European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong in China, notably the case of Mr Ding Yuande (2024/2504(RSP))

P9_TA(2024)0037 RC-B9-0067/2024

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on China,

–  having regard to Rules 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas since 1999, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has engaged in systematic persecution to eradicate the Falun Gong religious movement; whereas freedom of religious belief is deteriorating across the People’s Republic of China (PRC); whereas technology-based censorship and surveillance are central to this repression; whereas Article 36 of the PRC’s Constitution stipulates that its citizens must enjoy freedom of religious belief;

B.  whereas it is documented that thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have died as a result of the CCP’s persecution since 1999; whereas practitioners are frequently detained and reportedly subjected to torture, psychological abuse and organ harvesting so that they renounce their faith;

C.  whereas on 12 May 2023 Falun Gong practitioners Mr Ding Yuande and his wife Ms Ma Ruimei were arrested without a warrant; whereas Ms Ma was released on bail, but was then intimidated by police because of a rescue campaign launched by their son abroad;

D.  whereas Mr Ding was detained with no family visits for eight months; whereas on 15 December 2023 he was sentenced to three years in prison with a CNY 15 000 fine; whereas he appealed the judgment;

1.  Strongly urges the PRC to immediately end the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and other minorities, including Uyghurs and Tibetans; demands the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Ding and all Falun Gong practitioners in China;

2.  Calls for the PRC to end domestic and transnational surveillance and control and the suppression of religious freedom; urges the PRC to abide by its obligations under international law and its own constitution to respect and protect human rights;

3.  Calls on the EU Member States to suspend extradition treaties with the PRC;

4.  Stresses that respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law should be at the centre of the EU’s relations with China; calls for the EU and its Member States to support and facilitate an international investigation into the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and raise the persecution of religious minorities during all political and human rights dialogues with the Chinese authorities; calls on the Member States and the EU Delegation to the PRC to monitor trials;

5.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to publicly condemn organ transplant abuses in China and to use the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime and national human rights sanctions regimes against all perpetrators and entities that have contributed to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China and abroad; stresses that EU measures should include refusing visas, freezing assets, expulsion from EU territories, criminal prosecution, including on the basis of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and bringing international criminal charges;

6.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the EU institutions, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the Government and Parliament of the PRC.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the threat of famine following the spread of the conflict in Sudan (2024/2505(RSP))

P9_TA(2024)0038 RC-B9-0063/2024

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Sudan,

–  having regard to the Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect the Civilians of Sudan,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to Rules 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the violent conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces continues to be the main driver of life-threatening and acute food insecurity in Sudan, affecting 18 million people, 5 million of whom are at emergency levels of hunger;

B.  whereas over 7,5 million people have been forcibly displaced in Sudan and beyond, leading to severe suffering, in particular among women and children; whereas Sudan now has the largest number of displaced people in the world;

C.  whereas around 12 000 people have been killed in the conflict; whereas ethnically motivated attacks, against the Masalit community in particular, have increased in Darfur and throughout the country, seriously increasing the risk of ethnic cleansing; whereas sexual violence has been systematically used;

D.  whereas the conflict has dramatically exacerbated shortages of basic supplies and fuel in areas with constrained humanitarian access; whereas the conflict has expanded to grain-producing areas; whereas the country has the highest rate of child malnutrition globally;

E.  whereas assaults on humanitarian workers and infrastructure have led organisations to suspend operations, thus disrupting food security;

F.  whereas the Commission mobilised over EUR 128 million for its humanitarian response in Sudan in 2023;

1.  Strongly condemns the ongoing violence between the rival armed factions in Sudan, the human rights violations and the resulting food insecurity; deplores the repeated attacks against civilians and reminds all factions of their obligations under international law;

2.  Calls on all parties to the conflict to immediately cease hostilities, to facilitate safe, timely and unhindered humanitarian access, including by fulfilling their Jeddah commitments, and to seek a negotiated peaceful resolution to the conflict; fully supports all regional and international efforts in this regard; calls on the external parties to the conflict to refrain from interferences that contribute to the conflict and instability;

3.  Underlines the need to ensure equitable access to humanitarian relief for civilians who are subject to ongoing fighting, shortages of food, water and fuel, limited communications and electricity, and very high prices for essential items;

4.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to increase emergency funding for the humanitarian response throughout Sudan and its neighbouring countries; underlines the need for specific support for survivors of sexual violence, including protection, care, treatment and support mechanisms;

5.  Calls for the EU to sanction those responsible for human rights violations under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime; calls on the UN Security Council to sanction violations of the UN arms embargo on Darfur and to expand this embargo throughout the country;

6.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Sudanese authorities, the African Union, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Pan-African Parliament.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on Tajikistan: state repression against the independent media (2024/2506(RSP))

P9_TA(2024)0039 RC-B9-0064/2024

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Tajikistan,

–  having regard to Rules 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the democratic control function of independent media in Tajikistan has been continuously declining over the last decade and Tajikistan’s media are in their worst state since independence in 1991;

B.  whereas since October 2022, authorities have sentenced numerous journalists, including Abdullo Ghurbati, Daler Imomali, Zavqibek Saidamini, Abdusattor Pirmuhammadzoda, Ulfatkhonim Mamadshoeva, Khushruz Jumayev and Khurshed Fozilov, to between seven and over 20 years in prison in retaliation for their coverage of social issues and human rights abuses, including in GBAO; whereas the ‘Law on Countering Extremism’ and the ‘Law on Combating Terrorism’ are used to persecute journalists, as deplored by UN experts in July 2023;

C.  whereas the only two significant independent news agencies – Asia-Plus and RFE/RL local service Radio Ozodi – regularly face harassment and threats, including difficulties in obtaining accreditation and criminal charges, notably against journalist Rustami Joni; whereas journalists running the independent Azda TV in exile report ongoing pressure by the Tajik security services on their relatives remaining in the country;

D.  whereas pressure exerted by authorities on domestic media and self-censorship facilitate Russian propaganda and disinformation, in particular by stifling coverage of the ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine;

1.  Strongly condemns the ongoing crackdown, including anti-extremism legislation, against independent media, government critics, human rights activists and independent lawyers; condemns the closure of independent media and websites, including the online media outlets Pamir Daily News, New Tajikistan 2 and Akhbor.com;

2.  Condemns all politically motivated trials and the lack of fair and public hearings by independent courts; urges the authorities to stop persecuting journalists, immediately and unconditionally release those who have been arbitrarily detained and drop all charges against them, stop the persecution of lawyers defending government critics and release human rights lawyers Manuchehr Kholiknazarov and Buzurgmehr Yorov;

3.  Urges the government to ensure that detainees have access to adequate healthcare; calls for a thorough investigation into allegations of mistreatment in custody and forced confessions, and those responsible to be brought to justice;

4.  Calls on the government to ensure a safe working environment for media workers and human rights defenders in accordance with Tajikistan’s international human rights obligations; reiterates that the free and independent work of the media and civil society organisations is a cornerstone of any democratic society; insists that the situation of freedom of expression in Tajikistan should be taken into account when assessing the application to GSP+ and for negotiation of the new EU-Tajikistan EPCA;

5.  Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to increase support for civil society, human rights defenders and independent media workers in Tajikistan, including funding and visas for those in need of protection;

6.  Calls on international institutions to continue to monitor the human rights situation in Tajikistan;

7.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, Commission, HR/VP, EU Member States, UNHRC and the President, Government and Parliament of Tajikistan.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (2023/2081(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0040 A9-0416/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 168 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods(1),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(2),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004(3),

–  having regard to Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements(4),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods(5),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009(6),

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act)(7),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/522 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (‘EU4Health Programme’) for the period 2021-2027, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2021 on a farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system(9),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working document of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘Executive summary of the evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods with regard to nutrient profiles and health claims made on plants and their preparations and of the general regulatory framework for their use in foods’ (SWD(2020)0096),

–   having regard to the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 15 December 2021 entitled ‘Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars’(10),

–  having regard to the 2022 WHO publication entitled ‘Nutrition labelling: policy brief’(11),

–  having regard to the 2019 WHO publication entitled ‘Guiding principles and framework manual for front-of-pack labelling for promoting healthy diets’(12),

–  having regard to the third UN Sustainable Development Goal, which is to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages,

–  having regard to the UNICEF publication of December 2013 entitled ‘Children’s rights in impact assessments – A guide for integrating children’s rights into impact assessments and taking action for children’(13),

–  having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A9-0416/2023),

A.   whereas Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, or NHCR) was introduced with the objective of ensuring the highest level of consumer protection possible and facilitating consumers’ choices; whereas the NHCR applies to voluntary nutrition and health claims on foods in all commercial communications, including in labelling and advertising, as well as communications to health professionals(14); whereas the Commission approves health claims that are grounded in scientific evidence and comprehensible to consumers, following a scientific assessment of the claims by EFSA;

B.  whereas claims can be categorised as ‘function health claims’, ‘risk reduction claims’ or ‘claims referring to children’s development’; whereas in July 2023, 269 health claims were authorised for use in the EU; whereas claims referring to children’s development and health in the labelling of foods may be authorised in accordance with the procedures and requirements laid down by the NHCR;

C.  whereas at least 18 % of new products entering the EU food and drink market carry nutrition or health claims, with an estimated quarter of all foods available on the EU market bearing such claims(15); whereas, as explained in recital 10 of the NHCR, foods promoted with claims may be perceived by consumers as having a nutritional, physiological or other health advantage over similar or other products to which such nutrients and other substances are not added, and this may encourage consumers to make choices that directly influence their total intake of individual nutrients or other substances in a way which would run counter to scientific advice;

D.  whereas under Article 13(3) of the NHCR, the Commission was supposed to adopt a Community list of permitted claims by 31 January 2010 at the latest;

E.  whereas the presence of nutrition or health claims affects consumers’ food choices, along with other characteristics such as price, brand, colour and packaging shape; whereas health claims, especially risk reduction claims, have more of an impact on consumers’ attitudes than nutrition claims(16); whereas consumer understanding of nutrition and health claims is influenced by various factors, including nutritional knowledge and education levels, and this should be taken into account so as to facilitate the shift to healthier diets and to stimulate food reformulation; whereas, however, information provision, education and awareness campaigns alone are insufficient to achieve the required change to more sustainable and healthy consumer choices, as these can be influenced by other key elements of food environments, such as affordability, marketing and availability;

F.  whereas the NHCR mandated the Commission to set nutrient profiles for foods or specific food categories by 19 January 2009; whereas nutrient profiles have yet to be set in practice; whereas, in 2020, the Commission evaluation report on the NHCR reaffirmed the need to develop nutrient profiles as a tool to protect consumers from being exposed to health claim-bearing foods with poor nutritional compositions; whereas the Farm to Fork Strategy reaffirmed that nutrient profiles should be set in order to restrict the marketing and promotion of unhealthy foods via nutritional and health claims;

G.  whereas, in its 2021 resolution on the Farm to Fork Strategy, Parliament explicitly welcomed the announcement of a legislative proposal to establish nutrient profiles in order to prohibit the use of nutrition and health claims on foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt or generally unhealthy foods and called for particular attention to be given to food for children and other special purpose foods;

H.  whereas consumers continue to be exposed to positive nutrition or health claims on foods high in fat, salt or sugar, which is incompatible with the objective of high-level consumer protection;

I.  whereas weight problems and obesity are increasing rapidly in most Member States, with more than half of European adults and one in three children being overweight or obese(17); whereas childhood overweight and obesity are increasing global public health challenges; whereas there is sufficient evidence that childhood obesity is influenced by the marketing of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, yet children continue to be exposed to high levels of such marketing, which employs powerful and persuasive techniques, including, increasingly, via digital means;

J.  whereas unhealthy diets that are high in salt, sugar and fat, including saturated fats and trans fats, are a leading risk factor for disease and mortality in Europe and, according to the WHO, cause 8 million premature deaths every year; whereas 1 in 5 deaths in 2017 was attributable to unhealthy diets, mainly through cardiovascular diseases and cancers; whereas a stronger focus on prevention of disease is needed;

K.  whereas in its resolution of 16 February 2022 on strengthening Europe in the fight against cancer — towards a comprehensive and coordinated strategy(18), Parliament stressed the role of healthy diets in preventing and limiting the incidence of cancer;

L.  whereas EFSA could not set a safe level of intake for free and added sugars because ‘the risk of adverse health effects (response) increased across the whole range of observed intake levels (doses) in a constant (linear) manner, i.e. the higher the intake, the greater the risk of adverse effects’(19); whereas the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified the sweetener aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans; whereas a systematic review by the WHO suggests that non-sugar sweeteners could be linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality and increased body weight; whereas healthier diets that include increased consumption of plant-based foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and legumes, and avoid overconsumption of meat and ultra-processed products contribute to improved health, reduce mortality from diet-related non-communicable diseases and bring environmental benefits;

M.  whereas effective information tools, such as front-of-pack nutritional labels, support citizens in making healthier food choices and avoiding unhealthy consumption of food high in salt, fat and sugar; whereas Parliament supported the adoption of such a label in its own-initiative resolution of 20 October 2021 on the Farm to Fork strategy, in which it called on the Commission to ensure the development of mandatory and harmonised EU front-of-pack nutritional labelling based on scientific evidence and demonstrated consumer understanding in order to support the provision of accurate information about foods and healthier alternatives;

N.  whereas in 2012, the Commission established an ‘on-hold’ list of 2 078 health claims relating to plant substances, mainly due to the absence of human intervention studies that led to the suspension of the EFSA assessment and authorisation procedure in 2010; whereas the ‘on-hold’ health claims – both those negatively assessed and those not yet reviewed – may still be used on the EU market according to the transitional measures set out in the NHCR, until a decision on the ‘on-hold’ list is taken;

O.  whereas in 2020, the Commission concluded in its evaluation report on the NHCR that consumers continue to be exposed to health claims on botanicals with varying levels of scientific assessment, including unsubstantiated health claims for which they may believe that the stated beneficial effects have been scientifically evaluated when this is not the case;

P.  whereas more coordination on the safety framework for botanicals could contribute to improving consumer protection;

Q.  whereas the legislation on botanicals in foods and food supplements is not harmonised at EU level; whereas Member States either have positive, negative or no lists of botanical substances permitted in foods; whereas the classification of botanicals as either food or medicine lies within the competence of each individual Member State; whereas the purpose of a medicinal product is to treat or prevent disease in human beings and food supplements are intended for consumers who do not have immediate medical needs; whereas it is therefore important to maintain a clear distinction between food and medicine;

R.  whereas herbal medicines must undergo authorisation procedures before their introduction to the EU market, necessitating the demonstration of product safety and efficacy and the fulfilment of additional legal requirements in such areas as quality assessments, pharmacovigilance and compliance with good manufacturing practices; whereas herbal medicines that have been safely used for 30 years, including 15 years in the EU, can use a simplified registration procedure for traditional herbal medicinal products, where ‘traditional use’ data is accepted to substantiate the safety and efficacy of the product;

S.  whereas the enforcement of the NHCR as regards claims on botanicals has been substantially delayed; whereas the NHCR’s objective of ensuring a high level of consumer protection requires swift action from the Commission to either fully enforce or revise the NHCR, as it is not fit for purpose in certain respects;

T.  whereas Member States are responsible for enforcing the NHCR within their jurisdictions; whereas Member States are obliged to apply the principle of mutual recognition; whereas, due to interpretation differences and enforcement discrepancies between Member States, enforcement actions following the incorrect use of claims vary, ranging from advice on how to adjust claims to fines for their improper use;

U.  whereas social media significantly contributes to the advertising and sale of foods and food supplements, while the extent to which the NHCR regulates health-related online communications about foods remains unclear; whereas influencer or celebrity communications on social media are not always clearly commercial or non-commercial(20) and can lead to unverified false and misleading claims on food products, for example with regard to the advertisement of protein and other supplements to enhance muscle growth;

1.  Notes that the NHCR’s main objective is to ensure that claims on foods are based on generally accepted scientific evidence and can be expected to be understood by the average consumer; underlines that, in practice, misleading claims are still reported in both online and offline sales of food;

2.  Points out an increasing consumer interest in food information(21); stresses the need to ensure that information about the nutritional or health values of foods appearing on labels and being used for presentation, marketing and advertising purposes is accurate, science-based and meaningful; calls for the list of authorised nutrition and health claims on food to be updated regularly, in line with scientific developments in the fields of food and nutrition;

3.  Stresses the need to ensure that health claims remain aligned with EU health policies and priorities; reaffirms the importance of the Commission’s discretion to not authorise claims when they could result in conflicting and confusing messages being conveyed to consumers(22);

Consideration of nutrient profiles in health claim assessments

4.  Recalls that under Article 4 of the NHCR, the Commission should have established nutrient profiles to restrict the use of nutrition and health claims on foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt by 19 January 2009; regrets the fact that the Commission proposal on nutrient profiles has not yet been submitted, despite being planned for 2022 as part of a revision of EU legislation on food information to consumers; insists that setting nutrient profiles with specific nutrient thresholds for the use of health and nutrition claims, in accordance with Article 4 of the NHCR, remains pertinent and necessary to meet the objectives of the NHCR;

5.  Recalls that claims should not mislead consumers about the true nutrient value of a product; highlights that, in the absence of nutrient profiles, claims can stress a positive aspect of an overall unhealthy product or a product that exceeds the thresholds for specific nutrients, such as fat, sugar and salt; points out that many food products, including some marketed towards children, continue to use health and nutrition claims despite containing high levels of nutrients of concern; underlines that the development of specific nutrient profiles, as provided for in Article 4 of the NHCR and in line with the objectives of the NHCR, is necessary to limit the use of nutrition and health claims on foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt; underlines that the future nutrient profiles, which should be based on robust and independent scientific evidence, could help consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable choices about food products;

6.  Regrets the lack of a systematic and evidence-based approach to creating food environments that help consumers to make informed choices and that stimulate a shift towards healthier diets, including increased consumption of plant-based foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and legumes; considers that, in addition to implementing the NHCR correctly, the Commission and the Member States should invest more in food and nutrition education, such as information campaigns, through different programmes, including EU4Health, notably by supporting actions in schools with a view to teaching children and adolescents about healthy and balanced diets; highlights the influence of social determinants in consumers’ literacy with regard to claims on food; points out that information provision, education and awareness campaigns alone are insufficient to ensure informed consumer choices and need to be accompanied by policies that improve food environments;

Consumer information

7.  Highlights that consumers tend to overconsume food products bearing claims that they promote better health, which is known as the ‘halo effect’; advocates for the inclusion of both minimum and maximum usage thresholds on the product labels of all foods and food supplements bearing health claims, along with a recommendation to consult a healthcare professional before consuming food supplements in particular, in order to avoid potential adverse interactions with specific treatments and to avoid reinforcing potential eating disorders; highlights that information asymmetry is expected to persist, in a fast-changing food environment and calls for the funding of research into consumer understanding of claims;

8.  Regrets the delay of the proposal for a revision of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers with regard to the development of front-of-pack nutrition labels, which have been shown to effectively help consumers to make healthier food and beverage choices; asks the Commission and the Member States to encourage and help consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable choices about food products by adopting, as soon as possible, a mandatory and harmonised EU front-of-pack nutritional label that is developed based on robust, independent scientific evidence and demonstrated consumer understanding; notes that studies show that the effects of food on health cannot be explained only by the nutritional composition, but also by the level of processing, particularly in the case of ultra-processed foods; stresses, therefore, that including information about the processing of food on interpretive front-of-pack nutritional labels might be in the interest of public health and consumers and might prove effective in helping consumers to make healthier food choices; calls for regulatory measures to reduce the burden that highly processed foods place on public health;

Relevance of claims

9.  Notes that many of the claims used on the EU market are for nutrients that very few European consumers lack in their diets; calls on the Commission to examine the legislative potential for extending EFSA’s remit to include assessing the relevance of the use of such claims, in addition to examining the scientific basis for such claims; strongly supports the ongoing publication by EFSA of specific guidelines according to the use of a claim;

10.  Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of restricting the use of the permitted nutrition claim ‘no added sugar’ for products containing sweeteners or high levels of free sugars;

11.  Highlights that even when claims on infant formula are scientifically substantiated, such as the health claim ‘DHA intake contributes to the normal visual development of infants up to 12 months of age’, their use should avoid influencing infant feeding choices and limiting improvements in infant formula(23);

12.  Supports the establishment of prior consultations between manufacturers and EFSA to enable EFSA to present its expectations in the context of submitting their claim request, while respecting the principle of EFSA’s independence;

Botanicals

13.  Points out that the lack of harmonisation at EU level concerning the classification of botanical substances as either food or medicine means that a plant substance can be labelled as ‘food’ in one Member State and as ‘medicine’ in another; underlines that such inconsistencies pose challenges to manufacturers and regulators and have the potential to negatively affect the safety and well-being of consumers, as it is difficult for consumers to distinguish between traditional herbal medicines and botanical food supplements based on the same plant substance(s), which can lead to misunderstandings about their use;

14.  Points out the absence of an EU positive or negative list of botanical substances used in foods and food supplements, as well as the absence of a comprehensive list of beneficial or adverse health effects of botanicals, resulting in legislative disparities among the Member States, market fragmentation and potentially unsafe products reaching consumers;

15.  Disapproves of the continued suspension of the evaluation of claims on botanicals and points out that there are significant legal concerns about the continued use of the ‘on-hold’ claims under the transitional measures of the NHCR; highlights the imperative need to address the ‘on-hold’ list of claims on botanicals by further evaluating these claims as an urgently required measure for consumer protection, as identified by the 2020 Commission evaluation report on the NHCR; is very concerned that the continued use of the ‘on-hold’ claims under the transitional measures of the NHCR could mislead consumers and constitute a health risk for them, as they may falsely assume that the ‘on-hold’ claims have been scientifically assessed and the risk managed;

16.  Considers it essential for EFSA and the Commission to promptly review, in line with the provisions of the NHCR, the ‘on-hold’ health claims related to botanicals in foods; calls on the Commission to reject those claims from the ‘on-hold’ list that have already been assessed negatively;

17.  Urges the Member States to collaborate effectively on establishing a coordinated approach on botanical food supplements and calls on the Commission to provide guidance in this regard; calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish, without delay, an EU-level negative list of botanicals used in food, basing this on their toxicity or adverse health effects already identified in Member States;

Enforcement

18.  Calls on the Commission to provide updated guidance on how to deal with marketing practices that are used to circumvent the NHCR;

19.  Calls for the Commission and the Member States to set up a knowledge network aimed at supporting the working group on nutrition and health claims; points out that this network should help to facilitate the exchange of best practices, bridge interpretation gaps among Member States and address enforcement disparities;

Health claims in online communications

20.  Highlights that the NHCR was adopted at a time when social media did not yet play such a large role in advertising and the sale of foods and food supplements; is concerned that the extent to which the NHCR effectively governs health-related online communications about foods remains unclear;

21.  Is concerned about the presence of unauthorised and misleading nutrition and health claims online; stresses the need to ensure that the NHCR remains relevant in the online environment, especially because certain vulnerable groups, such as children and adolescents, may be particularly sensitive to certain health claims and food information shared on social media and this poses a risk to their physical and mental health; considers it important, in this regard, to define what constitutes commercial communication on foods and food supplements on social media;

22.  Calls for renewed attention to be given to achieving an effective and EU-wide approach to tackle the exposure of children and adolescents to the advertising and marketing of processed foods high in fat, sugar and salt on broadcast and digital media; calls on the Commission to consider taking legislative action to protect the health of this vulnerable group of consumers;

23.  Invites the Commission to draft comprehensive guidelines for the enforcement of the NHCR online; considers that these guidelines should outline clear procedures and standards for monitoring and regulating health claims online, ensuring the accuracy and transparency of such claims and safeguarding the well-being of consumers within the framework of the Digital Services Act; points to the responsibilities of Member States and online platform providers as established by the Digital Services Act, namely to act against the dissemination of illegal content and to ensure transparency for consumers as regards online advertising;

24.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a platform to share best practices in enforcement of the NHCR online and encourage collaboration among the Member States’ competent authorities;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9. (2) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1. (3) OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18. (4) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51. (5) OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 26. (6) OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 35. (7) OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1. (8) OJ L 107, 26.3.2021, p. 1. (9) OJ C 184, 5.5.2022, p. 2. (10) European Food Safety Authority, ‘Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars’, EFSA Journal, Volume 20, Issue 2, European Food Safety Authority, 15 December 2021. (11) World Health Organization, Nutrition labelling: policy brief, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022. (12) World Health Organization, Guiding principles and framework manual for front-of-pack labelling for promoting healthy diets, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2019. (13) UNICEF, Children’s rights in impact assessments – A guide for integrating children’s rights into impact assessments and taking action for children, UNICEF, Geneva, December 2013. (14) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 July 2016, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH, C-19/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:563. (15) European Commission, Final Report Summary – CLYMBOL (Role of health-related claims and symbols in consumer behaviour), 8 March 2017. (16) Pichierri, M. et al., ‘The interplay between health claim type and individual regulatory focus in determining consumers’ intentions toward extra-virgin olive oil’, Food Research International, Volume 136, Article 109467, Elsevier, October 2020. (17) World Health Organization, WHO European Regional Obesity Report 2022, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022. (18) OJ C 342, 6.9.2022, p. 109. (19) European Food Safety Authority, EFSA explains draft scientific opinion on a tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars, European Food Safety Authority, 2021. (20) Ashwell, M. et al., ‘Nature of the evidence base and strengths, challenges and recommendations in the area of nutrition and health claims: a position paper from the Academy of Nutrition Sciences’, British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 130, Issue 2, 28 July 2023, pp. 221-238. (21) European Union, ‘Eurobarometer – Making our food fit for the future – new trends and challenges’, October 2020. (22) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 June 2017, Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, C-296/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:437. (23) Munblit, D. et al., ‘Health and nutrition claims for infant formula are poorly substantiated and potentially harmful’, British Medical Journal, Volume 369, Article m875, 2020, and Cheung, K.Y., et al., ‘Health and nutrition claims for infant formula: international cross sectional survey’, British Medical Journal, Volume 380, Issue 8371, 2023.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – combating fraud – annual report 2022 (2023/2045(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0041 A9-0434/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 310(6) and 325(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to the Commission report of 27 July 2023 entitled ‘34th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests and the fight against fraud – 2022’ (COM(2023)0464) (PIF Report 2022),

–  having regard to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) Report 2022(1) and the 2022 Annual Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee(2),

–  having regard to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) 2022 Annual Report published on 1 March 2023,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (the Conditionality Regulation)(3),

–  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 16 February 2022 in Cases C-156/21(4) and C-157/21(5) and the CJEU’s conclusions that the rule of law conditionality mechanism is in line with EU law,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 18 September 2022 for a Council implementing decision on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary (COM(2022)0485),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy(6) (the Common Provisions Regulation),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 16 May 2022 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (Financial Regulation recast) (COM(2022)0223),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law(7) (PIF Directive),

–  having regard to the Commission report of 16 September 2022 to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Second report on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law’ (COM(2022)0466),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law(8),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 13 July 2022 entitled ‘2022 Rule of Law Report’ (COM(2022)0500),

–  having regard to the study entitled ‘Strengthening the fight against organised crime: Assessing the legislative framework’, published in December 2022(9),

–  having regard to the report entitled ‘Assessing the Threats to the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) fund – A Joint Europol-OLAF Report’, made public on 6 June 2023,

–  having regard to the European Ombudsman’s ‘Closing note on the Strategic Initiative concerning the transparency and accountability of the Recovery and Resilience Facility’ of 12 September 2023 in relation to Case SI/6/2021/PVV, opened on 24 February 2022,

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditors (ECA) annual activity report for 2022 published on 4 May 2023,

–  having regard to the ECA Review 04/2023 of 6 July 2023 entitled ‘Digitalising the management of EU funds’,

–  having regard to the ECA Special report 06/2023 of 13 March 2023 entitled ‘Conflict of interest in EU cohesion and agricultural spending – Framework in place but gaps in transparency and detection measures’,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Union Anti-Fraud Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 250/2014(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2021 with recommendations to the Commission on digitalisation of the European reporting, monitoring and audit(11),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 14 December 2020 on the review of the European Union under the Implementation Review Mechanism of the United Nation Conventions against Corruption (UNCAC) (COM(2020)0793),

–  having regard to its recommendation of 17 February 2022 to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning corruption and human rights(12),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2023 on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – combating fraud – annual report 2021(13),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0434/2023),

A.  whereas, in line with the obligation laid down in Article 325(5) TFEU, each year the Commission, in cooperation with the EU Member States, submits a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the measures taken for the implementation of the article (known as the PIF Report);

B.  whereas sound public spending and the protection of the EU’s financial interests should be key elements of EU policy in order to increase citizens’ confidence by ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used properly and effectively;

C.  whereas the PIF Report is based on information provided by the Member States, including data on irregularities and fraud detected; whereas the PIF Report must take into account the financial specifics of each Member State and provide the necessary flexibility in this regard;

D.  whereas the number of fraudulent irregularities detected and reported demonstrates the results of Member States’ efforts to counter fraud and other illegal activities and should not be interpreted as an indication of the level of fraud in the Member States;

E.  whereas all Member States should be treated in a correct and objective manner;

F.  whereas there are different levels and actors involved in the protection of the EU budget through prevention (interruption and suspension of payments), detection, financial corrections and the recovery of money unduly paid;

G.  whereas the Early Detection and Exclusion System protects the EU budget from risks of insolvency, negligence, fraud or irregularity committed by private actors;

H.  whereas the rule of law conditionality mechanism applies to the entire EU budget and allows measures to be taken in cases of breaches of the rule of law principles that affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the EU’s financial interests;

I.  whereas respect for the values on which the Union is founded and for fundamental rights, as well as compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are prerequisites for accessing EU funding;

J.  whereas fraud and corruption represent a constant danger to the integrity of decision-making;

K.  whereas Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (14) (the RRF Regulation) contains provisions concerning the protection of the EU’s financial interests;

L.  whereas the varying levels of digitalisation in the Member States needs to be addressed by the creation of more unified, interoperable and comparable administrative and reporting systems in the EU, which are functional and necessary for a solid comprehensive analysis and for the effective prevention of irregularities and countering of fraud and corruption; whereas the Member States must be encouraged, in parallel, to make use of EU-wide data mining tools such as Arachne or the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES);

M.  whereas Arachne is voluntary tool and, although already largely used in cohesion policy and being introduced for agricultural spending, making it mandatory – as repeatedly requested by Parliament – would be a major step forward;

N.  whereas the diversity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States is a disadvantage and whereas it needs to be adequately addressed to be able to create more unified, interoperable and comparable administrative and reporting systems in the EU to effectively prevent and fight fraud and corruption and overcome irregularities;

O.  whereas cooperation with international partners and global financial institutions is crucial to protect EU funds spent outside Europe and the revenue side of the EU budget;

General remarks

1.  Welcomes the PIF Report 2022 and the analyses presented therein;

2.  Shares the Commission’s view that fraud prevention and detection and the monitoring of the return mechanisms for misappropriated funds must rely on further digitalisation and the use of cutting-edge technology based on machine learning in order to increase the accessibility, interoperability, use and management of data relating to potential fraud; points out that efficient anti-fraud governance and effective result-oriented processes and adequately equipped structures must be in place to ensure cooperation and coordination between all the components of the anti-fraud architecture and the relevant actors; believes that, to this end, the necessary digital and procedural knowledge must be provided to the officials responsible for the various components of the anti-fraud architecture;

3.  Recalls that in order to ensure a high level of protection to the EU's financial interests, solid cooperation between the authorities conducting administrative investigations and those conducting criminal investigations at both EU and Member State levels is essential;

4.  Appreciates the efforts made by the Commission to anticipate the publication of the annual PIF Report, which allows Parliament’s resolution to be adopted within year n+1 and makes the remarks and recommendations contained therein more topical;

5.  Appreciates the improved overall coherence of the anti-fraud legislation across the EU, following the actions undertaken by Member States to transpose the EU rules into national systems correctly; expresses concerns that, in some respects, the situation is still sub-optimal, in particular as regards the detection and reporting of suspected fraud and irregularities and their follow-up, for which the differences between Member States are still very notable;

6.  Stresses that prevention and communication are key to combat fraud and corruption, and that the Commission should support the Member States in implementing effective measures in these areas;

7.  Shares the Commission’s view that fraud risk analysis should be enhanced in order to assess whether reporting low levels of fraud is a consequence of a genuinely low occurrence of misconduct or a consequence of weak detection;

