategy, it is now estimated that it will account for only 18% of world GDP in 2020, signifying a decline of 28% in its relative economic performance,
B. whereas, while the two biggest developed economies, the Union and the United States, accounted for 48% of world GDP in the year 2000 (at PPP), it is now estimated that they will account for 35% of world GDP in the year 2020, signifying a decline of 27% in their relative joint economic performance,
C. whereas, while the two biggest emerging economies, China and India, accounted for 10% of world GDP in the year 2000 (at PPP), it is estimated that they will account for 25% of world GDP in the year 2020, signifying an increase of 150% in their relative economic performance,
This relative decline in the Union’s GDP is mirrored in its trade performance[103]
D. whereas the Union accounted for 19% of world exports of goods in the year 1999 and whereas it accounted for 17.1% of world exports in 2009, signifying a decline of 10% in its relative export performance,
E. whereas the Union accounted for 19.5% of world imports of goods in the year 1999 and whereas it accounted for 17.6% of world imports in 2009, signifying a decline of 10% in its relative imports,
F. whereas the share of export of services increased from 26.7% to 30.2% in the Union’s global export performance between 1999 and 2009[104],
G. whereas 50 countries (30 if the EU is counted as one entity) account for 80% of world trade,
Demographic changes[105] also have an influence on economic performance
H. whereas the Union’s population is projected to increase by almost 5% by the year 2035, followed by a steady decline thereafter, and whereas the Union’s working age population is expected to start declining from the year 2010 onwards,
The Union’s economy is highly dependent on participating in external growth
I. whereas growth, prosperity, jobs and maintaining the European social model are all interlinked and underpin each other,
J. whereas it is estimated by the Commission that, by 2015, 90% of world growth will be generated outside the Union,
K. whereas trade opening leads to higher productivity, contributes to increased external competitiveness and could contribute immediately to more than 1.5% of direct economic growth and bring significant consumer benefits,
L. whereas it is estimated by the Commission that 18% of the Union’s labour force, or 36 million jobs, are dependent on the Union’s trade performance and whereas the comparison between trade opening and employment over the past 10 years shows that trade opening goes together with employment and job creation,
M. whereas, bearing in mind the Union’s demographic estimates and their adverse effects on the growth potential, it is paramount to harness, and benefit from, the growth potential inherent in increasing productivity, and the growth potential inherent in external trade,
A future European Strategy on Trade Policy should take the specific features of EU industries, territories and dependence on external growth into account
N. whereas the Commission’s Communication ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ suggests proper short-term measures but fails to reflect on the Union’s future role in a changed world,
O. whereas the Commission proposed a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries as part of the EU‘s investment policy,
Parliament expected to receive a real future trade strategy, which took account of mid- and long-term developments and did not build on the false assumption of a continuing status quo on the world trade stage
1. Welcomes in general the triple objectives of Europe 2020 of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and the Commission’s Communication ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’, and urges on the Commission to present a forward-looking and innovative future strategy on trade and investment taking into account the new challenges of the EU;
2. Regrets that many targeted goals of the Global Europe Strategy have not been reached as yet and would have expected a more critical analysis of the Strategy with a view to a better understanding of certain failures to achieve;
3. Insists that the Union needs a coherent long-term trade strategy in order to take account of the challenges ahead and in particular of the major emerging countries; insists that such a strategy should be based on a thorough analysis of the current trends in world trade, the Union’s internal and external development as well as the diversity of European enterprises, their know-how and their technological advances; regrets that the Communication fails to deliver a profound forecast of how the ‘world of trade’ could look in a policy-planning perspective of 15 to 20 years; considers that this review should establish the Commission’s ambitions for its bilateral trading relationships over this period including a distinct geographical strategy, for example through the creation of new agreements or targets for eliminating tariffs and non-tariff barriers with its major trading partners;
4. Asks the Commission to deliver such a forecast as a basis and to present a revised mid-and long-term trade strategy by summer 2013, as the Communication on Trade Growth and World affairs fails to do so;
Parliament is aware that trade policy is not an end in itself
5. Reminds all stakeholders that a modern trade policy is required to take into account other policy areas such as:
a) human rights,
b) securing and creation of jobs,
c) labour rights and ILO core labour standards,
d) corporate social responsibility,
e) agricultural policy,
f) environmental policy,
g) climate change,
h) the fight against poverty within and beyond the EU,
i) development policy,
j) protection of consumer interests and rights,
k) security of raw materials and energy supply,