8.  Regrets the fact that in many Member States national authorities do not always follow up on the Commission’s and OLAF’s recommendations, report exhaustively or adopt acknowledged good practices in a timely manner; points out that in many Member States, the percentage of irregularities that are still classified as suspected fraud many years after they were initially reported is extremely high, even in relation to cases indicated as closed; believes that such situations suggest a lack of adequate follow-up, insufficient or inadequately trained resources, communication gaps or inefficient reporting channels, weak cooperation and coordination, or even the unjustified postponement of reclassifying irregularities as fraudulent in order to adjust the statistical reporting;

9.  Highlights that in such cases, the Commission should support the Member States in the debureaucratisation of the fraud detection, follow-up and reporting process;

10.  Suggests that both the EU and national authorities should enhance cooperation and promote greater utilisation of digital tools to combat fraud;

11.  Notes that the number of cases of fraud and irregularities reported by the competent EU and national authorities – 12 455 in total – slightly increased in 2022 compared to 2021; observes that the affected financing related to these cases in 2022 decreased to EUR 1.77 billion (from EUR 2.05 billion in 2021); believes that these numbers are still extremely high and represent a significant loss for the EU budget;

12.  Is aware that the year-to-year comparison of the reporting of irregularities does not always offer a reliable analysis of trends and patterns because of the multiannual cycle of implementation of numerous programmes; considers that the comparison with a five-year average is more suitable for identifying real-time situations; appreciates in this context that, in the PIF Report 2022, reference is frequently made to the results of the 2018-2021 period;

13.  Believes that involvement of civil society in tackling fraud is crucial to enhance prevention and detection, and that this implies support to investigative journalism which can be effective insofar as it is given easy and adequate access to information on projects, beneficiaries and payments; stresses, in particular, the important role played by the media and investigative journalists in the fight against corruption; reiterates that enhanced and consistent levels of protection for journalists and whistleblowers across the Union helps to counter the spread of a subculture of impunity, silence and conspiracy; notes, having regard to media pluralism and media freedom, that the most recent results of the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2022) registered a slight deterioration of the indicator relating to the protection of journalists and that news media concentration retains a very high risk level across the continent; takes the view that safeguarding the media from political pressure and influence, as well as guaranteeing the right of access to information held by public authorities, are essential to protect the media’s independence, its role of the watchdog of democracy and the sound management of resources;

14.  Welcomes the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 3 May 2023 on the fight against corruption (JOIN(2023)0012), acknowledging the seriousness of corruption, as it undermines the efficiency of public spending, the effectiveness of the single market and the sustainability of economic growth; points out that the fight against corruption is one of the most important commitments of the Union, on a par with transparency and integrity; stresses that the phenomenon of nepotism with regard to state-owned entities and procurement for EU funds also poses a great risk to sound management and the EU’s financial interests; welcomes, therefore, the new proposal for a directive on combating corruption(15);

15.  Is concerned about the fact that it is difficult to estimate the extent to which organised crime is benefiting illegally from the EU’s finances with any great precision; maintains that a common approach to assess the impact of organised crime on EU funds and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken to tackle the problem is needed across the Member States; calls on the Commission to swiftly launch all necessary actions to pursue this harmonisation;

16.  Highlights the importance of an impact assessment which evaluates the economic and social impact of fraud on the EU’s financial interests and on its citizens; calls for an analysis of how the resources allocated for fraud prevention compare to the potential losses prevented;

17.  Maintains that the lack of efficient transposition of national legislation in many Member States and the lack of harmonisation of national legislation offer opportunities to organised crime for a number of illegal cross-border activities in areas affecting the Union’s financial interests; reiterates, therefore, its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime(16) and for the introduction of a new common definition of organised crime, taking into account, in particular, the use of corruption, violence, threats or intimidation to obtain control of economic activities or procurement;

18.  Observes that the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025(17) aims to set out the tools and measures to disrupt the business models and structures of criminal organisations across borders, both online and offline; calls on the Member States to contribute on the Commission’s efforts and to establish regional cooperation networks for sharing information on cases and strategies to combat fraud perpetrated by organised criminals; recalls, in this regard, the importance of the proposed new Directive on Asset Recovery and Confiscation(18) whose effective implementation would provide authorities with better tools to deprive organised crime groups of the financial means to carry out further criminal activities; recalls, furthermore, that in the fight against cross-border organised crime, the exchange of best practices and development of common and coordinated strategies are pivotal;

19.  Points out that in relation to corruption cases, the EPPO reported 87 investigated offences at the end of 2022 (compared to 40 cases investigated in the first seven months of operational activities in 2021); remarks that in the Irregularity Management System (IMS), from 2018-2022, 30 cases were reported by 10 Member States, 5 relating to agriculture, 22 to cohesion and 3 to pre-accession with an overall financial impact estimated at about EUR 50 million;

20.  Stresses once again that corruption, particularly high-level corruption, including in EU institutions, is a particularly serious crime with the potential to extend across borders, affecting the Union’s financial interests and the EU economy as a whole, and undermining citizens’ trust in democratic institutions in the EU and in the Member States; reiterates that within the EU institutions there must be a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption; supports mainstreaming anti-corruption into EU policy design;

21.  Notes the fact that OLAF currently does not have, under any circumstances, access to Members’ offices, computers and email accounts, even when investigating cases linked to Members based on a substantiated suspicion; underlines the need to have an adequate procedure for granting access to OLAF in cases of substantiated suspicions against individual Members; calls on the Bureau to set up such a procedure;

22.  Points out that the EPPO has an ongoing investigation into the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines by the Commission;

23.  Stresses the obligation of every EU institution, Member State and public or private recipient of Union funds to disclose all relevant documents, including information on the preliminary negotiations conducted by the Commission, upon an official request of the ECA as part of an ongoing audit; recalls Parliament’s recommendation, in its 2020 discharge resolution (Section III – Commission)(19), related to access to the text messages exchanged with a pharmaceutical company regarding the purchase of a COVID-19 vaccine;

24.  Highlights that the zero-tolerance policy towards corruption must be mainstreamed and properly communicated in the context of the European elections, to increase voter turnout and citizens’ trust in public institutions;

25.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has included a specific section on anti-corruption in its annual report on the rule of law in order to provide an in-depth comparative analysis of the approaches, procedures and tools used by the Member States in their fight against corruption and to help to assess which areas are most at risk; asks the Commission to always include recommendations and follow-up observations for Member States for all sections of the rule of law report; reiterates the importance of fully addressing country-specific recommendations relating to corruption; calls on the Member States to take into account the findings of the rule of law report when developing their anti-corruption policies; calls on the Commission to intervene and support the Member States in addressing structural challenges regarding their anti-corruption capacity;

26.  Points out that the 2022 Eurobarometer surveys on corruption show that corruption remains a serious concern for EU citizens and businesses in the EU, with a large part of European citizens believing that corruption is widespread in their country (68 %) and that the level of corruption has increased (41 %); appreciates that almost all Member States currently have anti-corruption strategies in place, which are regularly evaluated and revised, and recalls that not only a robust legal framework but also effective implementation are needed to eradicate corruptive practices and that preventing such practices also requires transparent and accountable governance and integrity frameworks; welcomes, in this context, the anti-corruption proposals presented by the Commission, which follow the calls from Parliament to step up the fight against corruption; notes that the Commission intends to integrate the prevention of corruption into the design of EU policies and programmes, and to actively support Member States’ efforts to put in place strong anti-corruption policies and legislation; commends the will to tackle the cross-border dimension of corruption by criminalising corruption offences and harmonising penalties across the EU in coordination with the High Representative’s proposal to establish a dedicated common foreign and security policy sanctions regime in order to target serious acts of corruption worldwide;

27.  Emphasises that corruption and money laundering are intrinsically linked, and that money laundering is one of the most important enablers of organised crime’s illegal activities by which criminals transfer the proceeds of their crime into the legal economy, and is aware that fraud against the EU budget may also be a predicate offence precursor to money laundering; stresses that the transnational dimension of these crimes makes them difficult to prevent, detect and counter as a result of heterogeneous legal systems; welcomes the progress on the establishment of the new Anti-Money Laundering Authority, following the proposal from the Commission in July 2021, the political agreement achieved in Council on 29 June 2022 and its position agreed on 7 December 2022 on the single rulebook, and the mandate to enter trilogues granted by Parliament’s Plenary on 17 April 2023; regrets that the authority will not be fully operational until 2026;

28.  Observes that, via IMS, in the period 2018-2022, 375 cases related to conflicts of interest were reported, which can also be detected in environments similar to those where corrupt practices occur; underlines that the large majority of reported cases of conflicts of interest are linked to the implementation of cohesion policies (86 % compared to 9 % for agriculture and 5 % for pre-accession), involving almost EUR 117 million overall for this period; underlines that the reported conflicts of interest mainly point to relations between recipients of the funds and their contractors and sub-contractors, while only 7 % of cases refer to conflicts of interest during the stage of awarding and/or evaluating projects, thereby involving members of evaluation committees;

29.  Believes that this could be an indicator of the positive impact and deterrent effect of the amendments to the financial rules, which have been made applicable to all national authorities handling EU funds, together with the fact that one third of the cases were detected through sources external to the management and control system, including whistleblowers and investigative journalists, which suggests a basic level of transparency and accessibility and contributions from civil society;

30.  Notes also with concern that the overall occurrence of cases of conflicts of interest is higher than reported in the IMS, as suggested by the additional information received by the Commission’s Directorates-General for Regional and Urban Policy and for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion about conflict of interest cases and related recoveries in public procurement in the European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund, reported directly from the Member States via the EU’s fund management system (known as the SFC, which in 2014-2020 presented 31 cases related to 16 programmes in 11 Member States with an impact of EUR 3.4 million);

31.  Reiterates its call to make the annual PIF report more holistic, in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the synergies between all relevant actors, identify best practices and address shortcomings; welcomes, in this regard, the inclusion in the PIF Report 2022 of findings from the EPPO and OLAF annual reports; calls for the further improvement of this holistic approach, aiming at providing a clearer, more complete and more concrete picture of the overall state of play of the protection of the Union’s financial interests, encompassing the entirety of anti-fraud action, both at national and EU level;

32.  Calls for the provisions on conflicts of interest to be applied in a way that ensures legal certainty, to be based on a clear and proportionate assessment of the risks and allow a practical application by the competent authorities; calls for the Commission guidelines to provide clarity to applicants and decision-making bodies, to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens and to respect the principle of proportionality;

Revenue

33.  Observes that, in 2022, the overall number of fraudulent and not fraudulent irregularities related to Traditional Own Resources (TOR) (4 661) was 7.6 % higher compared to the five-year average (2018-2022); notes with concern that the overall amounts affected by such irregularities, as estimated and established by Member States, also noticeably increased (by 47 %, reaching EUR 783 million); highlights, on the same issue, that the overall recovery rate in 2022 for both fraudulent and non-fraudulent cases was only 48 % (compared with 54 % in 2021) and that the figure for fraudulent cases was only 25 %, which was distributed across Member States very heterogeneously; asks the Commission to put greater efforts into the swift recovery of abused funds;

34.  Points out that, in 2022, for only 19 new write-off reports submitted to the Commission by six Member States, the Commission considered that it had been satisfactorily demonstrated that TOR had been lost for reasons not imputable to the Member States in question and that they were not financially responsible for the loss, while in 82 cases amounting to almost EUR 39 million, the Commission considered that the Member States had not satisfactorily demonstrated that TOR had been lost for reasons not imputable to them and they were kept financially responsible for the loss (the Commission assessed 135 cases totalling EUR 76.8 million in 2022); encourages the Commission to retain this effective mechanism of revising the write-off cases in order to foster the effectiveness of national administrations’ recovery actions;

35.  Notes that, again in 2022, inspections by anti-fraud services and post-release controls were the most successful detection tools for fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities, respectively, combined, increasingly, with tax audits and release controls; stresses that in 2022, smuggling, incorrect value and incorrect classification and misdescription of goods were the main modi operandi in fraudulent cases, with a particular increase in reported cases of cigarette smuggling;

36.  Welcomes OLAF’s role in detecting and investigating fraud against the EU’s TOR; takes note of a slight decrease in the number of open investigations in the field of own resources in 2022 and calls on the Commission to ensure that OLAF is provided with adequate resources to fully and effectively exercise its mandate;

37.  Notes that, in monetary terms, China remained the major country of origin of goods affected by irregularities, the United States and Vietnam being second and third, and that textiles and footwear were the goods most affected, in terms of both the number and the value of the cases detected and reported;

38.  Reiterates its call to mitigate the VAT gap by addressing the lack of resources, the limited digital efficiency in tax administrations and the legislative loopholes which limit the efficacy of the measures to counter tax evasion and tax avoidance; recalls that strengthening administrative cooperation is the most effective way to counter cross-border VAT fraud;

39.  Highlights that the EPPO has the competence to investigate serious offences against the common VAT system, connected with the territory of two or more Member States and involving total damage of at least EUR 10 million; is concerned about the data reported in the EPPO annual report for 2022, indicating that 16.5 % of its active investigations (185) were linked to VAT fraud, but that these account for 47 % of the estimated damage (EUR 6.7 billion);

40.  Welcomes the Commission’s second report, published on 16 September 2022, on the implementation of the PIF Directive (COM(2022)0466), but regrets the fact that the Commission refrained from intervening on the revision of the threshold of EUR 10 million, which has a major impact on the EPPO’s activities in VAT fraud cases; stresses that the recurrent and still pending questions on the different interpretations of the methods applied to calculate the threshold (whether the damage occurring in several Member States should be aggregated, whether the countries included in the calculation should be confined to those participating in the EPPO) make the situation unclear; strongly believes that the current threshold limits dissuasiveness, allows perpetrators to seek out the weakest jurisdiction to evade the EPPO and has a detrimental effect on investigations, as the national authorities often do not have a full picture of the magnitude of the criminal activities at the initial stage of the investigation; calls on the Commission to reconsider its position in the next PIF Directive transposition report and remove the threshold, or substantially lower it, while in the meantime providing adequate guidance on the calculation method;

41.  Underlines that effective cooperation between OLAF and the EPPO is a prerequisite for the sound management and protection of the financial interests of the EU budget, both on the expenditure and the revenue side; considers, in this context, that such strengthened cooperation can lead, on the revenue side, to an increase in the collection of revenue to the EU budget, thereby decreasing the GNI-based contribution of Member States, and on the expenditure side, to ensure that taxpayers’ money is adequately spent;

42.  Stresses the importance that OLAF and the EPPO should maintain operational independence;

43.  Welcomes the statement of the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen that the EU needs to safeguard money being spent according to the purpose intended for it and in line with the rule of law principles, and to ensure that funds are protected;

Expenditure

44.  Observes that the number of fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities reported as affecting the rural development implementing actions increased in the period 2018-2022, mainly owing to the increased detection rate in respect of actions within the programming period 2014-2022; points out, however, that the number of fraudulent cases detected and reported is still lower than expected, and that this calls for increased monitoring of the situation;

45.  Remarks that even if in 2022 the fraudulent irregularities reported under support to agriculture increased in comparison with 2021, the detection rates for rural development were noticeably higher than for support to agriculture; notes that within support to agriculture, the highest level of fraud was reported by the Member States for market measures; several complex cases related to the promotion of agricultural products were also investigated by OLAF;

46.  Regrets that during the period 2018-2022, in both rural development and direct payments, the contributions to the detection of fraudulent cases provided by risk analysis, whistleblowers, informants and investigative journalists has been very limited; is also concerned about the length of the administrative procedures opened to deal with the fraudulent cases reported, which, on average and during 2014-2022, required nearly four years from the start of the irregularity to arrive at a suspicion of fraudulent activity, and nearly three more years to close the case after reporting it to the Commission; points out that, for cohesion, it took about a year and a half to arrive at a suspicion that a fraudulent irregularity had been committed and more than two years to close the fraudulent case after reporting it to the Commission; asks the Commission to provide recommendations and to follow-up more frequently with the Member States’ authorities to reduce the length of administrative procedures;

47.  Regrets the lack of transparency in the spending of public money by the Commission during the COVID-19 pandemic; regrets the fact that the Commission has not yet published a report on COVID-19-related expenditure(20);

48.  Notes that the greatest number of irregularities reported in 2022, both fraudulent and non-fraudulent, affected the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF, for respectively 59 % and 67 %) and, to a minor extent, the European Social Fund (ESF, for respectively 27 % and 20 %); points out that the areas most at risk are transport and environmental protection, owing to the large amounts of money affected by the misconduct, and Research, Technological Development and Innovation (RTD&I), where the recurrence of fraudulent irregularities is the highest;

49.  Is concerned about the fact that in 2022 the number of reported irregularities affecting the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) peaked, and is aware that the cases concern the 2007-2013 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance I (IPA I) and 2014-2020 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance II (IPA II); calls on the Commission to build on the lessons learnt in relation to these instruments to fraud-proof the future actions and initiatives with identical or similar goals, such as in the case of Ukraine, which is expected to receive very relevant resources from IPA and Horizon Europe, and where the correct deployment of resources, even in very difficult conditions, is paramount for the efficacy and effectiveness of the accession process;

50.  Emphasises that in the area of cohesion policy, the number and financial amounts of the non-fraudulent irregularities that had been reported during the first nine years of the programming period 2007-2013 were much higher than those being reported during the programming period 2014-2020 and that this trend concerns all funds and most of the Member States;

51.  Observes that for cohesion policy, the most frequent type of fraudulent violation reported in the IMS concerns the supporting documents (incorrect, missing, false or falsified), while for non-fraudulent irregularities, the infringement of public procurement rules is the most reported;

52.  Notes with concern the findings of the ECA 2022 annual report on the implementation of the EU budget for the 2022 financial year, which show that despite improvements, audit authorities continue to address the risk of fraud insufficiently, and that Member State authorities do not report suspected fraud cases in the IMS as required; calls on these issues to be urgently addressed by the Commission;

53.  Notes that, in 2022, the recovery items registered for irregularities in direct management were 770 (compared to 879 in 2021), of which 37 were for fraudulent cases (compared to 54 reported as fraudulent in 2021) amounting to EUR 61.28 million (of which EUR 5.67 million were for fraud, compared to EUR 7.04 million in 2021);

54.  Observes that, overall, for direct management, the detected fraudulent irregularities have remained stable over the 2018-2022 period; appreciates that, for direct management in the period 2018-2022, OLAF is indicated as the source of detection for 88 % of the recovery items linked to irregularities reported as fraudulent, corresponding to 92 % of the total recovery amounts; observes that about 97 % of the irregularities not reported as fraud were detected through Commission controls;

55.  Is concerned that, between 2018 and 2022, average recovery levels were still low, with an average recovery rate of 56 % (resulting from 34 % for ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ and 59 % for ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’); asks the Commission to put greater efforts into the swift recovery of abused funds;

56.  Reiterates once more its call on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on mutual administrative assistance in the areas of EU funds spending that do not provide for this practice so far, in order to ensure a cross-cutting approach to the protection of the Union’s financial interests;

NextGenerationEU (NGEU) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)

57.  Recalls that, owing to the specific design of the RRF, Member States together with the Commission should ensure that the financial interests of the Union are effectively protected, in line with their respective responsibilities; underlines that the Member States’ control systems must ensure that RRF-funded investment projects comply with EU and national rules; recalls that the Commission and the Member States must prevent any accountability gap at EU level and, if necessary, put in place additional safeguards to address this issue, in line with the relevant recommendations of the ECA;

58.  Is aware that the implementation of the RRF is reaching its peak and that the regulation governing its deployment requires Member States to put in place effective and efficient control systems, with a view to protecting the Union’s financial interests and ensuring compliance with EU and national rules;

59.  Observes that the Commission assessed these control systems prior to the approval of the plans, and subsequently, in 2022, carried out 16 system audits targeting the protection of the EU’s financial interests(21), covering the coordination and implementing bodies, such as ministries and agencies; expresses appreciation that the Commission is planning to audit all Member States at least once by the end of 2023, and welcomes the selection of the audit targets on the basis of a risk assessment;

60.  Is concerned that the ECA identified weaknesses in the Member States’ reporting and control systems, some of which were not fully functional at the presentation of the recovery plans, posing a risk to the regularity of RRF expenditure and to the protection of the EU’s financial interests(22) leading to the adoption of ‘control milestones’;

61.  Remarks that the Commission’s audit work has also confirmed variations in the internal control systems across the implementing and coordinating bodies, identifying good practices in some of the procedures in place to verify and prevent fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and double funding; invites the Member States to share their best procedures in order to facilitate more coordinated and fraud-proof processing of the funds;

62.  Is aware of the inherent characteristics of the RRF spending model, the difficulty of the assessment of an error rate comparable (to other EU spending areas) and the limitations posed by the Commission’s payment suspension methodology(23); recalls, nevertheless, that delays can be observed in Member States’ submission of payment requests under the RRF and calls on the Commission to remain vigilant, in particular towards the end of the RRF lifecycle, in order to ensure that Member States protect the financial interests of the EU and that EU taxpayers’ money is adequately spent; points out that, in particular, the countering of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest (defined as ‘serious irregularities’) and double funding should receive appropriate resources and attention;

63.  Recalls the findings of the ECA in the 2022 Annual report, namely that control milestones in the national recovery and resilience plans vary in their requirements and granularity; questions why certain Member States were required to merely design their control system, while others were required to have an operational system;

64.  Calls on the Commission to urgently revise its ex post audit procedures, in order to ensure adequate verification of whether the audited targets previously assessed as fulfilled were not reversed after the respective payments;

65.  Further calls on the Commission to continuously monitor the fulfilment of the milestones and targets relating to the protection of the financial interests of the EU and to apply all necessary measures in the event of lack of compliance or the reversal of previously fulfilled milestones, including proportionate reduction of the support under the RRF and recovery of any amount due to the Union budget, or to ask for early repayment of the loan, in cases of fraud, corruption, and conflicts of interests affecting the financial interests of the Union, or a serious breach of an obligation resulting from the financing agreements, which have not been corrected by the Member State;

66.  Reiterates that the effective prevention, detection and investigation of illegal activities threatening the implementation of the NGEU, in particular the risks of the infiltration of organised criminal groups, depend on the effective collection and sharing of data, including the rapid handling of access requests from investigative services within a Member State, as well as from other countries or at EU level, by OLAF and the EPPO and, if necessary, by Eurojust and Europol, to whom access is to be granted;

67.  Regrets the Commission’s interpretation of the concept of ‘final recipient’ under the RRF; recalls that, according to the modified RRF Regulation, Member States should publish the list of the largest 100 final recipients receiving the highest amount of funding for the implementation of measures under the RRF; regrets that the Commission does not request that Member States provide information on the final beneficiary or recipient of RRF funding and chose to require Member States to provide information only about ‘second-level recipients’; is of the opinion that this interpretation is not in line with the agreement between the co-legislators;

68.  Welcomes the joint analysis by Europol and OLAF assessing the risks of fraud and irregularities in relation to the NGEU; welcomes the recommendations made by Europol and OLAF and calls on the Commission, the specialised EU agencies and bodies, as well as Member States, to actively cooperate and interact to ensure the protection of the EU’s financial interests when implementing the NGEU;

69.  Welcomes the Ombudsman’s strategic initiative, launched in February 2022, conducted to examine the transparency of the national recovery and resilience plans, public information and communication strategies on the RRF, and on how the funds are supervised; emphasises the importance of this initiative, given that the ECA annual report for 2022 contained a higher estimated level of error for that year; welcomes Ombudsman’s efforts to improve transparency standards in the RRF;

70.  Recalls the ‘NextGenerationEU - Law Enforcement Forum’ (NGEU-LEF), a joint initiative co-led by Europol and Italy, bringing together Europol, the EPPO, OLAF, Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training and national authorities by providing a forum for intelligence sharing and the coordination of operations to tackle the infiltration of organised crime into the legal economy, and to protect the NGEU stimulus package, with a specific focus on corruption, tax evasion, embezzlement and money laundering; welcomes the fact that the NGEU-LEF initiative won the European Ombudsman Award for Good Administration 2023 in the category ‘most popular with the public’;

71.  Is concerned that many issues still exist, mainly because of a lack of sufficient supervision by coordinating bodies, incomplete anti-fraud strategies, missing elements in fraud risk assessments, a need for improvement of the ex ante controls aimed at preventing conflicts of interest, low participation in training activities intended to raise awareness of fraud, and deficiencies in the reporting of irregularities to OLAF for possible investigation; asks the Commission to inform Parliament about the issues identified, the recommendations addressed to the Member States and the follow-up given to resolve the issues;

72.  Highlights that enhanced transparency plays a vital role in exposing fraudulent schemes and discouraging fraudulent actions; calls on new transparency initiatives and policies introduced to promote accountability;

Digitalisation and transparency to enhance the fight against fraud

73.  Welcomes the ECA Review 04/2023 entitled ‘Digitalising the management of EU funds’, which stresses that digitalisation has the potential to make the auditing of EU funds more efficient; highlights ECA’s observations that there are many variations in the degree of digitalisation of EU spending, most centralised where the Commission has direct management and more fragmented for the other management modes, such as under shared management;

74.  Is aware that the efforts made by the Commission and other implementing bodies to digitalise the EU budget have to overcome many obstacles in order to enhance compatibility between the IT systems used by the many entities involved; appreciates, in this regard, the consistency of the communication to the Commission of 30 June 2022 entitled ‘European Commission digital strategy – Next generation digital Commission’ (C(2022)4388); points out that digitalisation has been a strategic priority of the Commission for many years; believes that streamlining the management of EU funds requires further simplification of the IT landscape and reiterates that interoperability should be mainstreamed in EU policies in order to enhance compatibility between the IT systems used by the many entities involved;

75.  Highlights the necessity of enhancing the level of interoperability of data systems and the harmonisation of reporting, monitoring and auditing in the EU; reiterates, to this end, its call on the Commission to harmonise definitions in order to obtain comparable data across the EU;

76.  Maintains that digitalisation has boosted the prevention and detection of fraud, simplified administrative procedures and that it needs to be at the heart of every anti-fraud strategy, including the National Anti-Fraud Strategies (NAFS); calls on the Commission to reiterate and follow up on its recommendations to the Member States which have not yet adopted NAFS to do so, and to keep the NAFS updated, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by new technologies;

77.  Reiterates its strong support for the obligatory use of the single integrated IT system for data-mining and risk-scoring, Arachne, envisaged by the Financial Regulation recast, which should ensure better protection of the Union’s financial interests, alongside and complementing the IT tools developed at national level by the Member States;

78.  Notes that among the available options, Arachne was by far the most widely-used IT system (by 21 Member States), in support of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and the RRF; observes with concern that many Member States used their own dedicated anti-fraud IT tools, often in conjunction with EU tools, although both types of tools were rarely interoperable and therefore hampered the detection and reporting of fraud to the Commission;

79.  Emphasises that the EDES, as the EU’s blacklist, has huge potential for flagging people and companies that misuse EU funds; calls for the EDES to be extended to all types of management modes, in particular to shared management; stresses that Member States’ differing approaches to exclusion measures contribute to unevenness in the protection of the EU’s financial interests; underlines the need to make mandatory the use of the EDES as the common exclusion system for funds managed by Member States; believes that this reinforcement would strengthen the capacity of the EU and Member States to protect the financial interests of the Union and ultimately taxpayers’ money; urges Member States, in the interests of safeguarding the financial interests of the EU budget, to accept this extension without any delay;

80.  Points out that consolidating, centralising and publishing the information on the recipients of EU funding provided by Member States and other implementing entities in a single database would enhance financial transparency by encompassing different forms of management modes and allowing cross-checks and exhaustive analyses; calls on the Commission to encourage the relevant stakeholders, including the national authorities, to cooperate on this aim; draws the Commission’s attention to the need to protect personal data and sensitive information on beneficiaries;

81.  Maintains that digitalisation and state-of-the-art IT tools at the national and EU level would improve the management, control and audit of EU funds, and could contribute to preventing irregularities and to substantially reducing bureaucracy, as digitalisation allows easier and quicker access and cross-checks, remotely, to important sets of data, preventing the need for on-the-spot checks and controls;

82.  Welcomes and supports the assessment of the ECA in its 2022 Annual report calling for the deployment of the IT system for data-mining and risk-scoring Arachne to be advanced from 2028 to 2025; recalls Parliament’s position calling for the system to be deployed as of 2026;

83.  Notes that the digitalisation of the fight against fraud is also one of the focuses of the revision of the action plan launched in 2022 and adopted in July 2023, accompanying the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS) of 2019 and adjusted to the rapidly shifting economic and social scenarios and to the new challenges; is aware that Commission successfully implemented 60 out of the 63 actions of the previous plan overall and that some of these are continuous in nature and ongoing; invites the Commission to present to Parliament the underlying standards and criteria that the revised action plan has endorsed;

84.  Calls for recognition of the importance of incorporating visual aids such as charts and graphs to make statistical information more accessible and easier to understand;

85.  Calls for the implementation of advanced data analytics, artificial intelligence and machine learning in identifying irregularities;

The EU anti-fraud architecture and key measures in 2022

86.  Welcomes the actions launched by the Commission in 2022 to enhance the level of protection of the EU’s financial interests but calls for further vigilance and complementary actions in this field;

87.  Recalls its previous resolutions underlining that countering fraud against the EU budget can only be effective if approached holistically, covering all the stages of the anti-fraud cycle and drawing on a multitude of stakeholders, processes and actions; points out that the four stages of this cycle (prevention; detection; investigation and prosecution; recovery and sanction) require risk analyses, reporting processes and cooperation to be pursued by harmonised interventions at legislative, administrative, organisational and operational levels; recalls the observation by the ECA in its Special report on the EU’s financial landscape(24) pointing out that the complexity of the galaxy of funds and instruments complementing the EU budget brings an increasing risk of serious gaps in the system of audit and control and a lack of accountability; believes that this complexity requires an equally comprehensive and focused approach for the protection of the financial interests involved, in order to tackle irregularities and fraud which could occur by taking advantage of the overall opacity of the financial landscape; recalls that the current fragmentation of the accessible data calls for standardised measures to collect, compare and aggregate information and figures, in particular on the final recipients and beneficiaries of Union funding, for the purposes of audit and control, including investigations;

88.  Points out that the Union’s anti-fraud programme (UAFP) has been set up for a period of seven years, from 2021 to 2027, and 2022 is its second year of implementation, under direct management mode with OLAF as the lead service for programme implementation;

89.  Observes that the 2022 Financing Decision allocated EUR 15.4 million to the Hercule component, EUR 9 million for the Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS) component and about EUR 1 million for the IMS component, which resulted in awarding of grants to the relevant implementing bodies and in the financing of specialised training, databases, support for research, monitoring and analyses;

90.  Points out that the IMS is now being used by 35 countries, encompassing Member States and other beneficiary countries, with around 700 reporting organisations, covering over 3 000 IMS users and several fields, including the RRF and other fields such as asylum, neighbourhood and pre-accession, in addition to the traditional areas of agriculture, cohesion and fisheries;

91.  Appreciates the complementary roles of the Fiscalis, customs and customs control equipment instrument programmes and believes that the synergistic effects of the deployment of this financial support brings tangible improvements in the fields of taxation, the sharing of risk-related information and the upgrading to state-of-art customs control equipment;

92.  Regrets the fact that the participation of Member States in the EPPO is not obligatory; remarks that, in 2022, only 22 Member States already participated in the EPPO, with the same five countries as in 2021 abstaining; insists that Member States which do not yet participate, must do so without delay; calls on the Commission to incentivise participation in the EPPO through positive measures;

93.  Welcomes the EPPO annual report for 2022, providing the results of the first full calendar year of operational activities; observes that the EPPO processed 3 318 crime reports (compared to 2 832 received in the seven months of operational activity in 2021) and opened 865 investigations in 2022 (576 were opened in June-December 2021); underlines the freezing of EUR 359.1 million (compared to EUR 157.3 in 2021) following EPPO investigations, representing more than seven times the EPPO’s budget and that, by the end of 2022, the EPPO estimated damages of EUR 14.1 billion resulting from misconduct on which it had a total of 1 117 active investigations;

94.  Calls on the Commission to engage in a constructive dialogue with the EPPO, with a view to strengthening the Office’s capacity to tackle the constantly increasing challenges in the anti-fraud landscape, including, where appropriate, by addressing the shortcomings identified in the EPPO Regulation(25); stresses, at the same time, the need to ensure the fundamental principle and rules laid out in the EPPO Regulation, namely that the office must be independent and must be granted an autonomous budget in order to act in the interests of the Union as a whole and in line with the Conditionality Regulation;

95.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the efficiency and efficacy of OLAF’s work in corruption and fraud detection is maintained and that, therefore, the reduction of OLAF’s annual budget envisaged for full-time employees must be considered in line with the true business needs of OLAF, as reflected in its annual report;

96.  Welcomes the increased detection efforts and their results, which follow the calls from the EPPO and Parliament, indicated by a number of investigations into EU fraud initiated in the 22 participating Member States, which is higher than the historical average before the EPPO’s establishment; praises, in this regard, Operation Admiral which brought to light a VAT carousel fraud perpetrated by an organised group of criminals operating in several Member States, responsible for an estimated EUR 2.2 billion fraud;

97.  Praises the cooperation between OLAF and the EPPO, which is highlighted in both OLAF’s and the EPPO’s annual reports; understands that regular exchanges of information occur between the two offices, notably the EPPO having replied to 133 hit/no-hit requests sent by OLAF in order to avoid parallel investigations into the same facts; calls on OLAF and the EPPO to coordinate their reporting on the actions launched to make their cooperation tangible, having specific regard to the number of complementary investigations requested by OLAF (ex Article 12(f) EPPO Regulation) and the number of cases to support EPPO investigations requested by the EPPO (ex Article 12(e) EPPO Regulation);

98.  Is aware that the first annual high-level review of the cooperation between the EPPO and the Commission took place in September 2022, addressing, among others, issues on mutual reporting, access to databases and the institutional status of the EPPO;

99.  Is concerned by the lack of information on the administrative recovery of sums due to the Union budget, carried out by the Commission following input from the EPPO, as provided for by Article 103(2) of the EPPO Regulation, referring to the EPPO’s obligation to inform the Commission without delay and without prejudice to confidentiality, and as provided for by Article 6(4)(c) of the EPPO-COM Agreement signed on 18 June 2021, referring to protective and corrective measures; asks the Commission and the EPPO to inform Parliament about the implementation of this important tool;

100.  Notes that the EPPO and Europol have efficiently cooperated on various operational matters, under the aegis of the EPPO-Europol Steering Committee; understands that Europol provided support (information exchange, analytical support, expertise) on 28 cases upon the EPPO’s request and that the EPPO has become part of the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA), which ensures a secure communication channel in operational cooperation;

101.  Notes that, in 2022, cooperation between the relevant actors occurred in a satisfactory way, with the EPPO-Eurojust liaison teams meeting twice in 2022, with 15 ongoing EPPO cases handled at Eurojust, and the investigative division of the European Investment Bank (EIB IG/IN) making 63 referrals to OLAF, the EPPO and other agencies within the multilateral development banks and the national development agencies entrusted with inherent activities; remarks that in September 2022 around 100 EPPO prosecutors and staff participated in an online awareness-raising session about EIB and EIF activities to increase the effectiveness of the cooperation between the EPPO and IG/IN as established under the 2021 working arrangement;

102.  Stresses the added value that EU bodies bring to the protection of the financial interests of the Union and the fight against fraud, especially when it comes to cross-border crime, as shown by the operational results from the EPPO and OLAF also in 2022; reiterates its call to ensure that all relevant EU actors involved in the fight against fraud have adequate resources and, in this regard, reminds the Commission and the Council that every euro spent on investigation and anti-fraud actions returns to the EU budget;

103.  Observes that in 2022 the exclusion proceedings launched by the EIB following IG/IN investigations resulted in the exclusion of four economic operators from participating in any EIB-financed projects or activities; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of making more uniform the exclusion criteria used by the EIB and the EIF in respect of those used in the EDES, considering that the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreements with the EIB and the EIF cover only five of the seven EDES exclusion situations;

104.  Reiterates that Member States’ ineffective or untimely cooperation or non-cooperation with the EPPO and OLAF constitute grounds for action under the Conditionality Regulation; calls on the EPPO and OLAF to therefore report each case where Member States have failed to comply with their obligations to inform, to assist, to take appropriate action and precautionary measures and to ensure an appropriate and timely follow-up of reports and recommendations;

105.  Understands that the overall level of implementation of the Commission’s recommendations issued in the PIF Report 2021 across the Member States is considered satisfactory as regards the integration of dedicated IT anti-fraud tools into their fight against fraud, the strengthening of risk analysis and, in general, the development of IT systems both on the revenue and expenditure sides;

106.  Highlights the significant differences between Member States that can still be seen in the detection, reporting and follow-up of suspected fraud; encourages, therefore, the Member States to take a proactive approach to protecting the Union’s financial interests, to enhance the exchange of information between their national authorities and with EU bodies and agencies, also in order to identify and address emerging risks and fraud trends in a timely manner;

107.  Endorses the Commission’s intention to launch a monitoring exercise on the state of play of the Anti-Fraud Coordination Services (AFCOS) established in the Member States; recalls that the definition of AFCOS’ structure, role, responsibilities and mandate should be better clarified to guarantee homogeneous and harmonised situations across the Union, thereby facilitating their cooperation and exchange of information; asks the Commission once again to update the AFCOS guidelines initially formulated in 2015, which are no longer adequate to effectively assist the national authorities in developing a well-structured coordination service; asks the Commission, furthermore, to report about the work in progress in this regard and the results of the monitoring exercise to the discharge authority;

108.  Remarks that the NAFS need to be adopted or updated by as many Member States as possible, and reiterates that the need for such revisions stems from the new anti-fraud landscape, with the EPPO now fully operational, and from the opportunity to identify new significant risks in the increasingly complex fraud landscape;

109.  Reiterates its appreciation for the Commission’s encouragement to Member States to adopt NAFS, which has so far resulted in an increase in the number of NAFS adopted, whereby 15 Member States had adopted NAFS by the end of 2022, nine of which were cross-cutting and therefore covered the EU’s financial interests fully;

110.  Notes with concern that, by the end of 2022, three Member States (Finland, Ireland and Poland) still indicated that they had not adopted any strategy for protecting the EU’s financial interests; notes that five Member States (Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Romania) indicated that they were in the process of establishing one; urges the Member States to adopt a NAFS to show that they take the protection of EU funds seriously;

111.  Believes that Member States would benefit from a periodic evaluation of their anti-fraud frameworks, with EU guidance as appropriate, oriented towards establishing their effectiveness, identifying best practices and reviewing their anti-fraud strategies to address any emerging risks; calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to run independent or peer reviews of the anti-fraud frameworks to enhance consistency and high standards;

112.  Maintains that the Conditionality Regulation is a permanent instrument which goes beyond the limits of a given multiannual financial framework and is to be applied horizontally, as a requirement for enforcing sound financial management principles, in general, and for the efficient and effective management of EU resources, in particular, and that it is a prerequisite for accessing all EU funds;

113.  Takes note of the Council decision of 16 December 2022 to suspend the disbursement of EUR 6.3 billion of EU funds to Hungary; expects the Commission and the Council to lift the adopted measures only where evidence is collected that the remedial measures adopted by the Hungarian Government have proven effective in practice and, in particular, that no regression has been detected on already adopted measures; regrets that thus far the Hungarian Government has shown little willingness to fulfil the requirements of the conditionality mechanism; reiterates, however, its opinion that the 17 measures alone, as negotiated by the Commission and the Hungarian Government, are not sufficient to address the existing systemic risk to the EU’s financial interests and regrets that the Commission did not request sufficient substantial changes and safeguards to restore the independence of the judiciary and reduce the level of corruption; is very concerned about the media reports affirming that the Commission is planning to lift the suspension measures in Hungary in exchange for the government’s endorsement of aid for Ukraine; believes that the Commission should never give in to blackmail, particularly when it endangers the protection of the EU’s financial interests;

114.  Regrets that the Commission is not transparent enough about the relevant developments; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament and the Council swiftly and regularly of the ongoing negotiations and reminds the Commission, in particular, of its legal obligations set out in Article 25(2) of the RRF Regulation and Article 8 of the Conditionality Regulation;

115.  Is concerned by the findings of the Third Rule of Law Report(26) on the critical situation in Poland, in particular as regards the serious shortcomings in the judiciary(27) and the media sector; recalls that Poland’s non-compliance with the rulings of the CJEU has resulted in the payment of EUR 360 million in fines since 2021 and strongly encourages the Commission to release funds from the RRF only once all the milestones relating to the rule of law have been fulfilled in their entirety;

116.  Calls on the Commission to update the fraud reporting system for funds spent in non-EU countries; notes that the new system should take into account the specific issues that the EU faces when spending money outside EU territory;

External dimension of the protection of the EU’s financial interests

117.  Believes that the proposal for the establishment of a horizontal common foreign and security policy sanction framework is complementary to the existing tools and internal and external policy actions against corruption, already endorsed in the enlargement process or within the Eastern Partnership; takes the view that a stronger engagement in international forums such as United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) will help to promote good governance and the rule of law as one of the major priorities of the enlargement process;

118.  Reiterates that although the EU currently stands as an observer within GRECO, it is strongly advised that it become a fully operating member, therefore i) participating in the monitoring of the implementation of widely recognised international law and standards; ii) horizontally communicating with other GRECO members on anti-fraud policies and tools; iii) sharing experiences at international level to help with the recognition of potential deficiencies of the EU’s internal mechanisms to identify corruption; and iv) optimally combat fraud by the timely activation of prevention and detection measures; requests the Council to provide a clear position on the EU joining GRECO, clarifying if there is any specific opposition to this and, if so, by which Member State;

119.  Remarks that from 2021 to 2022, both the number of non-fraudulent irregularities and the financial amounts involved experienced exceptional increases; notes that the increased number of cases was due to irregularities related to the 2014-2020 IPA II in relation to pre-accession assistance for rural development (IPARD) in North Macedonia and Türkiye, and that for most of these irregularities the financial amounts involved were below EUR 10 000, while the increase in financial amounts was due to irregularities concerning IPARD in Albania; underlines that about 10 % of the irregularities were reported as fraudulent and that this percentage, which changes over time, increased significantly in 2020 (17 %), peaking in 2021 at 20 %; calls on the Commission to maintain an adequate monitoring level on these funding initiatives and to report to Parliament about possible systemic issues detected in the deployment of the resources;

120.  Believes that funds under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI-Global Europe) for assistance in non-EU countries and the resources allocated for Europe’s response to the war in Ukraine are not adequately monitored and controlled; calls on the Commission to put appropriate measures in place, including the carrying out of more thorough checks, to ensure that EU funds sent to neighbouring countries end up benefiting those that are most in need;

121.  Underlines that in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it is envisaged that the EU budget will contribute significantly to the proposals for longer-term structural solutions to Ukraine’s funding needs; stresses, in this context, the need to protect the rule of law and the financial interests of the Union and to prevent, detect and correct fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and irregularities in the use of Union funds in Ukraine, which should be based on the principles of transparency and accountability; considers that any related financing instruments should contain stringent provisions and safeguards in order to attain these objectives;

122.  Highlights the fact that cooperation with international partners is crucial to protect EU funds spent outside Europe and the revenue side of the EU budget; welcomes, therefore, the working arrangements that the EPPO concluded in 2022, with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Albania, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Moldova, the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office of Montenegro, the Prosecution Service of Georgia and the State Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Working Arrangement on Cooperation signed with the United States Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security;

123.  Recommends the suspension of budgetary support in non-EU countries, including candidate countries, where the authorities manifestly fail to take genuine action against widespread corruption, while ensuring that the assistance reaches the civil population through alternative channels; calls for greater priority to be given to the fight against corruption in pre-accession negotiations, with a focus on capacity building, such as via specialised anti-corruption bodies; calls on the Commission to send clear signals to candidate countries that a backlash against rule of law standards will jeopardise or delay accession to the EU; regrets the fact that, according to ECA Special report 01/2022(28), EUR 700 million in financial support for the improvement of the rule of law in the Western Balkans provided by the EU between 2014 and 2020 had little impact on fundamental reforms;

124.  Calls for international collaboration with international organisations and neighbouring countries in preventing cross-border fraud; reiterates the importance of the exchange of best practices in this context;

125.  Reaffirms its strong belief that only by strengthening the EU anti-fraud architecture can the protection of the EU’s financial interests be effectively and efficiently pursued and enhanced, by encouraging interoperability and adjustment to a unified anti-fraud strategy framework for the Member States within the EU opting for more inflows in terms of quantitative and qualitative data analysis, so as to overcome the inherent limits of the national systems which are not sufficient to counter the increasingly transnational attacks against the Union’s financial interests;

o
o   o

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

(1) OLAF, Twenty-third report of the European Anti-Fraud Office, 1 January to 31 December 2022, 2022. (2) Activity Report of the Supervisory Committee of OLAF – 2022, OJ C 225, 27.6.2023, p. 1. (3) OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1. (4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2022, Hungary v Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2022:97. (5) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2022, Poland v Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2022:98. (6) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159. (7) OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29. (8) OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17. (9) European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, Blondes, E., Disley, E., Hulme, S. et al., Study ‘Strengthening the fight against organised crime – Assessing the legislative framework’, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. (10) OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 110. (11) OJ C 224, 8.6.2022, p. 11. (12) OJ C 342, 6.9.2022, p. 295. (13) OJ C 214, 16.6.2023, p. 133. (14) OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17. (15) Proposal of 3 May 2023 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating corruption, replacing Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving the officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union and amending Council Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2023)0234). (16) OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42. (17) Commission communication of 14 April 2021 on the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021-2025 (COM(2021)0170). (18) Proposal of 25 May 2022 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation (COM(2022)0245). (19) European Parliament resolution of 4 May 2022 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2020, Section III – Commission and executive agencies, Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0144. (20) European Parliament resolution of 4 May 2022 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2020, Section III – Commission and executive agencies, Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0144. (21) ECA, 2022 EU audit in brief, p. 57. (22) ECA, 2022 Annual report, paragraphs 11.47 to 11.55. (23) In Spain, Slovakia, Estonia, Denmark, Greece, Czechia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Latvia and Poland. (24) Special report 05/2023 entitled ‘The EU’s financial landscape – A patchwork construction requiring further simplification and accountability’. (25) Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). (26) Commission communication of 13 July 2022 entitled ‘2022 Rule of Law Report’ (COM(2022)0500). (27) On the independence of the National Council for the Judiciary, concerns regarding the functioning of the prosecution service persist, with the offices of Minister of Justice and Prosecutor-General occupied by the same person; Polish courts have also pointed to concerns that the practice of seconding prosecutors can be considered as a form of demotion and discrimination, and that disciplinary proceedings could be used to curtail judicial independence, as Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court was still issuing rulings. (28) Special report 01/2022 entitled ‘EU support for the rule of law in the Western Balkans: despite efforts, fundamental problems persist’.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on shaping the EU’s position on the UN binding instrument on business and human rights, in particular on access to remedy and the protection of victims (2023/2108(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0042 A9-0421/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 3, 8, 21 and 23 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

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

–  having regard to the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights, adopted by UN Human Rights Council Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011,

–  having regard to UN Human Rights Council Resolution 26/9 of 26 June 2014,

–  having regard to the updated draft legally binding instrument circulated by the Chair-Rapporteur of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG) on 31 July 2023 and to the revised third draft thereof resulting from the eighth session,

–  having regard to the UN Convention against Corruption,

–  having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 of 28 July 2022 on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment,

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

–  having regard to the resolution on Business and Human Rights in Africa of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 7 March 2023,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 10 April 2017 entitled ‘Improving access to remedy in the area of business and human rights at EU level’(1) and its report of 6 October 2020 entitled ‘Business and Human Rights – Access to Remedy’(2),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 20 February 2023 on EU priorities in UN human rights fora in 2023,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 4 October 2018 on the EU’s input to a UN Binding Instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with transnational characteristics with respect to human rights(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2023 on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2022(5), and to its previous resolutions on earlier annual reports,

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A9-0421/2023),

A.  whereas the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, as set out in Article 2 TEU; whereas its actions on the international scene must be guided by those principles and be consistent with the principle of policy coherence for development, as enshrined in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty;

B.  whereas the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the ‘leave no one behind’ principle implies that economic development goes hand in hand with social justice, good governance and respect for human rights;

C.  whereas business enterprises are major players in economic globalisation, financial services and international trade, and are required to comply with all applicable laws and international treaties and to respect human rights; whereas business enterprises may cause, contribute or be directly linked to adverse impacts on human rights, such as modern slavery, human trafficking, forced labour, child labour and other forms of labour exploitation, land displacement, poverty wages and anti-union violations, as well as adverse impacts on the environment, including pollution, climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss;

D.  whereas corporations may contribute to sustainable development through job creation and economic development, and therefore may have an important role to play in the promotion of human rights, environmental standards, as well as in the prevention of adverse impacts on human rights and the environment;

E.  whereas the rights of business enterprises and investors should be matched by binding and enforceable obligations in terms of compliance with human rights, labour and environmental law;

F.  whereas victims of corporate abuse often face multiple and overlapping obstacles to accessing remedies, including judicial remedies and guarantees of non-repetition; whereas these obstacles are even more severe for vulnerable or marginalised persons or groups; whereas impunity for human rights abuses committed by some business enterprises remains largely unaddressed in the absence of a robust and comprehensive regulatory framework and alignment at global and regional level;

G.  whereas abuses of workers’ rights by companies are on the rise worldwide according to the International Trade Union Confederation Global Rights Index, which reported that 113 countries exclude workers from their right to establish or join a trade union, up from 106 in 2021 to 113; whereas 87 % of countries violated the right to strike and four in five countries blocked collective bargaining;

H.  whereas the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution on 26 June 2014 establishing an open-ended intergovernmental working group (OEIGWG) to develop an international legally binding instrument (LBI) ‘to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises’;

I.  whereas the OEIGWG, which has been chaired by Ecuador since its inception, has, to date, held nine sessions and a number of regional and other consultations with stakeholders, including from civil society and the private sector; whereas, in July 2023, the Chair circulated an updated draft of the instrument ahead of the OEIGWG’s ninth session scheduled for 23-27 October 2023;

J.  whereas the EU has been working on ambitious legislation regarding corporate due diligence, among other kinds of legislation, which would serve as a basis for its negotiating mandate; whereas, in the absence of a negotiating mandate, the EU representative only participated in the OEIGWG’s sessions as an observer and only contributed general statements; whereas, further, the engagement of other large economies outside the EU in the discussions has been ambivalent over the years;

K.  whereas, subsequently, the position of EU Member States has gradually evolved, with several of them actively participating in the latest sessions of the OEIGWG; whereas France and Portugal have joined the ‘Friends of the Chair’ group, assisting the Chair in developing consensus proposals from regional blocks; whereas, among its priorities in human rights fora in 2023, the Council stated its commitment to ‘actively participate’ in the UN discussions on the LBI and expressed its readiness to work with the Chair of the OEIGWG and the Friends of the Chair ‘to explore … a consensus-based instrument that can effectively enhance the protection of victims and create a global level playing field’;

L.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly expressed its support for the UN discussions on the LBI, including by adopting a number of resolutions calling for the EU and the Member States to engage constructively in the negotiations;

M.  whereas, in recent years, the EU has shown great ambition when it comes to business and human rights and has initiated a number of legislative initiatives aimed at regulating business activities on human rights and environmental and climate-related obligations, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, a proposal for a regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market, the Regulation on deforestation-free products, the Conflict Minerals Regulation and the Batteries Regulation;

N.  whereas a number of EU Member States, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands, have recently adopted or proposed mandatory due diligence legislation, while a number of other Member States are considering following suit; whereas it is important to ensure coherence between due diligence legislation at Member State or EU level and the UN LBI;

O.  whereas regulatory initiatives, including legislation, on business and human rights have been adopted, or are under discussion, in non-EU countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ghana, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland and the USA; whereas numerous other countries have developed a national action plan on business and human rights;

P.  whereas the draft LBI contains a regional integration organisation clause to accommodate the respective roles of the EU and its Member States;

Q.  whereas there is substantial and growing interest in, mobilisation around and expectations from the UN-level discussions on the LBI among affected communities, indigenous peoples, trade unions, members of civil society, scholars and experts globally;

General comments and the international framework on business and human rights

1.  Stresses that the overall level of enjoyment of human rights worldwide is contingent, among other things, on the behaviour of corporations, given the current scale of globalisation and the internationalisation of business activities and value chains; emphasises, in this context, the importance for business enterprises to be able to rely on good public governance and a comprehensive and well-functioning legal system and framework in order to fulfil their human rights obligations;

2.  Strongly supports the full implementation, within and outside the EU, of the international standards on responsible business conduct to complement and strengthen the implementation of the UNGPs; underlines the importance of the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines and the broad support they enjoy; recalls that the UNGPs constitute the only global framework detailing corporate responsibility for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity; stresses that any work done on the LBI should ensure full alignment with these standards;

3.  Stresses that since corporate social responsibility is solely on a voluntary basis and is therefore not embodied in enforceable instruments, it risks creating market distortions and unfair competition for the enterprises that choose to comply with international standards or that are subject to national or regional obligations; recognises that although some progress has been achieved, human rights violations continue to occur; welcomes, therefore, efforts to create a level playing field and the pursuit of a globally supported commitment to responsible business conduct; welcomes, further, the current shift in terms of normative developments from soft-law initiatives towards binding standards;

4.  Underlines the importance of closing the legal and regulatory loopholes which are being exploited by some business enterprises, including investors, at the cost of human rights and the environment;

5.  Notes with concern that in many countries’ judicial systems, numerous procedural, substantive and practical barriers persist regarding victims’ access to justice, including difficulties in identifying the competent court, barriers related to jurisdictional standards, short statutory limitation periods, excessive evidentiary burdens, limited or unclear liability owing to complex corporate structures, access to legal representation and information, prohibitive costs of representation abroad, as well as other inequalities between claimants and defendants; notes with concern, further, cases of victims facing intimidation or violence from the businesses involved in response to their seeking justice; emphasises that vulnerable or marginalised persons or groups, who may require additional attention in the context of stakeholder engagement activities, are facing heightened barriers to benefiting equitably from compensation payments or other forms of restitution;

6.  Stresses the importance of including parent-company-based extraterritorial regulation and access to justice for victims of transnational corporate human rights violations in the home state of transnational corporations (TNCs); highlights, in particular, the need to define clear obligations for TNCs in relation to eradicating child labour and forced labour from their supply chains and operations;

7.  Reiterates its strong support for the work being carried out in the UN through the OEIGWG to develop the instrument; expresses its appreciation for the work of the successive Chairs from Ecuador in steering this complex endeavour and welcomes the supportive role of the ‘Friends of the Chair’ group;

8.  Calls on the Chair of the OEIGWG and the UN member states to ensure that the negotiations are conducted in a transparent manner, with meaningful engagement with all stakeholders, including civil society, trade unions and workers’ representatives and the private sector, with due attention paid to vulnerable stakeholders; insists, moreover, on the importance of ensuring active engagement from all regions, with a view to developing an effective instrument that reflects the global diversity of the legal, social and economic realities affecting human rights and that draws on best practices implemented at domestic and regional level; encourages regional human rights and economic organisations, as well as authorities, to help facilitate this universal engagement;

EU and Member States’ engagement with the UN process

9.  Recalls that the EU has a Treaty-based commitment to promote human rights worldwide and multilateral solutions within the UN to common problems, which has yet to be reflected in its participation in the OEIGWG with a negotiating mandate;

10.  Acknowledges the OEIGWG as the only global and multilateral forum where mandatory rules on business and human rights are being discussed and, therefore, considers it crucial for the EU to actively engage in this process, alongside a critical mass of UN members, in order to reach a consensus-based outcome that can rely on broad support globally;

11.  Underscores that the latest normative developments at EU level on business and human rights are important initial steps towards addressing access to justice and victims’ rights, which lie at the centre of the LBI as a core human rights treaty; stresses, in this regard, the complementary nature, objectives and scope of, as well as the need for coherence between, both normative tracks, which will operate at different levels;

12.  Believes that the EU should actively engage in the ongoing negotiations, in particular to further develop the draft LBI, while focusing on victims of business-related abuses across the value chain, dismantling barriers to justice and effective remedy, ensuring a level playing field and legal certainty for businesses, taking into account the particular character of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and enhancing cooperation by drawing on international perspectives and best practices; considers that this engagement would ultimately contribute to securing better implementation and enforcement of human rights internationally, while equally contributing to an international level playing field and delivering a global instrument that is both widely supported and ratified among states across all regions, including but not limited to the European Union, and that remains relevant in the face of evolving threats to human rights;

13.  Welcomes the Council’s commitment that the EU will strengthen its engagement and actively participate in the OEIGWG; considers, however, that the only meaningful and tangible way to enact this stated commitment is by adopting an EU mandate for negotiations; urges the Council, therefore, to adopt an ambitious mandate for negotiations as soon as possible so that the EU is able to actively participate in the negotiations with a view to shaping the future LBI; stresses that the EU position must aim for strong provisions in terms of enforcement and monitoring mechanisms, as well as in relation to access to justice for those affected by violations;

14.  Calls on the Member States, in the meantime, to engage in the process individually while coordinating their positions throughout the negotiations, so as to defend a strong, common and clear EU position, presenting in a constructive manner the legislative initiatives aimed at regulating business activities in relation to human rights and climate-related obligations, while showing appreciation for the progress made to date; expects the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission, in particular the EU Delegation to the UN in Geneva, to play a proactive and constructive role in this process;

15.  Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States to engage proactively with all partner states and include the topic in their dialogues with non-EU countries and regional organisations, in particular in the framework of the EU’s structured human rights dialogues; encourages the EU to reach out, in particular, to key partners which are currently developing their own frameworks on business and human rights at national level, such as Brazil and Japan, and at regional level, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights;

Elements for an EU position on the LBI

16.  Welcomes the updated draft LBI, published in July 2023, and considers that it offers a solid and promising basis for advancing negotiations, while also recognising the need for improvement and alignment with the UNGPs, the OECD Guidelines and other current international standards;

17.  Believes that the EU should strive for an LBI that is compatible with and complementary to the ongoing normative developments at EU level, and thus contributes to creating a more coherent global legal framework on business and human rights;

18.  Supports a broad scope for the LBI that would ensure that responsibility applies throughout the global value chains; considers that allowing states parties the flexibility to differentiate, under their domestic legislation, how business enterprises, particularly SMEs, discharge the prevention obligations under the LBI, commensurate with their size, sector, ownership, operational context and the severity of impacts on human rights, would provide important leeway for national adaptation and would be consistent with the universal scope of the UNGPs; highlights that in many regions of the world, micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) are often the driving force of local economies; underlines that MSMEs account for 90 % of businesses, 60 to 70 % of employment and 50 % of gross domestic product worldwide; reiterates the importance of ensuring that obligations and requirements in the instrument are commensurate and proportionate to the size, resources and leverage of companies, and calls for the EU to provide safeguards for MSMEs in the negotiations concerning the instrument;

19.  Believes that business activities should be understood in line with the UNGPs;

20.  Insists that a broad scope of international instruments, including but not limited to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all core international human rights treaties and fundamental International Labour Organization conventions, should be covered under the LBI, in line with the universality and indivisibility of human rights;

21.  Regrets the fact that several references to the environment and climate change, including with regard to liability, were removed from the scope of the LBI in the latest draft; considers that the EU and the Member States should strive for the environmental and climate impact of business activities to be included within the scope of the LBI, in line with EU legislation, policies and ambition in this area, and therefore reflect the growing realisation of the impact of business activities in relation to climate change and environmental degradation, which in turn impact on human rights;

22.  Stresses that the LBI should provide for an ambitious, comprehensive, responsive and compulsory framework for the prevention of human rights abuses by corporations, in particular by establishing the obligation for states parties to adopt appropriate and effective legislative, regulatory and other measures to prevent corporate abuse and to ensure the practice of environmental due diligence and respect of human rights by all business enterprises; notes, in this regard, that allowing states parties the flexibility to adapt their preventive frameworks to their own legal systems, while preserving the primacy of human rights, would be a key factor in securing broad adherence to the LBI;

23.  Calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure, in line with the provisions under the UNGPs, that the LBI prevention framework obliges corporate actors to conduct enhanced due diligence when operating in areas where the risk of gross human rights violations is heightened, such as conflict-affected areas or territories under occupation or annexation, including by adding references to international humanitarian law, international criminal law and customary international law in the scope of the LBI; believes that the LBI should also address aspects related to corporate activities in disaster-affected areas or in relation to climate-vulnerable communities, which are becoming ever more relevant in the context of the climate crisis;

24.  Believes that the obligation for companies to adopt a risk-based approach and undertake regular human rights impact assessments prior to and throughout operations, and to take into account the needs of those at heightened risk, constitute particularly important elements for the LBI prevention framework, including by integrating a gender perspective, but also by taking into account issues concerning groups at risk of vulnerability or marginalisation, such as indigenous and traditional communities, minorities and human rights and environmental defenders;

25.  Calls for the LBI to provide a central role to affected stakeholders, in particular through the obligation to promote the active and meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders, including trade unions, non-governmental organisations, indigenous peoples and community-based organisations, as well as the private sector, in the implementation of legislation, policies and other measures, with special attention to access to justice and remedies;

26.  Calls for the LBI to provide a definition of active and meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders, including through interactive engagement carried out in good faith, on an ongoing basis, with proper follow-through, involving the identification and removal of potential barriers to engagement, and ensuring the safe participation of stakeholders without fear of reprisal;

27.  Stresses the importance for the EU and the Member States to ensure that the LBI includes the duty to protect the rights and the safety of human rights defenders, defenders of the environment, journalists, workers and indigenous peoples and other marginalised groups, and to mainstream consideration for these groups throughout the instrument; insists, in particular, on the importance of enshrining the principle of the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples;

28.  Calls for the EU and the Member States to support the inclusion in the LBI of the fight against corruption along the lines of the UN Convention against Corruption, recognising that corruption facilitates, perpetuates and institutionalises human rights violations;

29.  Is concerned about the risks of forum-shopping and its impact on a level playing field, also in the context of the EU; urges for EU-level instruments to mitigate these risks, including a monitoring mechanism; emphasises, therefore, the need to ensure that countries implement robust and effective, yet practical and proportional, enforcement and compliance monitoring mechanisms; insists, furthermore, on the requirement for states parties to carry out regular and in-depth reporting; notes the potential role, in this regard, of the processes adopted to develop national action plans on business and human rights; notes that the EU mandate should ensure that requirements are designed in such a way that they can be aligned with current EU legislation in this area;

30.  Expects the EU and the Member States to promote robust provisions on access to justice, including access to state-based judicial remedy, within the LBI, in line with their commitment to protecting victims, fighting impunity and upholding the UNGPs;

31.  Highlights the need for the LBI provisions on the rights of victims and rights-holders to spell out the means of ensuring the right to fair, adequate, prompt, non-discriminatory, appropriate and gender-sensitive access to justice, individual or collective reparations and effective remedy regarding human rights abuses caused or contributed to by companies; notes that this should include the right to collective redress, access to legal aid, to be heard in all stages of proceedings, information held by business enterprises as defined within the jurisdictions concerned, and protection from reprisals and re-victimisation; considers that mechanisms to alleviate the evidentiary burden on victims should be provided for in the draft to facilitate the victim’s right to access remedy; considers also that states parties should allow for the adoption of interim or precautionary measures in urgent cases;

32.  Insists that the LBI should include the duty for states parties to develop a comprehensive and adequate system of legal liability that is responsive to the needs of victims, as regards remedy, and commensurate to the gravity of the abuse, while avoiding facilitating abusive claims; insists, further, that the LBI should establish conditions in which the liability of companies can be duly established for harm they are responsible for;

33.  Insists that the LBI should address the practical and procedural obstacles faced by victims of corporate abuse when seeking justice, inter alia by addressing the challenges faced by courts in claiming jurisdiction in a variety of situations, and ensuring that statutes of limitations are adequate and not unduly restrictive; insists on the importance of paying due attention to vulnerable or marginalised persons or groups in this context;

34.  Welcomes the proposal for the establishment of an international fund for victims under the LBI that would provide legal and financial aid to victims seeking access to remedies;

35.  Insists that the LBI should confer sufficient powers on the Conference of Parties to establish mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of the LBI and make recommendations for possible further steps; considers that the committee established under the LBI should be empowered to receive and consider communications and complaints from individuals, communities or their representatives concerning human rights abuses by business enterprises covered by the LBI which are contrary to the provisions of the LBI, and concerning violations by a state party of any of the rights laid down in the LBI;

36.  Calls on the Commission to step up its financial and technical support to national authorities in non-EU countries concerning business and human rights, in particular through (i) the adoption and implementation of national action plans under the UNGPs, (ii) the development of non-judicial mechanisms, such as ombudsman offices or national contact points, (iii) legislative initiatives aiming to protect whistle-blowers and to regulate business activities in relation to human rights and environment-related obligations, and (iv) the promotion and the provision of accessible and efficient remedies for victims; encourages the Commission to increase its support for civil society organisations in these areas;

o
o   o

37.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the President of the UN Human Rights Council and the Chair of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group.