l) foreign policy,
m) neighbourhood policy,
n) industrial policy,
o) protection of property rights, including intellectual property rights,
p) promotion of the rule of law;
6. Emphasises that the principles expressed in the resolutions of 25 November 2010 adopted by the European Parliament by a large majority on human rights, social and environmental standards in international trade agreements[106], on corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements[107] and on International trade policy in the context of climate change imperatives[108], respectively should be horizontally taken into account, and the inclusion of social, environmental standards and human rights should be binding in all FTAs;
7. Is of the opinion that achieving climate goals is possible only by cooperation with the EU’s main trade partners, who at the same time are the biggest CO2 producers;
8. Emphasises that, while trade policy should not be unduly restrained with issues not directly related to international trade, it cannot be dealt with in a vacuum, and underlines the need to find a balance between the Union’s commercial objectives and other aspects of its external policy, such as environmental strategy, humanitarian goals and the EU’s earlier commitments to ensure Policy Coherence for Development; calls on the Commission to give high priority to the EU’s trade interests vis-à-vis its trading partners when negotiating trade agreements and to achieve a better intra- and inter-institutional coordination when dealing with trade issues; 9. Urges that future multilateral and bilateral trade agreements must be part and parcel of a long-term EU industrial strategy in particular for the sustainable renewal and strengthening of the industrial fabric, and the jobs it provides, in the European Union;
10. Emphasises that trade policy is an important element of the Union’s new industrial policy and that trade should be based on fair global competition and full reciprocity to maintain a healthy manufacturing base in Europe;
Parliament strongly prefers a multilateral approach within the WTO
11. Reiterates that the multilateral trading system, embodied in the WTO, remains by far the best framework for achieving free and fair trade on a global basis; considers, however, that the WTO system, in particular the Dispute Settlement Body, should be reformed in order to increase its effectiveness and that the EU should develop proposals to strengthen the WTO and to extend its rulemaking capacity to new areas of trade policy including by ensuring that WTO rules are interpreted and developed in such a way as to support commitments made in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs);
12. Regrets that even after 10 years, it has still not been possible to complete the Doha Round and that the necessary and reasonable conclusion of these negotiations seems currently to be highly unlikely; reiterates its strong support for a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round, bearing in mind that a good conclusion should reflect the shifts in the world’s trading patterns and distribution of the benefits of world trade since the launch of the Round, bearing in mind also the need for a balanced NAMA text to guarantee access to emerging markets such as India, China and ASEAN countries while preventing emerging economies from using NAMA flexibilities to shelter specific key sectors by maintaining peak tariffs;
Parliament sees Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) as important instruments for market access
13. Reiterates that all new FTAs concluded by the EU should be WTO-compatible, comprehensive, ambitious including with regard to sustainable development, balanced and lead to real reciprocal market access and go beyond both existing multilateral commitments and those expected to result from a successful conclusion of the DDA; welcomes the progress made in some negotiations; at the same time regrets that most of the negotiations have not yet been concluded; asks the Commission to analyse what could be done or changed in order to conclude outstanding FTA negotiations better and faster, though never at the expense of sacrificing European interests as content should always take precedence over timing; asks the Commission to analyse the possible impact in terms of jobs, in particular, in order to adjust its mandates to be able to conclude FTAs with long-term benefits for EU growth; asks the Commission to analyse the possibility of including WTO dispute settlement mechanisms in bilateral Free Trade Agreements; asks the Commission to reduce the Spaghetti-Bowl Effect, e.g. by negotiating multilateral rules of origin; calls for the integration of a sustainability chapter, which is connected to safeguard clauses, to cover areas such as trade, environment, production and processing within FTAs;
14. Reminds the Commission to carry out – within a framework defining trade priorities in terms of timetables and strategic geographical areas – a thorough, impartial and unprejudiced ex-ante evaluation of European interests before deciding on future FTA partners and negotiation mandates; emphasises that FTAs should only be negotiated with countries of economic interest and should respect key principles such as reciprocity, zero for zero tariff dismantling, removal of non-tariff barriers, prohibition of duty drawback regimes, and uniform application of a high rules-of-origin threshold; reminds the Commission and the Council to take seriously into account Parliament’s views when deciding about the mandates; calls on the Commission to carry out extensive impact assessments, in particular with regard to the impact on the various EU industries and sectors by in-depth consultations with all the parties concerned, before the conclusions of negotiations and regularly during the duration of the agreement; points out to the Commission and the Council that if they want Parliament to exercise its assent powers responsibly, they must involve Parliament at every stage from the agreement of the negotiating mandate and through each round of negotiations;