(1) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘Improving access to remedy in the area of business and human rights at the EU level’, 2017. (2) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘Business And Human Rights – Access To Remedy’, 2020. (3) OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 125. (4) OJ C 11, 13.1.2020, p. 36. (5) OJ C 214, 16.6.2023, p. 77.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the impact of illegal fishing on food security – the role of the European Union (2023/2027(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0043 A9-0433/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,

–  having regard to the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement,

–  having regard to the 1995 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas,

–  having regard to the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,

–  having regard to the 2001 FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing,

–  having regard to International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 188 on Work in Fishing Convention of 14 June 2007,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999(1) (the IUU Regulation),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006(2) (the Fisheries Control Regulation),

–  having regard to the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing,

–  having regard to the 2012 Cape Town Agreement on the Implementation of the Provisions of the Torremolinos Protocol of 1993 relating to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977,

–  having regard to the 2014 FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses(3),

–  having regard to the EU IUU Fishing Coalition report of December 2021 entitled ‘Seafood traceability: Aligning RFMO catch documentation schemes to combat IUU fishing’,

–  having regard to the 2022 study by the Commission entitled ‘Study on the legislative frameworks and enforcement systems of Member States regarding obligations and sanctions to nationals for infringements to the rules arising from the IUU Regulation’,

–  having regard to European Court of Auditors Special Report 20/2022 of 26 September 2022, entitled ‘EU action to combat illegal fishing – Control systems in place but weakened by uneven checks and sanctions by Member States’, which covers EU policy on fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing,

–  having regard to the 2022 FAO report entitled ‘The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 − Towards Blue Transformation’,

–  having regard to the IUU Fishing Action Alliance Pledge to stimulate ambition and action in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, agreed on 28 June 2022,

–  having regard to the 2022 World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, which prohibits harmful fisheries subsidies,

–  having regard to the 2023 FAO guidance document entitled ‘Advancing end-to-end traceability – Critical tracking events and key data elements along capture fisheries and aquaculture value chains’,

–  having regard to the 2023 FAO technical guideline entitled ‘Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing – 1. Methodologies and indicators for the estimation of the magnitude and impact of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing: 1.1 Principles and approaches’,

–  having regard to the Market Advisory Council and Long Distance Advisory Council joint advice of 21 April 2023 on the need for harmonised import controls between Member States in order to prevent the products of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing from entering the European Union market,

–  having regard to the European Parliament position on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (COM(2022)0453),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 October 2023 on the implications of Chinese fishing operations on EU fisheries and the way forward(4),

–  having regard to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Sustainable Development Goal 14 ‘Life Below Water: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0433/2023),

A.  whereas the EU, as a major global player in fisheries, with a fishing fleet of around 73 000 vessels, and as the world’s largest importer of fishery products, representing 34 % of total world trade in value, with almost 70 % of the fishing products consumed in the EU being imported, therefore has a central role to play in the fight against IUU fishing worldwide;

B.  whereas the fishing sector in the EU employs 124 000 fishers directly and generates EUR 6,3 billion in revenue each year;

C.  whereas it is difficult to estimate the extent of IUU fishing and its economic value; whereas studies have found that the global quantity of unreported catches to be around 28 million tonnes in 2016, with an estimated value of USD 41 billion; whereas illegal catches were estimated in the early 2000s, to be between 10 and 26 million tonnes of fish, with an estimated value of USD 10-23 billion; whereas in the EU, IUU-caught products imported annually are estimated to amount to around 500 000 tonnes, at a value of EUR 1,1 billion(5);

D.  whereas IUU fishing practices have a significant impact on food security and employment opportunities for coastal communities, as well as representing a major threat to marine ecosystems and fish stocks, which poses a serious menace to the livelihood of fishers and coastal communities within the European Union and in third countries, and creates unfair competition on the fisheries products market;

E.  whereas the EU is committed to achieving Sustainable Development Goal target 14.4, to end IUU fishing by 2020, and to eliminate, to the extent possible, the importation of products stemming from IUU fishing still enter the EU market;

F.  whereas the EU distant fleet is competing with certain foreign fleets that are accused of practising IUU fishing, including forced labour, labour exploitation and human trafficking, thereby undermining the livelihoods and human rights of fishers around the world and the sustainability of fish stocks, and of selling low-cost fishery products to the EU market, thereby rendering high-quality EU products non-competitive; whereas EU action against IUU contributes to ensuring a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators;

G.  whereas the EU has a robust framework of fisheries legislation, including measures to improve the monitoring, inspection, control and surveillance capacities used to combat IUU fishing;

H.  whereas according to the European Court of Auditors' Special report on EU action to combat IUU fishing, the IUU regulation has improved traceability and reinforced import control, it has proven useful and triggered positive reform in most of the countries concerned, however it concludes that control systems are weakened by uneven checks and sanctions by Member States;

I.  whereas the digitalisation of IUU catch certificates through the CATCH IT system will reduce opportunities for fraudulent imports; whereas, furthermore, the EU’s catch certification scheme is the most comprehensive, in comparison to the schemes of the USA and Japan, which are the second and third largest importers in the world, respectively;

J.  whereas Article 12 of the IUU Regulation prohibits the import of fishery products obtained from IUU fishing and third countries may be identified as non-cooperating countries in accordance with the provisions in Articles 31-36 thereof; whereas the EU has a zero-tolerance policy on IUU fishing, which applies to all aspects of fishing regardless of whether it takes place inside or outside of the EU;

K.  whereas five third countries currently have a red card and eight have a yellow card; whereas, however, one major producer of seafood, the People’s Republic of China, has never been subject to a procedure under the IUU Regulation, despite considerable evidence of its significant and growing involvement in IUU fishing and whereas its unregulated and opaque fishing operations pose a significant threat to the survival of global fishery resources and supply chains;

L.  whereas the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund provided support for monitoring, control and enforcement activities, with a total budget of EUR 580 million earmarked for this;

M.  whereas the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) provides important support for monitoring, control and enforcement activities, with a specific objective of ‘fostering efficient fisheries control and enforcement, including fighting against IUU fishing’ under Priority 1 – Fostering sustainable fisheries and the restoration and conservation of aquatic biological resources;

N.  whereas products resulting from IUU fishing pose a risk to the food security of European Union citizens by menacing access to safe, affordable, high-quality, and traceable food for all;

O.  whereas it recognises that IUU fishing disproportionately affects vulnerable and marginalised communities, both in the EU and in third countries;

P.  whereas the EU joined the IUU Fishing Action Alliance in March 2023;

1.  Reaffirms the need for the EU and its Member States to continue taking a zero-tolerance approach to IUU fishing, applying this approach equally to all countries, irrespective of size, and to promote economically, environmentally and socially sustainable fisheries with a view to combating overfishing, the destruction of marine ecosystems and unfair competition to the EU fishing sector, while ensuring food security and safeguarding public health;

2.  Notes that the fishing sector plays a crucial role in safeguarding global food and nutrition security and providing a means of livelihood for people living in coastal areas; underlines that the Union attaches great importance to the sustainable development of global fisheries and eradicating forced labour, trafficking and other forms of abuses, including in the fishing sector; recognises the commitment and compliance shown by numerous EU fishers when it comes to ensuring that fisheries resources are managed sustainably;

3.  Recognises that the fight against IUU fishing requires a holistic approach that addresses the causes of IUU fishing, such as poverty, the lack of economic alternatives and weak governance in some regions; encourages the Commission to engage in capacity-building programmes and international cooperation to help address these underlying issues and promote sustainable fishing practices;

4.  Urges the Commission to engage in particular with third countries which are significant fishing products exporters to the EU in order to ensure that they implement measures to prevent IUU fishing, including labour and environmental regulations; encourages the Commission to consider sanctions or other trade measures if third countries fail to comply with international norms;

5.  Calls on the Commission to provide technical assistance and promote capacity-building, using all possible channels in the framework of the common fisheries policy, in line with the EU’s international ocean governance goals, to encourage and support coastal states with which the Union maintains dialogue in stepping up their fight against IUU fishing and strengthening the sustainability and transparency requirements in the conditions for accessing their exclusive economic zones;

6.  Welcomes the initiative of the Commission to publish, on 10 May 2023, a website containing data on the fishing authorisations granted to EU vessels fishing outside EU waters and non-EU vessels fishing in EU waters; urges the fisheries authorities of third countries and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) to adopt similar measures;

7.  Welcomes that the new Fisheries Control Regulation requires fishery products imported into the EU and caught at sea to indicate the IMO number of the fishing vessel, or another unique vessel identifier if the IMO number does not apply;

8.  Welcomes the IUU Fishing Action Alliance Pledge to stimulate ambition and action in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, agreed on 28 June 2022; welcomes the fact that the European Union recently joined the IUU Fishing Action Alliance; urges the members of the alliance to coordinate their national systems for tackling IUU fishing and, in particular, to look into the possibility of jointly issuing ‘yellow cards’ and ‘red cards’, or other similar instruments;

9.  Emphasises the need to conduct rigorous scientific research and data collection to better understand the specific impacts of IUU fishing on food security, local economies and the environment; calls on the Commission to allocate funding and resources for such research and to regularly update its assessments to inform evidence-based policymaking;

10.  Underlines that the EU IUU regulations must be implemented in a harmonised approach, ensuring the same level of implementation across all Member States, which would make it more effective when used and prevent any potential loopholes;

11.  Requests that the Commission ensure that the EU guidelines on the implementation of the EU IUU regulations must provide guidance on how to improve the implementation of the EU IUU Regulation in Member States failing to uphold the Regulation’s requirements and how best to verify the information provided in the biennial reports;

12.  Underlines the importance of introducing more import controls to protect public health and the competitiveness of the EU fishing industry by implementing strong and timely measures and sanctions;

13.  Points out that the Member States must allocate sufficient capacity and resources to ensure the effective implementation of import controls;

14.  Encourages national authorities to ensure adequate implementation of the IUU Regulation in order to set an example of good practice for other Member States, contribute to implementing an adequate traceability system and ensure responsible fishing practices, improving the safety at sea and labour conditions on fishing vessels, and to enhance accurate reporting of catch;

15.  Stresses that the Commission must provide adequate support to the national authorities responsible for the control of fisheries products imports, noting that this support may include, where available, the production of a list of the management and conservation measures applying in non-EU countries and the sharing of detailed information on shortcomings identified in the context of the implementation of the EU IUU Regulation in relation to non-EU countries;

16.  Stresses that the Commission must provide, together with the European Fisheries Control Agency and in close coordination with the Member States, further support to the national authorities as regards how best to implement the IUU Regulation, with this support taking the form of guidance, exchanges of good practices, training, and similar, which will also allow national fisheries to regain their competitiveness;

17.  Calls on the Member States to use the EMFAF to ensure that it provides the necessary targeted support to small-scale and artisanal fishers, who often face unique challenges in complying with IUU regulations; stresses that these fishers play a critical role in local food security and should receive the assistance they need;

18.  Urges the Commission to explore options for supporting affected communities in Member States; recognises that the transition to sustainable fishing practices may lead to economic disruption and job losses, and therefore calls for measures to protect the livelihoods of those dependent on the fishing industry, such as vocational training and financial transition support;

19.  Highlights that it is the Commission’s obligation to ensure the consistent application and implementation of import control procedures across the EU, including catch certificate checks, a risk-based approach, verifications and the initiation of infringement procedures;

20.  In line with the recent agreement on the revision of the Fisheries Control Regulation, encourages the introduction of remote electronic monitoring measures in non-EU waters in order to tackle IUU fishing;

21.  Expects the Commission to support innovation and research to develop monitoring, tracking, and geolocation instruments for vessels on the high seas by supporting the implementation of international initiatives designed to coordinate data systems and provide complete, precise data and transparent information on the location, origin, and activity of fishing vessels;

22.  Reminds the Commission of the need to harmonise import controls across the Member States in order to prevent IUU fishing products from entering the EU market and strongly encourages the Commission to take further action in this regard; stresses that the European Union needs to improve control and enforcement to combat forced labour both in fishing and processing industries of imported products;

23.  Acknowledges that the 2012 IMO Cape Town Agreement, the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures, the ILO Protocol to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and the ILO Work in Fishing Convention (No. 188) are important instruments to ensure decent working conditions and help to prevent unacceptable forms of work for all fishers, especially forced labour, trafficking and other abuses, and to combat IUU fishing; calls on the Member States to sign and ratify, or accede to these conventions;

24.  Calls on the Commission to increase awareness on the protection of human rights in the fishing sector; underlines that the fisheries sector in specific geographic areas has a higher risk of forced labour imposed by state authorities; urges that when forced labour is identified, products stemming from it should prohibited from entering the EU market;

25.  Demands that the Commission take measures to stop the use of flags of convenience; calls for easy access to information on the beneficial ownership of fishing vessels of all flags; calls on the Commission to improve its system for identifying vessels engaged in IUU fishing, as provided for in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1184, so that a vessel’s country of origin can be identified even if its flag state is unclear and so that vessels on which human rights violations have been detected are also included;

26.  Welcomes that the revised Fisheries Control Regulation prohibits, in particular provisions, Union operators, including beneficial owners, from owning, operating or managing vessels registered under the flag of countries that have been issued a red card for non-cooperation in combating IUU fishing;

27.  Urges the Member States to establish and maintain comprehensive databases that collect and record information on the beneficial owners of registered vessels;

28.  Encourages the Member States to cooperate with the relevant authorities to ensure the accuracy of the data collected on the beneficial ownership of vessels in order to facilitate policy formation and the enforcement of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation;

29.  Encourages the Commission to work swiftly to ensure that the CATCH IT system is fully operational and that Member State national authorities are fully familiarised with its use within two years from the date of application of Article 4 of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation;

30.  Asks the Commission to secure sufficient human resources in order to ensure a more rapid and effective delivery of the aforementioned IT system in the Member States;

31.  Strongly welcomes the establishment of the new CATCH IT system by the revised Fisheries Control Regulation;

32.  Encourages the swift inclusion of more comprehensive risk criteria and data cross-checks in the next iterations of the CATCH IT system, as recommended by the Long Distance Advisory Council; considers that in order to ensure a race to the top, the Commission must make sure that the risk assessment applied in CATCH is at least as thorough as those applied in the Member States that already have an electronic system to check catch certificates; considers that in the intervening period, the Commission must ensure that there is interoperability between CATCH and national IT systems without increasing the burden on economic operators;

33.  Urges the Commission to increase the number of staff working on ocean governance and IUU fishing within the Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries;

34.  Encourages the Member States to ensure that the necessary procedures are put in place in preparation for the legal adoption of the CATCH IT system and to make sure that the system is ready for use as soon as possible;

35.  Urges the Member States to reinforce their control systems for preventing the import of illegal fishery products and to take the necessary action; welcomes the full traceability of fresh, frozen and processed fishing products as agreed in the new Fisheries Control Regulation, which could contribute to increase of food safety in the EU and push for third countries to increase traceability to allow their fishing products to enter the Union market;

36.  Highlights the importance of improved traceability for all fisheries and aquaculture food products in order for consumers to be able to make informed decisions when buying these products; believes that more specific and transparent labelling, clearly indicating products’ paths from production to plate, for EU and non-EU products alike should be considered; encourages the Member States to launch appropriate promotion campaigns for seafood products, in order to raise consumers’ awareness of what they are purchasing and traceability measures;

37.  Urges the Member States to swiftly implement the new Fisheries Control Regulation in order to comply with their legal obligation to have effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions against IUU fishing, thereby reducing incentives to practice IUU fishing and deterring any future infringements;

38.  Stresses that multilateral cooperation and a global coherent policy with regard to IUU, trade and ocean governance are key to efficiently fighting IUU fishing; calls, in this context, on the Commission to keep encouraging its partners, through its Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements, its IUU policy, in RFMOs and the WTO, and to intensify its cooperation with the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Japan and other key players in fisheries and ocean policy through diplomatic and trade instruments, and to encourage other non-EU countries to adopt robust legislation and measures to combat IUU fishing;

39.  Recognises that the effective enforcement of IUU fishing regulations requires collaboration between Member States and a coordinated approach at EU level; encourages the Commission, together with European Fisheries Control Agency, to increase coordinating efforts to combat IUU fishing, share best practices and harmonise enforcement activities across the Member States;

40.  Recognises the importance of fostering cooperation with civil society and community stakeholders in the fight against IUU fishing; underlines the importance of stakeholder involvement for the best possible implementation of the IUU Regulation; calls on the Commission to engage with these stakeholders in order to promote sustainable fishing practices and to ensure that the voices of affected communities are heard in the decision-making process;

41.  Calls for the establishment of a comprehensive whistleblower protection programme within the EU to encourage individuals with knowledge of IUU fishing activities to come forward and provide crucial information; underlines that such a programme should include legal safeguards, anonymity and incentives for whistleblowers to report violations without fear of retaliation;

42.  Calls on the Member States to promote fair trade practices in the fisheries sector to achieve a genuine level playing field between EU fisheries products and third-country fisheries products; is of the opinion that the Member States should consider implementing trade measures that take into account the environmental and labour standards of the products being imported;

43.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to refrain from granting preferential market access to nations associated with IUU fishing practices and severe labour violations, including the use of forced labour; considers that the EU should strive to establish a genuine level playing field between seafood produced in the EU and that produced in third countries; considers that specifically, the autonomous tariff quota instrument, which is indispensable in order to ensure the competitiveness of the Union processing industry and avoid jeopardising Union production of fishery products by guaranteeing an adequate supply of fishery products to the industry, should be employed exclusively in cases where the seafood supply for EU markets is insufficient and that it should not be used to import products coming from IUU fishing or to exert pressure on the prices of EU-produced goods;

44.  Urges the Commission to ensure the consistent and stringent implementation of red and yellow cards, without regard to a country’s size or economic and commercial influence. In this regard, as requested in European Parliament Resolution ‘Implications of Chinese fishing operations for EU fisheries and the way forward’ (A9-0282/2023), calls on the Commission to assess all Chinese initiatives aimed at combating IUU fishing, and in the light of such assessments, to take appropriate actions under the IUU Regulation;

45.  Stresses that the available IUU databases suffer from opaqueness, i.e. unknown vessel names, origin or ownership, which causes loss of income, notably in poor countries; emphasises that the international bodies involved in the fight against IUU fishing should coordinate their IUU fishing control activities with shared electronic databases, clear strategies and structured plans that result in the lowest possible level of IUU fishing practices at international level;

46.  Encourages the Member States to improve routine and timely information sharing, including on rejected consignments, which can enable authorities to better apply and enforce the law; underlines that the FAO Port State Measures Agreement can assist in this regard;

47.  Notes that RFMOs have been proven to be useful in the fight against illegal fishing; calls on the Commission to actively promote the establishment of more relevant RFMOs; encourages the Member States to promote the initiatives of the FAO and of relevant RFMOs aimed at fighting IUU fishing activities and to exchange information relating to fishing vessels suspected of such activities;

48.  Stresses that multilateral catch documentation schemes that are designed and agreed upon by the RFMOs’ contracting parties and cooperating non-contracting parties, and that require critical information on a consignment to be recorded and transferred throughout the supply chain, have proven to be effective tools for improving traceability and contribute to the fight against IUU fishing;

49.  Recalls the objectives to protect at least 30 % of oceans by 2030; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that effective measures are in place ahead of 2030, and to make sure that the IUU Regulation is fully implemented;

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

(1) OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1. (2) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1. (3) OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 1. (4) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0366. (5) Briefing – ‘Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing’, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, 14 October 2022, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/614598/EPRS_BRI(2017)614598_EN.pdf; Temple, Andrew J. et al., ‘Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing impacts: A systematic review of evidence and proposed future agenda’, Marine Policy, Volume 139, 2022, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X2200080X; European Court of Auditors Special Report 20/2022.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime (2023/2068(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0044 A9-0377/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), and in particular Articles 1, 7, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 thereof,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Articles 2, 3 and 6 thereof,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Articles 19 and 83(1) thereof,

–  having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the related case-law of the European Court of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 9 December 2021 entitled ‘A more inclusive and protective Europe: extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime’ (COM(2021)0777) and the proposal for a Council decision annexed thereto,

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law(1),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 5 March 2020 entitled ‘A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0152),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 September 2020 entitled ‘A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0565),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 12 November 2020 entitled ‘Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0698),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2021 entitled ‘Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030’ (COM(2021)0101), and to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the EU and all its Member States,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 June 2020 entitled ‘EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025)’ (COM(2020)0258),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe recommendation of 20 May 2022 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on combating hate speech (CM/Rec(2022)16),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe’s Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) General Policy Recommendation No 15 on combating hate speech, adopted on 8 December 2015,

–  having regard to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,

–  having regard to the recommendations, reports and resolutions of the ECRI, the Steering Committee on Anti-Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Venice Commission and other bodies of the Council of Europe,

–  having regard to the guidelines on improving the collection and use of equality data drawn up by the Subgroup on Equality Data of the Commission High Level Group on Non-discrimination, Equality and Diversity and published in 2021,

–  having regard to the UN Human Rights Treaties and the UN instruments on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and to the recommendations of the annual UN Forum on Minority Issues,

–  having regard to the annual hate crime data published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights every year on 16 November,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2020 on strengthening media freedom: the protection of journalists in Europe, hate speech, disinformation and the role of platforms(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 with recommendations to the Commission on identifying gender-based violence as a new area of crime listed in Article 83(1) TFEU(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU(4),

–  having regard to Rule 105(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0377/2023),

A.  whereas any form of discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation as laid down in Article 21 of the Charter is prohibited; whereas, within the scope of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality is also prohibited; whereas following the broad interpretation by the CJEU, the grounds of ‘sex’ should be understood broadly to encompass all forms of discrimination related to gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics(5);

B.  whereas all forms and manifestations of hatred and intolerance, including hate speech and hate crimes, are incompatible with the Union values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU; whereas the promotion and protection of those Union founding values depends on the EU institutions, Member States and any other relevant actor countering bias, prejudice and intolerance, as well as on the elimination of hatred;

C.  whereas hate speech and hate crimes are complex and multidimensional phenomena with far-reaching consequences for human rights and the rule of law in democratic societies; whereas tackling xenophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, including those based on political or other opinions, and hatred against certain individuals or societal groups requires the EU and its Member States to develop a holistic response in close collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including civil society; whereas criminalisation is one tool to combat hate speech and hate crimes;

D.  whereas fighting hate speech and hate crimes, both online and offline, requires a multidimensional approach and, where appropriate, different means to combat them, including criminal law, civil and administrative proceedings and other significant policies or social measures; whereas the Member States have already committed to adopting legislation and measures that penalise hate crimes, address under-reporting and introduce or further develop capacity-building activities for law enforcement and judicial officials(6); whereas in order to effectively combat hate speech and hate crimes, it is essential to tackle their root causes, in particular stereotypes; whereas preventive measures, education, including digital education, literacy and skills to promote safe digital spaces, training, and awareness raising are key in this regard; whereas the EU and the Member States should promote a better understanding of the need for diversity and dialogue within a context of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, raise public awareness of the importance of respecting pluralism and combat negative stereotyping and stigmatisation;

E.  whereas hate speech and hate crimes can constitute particularly serious crimes and affect not only the individual victims and their communities, by causing them suffering and limiting their fundamental rights and freedoms, but also society as a whole, by undermining the foundations of the EU;

F.  whereas not all hate speech constitutes a crime, but it still contributes to normalising manifestations of hatred, violence and intolerance in society;

G.  whereas in the last few decades, there has been a sharp rise in discrimination, hate crimes and hate speech across the EU(7), an increase in various forms of racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of intolerance and an alarming spike in online and offline hate speech and incitement; whereas persons belonging to vulnerable groups, such as LGBTIQ+ people, racialised people, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, indigenous communities(8),(9), people with disabilities, people with socioeconomic disadvantaged backgrounds, asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, are recurring targets of hate speech and hate crimes; whereas there has been a significant increase in anti-LGBTIQ hate crimes and hate speech in Europe(10), as well as a rise in discrimination and hatred against women; whereas multiple and intersectional discrimination is fertile ground for hate speech and crimes to occur; whereas targets of hate speech become increasingly excluded from society;

H.  whereas the rise in discrimination and hatred is being exacerbated in many Member States by extremist and populist movements and the multiplier effect of the online environment and social media, which facilitate revictimisation; whereas this rise is leading to dangerous divisions in society as a whole and threatens democracy;

I.  whereas there is evidence that hate speech and hate-motivated incidents continue to be underreported in the EU(11), which makes it difficult to quantify the extent of the problem;

J.  whereas media and journalists play a fundamental role in informing society and contributing to democratic processes;

K.  whereas political discourse is increasingly characterised by hate speech; whereas election campaigns provide particularly fertile ground for hate speech and incitement to hatred, which affects not only the political sphere, but the functioning of society at large and deepens political polarisation; whereas hate speech towards women in public roles has reached an alarming level; whereas political leaders have a significant role and responsibility in the fight against hate speech and intolerance; whereas they should lead by example and publicly denounce instances of hate;

L.  whereas minors are particularly vulnerable victims of hate speech and hate crimes, including at schools or online, via cyberbullying; whereas such attacks endanger their physical and mental integrity and affect their development and physical and mental health; whereas particular attention must be paid to them;

M.  whereas the Member States do not address hate speech and hate crime in an equal way in their respective criminal laws, which leaves certain groups with insufficient protection in some parts of the Union; whereas this makes it difficult to define a common European approach to combat hate speech and hate crime; whereas the lack of legal protection can have devastating consequences for victims;

N.  whereas the current EU framework only covers hate speech and hate crimes on the grounds of race, colour, religion, descent and national or ethnic origin; whereas there is currently no comprehensive common legal definition of hate speech and hate crime at the EU level; whereas there is a clear need to effectively address hate speech and hate crimes based on other grounds, such as sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics, age, disability and any other fundamental characteristic, in particular those protected under Article 21 of the Charter, and any combination of these characteristics; whereas the EU must protect the most vulnerable in society; whereas particular attention should be given to identifying the persons, groups or communities most vulnerable to hate speech and hate crimes in order to avoid a negative impact on the protection of victims;

O.  whereas Article 83(1) TFEU establishes clear requirements for the inclusion of new areas of crime in the list of cross-border EU crimes; whereas the particular cross-border dimension of online hate speech is clear; whereas the digital transformation highlights the need to address this phenomenon at a European level; whereas there is a need to combat hate speech and hate crimes on a common basis and at the EU level; whereas the EU has the responsibility to act;

P.  whereas the response of EU criminal law to hate speech and hate crimes should be strong, proportionate and tailored to its purpose in order to duly protect the victim and give due weight to freedom of expression and freedom of information, which are cornerstones of democracy; whereas the EU should guarantee that any restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent and counter hate speech should not be misused by the competent authorities in the Member States to silence minorities or suppress criticism; whereas the European Court of Human Right’s judgments on freedom of expression must be respected when establishing protections against hate speech;

Q.  whereas the fundamental rights that are protected in the fight against hate speech and hate crimes are, foremost, human dignity and the principle of non-discrimination; whereas such protection should be universal; whereas protection against intolerance, be it racial or based on national origin, sexual orientation, religion, ideology, age, opinion or any other personal, physical or social condition or circumstance, whatever its form of expression, must not be limited only to certain grounds or motivations;

R.  whereas changes in social dynamics can generate new motivations for hate speech and hate crimes that have to be addressed by a common EU framework, which requires that Article 83(1) TFEU, which sets the list of EU crimes, be expanded;

S.  whereas in 2021, the Commission presented a communication entitled ‘A more inclusive and protective Europe: extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime’ with a view to adding hate crime and hate speech to the list of areas of crime where Parliament and the Council may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions applicable in all EU Member States as provided for in Article 83(1) TFEU; whereas the Council must adopt a decision in this regard;

T.  whereas this Council decision would be a first step in creating the necessary legal basis to adopt, as a second step, a common legal framework to combat hate speech and hate crimes across the EU; whereas such a common legal framework is urgently needed to establish minimum standards concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions and thereby to combat hate speech and hate crimes on a common European basis in order to ensure consistent protection of the potential victims of such acts across the Union;

U.  whereas the Council has yet to adopt a decision; whereas some Member States have been blocking concrete progress on this specific file in the Council;

V.  whereas Article 83(1) TFEU requires unanimity in the Council to identify ‘other areas of crime’; whereas this requirement has proved detrimental to achieving necessary common progress in combating hate speech and hate crimes across the Union;

1.  Urges the Council to adopt a decision to include hate speech and hate crime among the criminal offences within the list under Article 83(1) TFEU, so that the Commission can initiate the second stage of the procedure;

2.  Recalls that Member States’ criminal laws deal with hate speech and hate crime in different ways and that minimum harmonised rules at EU level exist only when such crimes are committed against a group or individual based on their race, skin colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, which makes it difficult to implement a successful common strategy to effectively combat hatred;

3.  Strongly regrets that almost two years have passed since the publication of the Commission communication and that the Council has made no progress on it, even though it was able to swiftly expand the list of EU crimes for other purposes; regrets such inaction in the light of the increase in hate speech and hate crimes;

4.  Calls on the Member States to work together responsibly and constructively to resume negotiations within the Council in order to adopt a Council decision before the end of the current parliamentary term;

5.  Urges the Member States to support or at least refrain from opposing the adoption of the draft decision;

6.  Calls on the current and future Presidencies of the Council of the Union to consider the Commission’s proposal as a priority when drawing up their agenda and defining objectives;

7.  Recommends that Article 83 TFEU be amended to make it subject to reinforced qualified majority rather than the current required unanimity; calls for the ‘passerelle clause’ to be activated in this regard;

8.  Emphasises that future EU legislation to establish minimum standards concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions for hate speech and hate crimes must protect human dignity, seek to prevent harm, ensure equality and combat hatred and intolerance, irrespective of the motivation;

9.  Recalls that protection must be universal, with a special focus on targeted persons and vulnerable groups and communities;

10.  Recalls that freedom of expression, is a foundational value of democratic societies and should not be unjustifiably restricted; further recalls that any legislation on hate speech and hate crime should be grounded in the principles of necessity and proportionality; underlines that freedom of expression must be exercised within the law and in line with Article 11 of the Charter and should not be exploited as a shield for hate speech and hate crimes;

11.  Asks the Commission to consider an open-ended approach whereby the list of grounds of discrimination will not be limited to a closed list in order to effectively combat hate speech and hate crimes motivated by new and changing social dynamics;

12.  Stresses that misuses of the internet and the business model of social media platforms, which is based on micro-targeted advertising, contribute to spreading and amplifying hate speech, inciting discrimination and violence and increasing the risk of revictimisation; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the correct implementation of current legislation, such as Regulation (EU) 2022/2065(12), and to make use of all means and instruments at their disposal to counter the dissemination of hate speech online;

13.  Recalls public authorities’ responsibility in preventing, investigating, prosecuting and reporting hate speech and hate crimes and that they must take into account facts that indicate hate when doing so; stresses that future EU legislation should support and promote strong cooperation with civil society, equality bodies and national human rights institutions;

14.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give particular consideration to minors, including those belonging to vulnerable groups, so as to give them special protection from hate speech and hate crimes, to prevent these incidents, including bullying in schools and cyberbullying, from occurring and to minimise their impact on minors’ development and mental health;

15.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that a robust EU legal protection framework is put in place so that victims are effectively protected, in particular those from all vulnerable groups across the EU; emphasises the need to apply an intersectional approach and the importance of adopting comprehensive measures, including providing training to professionals likely to come into contact with victims, as well as measures to ensure protection, safe access to independent justice, specialised support services and reparations for victims; stresses that victims should be able to report their experiences to the competent authorities and be protected; recalls that ensuring the legal protection of victims would create a safe environment that would contribute to enhanced reporting, which is necessary to document hate speech and hate crimes;