Parliament demands more and better results from high-level dialogues with major trading partners such as the US, China, Japan and Russia
15. Stresses the importance of making progress in our commercial relations with major trading partners such as the US, China, Japan and Russia aimed at eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers, in particular in respect of technical standards, intellectual property rights, market access, public procurement and supply of raw materials; regrets, however, that insufficient progress has been made so far in these areas; therefore urges the Commission to conduct more proactive negotiations with a view to successful progress in our trade relations with these countries, and encourages our trading partners to do the same;
16. Stresses the importance of continuing with the strengthening of transatlantic economic relations but without threatening the EU policies in fields such as environmental standards, cultural diversity, social rights and public services; emphasises in particular the importance of achieving more progress in the world’s biggest trade relationship, in particular in respect of standards and technical barriers to trade; welcomes the relaunching of the TEC and considers that, to be successful, this dialogue needs to be further intensified at all levels and that high-level meetings of the Commission, the European Parliament and their US counterparts should occur on a more regular basis; suggests that the European Union and the United States both work to develop the evolving, comprehensive ‘Transatlantic Growth and Jobs Initiative’, which would include plans for the removal of remaining non-tariff barriers to trade and investment by 2020 (‘the transatlantic market’), and that they take steps towards zero-tariff levels in some product areas, as proposed earlier this month by the US Chamber of Commerce; maintains that such an initiative should be included on the agendas for forthcoming meetings of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) and for the EU/US Summit;
17. Calls for the Commission to carry out a comprehensive impact assessment of the benefits and drawbacks for Europe‘s various industrial sectors and job sector so as to be able to make progress with the High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue (HED) with China; states that the EU‘s strategy on trade with China must be based on taking account of European interests, especially as regards intellectual property rights, market access, public procurement and raw materials, and on respect for the principle of reciprocity; states that China, if it wants to avoid recourse to trade defence instruments, must meet its WTO obligations; stresses that the Union should make more systematic use of appropriate legal instruments whenever China does not abide by its obligations;
18. Welcomes the resolution of outstanding bilateral issues in the accession of Russia to the WTO and regards a quick accession to the WTO as key priority; also welcomes the bilateral negotiations on a comprehensive EU-Russia agreement and urges Russia to improve the trading environment for Union operators in Russia;
19. Notes that Parliament is interested in improving the EU-Japan trade relationship by removing non-tariff barriers to trade and investment as a first step; is not satisfied with the negligible progress in this area during recent years; asks the Commission to present Parliament in due course with a comprehensive impact assessment with the possible advantages and disadvantages of an EU-Japan FTA before making any commitments;
20. Acknowledges the achievements of the Market Access Strategy and the prevention of protectionist measures during the financial crisis; welcomes, therefore, the Market Access Strategy and the close cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and the stakeholders; calls, nevertheless, on the Commission and Member States to do more to promote and encourage the use of existing initiatives and tools available such as the ‘market access database’ and the ‘export helpdesk’, so that citizens and SMEs can take full advantage of the EU’s trading relations;
21. Emphasises that the main reason for the EU’s economic success is the activity of various economic operators, including both SMEs and multinationals; therefore urges the Commission to reflect in all trade negotiations and new internal regulations the specific needs and interests of different economic operators;
But on the other hand the Union as a relatively open economy needs effective trade defence instruments
22. Reiterates that the pursuit of further trade liberalisation still requires an ability to protect European producers against unfair trading practices; regards Trade Defence Instruments (TDIs) therefore as an indispensable component of the EU’s strategy even though they should never be used in bad faith for protectionist reasons; welcomes all efforts to streamline and speed up these instruments, including by improving transparency, predictability, and to improve their accessibility for Union industry, in particular for SMEs (e.g. the market access helpdesk complaint tool);
EU competitiveness and economic success cannot exist without services and well-protected foreign direct investments