16.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in cooperation with relevant Union bodies and agencies, to establish adequate data collection systems for obtaining solid, comparable, disaggregated and anonymous data on hate incidents, including hate crimes, in accordance with the relevant national legal frameworks and EU data protection legislation, as well as adequate monitoring mechanisms to improve the regular availability, comparability and quality of the data collected and to assess the impact that legislation and policies have on the fight against hate speech and hate crimes;

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

(1) OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. (2) OJ C 425, 20.10.2021, p. 28. (3) OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 88. (4) OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13. (5) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 April 1996, P v S and Cornwall County Council, C-13/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:170; judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 January 2004, K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health, C-117/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:7; judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 April 2006, Sarah Margaret Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, C-423/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:256;and judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 2018, M.B. v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, C-451/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:492. (6) Annual OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights hate crime data. (7) See, for instance, the annual report on the ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019, the annual report on the ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2020, and the study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs entitled ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches’, published in July 2020. (8) Lingaas, C., ‘Hate Speech and Racialised Discrimination of the Norwegian Sámi: Legal Responses and Responsibility’, Oslo Law Review, Vol. 8, No 2, 2021, pp. 88-107. (9) Civil Rights Defenders, ‘Joint submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review of Sweden –35th Session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council – January 2020’, 2019. (10) ILGA Europe, ‘2023 Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia’, February 2023. (11) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘Encouraging hate crime reporting – The role of law enforcement and other authorities’, 2021. (12) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the state of play in the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and future perspectives (2021/2169(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0045 A9-0357/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Articles 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 38, 39, 43 and 349,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common fisheries policy (CFP)(1),

–  having regard to Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive)(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 on More fish in the seas? Measures to promote stock recovery above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), including fish recovery areas and marine protected areas(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2021 on securing the objectives of the landing obligation under Article 15 of the Common Fisheries Policy(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on ‘the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on ‘Fishers for the future: Attracting a new generation of workers to the fishing industry and generating employment in coastal communities’(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2021 on a farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2022 on the future of fisheries in the Channel, North Sea, Irish Sea and Atlantic Ocean in the light of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the implementation of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2023 on the small-scale fisheries situation in the EU and future perspectives(11),

–  having regard to the Council Resolution of 3 November 1976 on certain external aspects of the creation of a 200-mile fishing zone in the Community with effect from 1 January 1977(12) (1976 Hague Resolution), and in particular Annex VII thereto,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2007 entitled ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ (COM(2007)0575),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 21 February 2023 entitled on ‘The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management’ (COM(2023)0103),

–  having regard to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) report of 26 September 2019 entitled ‘Social data in the EU fisheries sector (STECF 19-03)’,

–  having regard to the STECF report of 10 December 2020 entitled ‘Social dimension of the CFP (STECF 20-14)’,

–  having regard to the study conducted for the Committee on Fisheries of July 2021 entitled ‘Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on EU fisheries and aquaculture’,

–  having regard to the STECF report of 8 December 2021 entitled ‘The 2021 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 21-08)’,

–  having regard to maritime economic paper No 8/2020 of 9 March 2021 entitled ‘The EU fishing fleet 2020: Trends and economic results’ produced by the Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,

–  having regard to the report of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency of the European Commission, of 7 October 2022, entitled ‘Climate change and the common fisheries policy’(13),

–  having regard to the 2017 World Bank report on ‘The Sunken Billions Revisited - Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries’,

–  having regard to the opinion of the Galician Fisheries Council of 8 February 2022 on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0357/2023),

A.  whereas given that Parliament has already expressed its views on several specific features of the CFP, this report builds on previous sectoral reports and provides an overall political assessment of the functioning of the CFP and a reflection on the future outlook, focusing in particular on the conservation of living marine resources and the management of fisheries under the CFP;

B.  whereas Article 39 TFEU requires that the CFP, in all its areas, particularly the conservation of marine biological resources, must among other things, ensure a fair standard of living for the fishing community and assure availability of supplies (food security); whereas Article 11 TFEU also stipulates that ‘environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development’;

C.  whereas the CFP seeks to ensure ‘that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits’; whereas the CFP also includes the objective of contributing to the ‘availability of food supplies’ and mentions the objectives of implementing ‘the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised’, of contributing ‘to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects’ and of promoting ‘coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio-economic aspects’;

D.  whereas achieving conservation of exploited stocks and the environmental objectives of the CFP overall would not be sufficient to conclude that the CFP has succeeded;

E.  whereas it is appropriate to keep a balance between the three pillars of sustainability and to address gaps in the social dimension of the CFP;

F.  whereas the CFP must also contribute to the supply of sustainable food to the EU market and to reducing the EU market’s dependence on food imports;

G.  whereas food security is one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs); whereas fish protein has extraordinary strategic value and is essential for food security; whereas capture fisheries are among the lowest impact systems for the production of animal protein;

H.  whereas the Commission has identified the need to produce more food from the oceans as a strategic objective; whereas a report by the High Level Scientific Group in 2017, appointed by the then Commissioner Karmenu Vella, recommends ‘mainstream[ing] a “food from the ocean” paradigm of responsible culture and capture into broad EU and global systems-level policy agendas’;

I.  whereas EU fisheries represent a strategic sector for the EU, providing a substantial number of direct and indirect jobs in fishing and coastal areas, help ensure food security and maintain a sustainable economy by linking employment and people’s livelihoods to the territory and to the maintenance of cultural traditions;

J.  whereas fishing creates jobs both at sea and on land; whereas some regions rely on landings happening locally to ensure the viability of many businesses and to maintain lively coastal communities;

K.  whereas aquatic food producers and related industries play a vital role for society and for the communities they support;

L.  whereas fishing makes an indispensable contribution to food security in the EU;

M.  whereas the objectives of ensuring the food supply from EU fisheries and of ensuring a fair standard of living should play a more prominent role in the decision-making process;

N.  whereas a healthy European fisheries sector is essential to reduce dependence on third countries, such as China, when it comes to the EU’s food supply;

O.  whereas the ocean must be recognised as a common good of humanity in international negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations;

P.  whereas the EU should promote the objectives of the CFP internationally, establishing a level playing field and cooperating with third countries and international organisations in order to improve compliance with international rules, including measures to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge;

Q.  whereas there is a need to determine a fishery resource management policy that upholds collective access to fishery resources, is based primarily on their biological aspects and amounts to a fisheries co-management system that takes account of the specific conditions of fishery resources and the respective sea areas, with the effective participation of those working in the sector;

R.  whereas in its Communication on ‘The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries management’, the Commission proposes that the CFP be implemented better rather than revised;

S.  whereas, when adopting successive regional multiannual plans starting in 2016, the European Parliament and the Council decided to require the use of MSY-based fishing mortality levels only for the main target stocks; whereas these plans also provide for some necessary additional flexibility in these mortality reference levels, notably to take into account the interactions between stocks and fisheries (choke species effects); whereas, in the multiannual plan for the Western Mediterranean, the legislator decided furthermore to postpone the deadline for application of MSY-based fishing mortality levels to 2025;

T.  whereas scientists recognise that achieving MSY for all stocks simultaneously is, in practice, impossible;

U.  whereas the health of fish stocks varies between different EU waters;

V.  whereas fisheries management measures adopted under the CFP are bearing fruit, as the number of fish stocks exploited at sustainable levels is increasing, making higher yields possible for stocks that were overexploited;

W.  whereas the EU did not meet the 2020 deadline to achieve the MSY exploitation rate for all fishing stocks; whereas, however, considerable progress has been made towards achieving the MSY target, particularly in the north-east Atlantic and Baltic Sea, where in 2020, 99 % of landings that are managed solely by the EU and for which scientific advice was available, were ‘sustainably managed stocks’;

X.  whereas the EU has committed itself to delivering on the UN 2030 Agenda, which includes SDG 14 ‘to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development’;

Y.  whereas the 2013 CFP review led to a major paradigm shift in decades of fisheries management, by requiring all catches, particularly those of species out of quotas or of undersized fish, to be kept on board vessels and landed; whereas, however, this tool, which was designed to contribute to the implementation of the objective of the progressive elimination of discards of unwanted catches in fisheries, seems to have become an objective in itself;

Z.  whereas the landing obligation makes many mixed fisheries unprofitable, notably because fishers have to sort out and store low-value or non-marketable fish on board, increasing labour, reducing resting time and storage space on board; whereas the landing obligation also risks resulting in under-utilisation of rightful fishing opportunities for some stocks, since vessels have to stop any fishing activity once their quota for one stock (choke species) has been exhausted;

AA.  whereas the level of unwanted catches is highly variable across different fisheries; whereas the implementation of the various flexibilities foreseen in Article 15 of the CFP Basic Regulation has led to numerous complex, ever changing and uncontrollable sets of derogations to the landing obligation;

AB.  whereas the most successful policies towards reduction and elimination of discarding around the world have been implemented through gradual approaches, where the policy has evolved by learning from experience;

AC.  whereas new techniques with selective fishing gear are necessary for sustainable fishing, which also ensures good yields;

AD.  whereas the CFP and the Technical Measures Regulation go hand in hand and, therefore, a review of this regulation is also needed to facilitate the authorisation of innovative gear;

AE.  whereas the number of total allowable catches (TACs) should be adapted to those that are necessary to manage fisheries as a whole; whereas ICES has indicated that a number of TACs could be eliminated from the EU system without undermining the overall management of fishery resources(14);

AF.  whereas the principle of relative stability, first set out in the CFP Basic Regulation of 1982 and implemented by the TACs and Quota Regulation of 1983, laid down a distributional key of the TAC by Member State based on the allocation principles of historical catches (1973-1978), as enshrined in the Hague preferences of 1976;

AG.  whereas relative stability is of great importance for the predictability and continuity of the fishing fleet in the European Union;

AH.  whereas Brexit has affected the distribution of fishing rights in the EU and has had a socio-economic impact;

AI.  whereas the EU must deliver on the Paris Agreement goals to fight climate change and to be climate-neutral by 2050, as well as to meet International Maritime Organization (IMO)commitments, while creating jobs and sustainable growth in a manner that does not threaten food production, food supply and food security;

AJ.  whereas, although fishing is not the activity that generates the most accidents, of all maritime vessels, fishing vessels are those most often involved; whereas in 2018 a 40 % increase in the number of incidents involving fishing vessels was recorded compared with the previous year;

AK.  whereas, despite this, it has shown a downward trend, with the vast majority of incidents being the result of human factors (62,4 %) with system/equipment failures being the second most common cause (23,2 %); whereas the three most frequently reported factors contributing to accidents on fishing vessels related to human actions are a lack of safety awareness, a lack of knowledge and inadequate working methods among on board personnel; whereas all these factors cannot be addressed separately from the profitability of the fishing sector, which needs to be secured in order for it to be able to invest further in safe working conditions;

AL.  whereas 32 000 lives are lost every year in the fisheries sector globally, not to mention the thousands of victims of accidents; whereas furthermore, as has also been pointed out by professional organisations, occupational diseases among those engaged in this laborious activity have increased alarmingly in recent years;

AM.  whereas fishing is an arduous occupation involving serious risks to the health and safety of those engaged in it; whereas the International Labour Organization recognised this problem in a convention dating back to 2007 and called on the countries that have ratified it to guarantee safe and healthy working conditions in this sector; acknowledges that the well-being of workers on board fishing vessels is essential for the future of the industry;

AN.  whereas it should be highlighted that maritime fisheries activities play an important part in improving living standards for fishing communities;

AO.  whereas, the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) offers financial support to move towards more sustainable fishing, including support to increase the energy efficiency of fishing vessels or to innovate towards low impact fishing gear;

AP.  whereas, however, this support is not sufficient; whereas the restrictions on fishing capacity, as well as the narrow margins that some Member States have within their national ceilings, do not allow for the improvement of safety, working and living conditions on board fishing vessels; whereas new carbon-free propulsion systems require more space on-board than traditional engines and fuel tanks;

AQ.  whereas the CFP Basic Regulation provides that multiannual plans (MAPs) must be adopted as a priority; whereas this approach has undoubtedly contributed to better management of resources and to relative certainty for the sector;

AR.  whereas certain stocks straddle sea areas covered under the scope of different regional MAPs, hence the need for consistent measures across their whole distribution range;

AS.  whereas the CFP is not yet fully implemented and some of its measures, such as the establishment of fish stock recovery areas, have not been used;

AT.  whereas regionalisation offers a unique opportunity to avoid micro-management from Brussels and to adapt the decision making process to regional and local specificities, traditional structures (such as ‘cofradias’) and particular activities (such as fishing on foot and shellfish gathering);

AU.  whereas early and effective consultation and involvement of the sectors concerned is fundamental for good, workable, fair, well-accepted and successful legislation, and its implementation and compliance; whereas, in this context, the role of advisory councils (ACs) is vital and their advice is of crucial importance in the decision-making process;

AV.  whereas ACs have the potential to evolve into pivotal bodies in results-based management or co-management;

AW.  whereas, while the Commission regularly publishes ex post analysis on the economic situation of the EU fishing fleets, its initiatives for strategies or legislation related to fisheries management often lack a proper ex ante socio-economic assessment;

AX.  whereas science, fishermen’s experience and full impact assessments guarantee an objective basis for decision-making and decisions based on them are more robust and more readily accepted by the sectors concerned;

AY.  whereas fisheries and aquaculture are relatively small economic sectors but are strategic ones on account of their socio-economic and food security role, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent international geopolitical developments;

AZ.  whereas the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 includes the objective of reducing the negative impacts of fisheries and extraction activities on sensitive marine habitats and species, including the seabed, with a view to achieving good environmental status;

BA.  whereas objectives of the EU biodiversity strategy include the reduction of by-catch of species to a level that allows their recovery and conservation;

BB.  whereas purely plant-based products are already being marketed in the internal market under the trade name ‘fish’ or as various fish species;

BC.  whereas both small-scale and artisanal fishers and the shellfish sector play a strategic role in the availability of food supply and have a vital socio-economic role in many coastal communities;

BD.  whereas small-scale fishing, including artisanal fishing, has specific characteristics and challenges;

BE.  whereas the CFP and the resulting regulations might not cater adequately for the specific characteristics of small-scale and artisanal fishing and in those cases might fail to provide the right, sufficient or necessary response to several of the problems they are currently facing;

BF.  whereas professional maritime activities in general are considered high risk and dangerous, particularly fishing, where 85 % of EU vessels are small-scale coastal vessels (less than 12 meters in total length) and are, therefore, exposed to even greater risks caused by adverse weather conditions and by operating close to shore;

BG.  whereas, additionally, small-scale coastal vessels have more difficulty providing protective spaces and improving working conditions with risks also associated with the advanced age of a significant proportion of this fleet;

BH.  whereas, furthermore, the recent challenges such as Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine have severely impacted small-scale fisheries in particular;

BI.  whereas the EMFAF Regulation defines ‘small-scale coastal fishing’ as fishing activities carried out by marine and inland fishing vessels of an overall length of less than 12 metres and not using towed gear and also by fishers on foot, including shellfish gatherers; whereas this is the only definition of small-scale coastal fishing existing in EU legislation;

BJ.  whereas, in numerous Member States and international forums the defining characteristics of small-scale fishing go beyond the EMFAF definition, as a range of additional criteria apply, including with regard to gear allowed, the maximum vessel length, engine power, maximum duration of fishing trips, the distance from port at which vessels can operate, area of operation, maximum allowed travel time and vessel ownership;

BK.  whereas the Council is responsible for setting fishing opportunities, which are then allocated to the Member States following the principle of relative stability; whereas, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States are responsible for allocating fishing opportunities to the different fleets;

BL.  whereas, according to Article 17 of the CFP, when allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature and they shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact;

BM.  whereas there may be large differences between the sectors in different countries, with the result that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not desirable;

BN.  whereas according to the latest STECF assessment on the social dimension of the CFP, only 16 out of 23 coastal Member States replied to the Commission’s request to inform it of the allocation method used; whereas several of those responses were of limited use as they contained only broad descriptions of the national fishing fleet or simply highlighted their intended allocations without outlining the ‘transparent and objective’ criteria used;

BO.  whereas on various occasions Parliament has called on the Commission and the Member States to provide dedicated supportive measures for the small-scale coastal fisheries sector;

BP.  whereas the EMFAF provides financial support for young fishers starting up fishing activities, while there is no subsequent guarantee for acquiring fishing opportunities;

BQ.  whereas producers’ organisations play a key role in the implementation and enforcement of the objectives of the CFP and the CMO for fisheries and aquaculture;

BR.  whereas other traditional structures, such as guilds, are also key players in the food systems of some Member States, where they operate as not-for-profit social economy entities representing the fisheries sector, and especially the small-scale coastal fleet and shellfish gatherers, performing co-governance functions for the benefit of maritime fishing and workers in the fisheries sector, as well as carrying out business-related tasks, such as marketing products and providing advisory and management services;

BS.  whereas the public perception of the fishing sector still includes negative stereotypes about fishing activity on marine life, despite the sector’s efforts, successes and continued willingness to improve fisheries sustainability; whereas this negative perception influences aquatic food consumption patterns and job attractiveness in an EU fishing sector that is also facing a huge challenge in generational renewal;

BT.  whereas generational renewal depends on the attractiveness of the sector and that younger generations aspire to work in sustainable and profitable sectors;

BU.  whereas fishing is universally considered a risky profession, compounded by the arduous nature of the work on fishing boats and unpredictable incomes; whereas these are significant factors in younger people’s lack of interest in the profession, thereby jeopardising generational renewal in the fisheries sector and the future of the fishing sector as a whole;

BV.  whereas improving fishers’ living and working conditions and safety is an overarching social objective, essential to attract young people and achieve generational renewal;

BW.  whereas young people who want to start their own business as fishers face significant barriers;

BX.  whereas the CFP tools that can help to improve the attractiveness of fishing and aquaculture as a profession are insufficient;

BY.  whereas the CFP does not mention major societal concerns such as climate change, Brexit, the Green Deal, the energy crisis or address the impact on food security of the growing number of marine protected areas, the expansion of off-shore renewable energy sites and the energy transition;

BZ.  whereas, even so, the majority of Member States and the EU’s economic partners in the fishing industry often refer to the income insecurity of fishing activities in some sectors, which is a factor in young people’s lack of interest in fishing, a trend that has been rising in recent years, and which creates additional difficulties in maintaining activities troubled by job losses in coastal communities;

CA.  whereas, even so, the majority of the Member States and the EU’s economic partners in the fishing industry often refer to young people’s lack of interest in fishing, a fact which was first acknowledged at least two decades ago, and which creates additional difficulties in the industry as a whole and exacerbates social problems in coastal communities both in continental Europe and overseas regions;

CB.  whereas a significant number of people working in the fisheries sector are women, most are employed in activities on land, often informally, supporting sea-based activities, particularly in the case of small-scale fishing; whereas despite their significant contribution to the sector, the role of women is still not sufficiently recognised;

CC.  whereas combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing helps ensure a level playing field for fair competition between the EU and certain foreign fleets with lower social and environmental standards that potentially undermine the competitiveness of EU producers when selling their products on the EU market; whereas, however, anti-IUU legislation alone cannot ensure a level playing field;

CD.  whereas defending and promoting the EU’s model of sustainability is perfectly compatible with defence of the EU sectors, and should go hand in hand with the defence of the EU sectors’ interests;

CE.  whereas joint enterprises with EU capital play a role in disseminating the CFP’s values and sustainability objectives, as well as an important role in development cooperation with third countries, contributing to improving the economy, working conditions and food security in the countries where they are based;

CF.  whereas fisheries played a very prominent role in the campaign in the run-up to the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU in 2016;

CG.  whereas the increases in the autonomous tariff quotas (ATQs) for tuna loins have benefited the Chinese industry, which does not guarantee traceability information and relies on subsidies;

CH.  whereas the outermost regions (ORs) face specific challenges linked to their remoteness, topography, small markets and climate as referred to in Article 349 TFEU; whereas the specific characteristics of fisheries in the ORs are insufficiently taken into account in the CFP;

CI.  whereas artisanal fishing in the ORs is a major economic driver, a source of food sovereignty and a traditional activity that is part of the culture of these territories, which creates jobs at sea and in the processing sector and contributes to the dynamism of the tourist industry, which is an important economic engine of these regions;

CJ.  whereas, in order to ensure the survival of the fisheries sector in the ORs and in compliance with the principles of differential treatment for small islands and territories mentioned in SDG 14, it should be possible to support, on the basis of Article 349 TFEU, the renewal of the ORs’ artisanal fishing vessels which land all their catches in ports in the ORs and contribute to local sustainable development;

CK.  whereas the indicators to establish whether the fishing capacity is in balance with the available fishing opportunities are not adapted to the characteristics of the ORs’ local fleets;

CL.  whereas the ORs’ special characteristics and permanent structural constraints need to be acknowledged and considered; stresses that the fisheries sector plays an important role in the socio-economic situation, in employment and in the promotion of the economic and social cohesion of these regions, and that there is potential for employment growth in the sustainable blue economy; highlights that geographical location puts outermost regions in a privileged position in the monitoring and control of coastal and oceanic areas and should be used for the EU’s efforts to fight IUU fishing;

CM.  whereas climate change is a major challenge for the conservation of aquatic resources and for the future livelihoods of operators who depend on fisheries;

CN.  whereas fishers are victims of climate change;

CO.  whereas climate change has a major direct impact on marine species by altering their abundance, diversity and migration patterns and affecting their feeding, development and reproduction, as well as relations between species; whereas these changes have an impact on the CFP and the management of EU waters;

CP.  whereas the resilience and good health of marine ecosystems is essential both for climate regulation and for the conservation of fish stocks;

CQ.  whereas the preservation and regeneration of blue carbon ecosystems is essential for the resilience of coastal communities and the fisheries sector;

General objectives of the CFP

1.  Recalls that the CFP must ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, of contributing to the availability of food supplies; further recalls that Article 39 TFEU defines that the CFP must assure the availability of supplies and provide a fair standard of living for fisheries and aquaculture communities;

2.  Regrets that, since 2014, the implementation of the CFP has not given sufficient consideration to socio-economic aspects or the availability of food supply or the ecosystem-based approach, all of which are needed to ensure sustainable management of stocks;

3.  Considers that the resulting negative impacts on the fishing sector have been exacerbated since new unprecedented challenges have arisen that could not have been predicted in 2012, when the CFP was being designed, such as Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis; highlights the severe impact the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which is having adverse effects on areas such as maritime security, resulting in disruption of fishing activities, particularly in the Black Sea, owing to drifting floating mines, and leading to a loss of biodiversity, reflected in particular by the alarming increase in the mortality of Black Sea cetaceans;

4.  Welcomes the swift adoption of measures by the EU to support and alleviate the sector in difficult times; emphasises, however, that the cumulative effects of this situation have led numerous fleets to the brink of collapse and undermined the profitability of thousands of businesses to the point where their very survival is at risk, with potentially devastating effects on employment and social cohesion in coastal areas;

5.  Stresses that the implementation of the CFP will have to adapt to the challenge of fighting climate change, where the EU has committed to be climate neutral by 2050;

6.  Therefore, believes that the CFP must continue to be implemented, and where needed, reformed and adapted accordingly;

7.  Underlines that seafood is a very high-quality source of protein and a vital part of a healthy diet, which generally has a lower carbon footprint than land-based food; notes therefore the strategic value of seafood in the context of the European Green Deal and in contributing to several SDGs such as SDG 2 ‘Zero Hunger’, SDG 3 ‘Good Health and Well-Being’, SDG 12 ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’, SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’ and SDG 14 ‘Life Below Water’;

8.  Considers that the CFP must respect equally all policy objectives; stresses the need to keep a balance between the three pillars of sustainability in the CFP; therefore supports strengthening, addressing gaps and stepping up the ambition in the CFP’s socio-economic and food security dimensions, as well as fully applying an ecosystem based approach and the reaching of a level playing field in its international dimension;

9.  Takes the view that the objectives of a fisheries policy should include guaranteeing the supply of fish to the public, as part of ensuring food security and sovereignty, developing coastal communities, and championing and encouraging the social recognition of fisheries-related professions, as well as promoting jobs and improving the living conditions of fishers;

10.  Calls on the Commission, to that end, to systematically conduct full ex ante and ex post impact assessments, including socio-economic analyses, before any strategy or legislation is proposed or any policy decisions are taken with the consultation of all stakeholders involved in the fisheries sector;

11.  Notes that while the CFP Basic Regulation highlights the environmental, socio-economic and food security objectives of the policy, Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 relating to deep-sea stocks deals solely with environmental aspects; considers that in future all regulations subordinate to the Basic Regulation should fully incorporate socio-economic and food security aspects;

12.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to place more value in policymaking on the importance of fisheries in contributing to food security by providing high-quality seafood products, especially in crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in its contribution to the economic and social structure, and the cultural, touristic and gastronomic heritage of Europe’s coastal and island communities;

13.  Stresses the strategic role of fishers and aquaculture producers in the food value chain and in food security, as well as the role of women, as fishers, vessel masters, net menders, shore-based assistants and packagers, etc., and their need for recognition;

14.  Recalls that all seas and the ocean are a global common good and that the marine resources are a natural public resource, that fishing activities and management are an asset based on these resources and belong to our common heritage, and that these resources should be managed based on reliable scientific advice in a way that guarantees the highest long-term benefits for all society;

15.  Believes that the de minimis aid ceiling for fishery and aquaculture product processing companies should be aligned with the same scheme for agricultural processing companies in order to ensure consistency and guarantee food security; welcomes therefore the amendments adopted by the Commission to the de minimis scheme in this regard;

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

16.  Recalls that, the CFP shall, among other things, ‘aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the MSY’ and that ‘the MSY exploitation rate shall be achieved (...) at the latest by 2020 for all stocks’ and by 2025 for the stocks covered by the management plan for demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea; highlights, however, that for multi-specific fisheries, species management based on the MSY model is impossible to apply, even in scientifically well-known and documented fisheries;

17.  Considers that the introduction of MSY as a fisheries management reference point has been a driver for improving the overall state of fish stocks; recalls that over the years of the application of the CFP, the fishing industry has made significant efforts to reduce fishing pressure to the point that, in 2020, the overall fishing mortality ratio (F/FMSY) fell below one in the North-East Atlantic;

18.  Stresses that it is crucial to continue and accelerate the work of rebuilding and keeping fish stocks above MSY levels, notably in the Mediterranean where the F/FMSY remains above 1, while ensuring that maximum sustainable levels of seafood are produced, in order to ensure availability of food supply and positive social and economic returns to fishers and coastal communities;

19.  Considers, in this regard, that the MSY objective should be implemented in light of the practical reality and in consideration of the socio-economic, proportionality and food security dimensions enshrined in the Treaty and in the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) code of conduct;

20.  Further considers that MSY should be developed as part of an ecosystem-based model that encompasses all factors that influence the status of stocks, including species interactions, global warming and pollution, in order to ensure that stock depletion is not attributed to the fisheries sector alone;

21.  Calls on the Commission, following a broad stakeholders’ consultation to examine the possibility of introducing fisheries management objectives that ensure both optimum fish stock levels and optimum socio-economic performance of fleets;

22.  Invites, in this regards, Member States that want to initiate projects, including other types of management measures such as Maximum Economic Yield, where appropriate, to launch consultations to see where such trial projects could best be conducted;

Landing obligation and reduction of unwanted catches

23.  Reiterates the views expressed in its resolution of 18 May 2021 on the landing obligation; recalls that some unwanted catches or by-catches are inevitable, especially in mixed fisheries, as fish may be damaged or unsaleable, undersized or fit for human consumption but prohibited for sale, etc.; further recalls that, despite the ongoing efforts and collaboration by all stakeholders, the landing obligation cannot be properly implemented if some shortcomings, such as the lack of storage capacity on board or collection facilities at port as well as adequate usage of exemptions, are not improved; points out that these shortcomings hinder proper implementation, which results in insufficient data collection on stocks and makes it difficult to accurately estimate catches, thereby hindering reliable scientific estimates of fish stocks;

24.  Highlights that the landing obligation is not a goal in itself but a tool to minimise unwanted catches; stresses, in this regard, that, thanks to the greater selectivity achieved in recent years, there has been a considerable reduction in unwanted by-catch; highlights that this is the result of the efforts made by fishers in collaboration with the scientific community with applied knowledge supporting the development of more selective fishing techniques and gear; stresses, therefore, that more effort must be focused on financing development as well as deployment of fishing gear that contribute to selectivity and better data collection;

25.  Recalls that Parliament asked the Commission to assess the implementation of the landing obligation, including an assessment of the socio-economic impact of the landing obligation that must be carried out for all fisheries, including small-scale ones;

26.  Considers furthermore that:

27.  Insists that the objective of minimising unwanted catches cannot sufficiently be achieved through the landing obligation and should be primarily met by using technical measures and should be supported by better documenting catches, on the basis of the best available scientific advice; calls on the Commission to assess other alternatives to minimising unwanted catches, as well as proposing actions to make the landing obligation work better, in parallel with continuing looking for different ways to implement the landing obligation and to developing more selective gear;

Conservation measures

Fishing opportunities

28.  Recalls that TACs and quotas are the most direct way of managing fishing mortality, but single stock TACs can be problematic in mixed fisheries (due to the choke effect);

29.  Highlights the need to improve the scientific advice for mixed fisheries also in the light of impacts of climate change on the ocean, as well as considering catch composition and the displacement of species, due to climate change, when setting TACs;

30.  Stresses that in fisheries under quota management the problem of choke species has the potential to shut down fishing operations before the end of the season with potentially significant economic implications for fishers; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use current CFP possibilities, like quota swaps or inter-annual and inter-species flexibilities, while underlining in this regard that a good quota system should include a fair degree of flexibility, as it would allow fishers who need extra quotas for a choke species and fishers who have available quotas to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome;

31.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to consider setting TACs for longer than annual or biannual periods, in particular for the main target stocks, always based on the best scientific advice available, in order to provide more predictability and long-term certainty for fishers and in line with the MSY principle; calls on the Commission and the Council to seek the best available scientific advice on the possibility of removing the TACs for certain stocks, while ensuring that the stock concerned remains within safe biological limits in the short and medium term;

32.  Underlines that relative stability, established four decades ago, is widely accepted as an essential instrument to provide long-term predictability and continuity in sharing fish stocks between countries;

Fleet management

33.  Stresses that, despite international and EU efforts to improve safety conditions on board fishing vessels, there are still shortcomings, i.e. the international conventions setting out the rules and systems for the protection of vessels and persons on board apply above all to larger vessels;

34.  Reiterates that on board working and living conditions cannot be seen separately from safety conditions; takes the view that good working and living conditions on vessels and the suitable modernisation thereof, improves safety, as well as resting time for fishers; considers that these aspects have direct implications for safety on board, as a large percentage of accidents and incidents on fishing vessels continue to be linked to human error, whether caused by lack of knowledge, training or by fatigue;

35.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure the highest standards of safety on board vessels, irrespective of their size; encourages the sector to implement the best possible conditions for safety on board;

36.  Taking into consideration current EMFAF possibilities to support health, safety, working conditions and energy efficiency on board fishing vessels, insists that the current use of gross tonnage as a yardstick for measuring fishing capacity in the EU could hamper improvements in energy efficiency, safety and comfort of vessels, as it limits possibilities to replace and modernise them or increase space, even if it does not increase the vessels’ ability to fish more; stresses that this, in turn, hampers the improvement of the aforementioned features, which would ultimately promote employment, the development of coastal communities and the attractiveness of the sector, especially for young people and women;

37.  Takes note of the Commission communication on the Energy Transition of the EU Fisheries and Aquaculture sector(15), seeking to ensure that the fishing sector contributes to the EU becoming climate neutral in 2050, while ensuring that fishing in the EU is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable; points out that this transition faces a number of obstacles, such as the current definition and limits of fishing capacity; recalls that hydrogen, ammonia or electric engines are generally heavier and larger than equivalent diesel engines and that their installation on board therefore requires additional gross tonnage and that there is a lack of adapted technologies, their high cost and the absence of research and development focusing specifically on the fisheries and aquaculture sectors; regrets that these obstacles are not addressed in the Commission communication;

38.  Calls on the Commission to propose measures to respond to the need to facilitate the decarbonisation of the fishing industry, to solve the issue of ageing fishing vessels and to improve safety and working conditions; considers that such measures could, where appropriate, include:

39.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to make it easier for industry professionals to access EMFAF funds;