23. Emphasises the strongly increased potential of goods and services in international trade, but reiterates that market access and the abolition of trade barriers at WTO level and in FTA negotiations has not been able to keep pace with these developments; is aware that many barriers to trade in goods and services may be caused in particular by national regulations; recalls that any further liberalisation in this area must not undermine the ability to develop existing and future services of general interest that are a key element of sustainable development in all countries;
24. Demands that the Commission does its utmost to ensure that our trading partners grant better market access to our service providers in industrialised countries or major emerging economies, bearing in mind that the EU internal market is already quite open to foreign service providers; notes, however, that some public services have to remain excluded on the basis of national or regional cultural diversities;
25. Puts the protection of investors as the first priority in the light of the future European investment policy and considers that public regulation capacity must also be guaranteed and safeguarded; asks the Commission, therefore, to secure the legal certainty of the protection for EU investors; calls on the Council to give its mandates for future investment agreements to the Commission taking into account Parliament’s views and positions as set out in the resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy[109];
26. Points out that the EU has historic ties with Africa, Latin America and Asia and that an appropriate investment policy should therefore be conducted there, with a view to sustainable development;
27. Recognises that the temporary movement of natural persons (Mode IV) has an important role to play within the EU’s bilateral negotiations; believes that it is important that Mode IV does not undermine the principle of collective bargaining and minimum wage legislation;
Parliament asks for positive reciprocity in international public procurement markets
28. Regrets that the large degree of openness of EU public procurement markets at all levels of government are in many cases not matched by commensurate access for EU suppliers abroad; points out that some public services have to remain excluded on the basis of national or regional cultural diversities;
29. Asks that the Commission work towards positive reciprocal access in that important economic sector, bearing in mind that the clear priority in reciprocal access is not to close our markets, but to open up foreign public procurement markets;
Parliament asks for an ambitious attempt to tackle regulatory barriers - within and outside Europe
30. Stresses the increasing relevance of regulatory issues to international trade and therefore calls for greater consistency between EU rules and practices and those of our main trading partners, bearing firmly in mind that this should not bring down EU standards, but lead to a better acceptance of existing multilateral standards;
31. Stresses that the harmonisation in international standards and certification practices with third countries cannot be carried out at the price of lower technical, health and safety and consumer protection standards; calls on the Commission to protect EU standards and to effectively enforce them vis-à-vis importers and economic operators who market their products in Europe;
32. Supports the Single Market Act proposal on regulatory convergence with the EU’s major trading partners, in particular in the areas of consumer and environmental protection, animal welfare, health and labour standards; underlines the importance of adopting international standards at a high level in these crucial areas; confirms that standardisation policies, mutual recognition, licences, services and access to public procurement should be at the heart of FTA negotiations;
33. Asks the Commission to include the aspect of international competitiveness in all impact assessments related to new legislative proposals;
34. Reminds the Commission to pay particular attention to the ‘non-tariff barriers’ and regulatory barriers used by many countries, including WTO members, vis-à-vis EU exports, not least with a view to future trade partnership agreements; points out that, during negotiations, provision should be made for intervention instruments aimed at restoring reciprocity and conditions of equilibrium between the parties in the event of unilateral measures (‘non-tariff barriers’) being taken, including merely administrative measures (certification, inspection), which may place EU businesses at a competitive disadvantage and give rise to asymmetrical operating conditions; calls on the EU to take steps at international level in favour of regulatory cooperation with a view to promoting equivalence and convergence of international standards and thereby limiting disputes and the associated trade costs;
Parliament is engaged in the fight against poverty within and outside the EU
35. Recalls that Parliament is committed to free and fair trade – not only the Member States but also the Union as a whole have a social responsibility; both the EU cohesion funds and the Globalisation Adjustment Fund have to be used and further developed in the interest of the people and to support the continued creation of new competitive jobs within the Union;
36. Recalls that micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises represent 99 % of all enterprises in the EU and have great potential to create new jobs and innovation; considers, therefore, that internal and external policies should better address their specific needs to enhance their competitiveness, and that a special focus has to be laid on the improvement of the EU cohesion funds in terms of accessibility and transparency in order to boost the competitiveness of SMEs;
37. Notes that, with regard to external policy, Parliament supports the Commission in its goal to promote – inter alia – sustainable development, free and fair trade, international labour standards and decent work, for example by negotiating EPAs, which combine European and ACP interests; points out that trade policy must promote development, permit better regional cooperation, encourage investment and improve economic governance, reminding all stakeholders that other regions of the globe have shown how trade can contribute to welfare; asks the Commission for an integrated approach on trade, foreign, development, social, agricultural and environmental policies; reiterates its earlier call on the Commission to ensure coordinated policies in support of Fair Trade;
38. Points out that, as part of its new trade strategy, the EU has a particular interest in supporting the endogenous development of the outermost regions, given their biodiversity and geographical location, which provides the EU with access to the sea, to tropical forests and to a space testing and research range;
39. Calls on the Commission, with regard to EPAs, to respect Parliament’s past resolutions on the need to show flexibility in the negotiations with our partners and honour the commitment to special and differential treatment with developing countries;
40. Notes that Parliament intends to adopt a future GSP System which should include an improved focus on how the countries most in need and meeting our ‘Trade and’ requirements can benefit from the GSP;
41. Calls on the Commission to look into the possibility of taking emergency trade aid measures for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts to rebuild their economies; asks the Commission to present concrete examples of measures which could bring relief to an emergency in the short term as well as measures that could have an impact on mid- and long-term development before asking Parliament‘s consent for such measures;
42. Emphasises that external trade policy must safeguard the EU’s ability to maintain a strong agricultural sector in order to guarantee food security and food sovereignty for 500 million consumers in the EU;
Parliament demands a sustainable and undistorted supply of raw materials
43. Calls on the Commission to pursue a consistent, sustainable, comprehensive and cross-policy strategy concerning raw materials with the aim of preventing and eliminating unfair trade practices such as export restrictions, export taxes and so-called dual pricing mechanisms at multilateral and bilateral level, while recognising that under certain circumstances export restrictions may be seen as important for the support of development objectives, the protection of the environment or the sustainable exploitation of natural resources in poorer developing countries such as LDCs and SIDs; calls on the Commission to diversify its raw material suppliers and to conclude long-term bilateral agreements in this area; considers that this policy has to take into account EU development policy and the development objectives of the economic partnership agreements (EPAs);
44. Highlights the importance of involvement of civil society within FTAs; supports the initiative taken by the Commission within the EU Korea FTA to convene a Domestic Advisory Group to allow civil society input; asks the Commission to develop this initiative within future FTAs;
45. Urges the Commission to stay firm on the elimination of export restrictions, export taxes and so-called dual pricing mechanisms in all future bilateral free trade agreements; asks the Commission to engage in the context of the WTO to negotiate on clear multilateral rules;
46. Urges the Commission not only to complain about the unacceptable behaviour of some trading partners but also to react in a strict and proper way in this regard; reminds the Commission of the fact that, besides trade policy, there are other policies such as agriculture, environment, development, research and foreign affairs that have to support a joint policy on raw materials supply; stresses the need to support and develop research, in particular as regards bio-vegetal chemistry, and recycling of chemical substances, in order to lessen the EU‘s dependence on countries supplying raw materials and rare earths;
Better customs cooperation inside and outside the EU is needed
47. Supports the Commission’s initiative to strengthen the international customs cooperation within the World Customs Organisation and on a bilateral level to make customs procedures more efficient, to reduce costs for traders and to better address security, safety and IPR challenges;
48. Invites the Commission and the Member States to give serious consideration to the idea of setting up a unified EU customs service for a more effective application of custom rules and procedures throughout the customs territory of the EU;
Parliament asks for adequate IPR protection which also bears in mind the interests of the poorest
49. Stresses that counterfeiting results in job losses and undermines innovation, and stresses that adequate IPR protection and effective enforcement are the bedrock of a global economy; regards the appropriate protection of IPRs, especially trademarks and geographical indications by our main trading partners as an indispensable requirement for preserving and improving the EU’s competitiveness; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to the enforcement of existing commitments;
50. Reminds the Commission that European IPR policy towards the least developed and poor developing countries, as well as the main producers of generics, notably India and Brazil, should remain within the TRIPS Agreement obligations and must fully respect the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, especially in the field of generic medicines and public health;
o
o o
51. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions.