40.  Further calls on the Commission and Member States to accelerate research and development, to adapt the State Aid policy and in synergy with the EMFAF to provide adequate and sufficient funding, so that the sector is able to achieve the decarbonisation of the EU fleet within the tight timeframe required by the European Green Deal and other related obligations;

41.  Also calls on the Commission to review the EMFAF, in line with the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, adopted at its 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) on 17 June 2022, with a view to reaching carbon neutrality; calls for financing for new vessels to be approved, within the parameters laid down in international fisheries agreements;

42.  Further calls for an economic transition assistance to be developed to advance decarbonisation, covering all fleet segments; insists that such assistance should also be used to replace existing vessels, as the fleet is very old, with more efficient, safer, technologically innovative and spacious vessels that contribute to making the sector more attractive and to promoting generational renewal;

43.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to complement EMFAF funding, for example through the Just Transition Fund, RePower EU and Horizon Europe to facilitate decarbonisation and to finance research, in order to facilitate a just ecological transition that leaves no one behind;

44.  Urges the Commission and Member States to work together to support research and allowing innovative gear and techniques for selective fishing that contribute to substantially reducing CO2 emissions and fuel use;

Regional Multiannual plans

45.  Recognises the essential role of multiannual plans (MAPs) as main frameworks for long-term regional fisheries management, based on the best available scientific, technical and economic advice, but regrets that they have not reached their full potential;

46.  Calls on the Commission to assess how effectively the existing MAPs are being implemented in order to ensure that they contribute to the CFP objectives; where necessary, these plans should be updated and improved, so that they take into account socio-economic considerations and changing conditions;

47.  Calls on the Commission to explore, in coordination with other partners in the area - namely non-EU countries and relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) - whether MAPs, similar to those in place in other sea basins, could be proposed for the EU’s remaining waters, notably in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and how they can complement and work together with already existing management tools in these sea basins;

48.  Underlines the need to ensure synergies between regional multiannual plans and the specific maritime policies for each basin;

49.  Believes that it is imperative that all local and regional authorities competent for fisheries management, as well as the Advisory Councils (ACs), which have a fundamental role in this regard, are fully involved in the definition, development and implementation of MAPs in line with the CFP;

50.  Stresses that fisheries is the sector most dependent on healthy, productive and resilient stocks and marine ecosystems and that these ecosystems are affected also by the many other uses of, and activities taking place in the marine environment, such as maritime transport and tourism, urban and coastal development, the exploitation of raw materials and energy sources, including sea-floor mining, as well as being affected by marine pollution and climate change; consequently, stresses the need to improve the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach at regional, national and European level, to which MAPs and other management tools have a crucial role to play;

51.  Stresses the need for consistent fisheries management measures concerning stocks straddling over regions covered by several MAPs, as well as for regions not covered by MAPs;

Governance

52.  Strongly recommends, given the strategic importance of fisheries and aquaculture as a source of healthy, protein-rich and high-quality food, that this policy be given the additional strategic recognition it deserves within the Commission and that the Commission services responsible be staffed with an adequate number of experts in fisheries and aquaculture;

53.  Requests that, in future compositions of the College of Commissioners, there should be a Commissioner dedicated exclusively to fisheries, aquaculture and maritime affairs;

54.  Stresses the importance of the Commission’s including sufficiently detailed information it its annual reports as referred to in Article 50 of the CFP, so as to allow the implementation of the CFP by the Commission to be monitored and assessed effectively; calls in addition on the Commission, when reviewing the CFP, to amend Article 49 in order to set a deadline for a report to be submitted 10 years after the review and every five years thereafter to the European Parliament and to the Council;

55.  Calls on the Commission to better support the Member States in implementing and ensuring respect of and compliance with the objectives of the CFP; underlines that it is essential for the Commission and the Member States to be transparent in their management of fishery resources; stresses that transparent management is vital in ensuring a high level of trust among EU citizens and maintaining the good reputation of the EU fisheries sector;

56.  Proposes to the Commission and the Council that the European Parliament be given observer status, ensuring full political representation, at the annual negotiations on fishing opportunities;

Regionalisation and stakeholders’ involvement

57.  Stresses the importance of strengthening regionalisation in the CFP, allowing regions and local authorities to be more involved in the drafting, development and evaluation of the national operational programmes for fisheries and in fisheries management more generally, while also making full use of the existing possibilities in the CFP;

58.  Highlights the importance of taking into account regional specificities, while applying a harmonised approach to fisheries management across the EU; encourages Member States to increase their cooperation within regional groups, together with the relevant stakeholders, ACs and local and regional authorities in accordance with Article 18 of the CFP Basic Regulation in order to design regional conservation measures through joint recommendations that are better tailored to the specific characteristics of each particular maritime basin;

59.  Stresses the fundamental role of ACs in reinforcing stakeholders’ cooperation and in ensuring their adequate and fair participation in the EU decision-making process;

60.  Further emphasises that the ACs are essential to provide experience and knowledge to the European Commission and to the Member States, as well as to submitting recommendations on matters relating to the management of fisheries and the socio-economic and conservation aspects of fisheries and aquaculture and explain the problems of the sector and of other stakeholders, thus supporting and improving legislation;

61.  Underlines that ACs also play a key role in the context of regionalisation;

62.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that regional stakeholders and ACs play a greater role in the negotiations and consultations with third countries, especially the United Kingdom and Norway; points out that the Commission is responsible for organising the negotiations with third countries in such a way as to allow for direct interactions and exchanges between stakeholders on both sides;

63.  Supports the composition of the ACs, with a majority representation of socio-economic operators as compared to other interest groups;

64.  Highlights the importance of stakeholders’ actively participating in ACs, in a good working atmosphere based on respect, inclusion of all opinions by the different stakeholder groups, impartial secretariats, rotating chairpersons and external, regular and independent performance reviews;

65.  Highlights the importance of involving the ACs with the European Parliament’s work, and thus recommends holding regular exchanges between representatives of the ACs and Parliament’s relevant Committees;

66.  Deplores the insufficient monitoring of and transparency on how the ACs’ advice is taken into account in decision-making; calls on the Commission to draw up a procedure to give ACs a better understanding of the results of their recommendations, such as considering an annual report, as well as including explanations in specific proposals from the Commission, such as in recitals of the relevant legislative acts, on how ACs’ recommendations have been taken into account;

67.  Calls on the Commission to systematically and actively participate in the ACs’ meetings and to better communicate on the value of their advice, as well as for Member States to provide appropriate support for the functioning of ACs;

68.  Considers that co-management is a participatory and co-responsibility model, based on a bottom up approach, which is transparent, proactive and democratic, and which helps to generate greater knowledge sharing for fisheries management, within a culture of responsibility, establishing a network of trust and contributing to reducing conflict and overcoming hurdles to implement innovations and necessary measures in fisheries management, as well as in the creation, implementation and management of Marine Protected Areas, where it has proven to be highly successful;

69.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposal announced in its Communication on the CFP today and tomorrow to conduct, between spring 2023 and summer 2024, an EU-wide participatory foresight project on ‘Fisheries of the Future’ based on interviews on the ground;

Decisions based on science and impact assessments

70.  Calls on the Commission to base all its political and legislative initiatives (including implementing acts that set restrictions on fisheries) on the best available scientific, technical and economic advice (including fishers’ empirical knowledge) and consultation and participation of the fisheries sector and other relevant stakeholders and on prior socio-economic impact assessments using innovative tools such as those developed in the CABFishman project, which analyses the impacts of fisheries on coastal areas;

71.  Calls on the Member States to increase their human and material resources and to equip them for suitable scientific campaigns and projects so that they have sufficient knowledge of the species targeted by conservation policies;

72.  Calls for the EMFAF to provide effective support to more selective and less impacting fishing techniques for EU fishing fleets, and in particular to support fishers impacted the most by restrictions, based on scientific impact assessments on the use of specific fishing techniques; encourages the Commission to promote the scientific concept of ‘pêchécologie’ (‘fishecology’) which aims to reconcile conservation measures and sustainable use of the sea’s living resources;

73.  Considers that the ACs should be given the possibility of contributing to the Commission’s requests for advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in order to foster closer collaboration between scientists and stakeholders;

74.  Calls on the Commission to systematically inform the European Parliament about these requests, in particular the way in which they contribute to the objectives of the CFP;

The integration of fisheries into a wider policy context

75.  Stresses the need to ensure that fisheries and aquaculture are given a fair place in comparison with other sectors in policy design and in spatial planning; recalls the need to establish a better balance between the various economic activities pertaining to the Blue Economy in order to reduce and avoid conflicts and foster synergies, especially with renewable marine energy infrastructures(16), through the Directive on maritime spatial planning(17); points out that this requires broad and inclusive stakeholder participation;

76.  Recalls that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the CFP with a view to promoting sustainable development, in line with the TFEU;

77.  Stresses that it is impossible to manage fisheries as a standalone policy, and calls on the Commission to implement the CFP in synergy with all EU public policies affecting the hydrosphere and taking into account all of the challenges associated with Europe’s maritime areas;

78.  Underlines that, notably, the CFP must be consistent with EU environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good environmental status as set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive(18), and be implemented respecting the three pillars of sustainability equally;

79.  Stresses the need for other EU policies and strategies to sufficiently take into account and be coherent with the CFP;

80.  Notes the need for a holistic approach, ensuring proper support to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, when implementing measures designed to improve conditions for the marine environment;

81.  Recalls that Article 13 TFEU provides that, in formulating and implementing the EU’s fisheries policy, the EU and its Member States should pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States.

82.  Calls on the Commission to further increase science-based knowledge on the welfare of aquatic animals and to take this research into consideration in future policy developments in fisheries and aquaculture; stresses that, any future policy developments should also take practical feasibility into account in fisheries and aquaculture management and the potential economic and operational impact on operators’ and activities, and should also consider the need to ensure an international level playing field;

83.  Considers that the marketing of purely plant-based products under the trade name ‘fish’ or fish species may lead to some confusion for consumers at the time of purchase; asserts that the trade name ‘fish’ or fish species should be reserved in the internal market for fishery or aquaculture products of animal origin;

84.  Calls on the Commission to review, update and give regulatory content to the concept of an ‘area heavily dependent on fisheries’, so that this recognition provides differentiated treatment aimed at preserving fisheries in these areas through a preferential distribution of fishing quotas; supports the view that the defining elements of an updated concept of ‘area heavily dependent on fisheries’ should include the production of quality animal protein, the contribution to food security or ensuring high added value to catches and other sea products, as well as the social importance of the activity;

Small-scale fisheries

85.  Notes that some aspects of the CFP might not cater adequately for the small-scale fishing sector and that its vital socio-economic role in many coastal communities and its strategic role in the availability of food supply must be secured;

86.  Takes the view that the CFP should sufficiently take into account the diverse nature, specific characteristics and problems of the small-scale fishing and shellfish sectors;

87.  Draws attention to the need for greater involvement and participation of small-scale fishing professionals in the management, definition and implementation of fisheries policies, as well as in ACs;

88.  Takes the view that a review of the CFP should include a common, broad and appropriate definition of small-scale, artisanal and coastal fisheries; stresses that this definition should be pragmatic, measureable and clear; also emphasises that this definition should derive from an appropriate assessment that takes into account the specific characteristics and criteria of the small-scale segment, rather than focus solely on vessel length, in order to arrive at a definition of small-scale fisheries that better reflects the reality of the segment;

89.  Calls for the Commission, together with the ACs, to propose a harmonised definition to be included in a review of the CFP Basic Regulation in order for it to cover all EU fisheries legislation, where appropriate; considers that any of the changes outlined above should not impact the implementation of the EMFAF during the current budgetary period;

90.  Stresses the need for an amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, also known as the ‘Mediterranean Regulation’, which lays down rules on the technical characteristics of fishing gears and their uses and which is unfortunately outdated and as such presents an obstacle to fulfilling the main goals of the Common Fisheries Policy, particularly those related to small-scale fisheries;

Quota allocation

91.  Emphasises that, under Article 17, when allocating the fishing opportunities available to their fleet, Member States are to use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature; stresses that it is up to the Member States to determine the criteria they use when allocating fishing opportunities;

92.  Welcomes the fact that the current allocation methods based largely on historical rights allow for a certain level of economic stability in the fishing sector, which can be a condition enabling operators to innovate and adopt more sustainable techniques;

93.  Stresses that an easily accessible system of fishing opportunities along with transparent criteria for its allocation and transparency on its practical application allows for better scrutiny, a level playing field, equal opportunities for all interested parties and more predictability, stability and legal certainty for fishers;

94.  Deplores the lack of transparency regarding the distribution of fishing opportunities in certain Member States and calls for the criteria to be made public, in line with the applicable data protection legislation;

95.  Considers that the allocation methods should be developed and applied with the involvement of fishing communities, regional authorities and other relevant stakeholders, making sure all fleet segments, producers’ organisations (POs) and workers’ organisations are fairly represented, based on the best available scientific advice, and that they should include safeguards such as notice periods to allow fishers to adapt in case Member States decide to change their allocation method;

96.  Urges the Council to take into account the specificities and needs of each fleet segment, including the small-scale segment, when allocating fishing opportunities;

97.  Recalls the role of Article 17 of the CFP as a tool to provide incentives for low-impact and small-scale fisheries and that it is for Member States to make use of the possibilities offered by it, such as incentives to use more selective fishing gear or use fishing techniques with reduced energy consumption or habitat impact;

98.  Notes that the Commission will initiate discussions among Member States and stakeholders with a view to preparing a vade mecum on the allocation of fishing opportunities in order to improve transparency, promote sustainable fishing practices across the EU, and support small scale and coastal fisheries;

Producers’ organisations and guilds

99.  Underlines the role of POs in promoting sustainability, in contributing to the availability of food supply and in enhancing growth and employment in the fishing and aquaculture sectors through, inter alia:

100.  Further notes that, in many Member States, relatively few small-scale fishers belong to POs, and even fewer small-scale fishers have their own dedicated POs, limiting their capacity to benefit from this channel to access fishing quotas; encourages, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to facilitate and encourage the creation of POs for and by small-scale fishers;

101.  Stresses that fishers’ associations such as guilds, pursuing the main objectives of a PO under the Common Markets Organisation(19), should be eligible to receive financial aid on an equal footing with currently recognised POs; insists, in this regard, that the Member States concerned, the Commission and guilds should, in concert, consider relevant options and solutions;

Generational renewal and role of women

102.  Points out that CFP standards are among the highest worldwide and make an important contribution to environmental, economic and social sustainability and that, although there is still much room for improvement, progress made in recent decades shows what can be done to further contribute, on the one hand, to the sustainability of fish stocks and habitats and, on the other, to increase the earnings of fishers and ship owners; highlights that promoting high standards in terms of the environmental, economic and social sustainability of the fisheries sector is, among other factors, key to attracting a new generation of fishers and to providing long-term economic stability for the sector;

103.  Notes that the protection of the environment is a growing concern for Europeans, in particular younger generations; stresses the importance of sustainable management of fisheries to attract young fishers; calls, in this regard, for the promotion of low-impact fishing;

104.  Further calls on the Commission to ensure that part of the financial contributions under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements is also allocated, where possible, to the better integration of young people and women in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, to the restoration of the marine environment and to the improvement of knowledge about the state of the climate and the marine environment;

105.  Stresses the need to attract young people not only to sea fishing activities, but also to fishing enterprise management and aquaculture, so as to ensure generational renewal across the entire aquatic food sector;

106.  Highlights that generational renewal is important to counter the demographic challenges facing coastal and surrounding rural areas, in particular, and will contribute to preserving their cultural heritage;

107.  Welcomes the fact that the 2021-2027 EMFAF provides assistance and support for young fishers making their first purchase of a vessel or fishing enterprise; calls in this regard on the Commission and Member States to promote generational renewal by supporting people who want to start a career in the fisheries sector and removing obstacles, such as addressing the high cost of starting a business, income instability, gender inequality and the lack of career stability;

108.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to provide with new measures, as well as on the sector to take measures, that will stimulate the inclusion of young people and women at all levels of the sector and better promote generational renewal, in particular by making all jobs in the fishing and aquaculture value chain more attractive, safer and better paid;

109.  Stresses the importance of ensuring proper information and training, especially for young people, to ensure knowledge sharing in particular in relation to the contribution of fisheries to sustainability issues; believes this to be important in order to guarantee both their personal situation, contributing to improving their income, and by extension the cohesion of their local communities, especially in the most isolated coastal regions, with fewer job opportunities;

110.  Underlines that generational renewal must take into account the objectives of the European Green Deal and the need to ensure digital transition also in a sustainable blue economy; considers, however, that generational renewal must not lead to a clash between generations and should include fishers of all ages, ensuring balance in the ecological and digital transition in order to ensure that the legacy of experience is not lost; further calls for enhanced mobility and employment opportunities throughout the EU, without difficulties or restrictions regarding recognition of fishers skills and training;

111.  Recognises the important role of women in the logistical and administrative support for fishing vessels as well as in the marketing and processing of fish; highlights, however, that this role is often overlooked or barely visible, in particular as fishers or vessel masters as well as their role in science;

112.  Calls, therefore, on the Commission to launch initiatives to acknowledge women’s work in fisheries and to enhance the visibility of their role, both by favouring their incorporation in its various areas, and by supporting a better representation of women in all representative organisations and entities, and to secure equal payment between genders;

113.  Recalls that the Gender Equality Strategy for 2020-2025 requires that the relevant EU funds support actions, such as EMFAF, to promote women’s work-life balance and participation in the labour market, promote investments in care facilities, support female entrepreneurship, and combat gender segregation;

114.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to endeavour to ensure that every programme and actions aimed at attracting young people to the fishing sector carried out under the CFP must contribute to achieving gender equality;

External dimension of the CFP and oceans’ governance

115.  Calls on the Commission to invest more effort in promoting the CFP as a policy model for ocean governance, by using the EU’s position in RFMOs, free trade agreements and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements, and more generally in international forums; stresses that this will be essential to ensure fair competition for EU operators and to defend the interests of the EU’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors at a global level;

116.  Calls on the Commission to monitor the distribution of the EU’s financial contributions, ensuring that these are allocated to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors;

117.  Calls for the role of RFMOs to be strengthened and calls on the Commission to propose a general framework for the negotiating mandates for participation in these organisations; further calls on the Commission to ensure Parliament’s involvement at the earliest stages of the drafting of measures and recommendations for adoption within RFMOs, in a manner that does not undermine the EU’s negotiating position;

118.  Considers that there should be no ocean area and relevant fisheries resource that is not covered by the relevant RFMO; calls on the Commission to promote the creation of new RFMOs, where necessary, as well as the adaptation of existing ones, in international forums, to improve the protection of fish stocks and the sustainable management of fishery resources and to defend the sustainable activities of the fleets operating in these areas;

119.  Points out that SFPAs with non-EU countries provide mutual benefits both to the EU and to partner countries; underlines that recent SFPAs include human rights clauses and integrate the needs of local populations;

120.  Considers it imperative that the Commission fully respects all aspects of international law when engaging in the external dimension of the CFP;

121.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the CFP objectives are fully integrated into the EU position in all international environmental forums, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), where questions relating to marine biological resources are discussed;

Imports and trade and Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishing

122.  Considers that imported aquatic food products must be subject to rigorous monitoring and certification procedures, to ensure they come from sustainable fisheries, and to high health, environmental and social standards, that are as strict as those applied to EU products; is of the view that this should be required by means of specific clauses in the new trade agreements negotiated by the EU;

123.  Points out that the traceability system for fresh, frozen and processed aquatic food products imported into the Union, including for tuna loins imported under the autonomous tariff quotas’ (ATQs) regime, is essential, in order to meet consumers' expectations through information with a view to improving food safety and allowing checks on third-country imports, alongside measures to fight against IUU fishing; calls for a more harmonised approach in the EU in relation to the implementation of IUU-related EU-legislation;

124.  Recalls that the EU is the largest and most attractive import market for seafood and aquaculture products; calls for this position of commercial strength to be leveraged to protect the interests of EU consumers in promoting high standards and of the EU sectors, to prevent its partners from reneging on agreements or commitments and to foster a level playing field at international level, in particular on social, economic and environmental standards;

125.  Welcomes the fact that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement incorporates a direct link between trade and fisheries provisions; calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that fisheries negotiations with the UK as well as with other coastal states in the North-East Atlantic are also linked to issues pertaining to trade and access to the EU single market;

126.  Underlines the importance of the EU’s zero-tolerance policy regarding IUU fishing, in the light of it still being an occurrence on the international level including examples ranging from a lack of transparency on illegal fishing operations to modern slavery, as in the case of some Chinese vessels, and regrets that unauthorised seafood continues to be sold on a number of EU markets;

127.  Points out that the Commission and the Member States must redouble their efforts to tackle IUU fishing and ensure that seafood consumption in the EU does not contribute to it;

128.  Calls on the Commission to strengthen the EFCA's role to fight IUU fishing;

129.  Calls for all free trade agreements with third countries to include a section on tackling IUU fishing;

Outermost regions

130.  Considers that some aspects of the CFP do not sufficiently address the specific needs of the outermost regions; calls on the Commission and the concerned Member States to address this situation on the basis of Article 349 TFEU and through a regionalised approach, as enshrined in the CFP, and, where necessary, to make the adjustments needed;

131.  Points to the specific features of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the outermost regions; calls on the Commission to propose a programme of options specifically relating to remoteness and insularity (POSEI) for fisheries and aquaculture, similar to that of agriculture;

132.  Stresses that EU and national support for the renewal of artisanal fleets is of vital importance for these regions; calls on the Commission, in particular, to adapt its guidelines for the analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities (COM(2014)0545) to the characteristics of the outermost regions;

133.  Underlines the importance of carrying out robust studies to assess the marine biological resources in all Union waters and, in particular, in the outermost regions;

134.  Insists on the need to support selective fishing methods, such as anchored fish aggregating devices used by artisanal fleets in the ORs, provided that such devices contribute to sustainable and selective fishing;

135.  Stresses the need to provide the necessary resources to improve scientific knowledge of the ORs’ exclusive economic zones;

Climate change and other challenges for the future

136.  Stresses that climate change mitigation and adaptation are key challenges that are insufficiently tackled by the current CFP;

137.  Stresses that the efforts made by the fishing industry to improve the stocks’ sustainability and to commit to keeping them in good condition once a good status is reached will be meaningless if climate change is not addressed;

138.  Strongly emphasises the need for scientific research to focus more on the interactions between environmental changes due to climate change and fish stocks, in order to avoid blaming the depletion of stocks solely on the fishing industry;

139.  Stresses that fishers and the rest of the seafood chain are not a cause of climate change but rather victims of it;

140.  Considers that the aquaculture sector is capable of providing a consistent contribution to ecosystem services for society, and that pond aquaculture, algae and shellfish farming can contribute to decarbonising the EU economy and mitigating climate change; stresses, however, that carbon sequestration by algae and shellfish farming is limited depending on the production method and use when the product is harvested; calls on Member States to promote efficient short supply chains, where appropriate, with a view to contributing to combating climate change;

141.  Points out that certain aquaculture practices, such as mussel or oyster farming and pond polyculture, can be successful models for future emissions credit systems, in the context of EU climate legislation; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support this type of green business;

142.  Calls on the Member States to continue encouraging the promotion of algae farming and facilitate the use and development of algae as food and feed; highlights that there is untapped potential in algae farming for creating new jobs and providing ecosystem services and more environmentally friendly food and feed;

143.  Calls on the European Commission to take into account, when revising the Common Fisheries Policy, that the ocean’s characteristics (temperature, density, salinity, oxygen saturation, etc.) have changed over the last 10 years;

144.  Highlights the need for more resilient ecosystems through connected and effectively managed marine protected areas, as a basis for resilient and profitable economic fishing sectors;

145.  Stresses that, for fisheries, resilience to climate change is achieved through diversified fishing zones and targeted species;

146.  Encourages the Commission and the Member States to increase human and financial resources to fisheries science related to climate change and decarbonising the fleet, analysing the impact of climate change on the state of fisheries and its environment;

147.  Calls for innovation in monitoring the impact of climate change on stocks in the framework of a close collaboration between the scientific community and stakeholders, in order to increase the reactivity and to develop adapted management tools;

148.  Calls on the Commission to design tools and sufficient funding for the sectors affected by climate change;

149.  Calls on the Commission, in order to promote the circular economy in the fisheries sector, to set up European programmes for fishers to collect litter at sea, if they are able to do so, during periods when they are unable to go fishing, and thereby supplement their income;

150.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address and follow up on all provisions of the CFP that have not been implemented;

Recreational fisheries

151.  Stresses the urgency and need to improve the collection of data from recreational fisheries catches; urges the Commission and the Member States to include in the European Data Collection Framework, established by Regulation (EU) 2017/1004(20), all species subject to TACs and quotas, in addition to those included in multi-annual management plans (MAPs) and under the landing obligation;

152.  Stresses the need for data to assess the impact of EU recreational fisheries on the marine ecosystem and marine biological resources in EU waters, including data on by-catch, in particular species protected under EU or international law, data on impacts of recreational fisheries on marine habitats, including vulnerable marine areas, and data on impacts of fisheries on food webs;

153.  Underlines that recreational fishing could be having a significant impact on fish stocks; welcomes the progress made in the revision of the Fisheries Control Regulation and calls on Member States to ensure that recreational fisheries are conducted in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of the CFP;

Aquaculture

154.  Recalls the importance of aquaculture to guarantee long-term food security and contribute to meeting the growing world demand for aquatic food, as well its contribution to create growth and employment for EU citizens, to better preserving ecosystems and biodiversity and be part of a more circular management of resources;

155.  Stresses that farmed seafood, as a source of protein for food has a lower-carbon footprint and required the least use of natural resources that other terrestrial livestock, and has an important role to play in helping to build a sustainable food system;

156.  Recognises the role of the strategic guidelines and the Multiannual National Strategic Plans for the development of a sustainable and resilient aquaculture;

157.  Regrets that since 2014 European aquaculture has been stagnant and limited progress has been made in reducing the administrative burden and integrating aquaculture into maritime, coastal, and inland spatial planning;

158.  Underlines that European aquaculture is far from reaching its full capacity and that the EU import dependence rate is very high since almost 75 % of the total seafood that is consumed in the EU is imported from third countries;

159.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote the growth of low environmental-impact aquaculture, which includes not only mollusc and algae but also freshwater and marine finfish farming, rather than promoting the growth of low-trophic aquaculture; stresses in particular the importance of finfish production in the supply of the EU market, due to the scale of the imported tonnages involved (94 % in 2021);

160.  Recalls that big non-EU producer countries continue to heavily promote the growth of their finfish farming sector, with the EU being their main export market;

161.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to actively support the implementation of the revised strategic guidelines and the multiannual national plans and promote its long term sustainability with a focus not only to the environmental sustainability but also the economic and social sustainability of EU aquaculture;

162.  Regrets that the EU’s current trade policy does not safeguard a level playing field between EU and non-EU producers that will allow the aquaculture sector to achieve sustainable economic results and in return to contribute to the social and economic development of the EU’s regions;

163.  Recalls the importance of aquaculture in guaranteeing long-term food security and contributing to meeting the growing world demand for aquatic food, as well as its contribution to creating growth and employment for EU citizens, to better preserving ecosystems and biodiversity and being part of a more circular management of resources; regrets that since 2014 European aquaculture has been stagnant and limited progress has been made on reducing the administrative burden and on integrating aquaculture into maritime, coastal, and inland spatial planning; stresses that European aquaculture is far from full capacity and that 75 % of the seafood consumed in the EU is farmed in facilities outside the EU; calls on the Commission to actively support the implementation of the revised strategic guidelines and national plans and to promote their long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22. (2) OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135. (3) OJ C 419, 16.12.2015, p. 167. (4) OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 129. (5) OJ C 15, 12.1.2022, p. 9. (6) OJ C 67, 8.2.2022, p. 25. (7) OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 67. (8) OJ C 184, 5.5.2022, p. 2. (9) OJ C 434, 15.11.2022, p. 2. (10) OJ C 493, 27.12.2022, p. 62. (11) OJ C 214, 16.6.2023, p. 150. (12) OJ C 105, 7.5.1981, p. 1. (13) European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, Bastardie, F., Feary, D., Kell, L., et al., Climate change and the common fisheries policy – adaptation and building resilience to the effects of climate change on fisheries and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from fishing: final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. (14) ICES (2018) EU request for ICES to provide advice on a revision of the contribution of TACs to fisheries management and stock conservation. ICES Special Request Advice. Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. sr.2018.15. Published 20 September 2018, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4531. (15) COM(2023)0100. (16) According to the Court of Auditors’ special report on ‘offshore renewable energy in the EU’ of 5 July 2023: ‘the potential negative consequences of offshore renewable energy development on the fisheries sector need to be better identified and addressed’ (https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2023-22/SR-2023-22_EN.pdf, page 40). (17) Directive 2014/89/EU of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135). (18) Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19). (19) Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 1). (20) Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of 17 May 2017 on the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (OJ L 157, 20.6.2017, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries (2023/2124(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0046 A9-0437/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 21 February 2023 entitled ‘EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries’ (COM(2023)0102) (the ‘action plan’),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 12 July 2023 on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU action plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries(1),

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and, in particular, Article 39 thereof on ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural and fishing communities, and Article 5 thereof on the principle of proportionality,

–  having regard to the UN General Assembly resolution entitled ‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York on 25 September 2015, and in particular to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which encourages the conservation and sustainable exploitation of the oceans, seas and marine resources,

–  having regard to the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015 and, in particular, Article 2(1)(b) thereof on adapting to the adverse impacts of climate change in a manner that does not threaten food production,

–  having regard to the Agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction of 19 June 2023 (UN High Seas Treaty) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,

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

–  having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(3),

–  having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)(4),

–  having regard to Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning(5) (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 establishing specific conditions for fishing for deep-sea stocks in the north-east Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the north-east Atlantic and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002(6),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel(7) (Eel Regulation),

–  having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 entitled ‘More fish in the seas? Measures to promote stock recovery above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), including fish recovery areas and marine protected areas’(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2022 entitled ‘Toward a sustainable blue economy in the EU: the role of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors’(11),

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2022 on the implementation of Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation(12),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2022 on momentum for the ocean: strengthening ocean governance and biodiversity(13),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 May 2023 on co-management of fisheries in the EU and the contribution of the fisheries sector for the implementation of management measures(14),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 November 2023 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel(15),

–  having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of 26 June 2023 on the Fisheries policy package for a sustainable, resilient and competitive fisheries and aquaculture sector,

–  having regard to the 2023 State of the Union address of 13 September 2023 by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the European Parliament plenary,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2007 entitled ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ (COM(2007)0575),

–  having regard to the Commission’s 2018 Guidance on Aquaculture and Natura 2000;

–  having regard to the Commission report of 23 September 2021 entitled ‘Implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241)’ (COM(2021)0583),

–  having regard to the 2022 Commission staff working document of 28 January 2022 entitled ‘Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations’ (SWD(2022)0023),

–  having regard to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report of 4 May 2019 entitled ‘The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services’,

–  having regard to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea report of 24 June 2021 entitled ‘EU request on how management scenarios to reduce mobile bottom fishing disturbance on seafloor habitats affect fisheries landing and value’,

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report 26/2020 of 26 November 2020 entitled ‘Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep’,

–  having regard to the Aquaculture Advisory Council recommendation of June 2023 entitled ‘Impact of the Action Plan’s Bottom Trawling Ban on Shellfish Farming’, as well as to the Commission’s reply of 1 August 2023 entitled ‘Answer to the Aquaculture Advisory Council’s Recommendation “Impact of the Action Plan’s Bottom Trawling Ban on Shellfish Farming”’, as well as to its letter of 3 April 2023 to MEPs David McAllister, Jens Gieseke and Niclas Herbst on Krabbenfisherei (crab fisheries)(16),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0437/2023),

A.  whereas protecting the ocean should be guided by the principle of the common heritage of humankind; whereas there is an urgent need to step up action at global and EU level to reverse the real, existing and scientifically described declines of marine ecosystems by tackling all conceivable human and natural pressures within our capabilities, supporting the positive recovery of fish stocks, species and their habitats and encouraging scientific studies, research and development, as well as supporting fisheries and techniques that ensure sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, with the full involvement of operators, local authority representatives, civil society and coastal communities, which provide an essential contribution to this global objective;

B.  whereas there are currently numerous legislative texts, communications, strategies and regulations related to the protection of the environment and fisheries management, in particular on the restoration of nature;