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0413
Establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes
PE462.415
Declaration of the European Parliament of 27 September 2011 on the establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the southern shore of the Mediterranean is experiencing unprecedented changes that the EU must support with new initiatives,
B. having regard to the fundamental role played by education in respect of democracy and economic and social development,
C. having regard to the importance of vocational training to combat youth unemployment,
D. whereas the Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes are major successes in terms of European integration,
E. having regard to the small number of beneficiaries of the Erasmus Mundus programme from Mediterranean countries and the lack of south-south mobility,
1. Calls on the Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President to propose, by the end of 2011, the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus programme to facilitate transnational mobility for students from both sides of the Mediterranean;
2. Calls on the Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President to propose, by the end of 2011, the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean Leonardo da Vinci programme to facilitate mobility for young people who wish to participate in vocational training programmes abroad;
3. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories[110], to the Commission, the Council, the High Representative/Vice-President, the Member States of the European Union and the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), their parliaments, the Secretariat of the UfM and the UfM Parliamentary Assembly.
-----------------------
[1] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0256.
[2] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0236.
[3] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0401.
[4] OJ C 161 E, 31.5.2011, p. 104.
[5] B7-0343/2011.
[6] See European Parliament resolution on women and science, paragraph 2. OJ C 279 E, 19.11.2009, p. 40.
[7] OJ L 212, 17.8.1994, p. 3.
[8] OJ C 193 E, 17.8.2006, p. 333.
[9] OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.
[10] .
[11] Ref.: 2011-02-D-39-fr-1.
[12] COM(2010)0595.
[13] OJ L 158, 24.6.2010, p. 1.
[14] OJ L 132, 29.5.2010, p. 1.
[15] OJ L 126, 21.5.2009, p. 3.
[16] OJ L 94, 8.4.2009, p. 10.
[17] OJ L 25, 29.1.2009, p. 1.
[18] OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25.
[19] OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 12.
[20] OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 1.
[21] OJ L 371, 27.12.2006, p. 1.
[22] OJ L 291, 21.10.2006, p. 11.
[23] Texts Adopted, P7_TA(2011)0283.
[24] Texts Adopted, P7_TA(2010)0473.
[25] OJ C117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 79.
[26] OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9.
[27] OJ L 314, 1.12.2007, p. 9.
[28] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0465.
[29] OJ C 341 E, 16.12.2010, p. 5.
[30] OJ C 224 E, 19.8.2010, p. 1.
[31] OJ C 286 E, 27.11.2009, p. 15.
[32] OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 55.
[33] Notably the pilot project to step up cooperation between Member States on combating forest fires (2008) and the preparatory action on an EU rapid response capability (2008-2010).
[34] OJ C 278, 15.10.2010, p. 1.
[35] OJ C 278, 15.10.2010, p. 1.
[36] Position of the European Parliament of 27 September 2011.
[37] OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36.
[38] OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72.
[39] OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
[40] OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 9.
[41] OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385 ▌.
* OJ please insert the date which corresponds to four years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
* OJ please insert the date which corresponds to the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
( OJ please insert the number of this Regulation.
(( OJ please insert the date of this Regulation.
((( OJ please insert publication reference of this Regulation.
(((( OJ please insert number and date of Regulation in doc 17787/10.
((((( OJ please insert publication reference of Regulation in doc 17787/10.
( OJ please insert the number of this Regulation.
[42] OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.
[43] This position replaces the amendments adopted on 5 April 2011 (Texts adopted P7_TA(2011)0125).
[44] Position of the European Parliament of 27 September 2011.
[45] OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1.
[46] OJ L 384, 31.12.1986 p. 60.
[47] OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.
[48] OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36.
[49] OJ L 116, 9.5.2009, p. 18.
[50] OJ L 198, 30.7.2009, p. 57.
[51] OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.
[52] OJ C 193 E, 17.8.2006, p. 325.
[53] OJ C 297 E, 20.11.2008, p. 184.
[54] OJ C 45 E, 23.2.2010, p. 1.
[55] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0057.
[56] ‘The preparation of the European Road Safety Action Program 2011-2020’.
[57] OJ C 227 E, 21.9.2006, p.609.
[58] OJ C 296 E, 6.12.2006, p. 268.
[59] OJ C 244 E, 18.10.2007, p. 220.
[60] OJ C 184 E, 8.7.2010, p. 50.
[61] OJ C 184 E, 8.7.2010, p. 43.
[62] OJ C 161 E, 31.5.2011, p. 58.
[63] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0260.
[64] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0067.
[65] OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 62.
[66] OJ C 263 E, 16.10.2008, p. 621.
[67] OJ C 279 E, 19.11.2009, p. 71.
[68] Text adopted, P7_TA(2011)0071.
[69] OJ C 297 E, 20.11.2008, p. 201.
[70] OJ C 46 E, 24.2.2010, p. 10.
[71] OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 69.
[72] OJ C 161 E, 31.5.2011, p. 47.
[73] Text adopted, ACP-EU/100.879/10/fin.
[74] OJ C 73, 17.3.1999, p. 1.
[75] Article 294 TFEU (at first reading).
[76] Article 13 TEU.
[77] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0068.
[78] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0224.
[79] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0225.
[80] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0257.
[81] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0141.
[82] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0063.
[83] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0445.
[84] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0434.
[85] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0446.
[86] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0387.
[87] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0324.
[88] OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 57.
[89] OJ C 117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 166.
[90] OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 132.
[91] OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 101.
[92] OJ C 45 E, 23.2.2010, p. 47.
[93] OJ C 295 E, 4.12.2009, p. 67.
[94] OJ C 279 E, 19.11.2009, p. 5.
[95] OJ C 259 E, 29.10.2009, p. 77.
[96] OJ C 184 E, 6.8.2009, p. 16.
[97] OJ C 323 E, 18.12.2008, p. 520.
[98] OJ C 102 E, 24.4.2008, p. 128.
[99] OJ C 308 E, 16.12.2006, p. 182.
[100] OJ C 306 E, 15.12.2006, p. 400.
[101] OJ C 298 E, 8.12.2006, p. 235.
[102] ‘Convergence, Catch Up and Overtaking’, PwC, 2010.
[103] Eurostat data.
[104] Eurostat, UN Servicetrade.
[105] European Commission, Ageing Report 2009; Eurostat/UNECE Work Session 2010.
[106] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0434.
[107] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0446.
[108] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0445.
[109] Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0141.
[110] The list of signatories is published in Annex 1 to the Minutes of 27 September 2011 (P7_PV-PROV(2011)09-27(ANN1)).
-----------------------
2011 - 2012
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
-----------------------
United in diversity
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- european winter solstice greeting cards
- european history online course
- european journal of philosophy
- european journal of experimental biology
- european dividend aristocrats etf
- european pharmacies shipping to usa
- modern european history topics
- european credit cards for americans
- european financial management
- west european people
- european journal of dentistry
- european people art