C.  whereas the EU has committed to deliver on the UN 2030 Agenda, including SDG 14, as well as on its obligations under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;

D.  whereas all EU policies relating to both the external and external dimensions of the sustainable blue economy are managed through a siloed governance structure, which results in a lack of synergies and leads to conflicts among sustainable blue economic stakeholders; whereas the Commission should apply an ecosystem-based approach in all EU policies relating to the blue economy, as part of an overarching legal framework, in order to achieve the specific policy goals and ensure that they are managed through an integrated and consistent approach that promotes synergies between all marine-related activities;

E.  whereas at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting of 20 March 2023, the Member States voiced various positions, including criticisms, towards the action plan; whereas this scrutiny was carried out by national parliaments in eight Member States;

F.  whereas the action plan must be aligned with the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP), which seeks to guarantee the proper conservation and management of marine biological resources and seeks to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities, which have proven to be strategic during recent crises, are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;

G.  whereas ongoing legal proceedings were initiated by the Kingdom of Spain on of 14 November 2022 and Galician fishers and producers’ organisations on 13 December 2022 at the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614, which sets out 87 areas in the EU waters of the north-east Atlantic where all bottom fishing gear is prohibited, representing a total area of 16 419 km2 and 17 % of the area between 400 and 800 metres deep where bottom fishing gear is not allowed; whereas this Implementing Regulation was adopted without a prior socioeconomic impact assessment and its implementation will lead to a severe socioeconomic impact on the fishing fleets concerned;

H.  whereas marine biodiversity must be protected and restored in cooperation with all stakeholders, in particular with the fisheries sector and the scientific community;

I.  whereas, according to Commission data, in 2009, there were only five sustainably fished fish stocks in the EU, but by 2022, this number had grown to more than 60 and the situation continues to improve(17); whereas despite good progress being made in 2022 towards achieving the objectives set under the CFP, more progress is needed in EU marine ecosystems, in particular in the Mediterranean and Black Seas;

J.  whereas the future of food security will also depend on our capacity to tackle nature loss and the growing impacts of climate change;

K.  whereas the management of ecosystems requires a holistic approach that takes into account all the causes of biodiversity loss, such as overfishing, climate change, ocean acidification, the appearance of alien species, coastal erosion or loss of marine biodiversity, including through actions enabling that properly managed marine protected areas (MPAs), other effective area-based conservation measures and activities, such as shellfish farming are beneficial to fisheries and ecosystems alike;

Protection of the environment and sustainability

1.  Praises the efforts made by the EU fisheries sector and the progress achieved in making fisheries even more sustainable and contributing to the protection and sustainable use of marine ecosystems; considers that, despite these efforts and progress, the ocean is affected by several other factors such as overfishing, climate change, acidification, invasive alien species and different sources of pollution, in particular from land-based activities and transport, which are to some extent beyond the control of fishers and pose significant threats to fishers’ livelihoods and marine ecosystems;

2.  Highlights the intrinsic value of the ocean and all species depending on it; stresses that healthy marine ecosystems are essential for life on Earth and play a key role in planetary well-being; acknowledges the need to improve ocean protection at global and EU level;

3.  Believes, like all stakeholders involved in fisheries and environmental policies, that healthy marine ecosystems benefit our health, society and economy, and are essential for the whole planet, and particularly the populations that rely on them;

4.  Recalls the vital importance of the ocean as a pillar of the climate and food systems, as it covers 71 % of the earth’s surface, produces half of our oxygen and absorbs a third of CO2 emissions; emphasises the need to develop policy and financing approaches for ocean conservation and sustainable use; calls for the global preservation of ocean-based livelihoods and ocean biodiversity; stresses the ocean’s critical role, in particular in carbon sequestration, renewable energy development, job creation, poverty reduction, goods transportation and internet communications; warns of the interdependence between fisheries and food security, as 3.3 billion people depend on food from the sea to obtain at least 20 % of their animal protein intake;

5.  Notes that coastal communities have been harvesting food from Europe’s seas for many generations; considers that the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and these coastal communities contribute to sustainable food security in the scope of the blue economy; believes that the sustainable use and management of marine resources should be seen as contributing to marine ecosystems, not detracting from them;

Consistent approach with existing regulations

6.  Considers that the Commission’s action plan lacks a coherent approach with other priorities and strategies, such as ensuring food security and the strategic autonomy of the EU; highlights that, in addition, the action plan should be managed through an integrated, consistent and ecosystem-based approach that promotes synergies between all maritime activities in order to avoid conflicts and foster cooperation, in particular as regards marine energy infrastructure, and that it should ensure a level playing field with non-EU countries; is of the opinion that considerations such as rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the CFP and strengthening economic growth and employment have not sufficiently been considered in the action plan;

7.  Regrets that the proposed action plan comes at a time when the fishing sector is burdened by the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the rise and unpredictability of oil prices and Brexit;

8.  Underscores a general concern with the lack of real stakeholder consultation to ensure support for the action plan; expresses general concern that proportionality considerations are not properly taken into account in Commission proposals;

9.  Recalls that the action plan should be consistent with the objectives of the CFP to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in line with an ecosystem-based approach; recalls that the action plan should also be consistent with the objectives of ensuring economic, social and employment benefits, as well as contribute to the availability of food supplies and make the best use of available fishing opportunities to reduce dependency on non-EU markets; welcomes any objectives that enable a consistent approach between the CFP and other policies, in particular environmental legislation;

10.  Supports the need to strengthen and improve scientific research and innovation projects, which should be carried out in a way that is consistent with other EU policies, pilot projects and scientific projects dealing with innovation and research, such as those, for example, aiming to reduce and replace the use of (micro)plastics;

Restoring marine ecosystems

11.  Regrets the lack of coherence in the title of the action plan, as well as the lack of a holistic set of proposals in the action plan, as the plan mainly focuses on altering the fishing practices that affect species and habitats and does not address the potential for alignment between fishing techniques and practices and the protection or restoration of ecosystems; recalls the specific relevance of finding a balance between requirements for users and gains for nature to ensure predictability and legal clarity, and stresses the need for fishers to be part of the solution, instead of being put forward as the cause of the problem;

12.  Welcomes the fact that the action plan also addresses the potential for introducing additional measures to boost selectivity, including innovations to improve the selectivity of fishing gear and devices and measures to reduce catches of juveniles and the by-catch of sensitive species; recalls that incidental catches of sensitive marine species have to be reduced and, where possible, eliminated so that they do not threaten the conservation status of these species, as required by Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures;

13.  Welcomes the Commission’s calls to reduce the by-catch of sensitive species; highlights, in particular, the urgent need to act to reduce the by-catch of common dolphins and porpoises by establishing short-term closures of certain fishing areas combined with acoustic deterrent devices and improved monitoring systems, in line with scientific advice; recalls that financial compensation and incentives are available under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) for mitigating the socio-economic impacts of those measures;

14.  Emphasises the need to develop and support initiatives to restore marine ecosystems, which can only be brought about if policymakers fully engage and cooperate with those whose livelihoods are dependent on those marine areas; requests, with that aim, financial support for scientific studies and data collection on marine ecosystems, financial compensation and incentives, for instance through the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), which should be used to provide effective support for EU fishing fleets transitioning to more selective fishing techniques, and in particular to support the fishers most affected by the restrictions, as well as to mitigate the socioeconomic impacts of restrictive measures;

15.  Stresses, for example, that scientific studies show that increasing mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes would make it possible to leave the youngest fish in the water and therefore increase the chances for fish populations to reproduce, leading to higher yields for fishers and higher landings per unit effort;

16.  Reiterates the objectives of protecting at least 30 % and strictly protecting at least 10 % of EU seas by 2030; notes that the EU has made progress in designating new MPAs, both as part of the EU Natura 2000 network and through complementary national designations;

Marine protected areas (MPAs)

17.  Highlights that MPAs are diverse in terms of size, species, habitats and ecosystems to be protected, are established with different conservation objectives, and should not be seen as uniform areas that all bring the benefits of well-managed MPAs for marine ecosystems; considers, therefore, that the Commission’s action plan presents an oversimplified and over-generalised approach, thus giving the impression that all MPAs can be implemented and managed in the same way, illustrated for example by proposals related to certain fishing gears and to the phaseout of mobile bottom fishing in all MPAs by 2030; calls for a balanced approach on the definition and implementation of MPAs, taking into account the conservation objectives of each specific areas, but also activities that traditionally use those areas, as well as the dynamic and changing environment resulting from climate change, while ensuring the effective participation of fishers in their designation and management;

18.  Notes that there is a strong scientific consensus that MPAs can be beneficial to fisheries because of their spillover effect and their positive effects on recruitment, for example, through the protection of reproduction sites, juveniles and big mother fish with high reproductive capacities, as shown in various MPAs across the EU; highlights that, when successful, MPAs offer substantial socio-economic benefits, especially for coastal communities and the fisheries and tourism sector, and that MPAs can perform key ecological functions for the reproduction of fish populations, such as by providing spawning grounds and nurseries, and improve their resilience;

19.  Calls to the attention of the Commission and the Member States the fact that other effective environmental protection instruments, such as other effective area-based conservation measures, should be considered in the action plan to help achieve targets and maximise the effects of the measures that have already been implemented in a dynamic and changing environment resulting from climate change, as well as to help to keep proportionality among all measures;

20.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement the protective or restrictive measures needed to achieve the conservation and restoration targets specific to each of all these MPAs, including the technical measures needed to achieve the targets, and through sufficient funding, starting with the areas most at risk and the Natura 2000 areas that aim to protect marine habitats; recalls the legal obligations of the Member States and highlights that the Commission has opened procedures against certain Member States for presumably not fulfilling their obligations under the Habitats Directive(18);

21.  Considers that MPAs and other protected areas are tools, not objectives in and of themselves; recognises that their success lies in them being accepted and embraced by fishers, coastal communities and other stakeholders; calls for the Commission and the Member States to launch and fund scientific research programmes and calls for the inclusion of the fisheries sector, including its artisanal component, as well as other relevant stakeholders, in the design, management, implementation, monitoring and surveillance of MPAs;

22.  Considers that the engagement of science, the fisheries sector and all relevant stakeholders cannot be pursued only by the EU, especially in relation to preventing bad practices by foreign fleets; calls for further efforts to be made to address global activities detrimental to ocean protection, including by fleets of non-EU countries, such as the Chinese fleet, and for consideration to be given to establishing a global network of MPAs;

23.  Expresses its deep concern regarding the impact of oil and gas extraction on the marine environment, as well as on fisheries and aquaculture; reiterates its call to prohibit all environmentally damaging extractive industrial activities, such as mining and fossil fuel extraction, in MPAs;

Bottom contacting fishing gears

24.  Highlights that many Union vessels operate with mobile bottom contacting fishing gears, and that many coastal regions are socially and economically dependent on activities using mobile and fixed bottom contacting gears, such as shellfish farming activities; highlights that restrictions on or the closing of fishing zones to bottom contacting fishing gears are not simply a matter of moving the activity of fishing vessels to different fishing grounds; stresses that it is necessary to take into account, among other things, the possible available resources that can be captured with these gears, the practical experiences of fishers, the presence and redistribution of fishing vessels in adjacent areas in order to avoid an overlap that could lead to conflict on the use of space, increased pressure in other fishing areas and the deterioration of working conditions;

25.  Recalls that the moves towards regionalisation made during the last CFP reform were an attempt to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach whereby decisions were overly centralised within the EU; welcomes the measures proposed in the action plan to improve regional cooperation; considers however, that the action plan takes some steps in the opposite direction, in particular in relation to its proposals on bottom trawling;

26.  Considers that there have been several initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing techniques that have created a patchwork of initiatives and put into question the coherence and predictability of actions that will be taken at EU level and have a severe impact on the trust of fishers and fisheries communities in (EU) policy- and decision-making processes;

27.  Considers that any plan to implement provisions or restrictions on the use of any particular fishing gear needs to be made in line with other policies, and take into account all stakeholders, as well as all relevant food security, socioeconomic, environmental, technical and scientific aspects; reiterates that actions supported by consensus and supported by these considerations will have greater success and a positive effect on their implementation;

28.  Believes that the consequences of any action plan or legislative proposal need to be based on scientific and socioeconomic assessments and evaluations; notes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of this action plan, for example the Commission’s calls to Member States to prohibit mobile bottom fishing in the MPAs that are Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive that protect the seabed and marines species by the end of March 2024 on the one hand, while on the other hand, in parallel and with the same deadline, its requests that Member States provide information on how they intend to ensure that mobile bottom fishing is phased out in all MPAs by 2030 without waiting, for instance, for the scientific and socioeconomic conclusions of previous proposals; welcomes the fact that the Commission has acknowledged that a blanket approach banning mobile bottom contacting fishing is not suitable to achieve the objectives of the action plan;

29.  Considers that measures related to bottom trawling should be assessed in line with all possible guidance, such as that of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea or the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, as well as with the best available scientific data; considers that these measures should take into account that bottom trawling is one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europe and that it should be, in priority, regulated in the framework of the Technical Measures Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1241(19)), whose aim is, as its title indicates, ‘the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems’;

30.  Notes that scientific bodies such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and many peer reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated and recognised that mobile bottom contacting fishing gear has an impact on ecosystems; highlights, however, that the effect of trawling is variable and, depending on several factors such as the type of fisheries, they are considered by science as sustainable and compatible with achieving seabed conservation objectives or stocks being exploited above maximum sustainable yield levels;

31.  Highlights that the Commission's intention to impose measures through its action plan, rather than letting the co-legislators decide, risks going against good governance and dialogue between stakeholders and different levels of administration and risks undermining the interinstitutional balance and each institution's role in the decision-making process;

Eels

32.  Emphasises the complexity and diversity of managing the eel stock, which cannot be confined to a single marine-focused approach; reiterates that the Eel Regulation was found to be fit for purpose by the Commission’s evaluation in 2020; is nevertheless of the opinion that better implementation of the Eel Regulation and additional strengthened actions by the Member States are needed, in order to ensure a comprehensive approach in the implementation of the Regulation; reminds the Commission and the Member States to make full use of the Eel Regulation as the core policy for the management and recovery of the eel stock, ensuring a holistic and consistent approach that captures both the marine and freshwater life stages of the eel and addresses both fisheries and non-fisheries impacts by fully implementing measures in all relevant areas;

33.  Is of the opinion that measures taken outside of the context of the Eel Regulation may undermine the consistency of adopted policy; expresses deep concern therefore in relation to the non-holistic approach taken in Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194(20), which has restricted eel fisheries by introducing a six-month closing period without proper consultation with stakeholders and without considering a full package of measures in other policy areas or appropriate compensation, including measures taking into account the socioeconomic effects; considers, therefore, that a prior analysis of the species’ recovery, as well as their possible role in combating invasive species should be carried out before further restrictive measures, as announced in the action plan, are considered;

34.  Reiterates its call for the creation of an eel-specific expert group to ensure full and balanced representation of all relevant stakeholders; urges the Member States to regularly update their eel management plans and adhere to their reporting obligations under the Eel Regulation;

Member States’ reactions to the action plan

35.  Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by representatives of the Member States raising clear concerns with the action plan and its associated uncertainties; notes that the Member States have especially questioned the overly simplistic approach taken by the Commission in relation to bottom trawling restrictions in MPAs;

36.  Considers the positioned opposition between the development of the fishing industry and the protection of marine biodiversity to be a dead end; believes that both can be achieved in a balanced way, as stated by Member State representatives after the presentation of the action plan;

37.  Welcomes the creation of a special dialogue group made up of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) and Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), the Member States and interested stakeholders; considers that the role of the dialogue group should be to facilitate knowledge and possible discussions between fisheries and environmental communities, as well as to give Member States a platform for transparency and dialogue on the implementation of their roadmaps;

Legal implications of the Commission’s action plan

38.  Reaffirms its commitment to exercise Parliament’s prerogatives and competences with regard to any initiative, such as legislative proposals and delegated or implementing acts, including those linked or unlinked to the action plan;

39.  Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socioeconomic costs for the Member States and their fleets, as it contains around 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiatives; calls on the Member States and the Commission to conduct the necessary studies in due time as part of the preparation for any new or reformed regulations or initiatives, as well as to take into account and engage with the marine spatial planning processes, between regions and sea basins, but also among different Member States and with non-EU countries to ensure socioeconomic benefits;

40.  Believes that measures included in the action plan should follow, where possible, the ordinary legislative procedure to ensure greater transparency and should include a genuine impact assessment, with the proper involvement of all stakeholders;

41.  Notes with concern the lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, owing to statements made by the Commission, for instance during its presentation to Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries and to different stakeholders; considers that this has not brought clarity and stability for the fishing sector and has had a damaging impact on many sectors of the fishing industry at a time when the uncertainties caused by the cumulative consequences of several crises are weighing heavily on the morale of people working in the industry;

42.  Notes with concern that the Commission is increasingly using non-binding instruments, such as communications, which are commonly referred to as ‘soft law’, to present very concrete policy measures without following up with legislative proposals; considers that any uncertainty between the intended legal meaning of the communications presented and their actual legal effect is likely to affect legal certainty and predictability for the sector, as well as raise legal questions regarding institutional balance and the limits and exercise of EU competences; believes, therefore, that Commission communications should not be used to put forward binding measures;

43.  Regrets that communication from the Commission and, in particular, from DG MARE and DG ENV, has included conflicting statements regarding the binding effects of the action plan; calls on DG MARE and DG ENV to listen more closely to the specific characteristics of the fisheries sector before preparing or proposing joint initiatives;

Socioeconomic aspects and food security

44.  Supports the Commission President’s 2023 State of the Union address, declaring that for every new piece of legislation a competitiveness check would be conducted; requests that the action plan, all fisheries-related legislative proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check for their socioeconomic impact on the different activities and their effect on coastal communities, as well as on the recreational fisheries sector and the cumulative effect on the availability of food supply;

45.  Regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socioeconomic study, impact assessment with a scientific analysis or an intermediary report and does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions; brings to the attention of the Commission the fact that strategic documents, such as this action plan, should be presented to the different stakeholders and take account of their views in a more coordinated and clear way, and should include full environmental, social, economic and legal assessments of their implementation; calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition;

46.  Recalls that Member States must fully implement Article 17 CFP when allocating fishing opportunities; calls on the Member States to allocate fishing opportunities on the basis of transparent and objective criteria based on the social and environmental performance of fishing fleets and to implement Article 17 as a tool to incentivise low-impact responsible fishing practices;

47.  Highlights that the action plan should contribute equally to the pillars of sustainability in the CFP (environmental, social and economic) and, among other things, contribute to productivity growth, decent working conditions in the sector, in particular for small-scale fisheries, and stable markets, ensure food-safe, qualitative and sustainable products without compromising food security and autonomy, allowing fishers to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them, and contribute to environmental recovery and protection to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts;

48.  Welcomes the Commission’s call for data to be collected on the impact of recreational fisheries, but underlines the need to also consider the economic and social impacts of sustainable recreational fishing activities; considers that recreational fisheries may offer excellent opportunities to foster the ‘citizen science’ approach;

International action and reciprocity

49.  Considers the UN High Seas Treaty to be a significant achievement at the international level for the protection of the oceans; regrets, however, that the action plan does not insist enough on the need to include reciprocity in international agreements; considers it therefore essential that, at international level, the EU work with other counterparts to implement rules with objectives and goals similar to the ones set by the CFP, especially Article 28(2)(d) thereof, the European Green Deal and the SDGs;

50.  Emphasises the importance of the EU working with developing countries, in particular the countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean, to prepare for the future development of renewable marine energy by sharing the EU’s expertise in marine planning and industrial development; calls for the EU to scale up capacity building and financing for developing countries for improving ocean and coastal management, developing ocean economy strategies, bridging governance gaps and tackling illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and illicit trade in marine resources; underlines the importance of coming up with responses that meet local needs for zero-emission energy, that ensure marine ecosystems are protected and that preserve traditional activities such as fishing; stresses the importance of involving coastal communities in the implementation of these actions; highlights further the importance of supporting sustainable fishing practices in the outermost regions, based on the sustainable use of marine resources and management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism, as a way to ensure the long-term socioeconomic development of these regions;

51.  Calls for the EU to promote transparency in fisheries and other extractive industries at sea in partner countries, as it is key to stopping overfishing, biodiversity loss and human rights violations; stresses that coastal developing countries can implement the standards outlined in the Fisheries Transparency Initiative and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative to improve transparency;

52.  Asks that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored for products imported from non-EU countries, especially given the fact that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes; stresses that it is essential to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, as well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators;

53.  Notes that mobile bottom gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches; believes that new management rules, in particular limitations or restrictions on the use of fishing techniques at EU level, should not pose a risk to food security, nor lead to an increase in imports of fishing products, and even less so if these products are captured using fishing gears with limited or restricted use in the EU;

Working with the fisheries sector

54.  Supports the fisheries sector’s ongoing efforts to improve the selectivity of fishing techniques and to reduce its environmental impact; highlights the positive examples of restoring species stocks in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities; supports further efforts to boost co-management arrangements where local stakeholders take responsibility for sustainable management and invest more in research, innovation and the development of new fishing gears and techniques; highlights the role of fishers as ‘guardians of the sea’, their commitment to restoring fish stocks and their contribution to the recovery of marine ecosystems;

55.  Notes that, according to the Commission, tangible progress towards more sustainable fisheries on the ground has been achieved over the last decades thanks to the CFP; highlights, however, that this recovery has come at high costs for most fishing communities;

56.  Highlights the importance of including all relevant stakeholders, from fishers to civil society representatives, in the decision-making process and implementation of actions that contribute to the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems, and that can support sustainable and resilient fisheries;

57.  Stresses that particular attention should be paid to gender equality and women’s empowerment in view of the crucial role of women and young people, especially in the sustainable ocean-based economy and marine conservation areas;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ C 349, 29.9.2023, p. 127. (2) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22. (3) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. (4) OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. (5) OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135. (6) OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 1. (7) OJ L 248, 22.9.2007, p. 17. (8) OJ L 242, 19.9.2022, p. 1. (9) OJ C 67, 8.2.2022, p. 25. (10) OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 129. (11) OJ C 465, 6.12.2022, p. 2. (12) OJ C 493, 27.12.2022, p. 62. (13) OJ C 132, 14.4.2023, p. 106. (14) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0132. (15) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0411. (16) Ares(2023)3615063. (17) Commission communication of 21 February 2023 entitled ‘The common fisheries policy today and tomorrow: a Fisheries and Oceans Pact towards sustainable, science-based, innovative and inclusive fisheries managementT (COM(2023)0103). (18) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). (19) Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 (OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105). (20) Council Regulation (EU) 2023/194 of 30 January 2023 fixing for 2023 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, as well as fixing for 2023 and 2024 such fishing opportunities for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ L 28, 31.1.2023, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the implementation of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation in fisheries and aquaculture – Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 (2023/2049(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0047 A9-0406/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000(1) (CMO Regulation), and to the implementation thereof,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 349 thereof,

–  having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 21 February 2023 entitled ‘Implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’ (COM(2023)0101),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381),

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2021 on a farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2023 on the small-scale fisheries situation in the EU and future perspectives(3),

–  having regard to the outcome of the negotiations on the Fisheries Control Regulation,

–  having regard to the 2020 report by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) entitled ‘Criteria and indicators to incorporate sustainability aspects for seafood products in the marketing standards under the Common Market Organisation’ (STECF-20-05),

–  having regard to the 2021 Special Eurobarometer 515 report entitled ‘EU consumer habits regarding fishery and aquaculture products’,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 3 May 2022 entitled ‘Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions’ (COM(2022)0198),

–  having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

–  having regard to the report by the Market Advisory Council (MAC)(4) of 30 March 2022 on the Commission report entitled ‘Implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’ (COM(2023)0101),

–  having regard to the report by the Market Advisory Council (MAC)(5) of 8 May 2023 entitled ‘Improving the Labelling Legislation for Plant-Based Imitations of Fisheries and Aquaculture Products’,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0406/2023),

A.  whereas it stressed, in its resolution on a farm to fork strategy, that good traceability mechanisms, which respond to consumer demand by providing information on where, when, how and what fish has been caught or farmed, including for products imported from outside the EU, are essential for ensuring food safety, guaranteeing transparency for consumers, fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries and achieving the targets of the Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals;

B.  whereas the newly revised Fisheries Control Regulation contains major improvements to traceability rules for all fishery and aquaculture products; whereas these rules will be implemented gradually following a transition period – two years for fresh and frozen products and five years for processed products – and will ensure that consumers receive accurate information; whereas improved labelling will be a tool for and contribute to combating IUU fishing and ensuring fair competition;

C.  whereas more than three-quarters of respondents to the 2021 Special Eurobarometer 515 consider that the date of catch or production should be mentioned on the label for all fishery and aquaculture products;

D.  whereas the implementation of the CMO demonstrates a low uptake related to the creation of fish producer organisations (POs) due to the complex set-up and recognition framework in the Member States and the financial and legal uncertainties regarding the financial support and eligibility of actions; whereas the obstacles for other organisations such as Cofradías and Prud’homie de pêche should also be addressed;

E.  whereas the conditions of activity in the outermost regions require unique and appropriate solutions to meet the challenges of endogenous development and food self-sufficiency;

Introduction

1.  Recalls that the common organisation of the markets (CMO) is an integral part of the common fisheries policy (CFP) alongside conservation and financial measures, and is vital for achieving their objectives;

2.  Highlights the fact that the 2013 revision of the CMO Regulation resulted in a shift from certain types of interventions to an approach more oriented towards the long-term market, with a focus on development and innovation in the sector and without taking sufficient account of the exceptional situation of the regions referred to in Article 349 TFEU;

Professional organisations

3.  Considers POs and interbranch organisations to be the backbone of the fishery and aquaculture sector, supporting the day-to-day management of the CFP and enabling its collective implementation at producer level, guaranteeing a supply of healthy proteins and preserving the economic activity and cultural heritage of coastal areas;

4.  Is of the opinion that POs and interbranch organisations play a key role in helping to achieve the objectives of the CFP, which is why they need to be further supported and strengthened; notes that it is essential to continue to encourage the promotion, set-up and consolidation of POs and interbranch organisations across the EU, including better financial support (which varies from one Member State to another), particularly in Member States where primary production has largely remained fragmented (aquaculture, shellfish gatherers, small-scale fisheries); considers that strong PO presence and that of interbranch organisations is crucial for enhancing the prosperity of coastal and island communities, protecting the marine environment and strengthening the position of fishers and aquaculture producers in the supply chain and the promotion of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture activities, especially in the outermost regions;

5.  Welcomes the Commission’s recognition that production and marketing plans (PMPs) are key in helping to achieve the objectives assigned to the CMO by Article 35 of the CFP Regulation and that a strong presence of well-functioning POs is a decisive factor; notes, however, that more needs to be done to support the day-to-day work of POs in implementing PMPs and to ensure concrete access to financing for all POs; calls, therefore, on the Commission for updated staff guidance documents in this regard, as well as action to better facilitate market access for all fleet segments;

6.  Concludes that properly functioning POs and interbranch organisations generally have successful measures and actions, but observes that there is still a lack of POs and interbranch organisations dedicated to small-scale fishers, shellfish gatherers and aquaculture farmers in particular, especially in the outermost regions; notes that financial impediments in some Member States are creating difficulties, especially for the small-scale segment; notes that the aquaculture POs currently in operation have been particularly successful in their promotion and communication activities;

7.  Welcomes the Commission’s recognition that the funding and creation of structures to share and organise the financial support of transnational professional organisations is a key issue; notes that this is particularly pertinent to the diverse small-scale coastal fisheries sector, which constitutes the majority of the EU fleet;

8.  Urges the Member States to provide the appropriate administrative and financial support to set up and operate new POs, especially for small-scale coastal fisheries, highlighting in particular their social and cultural importance, and to facilitate the provisions for their recognition;

9.  Urges the Member States to improve consistency in the support for POs by national authorities and to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, existing gaps and differences across the EU, including for the funding of PMPs in order to secure a more level playing field for POs; asks the Commission to continue its support to Member States in this regard;

10.  Considers that there are currently organisations in the Member States that perform tasks and functions falling within the remit of POs and interbranch organisations, but that these organisations cannot qualify as POs under the CMO Regulation, such as the Prud’homie de pêche and Cofradías fisheries committees; considers that these organisations play a vital role in local resource management, allocating quotas and dealing with issues related to fish stock conservation, promoting and preserving traditional products, especially in certain coastal communities;

11.  Believes that these organisations should be given recognition under the CMO Regulation in order to be granted the same rights, including financial support, and responsibilities as POs; calls on the Commission to take action, in this regard, in coordination with the Member States concerned, including by considering adapting the CMO rules accordingly, where necessary, and ensuring that there are proper systems in place to check that the functioning of POs is in line with applicable rules;

12.  Notes that the COVID-19 crisis resulted in the sudden closure of most outlets for fresh aquatic food products, including in the outermost regions, making it opportune to restore the option of using storage aid mechanisms and to expand these to cover aquaculture and mussel farming POs;

Common marketing standards

13.  Recalls that many of the marketing standards included in the 2013 CMO Regulation date from the 1980s and 1990s; notes that, according to the Commission evaluation, these standards have generally been relevant and efficient and have brought added value;

14.  Points out that the Commission evaluation and the underlying consultations identified opportunities for simplifying, streamlining and modernising the standards; notes that it also found a relatively low level of monitoring by national authorities when it comes to ensuring compliance with the standards, thus it is more vital than ever to harmonise the legislation on monitoring and inspections in all Member States;

15.  Considers that marketing standards for aquatic food products placed on the EU market, regardless of their origin, should adhere to harmonised environmental and social sustainability standards; calls for these standards to be included in trade agreements and measures adopted in regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) as it is important to ensure that operators have a level playing field and that EU producers are not unduly disadvantaged in the market; believes that it is vital to harness the potential of certification, especially protected designations of origin (PDO) and their benefits in terms of environmental sustainability, in order to promote aquaculture products;

16.  Highlights the fact that the Commission evaluation identified shortcomings in the existing framework in terms of its ability to achieve the objectives of the CMO Regulation;

17.  Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to detect instances of non-compliance with the legislation and to ensure that there is a level playing field in all Member States; suggests, specifically, that good practices in terms of implementation of and compliance with legislation on marketing and ecosystem protection should be taken into account;

18.  Points out that it is essential that the marketing standards for all products marketed in the EU are aligned and updated in accordance with the requirements and objectives of the CFP in order to enhance fair competition and clarity among all players, being essential to emphasise the integration of social and environmental benchmarks to ensure global sustainability; notes, in this regard, that the specific characteristics of the markets in the regions referred to in Article 349 TFEU shall be taken into account;

Consumer information

19.  Agrees that for the CMO to fully achieve its objectives, the competent authorities must ensure that consumers are informed, through promotional, marketing and educational campaigns, of the nutritional, health and sustainability benefits of eating fishery and aquaculture products, the wide variety of species available and the importance of understanding the information on labels, while avoiding misinforming consumers and ensuring alignment with EU food systems; believes that for consumers to be able to make informed choices, they should receive clear and comprehensive information on the products sold on the EU market, and that this information should comply with the same rules, regardless of the products’ origin and means of production;

20.  Highlights that the STECF proposed to improve consumer information by including more detailed information on the catch area, fishing gear and production methods in the CMO; calls, therefore, on the Commission to consider reinforcing marketing standards in order to include more information on the labels such as the ingredients, geographical fishing area and fishing gear, among other things, without adding unnecessary administrative burdens on producers and POs; is of the opinion that periodic reviews should be conducted to ensure compliance and to assess the effectiveness of these harmonised standards as it will help in identifying areas of improvement and ensuring that the standards remain relevant and updated;

21.  Believes that consumers should clearly be able to identify the origin of products, given that this information is increasingly valued by European consumers and encourages them to consume local foods that are produced or obtained in their area; underlines the need to change the current system of identifying fisheries products by FAO area as it does not indicate their origin clearly or in detail and can create confusion;

22.  Calls for the Commission and the Member States to promote and establish new protected quality designations in the light of their known and proven benefits for EU fishery and aquaculture products and calls for better marketing of those products; urges the Commission to facilitate the application of upcoming rules that will significantly benefit these quality structures, reducing, to the extent possible, the time needed to deal with applications;

23.  Argues that traceability and related transparency measures are necessary for ensuring compliance with applicable CFP rules; believes that if these measures are supported by a proper labelling system, which should be required for processed, fresh and preserved aquatic food products, they can guarantee that the information provided to consumers is accurate, clear, complete, trustworthy and reliable; highlights the fact that such a labelling system is vital for combating both food fraud, including mislabelling, and IUU fishing; considers that the traceability of products must be strengthened and guaranteed throughout all stages of the value chain in order to provide not only economic and commercial benefits, but also contribute to efforts to protect health; welcomes, in this regard, the introduction of the CATCH certificate for imported products by the new Fisheries Control Regulation;

24.  Notes that the Commission received, in its consultations, reports indicating that mandatory consumer information requirements had not been met in some Member States; notes that implementation throughout the EU is considered to be uneven and this is particularly significant in some segments, such as fishmongers and mass caterers; recalls that labelling must provide an accurate description of fishery and non-fishery products, avoiding fraud and misleading advertising that is harmful to consumers and fishers, in particular when mentioning substitute products, as in many cases images are used that make consumers think certain products are fishery products when they are not; is concerned that some products on the market, such as plant-based products, use terms exclusively used by fishery products even though they are not fishery products; considers that the Commission should further investigate this issue based on the reports received;

25.  Considers, therefore, that the trade name ‘fish’ or ‘fish species’ should be reserved for fishery or aquaculture products of animal origin on the single market; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to revise the existing legislation on the labelling and presentation of plant-based products that imitate fishery and aquaculture products in order to ensure that consumers are given accurate and precise information that avoids any misunderstandings and maintains equal opportunities in the EU market;

Competition rules

26.  Recalls that POs and interbranch organisations may be exempted from the application of competition rules in order to achieve their objectives, subject to certain conditions, including that their activities do not lead to the partitioning of markets, do not exclude competition and do not eliminate competition;

27.  Notes that this exemption is essential for allowing some practices used by POs and interbranch organisations, especially in the outermost regions, such as controlling the quantities put on the market by their members in order to stabilise markets and prices, comply with conservation requirements and avoid food waste; concludes that non-recognised collective bodies of producers (e.g. cooperatives, Cofradías) may not benefit from the exemption under the current criteria for POs;

28.  Underlines that around 70 % of the seafood that is consumed in the EU is imported from non-EU countries, which consequently leads to the EU being dependant on these imports for its consumption; highlights that the fisheries, aquaculture and related sectors must be profitable in order to make the investments needed to operate, while profitability is only possible if the products are competitive with imports from non-EU countries; calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that EU trade policy allows for a level playing field between EU and imported products, and to promote the consumption of sustainable (environmental, economic and social) EU aquatic food products;

29.  Encourages the Commission to initiate a dialogue with POs and other relevant stakeholders on autonomous tariff quotas;

Market intelligence and crisis management

30.  Recalls that the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA) provides market intelligence to operators in the fishery sector to help them to better understand market trends; notes that a dedicated website and database have been online since April 2013 and have been fully operational since the entry into force of the revised CMO, benefiting research bodies, stakeholders and the general public by increasing access to market intelligence and data;

31.  Recalls that the EUMOFA provides market intelligence based on the existing combined nomenclature of the EU’s common customs tariff; considers that the latter should be updated to include new product categories of fish products that are traded in increased volumes in the EU, and to offer more intuitive and comprehensive digital tools; calls on the Commission to explore ways of further improving the market intelligence of fisheries and aquaculture products, specifically improving the market analysis by distinguishing between different parts of Europe with different consumption habits of fish species;

32.  Notes that the EUMOFA was used to trigger crisis measures to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic;

33.  Calls on the Commission, during the next revision of the CMO, to consider the possibility of establishing a crisis reserve or system, including storage aid, as a means of protecting the sector from any exceptional situations that might arise in the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector; recalls that exceptional aid recently had to be provided to tackle the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; calls on the Commission to set out the criteria for using such aid and ensuring that it can be tailored to the specific market disturbance, taking as a basis the crisis reserve model already in use for other food sectors, and considering other measures that could be beneficial for alleviating severe market disturbances;

Conclusions

34.  Welcomes the progress made in implementing the CMO rules; highlights the need for further efforts in ensuring that consumers are properly informed, improving labelling, enhancing market transparency and increasing the traceability of fishery, shellfish and aquaculture products as well as gender and youth inclusive policies; notes that some Member States have governments below state level that have competences for fisheries, shellfish and aquaculture and that this should be respected by the Commission and other concerned institutions for advancing the implementation of the CMO;

35.  Believes that the Commission and the Member States need to make more effort to achieve more uniform implementation of the CMO Regulation across sectors, by taking sufficient account of the specific conditions under which markets operate in the outermost regions; is of the opinion that more uniform implementation could help to ensure consumer trust in the aquatic food products placed on the single market, and serve the objectives of endogenous development and food self-sufficiency in the outermost regions;

36.  Stresses the importance of involving all stakeholders throughout the entire supply chain; underlines, in this regard, the valuable work of the applicable market advisory council (MAC);

37.  Welcomes the Commission’s intention to present a proposal for a legislative framework for sustainable food systems with the aim of enhancing transparency and providing consumers with more information; stresses that the proposal should recognise the importance of healthy and sustainable fishery and aquaculture products, enhancing the value of the fisheries sector; highlights the need for this new legislative framework to include the importance of fish consumption in a healthy diet; highlights the need to ensure that this does not create an additional administrative burden and aligns with the sustainability condition set down in EU legislation;

38.  Welcomes the outcome of the negotiations on the revision of the Fisheries Control Regulation, in particular the rules aiming to strengthen traceability provisions for all fishery, shellfish and aquaculture products, including products imported from non-EU countries; is of the opinion that this traceability information will be very important for European consumers both on the continent and overseas; calls on the Commission to propose further action with the same requirements for all products, regardless of the extent to which they have been processed, the category of food or the Member State in which the company is based, to ensure that the information provided is accurate, clear, complete and harmonised in all Member States and territories, with competence for fisheries, and in all product categories, so that it reaches final consumers in a simple, accessible format;

39.  Believes that the Member States should make greater use of the EUMOFA, especially in areas where the EUMOFA is used to a lesser extent, as it should further improve the data collected and the market analysis of different parts of Europe with different fish consumption habits, offering more intuitive and comprehensive digital tools through the instrument; is of the opinion that this could make the EUMOFA data more useful for analysing the market, also differentiated by regions, particularly when there are drastic changes, such as those that occurred during the COVID-19 crisis, with a view to activating crisis tools and options to stabilise the market;

40.  Is convinced that improving traceability and transparency in the aquatic food sector’s supply chain is crucial for fighting IUU fishing;

41.  Reiterates its call on all Member States to adapt the criteria for recognising POs and interbranch organisations in order to recognise all the different organisations in the Member States that perform tasks that largely fall within the remit of a PO; highlights, in this regard, organisations such as Cofradías and Prud’homie de pêche, as well as those operating in the outermost regions;

42.  Calls for the Commission to initiate more effective measures to eliminate barriers for POs to fully deliver on their missions by addressing the difficulties for small-scale coastal and island fishery POs regarding differential treatment by national administrations, be it in terms of PO recognition, day-to-day financing, administrative support or eligibility of measures;

43.  Underlines the importance of ensuring the commitment of all stakeholders, throughout the fishery and aquaculture supply chain and civil society, to increase confidence and understanding in applying the CMO provisions, in particular by maintaining and strengthening collaboration with the MAC;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 1. (2) OJ C 184, 5.5.2022, p. 2. (3) OJ C 214, 16.6.2023, p. 150. (4) Market Advisory Council, ‘2022 Report on the Functioning of the Common Market Organisation (CMO)’, 30 March 2022. (5) Market Advisory Council, ‘Improving the Labelling Legislation for Plant-Based Imitations of Fisheries and Aquaculture Products’, 8 May 2023.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the gender aspects of the rising cost of living and the impact of the energy crisis (2023/2115(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0048 A9-0430/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union,

–  having regard to Articles 8, 9, 10, 119, 122, 127, 151, 153(2), 156, 157, 191 and 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and, in particular, its provisions on social rights and equality between men and women,

–  having regard to the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development, the principle of ‘leaving no one behind’, and, in particular, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 on ending poverty, SDG 5 on achieving gender equality and improving living conditions for women, and SDG 8 on achieving sustainable economic growth,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 5 March 2020 entitled ‘A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0152),

–  having regard to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC(1),

–  having regard to Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC(2),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources(3),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU(4),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility(5),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2023/970 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 to strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms(6),

–  having regard to the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/2407 of 20 October 2023 on energy poverty,

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 May 2022 on the social and economic consequences for the EU of the Russian war in Ukraine – reinforcing the EU’s capacity to act(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2022 on women’s poverty in Europe(8),

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditor’s Special Report of 26 May 2021 entitled ‘Gender mainstreaming in the EU budget: time to turn words into action’(9),

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1563 of 14 October 2020 on energy poverty(10),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 14 October 2020 on A Renovation Wave for Europe – greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives (COM(2020)0662),

–  having regard to the International Energy Agency’s end-use energy prices and taxes data(11),

–  having regard to the International Monetary Fund’s report of October 2022 entitled ‘The Fog of War Clouds the European Outlook’(12),

–  having regard to Eurostat’s 2022 study entitled ‘Living conditions in Europe’(13),

–  having regard to Eurostat’s briefing paper of 10 February 2022 entitled ‘Energy prices on the rise in the euro area in 2021’(14),

–  having regard to Eurofound’s report of 28 October 2022 entitled ‘The cost-of-living crisis and energy poverty in the EU: Social impact and policy responses – Background paper’(15),

–  having regard to the Eurofound’s last esurvey, Living and Working in Europe, of Spring 2023,

–  having regard to the European Institute for Gender Equality’s 2021 and 2022 Gender Equality Indexes(16),(17),

–  having regard to its Autumn 2022 Eurobarometer survey(18),

–  having regard the research from the World Economic Forum of 26 January 2023(19),

–  having regard to the study entitled ‘Gender perspective on access to energy in the EU’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union on 18 December 2017(20),

–  having regard to the briefing entitled ‘Gender Aspects of Energy Poverty’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union on 1 March 2023(21),

–  having regard to the study entitled ‘The Gender Dimension and Impact of the Fit for 55 Package’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union on 6 December 2022(22),

–  having regard to the briefing entitled ‘Energy poverty in the EU’, published by its Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services on 18 September 2023(23),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2020 on maximising the energy efficiency potential of the EU building stock(24),

–  having regard to the opinion of 12 May 2022 by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency,

–  having regard to the report of 7 April 2021 by the Committee on Development on the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations in developing countries and the opinion by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality of 2 October 2020,

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 February 2021 on reducing inequalities with a special focus on in-work poverty(25),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 on access to decent and affordable housing for all(26),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2021 on the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive(27),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2023 on ensuring European transportation works for women(28),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A9-0430/2023),

A.  whereas inflation has increased sharply since 2021, driven primarily by high energy and food costs, exacerbated by Russia’s unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine(29); whereas wages are not projected to increase as fast as inflation, leading to a cost of living crisis; whereas this crisis acutely threatens women’s livelihoods, health, well-being, economic independence and access to housing, while limiting their purchasing power and their ability to purchase basic necessities such as food, preventing them from enjoying a decent standard of living;

B.  whereas prices have risen, in general, by 11,5 % in the EU since October 2021 and food has been particularly affected, with inflation climbing to 17,8 % in October 2022; whereas, in line with the ECB’s September 2023 macroeconomic projections for the euro area, average inflation for 2023 is estimated at 5,6 %, which is an upward revision of previous projections; whereas according to Eurofound, the increases in nominal wage rates in many countries for 2023 were in many cases insufficient to maintain women workers’ purchasing power;

C.  whereas the COVID-19 pandemic, the rising cost of living crisis and the war against Ukraine have intensified a pre-existing crisis and the precarious working and living conditions faced by many women; whereas the gendered implications of such crises further perpetuate systemic gender inequalities across multiple sectors;

D.  whereas women in all their diversity are disproportionately affected by the consequences of the cost of living crisis, as they tend to be among the poorest part of the population, representing 70 % of the 1,3 billion(30) people living in conditions of poverty; whereas women are consistently placed at a disadvantage by structural and cultural factors such as traditional gender norms;

E.  whereas women are over-represented in precarious jobs, in flexible forms of work, atypical and flexible contracts (part-time work, temporary work, informal jobs) and over-represented among minimum wage workers; whereas women also tend to have lower incomes and wealth as a result of the pay and pension gaps, and are thus more likely to report difficulties in making ends meet and still bear a disproportionate burden of unpaid care work, leaving them with fewer resources to protect themselves against the negative impact of the cost-of-living crisis; whereas women are also particularly impacted by time poverty, defined as the individual’s lack of sufficient time for rest and leisure after deducting the time necessary for paid employment and unpaid work, and thus not being able to reduce working hours without falling (deeper) into poverty;

F.  whereas women tend to be the ‘shock absorbers of poverty carrying the main responsibility and mental burden for the planning, purchase and preparation of food for their families and the coordination of various other care and household tasks such as r the budget management of poor households and are thus much more impacted by the rising cost of living and energy crisis; whereas this role as primary carers in the family puts a disproportionate share of the burden of unpaid care and domestic work on women;

G.  whereas successive crises have had negative impacts on women all over the world, hindering progress on gender equality; whereas women are particularly impacted by disinvestment and budget cuts in public services such as education, health and transport and welfare assistance as they are more likely to work in, rely on, and become the providers of these public services when they are withdrawn;

H.  whereas the importance of combating discrimination between men and women in access to employment and work, and promoting equality in careers and professional categories, in vocational training and in salaries is essential, at the same time as strengthening work with rights and protecting collective bargaining and union rights;

I.  whereas the energy crisis in Europe has highlighted the need to reform the European electricity market; whereas, by indexing electricity prices to gas prices, the market has created substantial opportunities for speculation, resulting in significant difficulties for companies, particularly SMEs, and for households, especially those comprising people in vulnerable situations or living in rural areas, including women, who are particularly at risk; whereas this economic speculation has contributed to increasing energy costs; whereas price regulation over the energy sector is one of the key tools to guarantee people’s economic and social rights, and ensure everyone has access to electricity, heating and cooling in the green energy transition;

J.  whereas the Council reached an agreement in the electricity market reform that aims to make electricity prices less dependent on volatile fossil fuel prices, shield consumers from price spikes, accelerate the deployment of renewable sources of energy and improve consumer protection;

K.  whereas climate change and climate-related disasters exacerbate the cost of living crisis and have a particular impact on women, since statistically women are at greater risk of poverty; whereas the groups already living on the margins are being hit the hardest by the volatility of the fossil fuel energy system, while major economic groups such as energy and food companies are making record profits;

L.  whereas energy poverty represents a huge challenge and a serious social problem for the EU; whereas even before the current crisis, in 2021, 6,9 % of all Union households were behind on their utility bills, and 6,4 % indicated that they were unable to keep their homes warm; whereas, in 2020, almost 15 % of all households lived in homes with leaks, broken roofs or rot(31);

M.  whereas, in 2022, over 41 million Europeans were unable to keep their homes adequately warm; whereas this number is equivalent to the populations of Greece, Portugal, Hungary and Sweden put together, which means that those people have to choose between heating their homes and buying food; whereas it is estimated that the figure could be much higher, with the EU Energy Poverty Observatory (EPOV) placing the number at more than 50 million households affected; whereas energy poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, considered to be caused by a combination of low income, high energy costs and poor energy efficiency in buildings;

N.  whereas buildings account for 40 % of final energy consumption in the EU and 36 % of its energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, and 75 % of EU buildings are still energy inefficient;

O.  whereas energy poverty is compounded by existing gender inequalities, particularly those relating to income, such as the gender pay, pension and participation gap; whereas the gender pay gap still stands at 12,7 % across the EU(32); whereas the cumulative effect of these gendered income disparities throughout a woman’s lifetime leads to women receiving a retirement income which, in the EU, is on average 35 % lower than that received by men; whereas the right to equal pay for equal work is not always upheld and remains one of the biggest challenges in efforts to overcome pay discrimination; whereas considerable disparities persist in the gender pension gap across EU Member States, ranging from 2,6 % in Estonia to 46,1 % in Malta; whereas the gender pension gap leads to women being at a higher risk of old-age poverty and social exclusion;

P.  whereas women, particularly single mothers and those experiencing intersectional discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, race, migration status, sexual orientation, disability or age, are more likely to fall into energy poverty; whereas this means that the ongoing cost of living crisis will exacerbate gendered energy poverty in the EU; whereas further gender and intersectional equality disaggregated data is needed; whereas, according the UN, the world is facing the largest cost of living crisis for a generation;

Q.  whereas in 2022 more than one fifth of the EU’s population living in households with dependent children was at risk of poverty or social exclusion; whereas in late 2022, 44 % of single mothers and 31 % of single women anticipated difficulties affording energy costs over the coming months(33);

R.  whereas the energy crises and the higher share of energy costs in women’s total income reduces their financial capacity to build an autonomous existence making it harder for women without an income or with a low income to escape domestic violence and abuse from a partner to whom they are financially tied;

S.  whereas energy poverty is associated with significant impacts on human physical and psychological health as, for instance cold room temperatures are linked to increased risks of stress, sleep disruption, respiratory illnesses and circulatory diseases(34); whereas women face significant health and safety risks from household air pollution, and from a lack of lighting and, according to a WHO study, women have a higher relative risk than men of developing adverse health outcomes due to exposure to smoke from solid fuels, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer; whereas cold housing and associated health risks have been recognised as one potential cause of excess winter mortality(35);

T.  whereas rural, inland, ultra-peripheral areas and areas at high risk of depopulation are particularly exposed to energy poverty, due to the lower relative incomes of households located in these areas and given the specific energy needs of farmers’ households; whereas additionally there are fewer investments in improving energy efficiency in housing; whereas women living in these areas are more susceptible to falling into energy poverty and are disproportionately affected by inadequate access to clean and affordable energy as they are often the primary users of household energy;

U.  whereas there is little awareness or data available on the impact of energy poverty on women in the EU; whereas the EU Energy Poverty Observatory does not provide gender-disaggregated data in its publicly accessible set of indicators; whereas only a few Member States have adopted definitions of energy poverty and energy poverty indicators, which usually do not take gender into account;

V.  whereas not only can solar energy offer a solution to the current energy crisis, but it can also have a positive impact on gender equality and equity worldwide;

W.  whereas women in the energy sector tend to work more in firms where wages are lower, more so than in the non-energy sector; whereas just 20 % of senior management roles are held by women in the energy sector and thus women play an insufficient role at the management level of energy companies; whereas women’s full inclusion in these positions would help promote innovation, implement new ways of management and promote diversity in the workforce, thus fostering a positive cycle of gender equality contributing to the green energy transition;

X.  whereas according to the UN, women can be powerful agents of change in the clean energy transition; whereas creating an enabling environment for women’s entrepreneurship and sustainable energy will also require collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders from within the private sector; whereas addressing the existing gender gaps in access to finance, information, technology, goods and services, is important to reduce the investment risks and encourage access to corporate funding for women entrepreneurs in sustainable energy;

Y.  whereas increasing women’s access to sustainable energy and opportunities is a prerequisite for poverty alleviation and women’s economic empowerment worldwide;

Z.  whereas according to the World Economic Forum the energy sector is battling a regrettable lack of female science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics (STEAM) graduates, which reduces the pool of potential applicants; whereas women make up 52 % of the European population and the majority of tertiary graduates in the EU, yet only represent 17,9 % of full professors in engineering and technology fields(36), account for two out of five scientists and engineers and therefore make up only 34 % of the workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers(37); whereas the energy transition can gain significantly from women’s knowledge and experience;

AA.  whereas the Commission has not delivered on its commitment set out in the Gender Equality Strategy to integrate a gender perspective into all major Commission initiatives, including the European Green Deal and related policies;

AB.  whereas the Commission is obliged to promote gender equality under the Treaties; whereas, however, the European Court of Auditors considers that a gender perspective has not been integrated into the EU budget since key elements, such as gender analysis, gender-related objectives, indicators and accountability through reporting, are largely missing;

AC.  whereas gender equality concerns are largely missing from the green transition and digital transformation pillars of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which represents a missed opportunity to effectively integrate gender equality into climate and environmental objectives;

AD.  whereas a study requested by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) shows that men are often favoured over women and other marginalised groups when it comes to the design of subsidies and support under the Fit for 55 package, as well as in other policies, programmes and funding for the green transition;

AE.  whereas the gender perspective is missing from the Member States’ and EU’s policies and measures aimed at countering and alleviating the effects of the cost of living crisis; whereas about two thirds of the measures introduced by Member States to mitigate rising inflation rates are not targeted at particular groups in vulnerable situations and only provide short-term solutions instead of responses that will contribute to a socially fair and green transition such as promoting energy saving or the transition to renewable energy sources;

AF.  whereas EU action should take into account the importance of the concept of climate justice and the commitment of all parties to the Paris Agreement to respect, promote and consider their obligations on human rights, including gender equality, when taking action to address climate change;

Gender-sensitive solutions to energy poverty and the rising cost of living

1.  Calls on the Commission to deliver on the positive commitment made by President von der Leyen to promote gender equality in all policymaking and stresses that more needs to be done since a gender perspective is lacking in the main climate, energy and environmental initiatives presented; calls for the European Green Deal to ensure a just and socially fair transition that works for all by developing a gender-transformative intersectional strategy to address energy poverty and by increasing public investment in social, affordable and energy-efficient housing, taking into account the specific needs of women, who often significantly contribute towards household energy management, yet lack equal access to resources;

2.  Regrets that Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/2407 of 20 October 2023 on energy poverty(38) and the accompanying guidance(39) fail to recognise the gendered aspects of energy poverty and the essential need for gender disaggregated data to adequately assess the needs of vulnerable households as a key indicator; is concerned that the Commission did not embrace the numerous calls of the European Parliament, civil society and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) to develop gender specific indicators to ensure that the green transition is socially fair;

3.  Calls for the EU to promote an extraordinary package to support people struggling with skyrocketing costs of living, including EUR 100 billion for families, especially single-parent families – the vast majority of which are headed by women – most affected by energy poverty and at least EUR 20 billion to scale up the European Child Guarantee scheme;

4.  Calls for the Member States and the EU to urgently guarantee affordable utilities and food for low-income households and, in particular, for those facing intersectional discrimination; stresses that no one should have to freeze in the depths of winter or overheat in the scorching summer months and calls for the Member States and the EU to ban energy disconnections; stresses that increasing energy efficiency through housing renovation should be a priority across all Member States;

5.  Recalls that with more than 50 million people affected by energy poverty in the EU, financial assistance should be provided to support low-income households in compliance with minimum energy performance standards; considers it important that Member States guarantee access to electricity for vulnerable people;

6.  Recalls that energy poverty affects women disproportionately throughout the EU and therefore Member States should dedicate the necessary support to alleviate energy poverty among women;

7.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take urgent action to address poverty and increasing inequalities among women, especially among vulnerable groups, including single mothers, women with disabilities, women from racial and ethnic backgrounds, LGBTIQ+ persons, migrant and refugee women, elderly women and women in rural or depopulated areas; calls on the Commission to develop an ambitious 2030 European anti-poverty strategy, including time poverty, with concrete targets for reducing poverty and a focus on ending women’s poverty and breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty risks;

8.  Calls on the Member States to adopt specific measures to combat the risk of poverty in old age and take a gender sensitive approach when reforming pension systems, adapting the retirement age and strengthening pensions and social benefits and services such as long-term care, taking into account women’s under-representation in the labour market, as well as labour market segregation and gender-based discrimination;

9.  Calls on the Commission to assess and propose, where appropriate, new legislative acts to stop speculators from making access to energy unaffordable for women;

10.  Highlights that access to electricity plays a fundamental role in poverty reduction and in ensuring full and equal participation in society;

11.  Calls on the Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy to develop a gender action plan that ensures that all EU energy legislation, including the right to energy sharing as mentioned in Directive (EU) 2018/2001, integrates the gender dimension and develops specific measures, indicators and targeted funds to combat energy poverty, and in particular its gendered consequences;

12.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the inclusion of gender and intersectional dimensions in all schemes for energy efficiency and renewable electricity, including the right to energy sharing, so as to support those citizens most affected by energy poverty; recognises the contribution of women-led initiatives to sustainable energy solutions and the instrumental role of women in the design of such solutions at all levels, including the household, community, local, national and European levels;

13.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to mainstream gender equality into all policies in order to achieve the best response to the energy crisis, which disproportionately affects women; in this respect, calls on the Commission to prepare a report on the gender-related consequences of the rising cost of living due to the energy crisis, including a gender assessment of the implementation of its recommendation on energy poverty; calls on the Member States to monitor the prices of energy, transport and other essential goods in view of developing specific measures to combat the risk of social exclusion and poverty, focusing on access to affordable housing, transport, justice and energy;

14.  Calls on the Commission to require the Member States to conduct mandatory gender impact assessments in national energy and climate plans, including when reporting on energy poverty;

15.  Calls on the Commission to develop specific guidelines on how to ensure that Member States correctly apply gender mainstreaming and gender analysis when designing National Energy and Climate Plans (NECP), including measures and actions to alleviate energy poverty; considers that incorporating a gender analysis with an intersectional perspective in NECPs is key to promoting a socially fair energy transition;

16.  Calls on the Member States to increase public investment in policies that aim, directly or indirectly, to counteract the negative effects of the cost of living crisis on women in all their diversity, protecting victims of gender-based violence and to guarantee access to high-quality public and free services for care, education, health, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and affordable housing, transport and energy, as well as access to decent employment; calls on the Member States to pay special attention to rural, inland, ultra-peripheral regions and regions at risk of depopulation that often lack adequate provision of these services;

17.  Highlights that the impact of high inflation and energy costs are undermining public services, which women are more likely to rely on and in which women are more likely to work; stresses the fact that cuts in the Member States’ budgets for childcare, education and preschool activities and carers have direct implications for women who take on the majority of the additional tasks entailed; calls on the Member States to increase funding for the social infrastructure in particular for healthcare and care services and prioritise social housing and the investment in retrofitting homes to reduce energy costs;

18.  Stresses that the cost-of-energy crisis, together with the cost-of-living crisis, is having a negative impact on women’s economic and social inclusion, health and fundamental rights including sexual and reproductive health and rights; highlights that around one third of people say they gave up medical treatment in 2022, and more are reporting being forced to give up medical care owing to rising costs, longer waiting times, and shortages of doctors and medication;

19.  Calls for an adequate minimum income to be ensured, following the European recommendations, with a view to promote gender equality, income security and the economic independence of women; recalls that adequate minimum wages are a necessary safeguard to ensure a fairer wage distribution and to guarantee a basic wage floor that protects women; highlights that the above-mentioned instruments need to respect the rights established in collective agreements;

20.  Calls on the Commission to refrain from promoting any policy recommendation that would lead to an increase in precarious working relations, the deregulation of working hours, a reduction in salaries, an attack on collective bargaining or the privatisation of public services and social security;

21.  Calls for a public transport policy that takes account of gender equality, in particular by expanding and improving the public transport service and offering effective mobility so that women can find work and participate more actively in the labour market (and achieve a better work-life balance);

22.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that no artificial speculative bubble is created to the detriment of women’s welfare;

23.  Recalls that adequate housing is a fundamental right that must be protected and be recognised as a precondition for the exercise of, and access to, other fundamental rights and a life in dignity; regrets that as a result of discrimination and inequality in housing, many women live in insecure, undignified and unsafe conditions, and are at increased risk of homelessness and violence; stresses that forced evictions and other violations of the right to housing disproportionally impact women and reinforce existing inequalities, representing a significant barrier to gender equality; calls on the Commission to assess and propose, where appropriate, new legislative acts to mitigate the financialisation of housing markets and to stop speculators from making housing unaffordable;

24.  Calls on the Commission to give local authorities, including city authorities, the option to tighten their control over online housing rental platforms; calls on the Member States to increase the supply and choice of public housing available and address the impact of interest rate hikes caused by inflation;

25.  Calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to safeguard energy supplies in areas far from urban centres so that rural areas provide the minimum comfort conditions for women and families;

26.  Stresses that the burden placed on the most vulnerable consumers caused by energy market volatility can be significantly reduced by enhancing the energy efficiency of buildings;

27.  Calls on energy companies to take a proportional approach to disconnecting users from power, taking into account the needs, challenges and other difficulties of women, single mothers, disabled women, older women, girls, as well as women living in rural and inland areas during a cost of living crisis, which is inherent to the energy crisis;

28.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to integrate a gender and intersectional perspective in their definitions of energy poverty, so as to enable comparison and monitoring of this reality in a way that goes beyond the general concept of ‘vulnerable households’, thereby allowing a better understanding of the different situations within each household;

29.  Reiterates its calls on the Commission, Eurostat and the Member States to further develop and improve the collection of gender-disaggregated and intersectional data, statistics, research and analysis, as this is the only way to ensure that specific situations are not overlooked and serve as basis for informed policymaking;

30.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to request gender-disaggregated data on energy poverty from Eurostat; calls, in this respect, on the EU Energy Poverty Observatory to use such data to develop and select gender-specific indicators that would allow evidence-based policy development in that area, in consultation with the European Institute for Gender Equality, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Environment Agency;

31.  Believes that Member States should make more effort to include gender-disaggregated data in their national building renovation plans in order to better target policies and measures;

32.  Underlines the importance of fostering continuous gender-sensitive research and innovation in the renewable electricity industry;

33.  Calls for the Member States and the EU to urgently ensure affordable utilities for women-led SMEs, in particular, for those facing intersectional discrimination; recognises that female driven enterprises and local enterprises with a high percentage of women workers are often a vital part of the production of essential goods; stresses that women entrepreneurs should not assume a disproportionate burden of economic speculation and be granted equal access to the opportunities the green transition offers, while mitigating its unequal impact;

34.  Stresses that the principles of equal treatment and gender mainstreaming should lie at the core of the ‘energy efficiency first principle’ and be reflected in policy, planning and investment decisions;

Towards a gender-inclusive green transition

35.  Recalls that a just green transition is necessary to avoid severe future crises and increased poverty; recalls, furthermore, that the green transition will only be socially fair if it includes a gender perspective and guarantees equal opportunities for women and those experiencing intersectional discrimination as well as their meaningful inclusion in the policymaking process; calls, therefore, on the Commission to appoint an EU gender and climate coordinator with sufficient staff and funding, and to introduce gender impact assessments in all EU policies and legislation, in particular in European Green Deal initiatives;

36.  Recalls that extending access to green energy and promoting its affordability is central to achieving a more inclusive and sustainable development; recognises how rapidly falling renewable energy technology costs and new business models offer energy solutions that hold great promise to accelerate sustainable energy access for women in all their diversity;

37.  Stresses that women have a strategic and beneficial role to play in the green transition as they are key actors in the development of sustainable and ecologically sound consumption and production patterns as well as in business and policymaking at all levels; highlights the immediate need to recognise their potential in fostering sustainable energy and to contribute towards the achievement of multiple SDGs;

38.  Regrets that according to the UN, the potential of women as entrepreneurs in the energy sector is underutilised; calls on the Commission to support female sustainable-energy entrepreneurs and on Member States to close the existing gender gaps and to improve their access to information, technology, goods and services, markets and finance particularly by strengthening traditional and innovative financial intermediation services such as integrated web-based platforms;

39.  Commends local/national governments or private companies that are putting great efforts into addressing the social, economic dimensions of energy poverty and would urge them to continue this work by incorporating a gender perspective wherever possible and ensuring that the language/communication used is gender inclusive and offered in Braille to those who need it;

40.  Deplores the fact that women are significantly under-represented in key policymaking positions on climate change, the energy transition and the environment, and calls for the EU and the Member States for positive action measures such as temporary quotas to ensure equal and diverse representation in decision-making positions across the EU institutions, government bodies and public authorities at all governance levels and associated public bodies; calls on the Member States to promote the meaningful participation of women in gender-responsive planning, policies and programmes, including its fiscal planning and to ensure that such policies take into account the differential impacts of climate change and energy crises on women and men;

41.  Notes that in order to ensure that the EU’s workforce is fully prepared to actively work towards the achievement of its climate objectives, Member States should aim to reduce the gender disparity in the construction and building sector, including through their national energy and climate plans;

42.  Welcomes the fact that, as the leading environmental and gender equality agencies in the United Nations system, UNEP and UN Women have joined forces to develop a Global Programme to promote Women’s Entrepreneurship for sustainable energy; calls on the Commission and relevant EU agencies to take note of this programme and promote similar sustainable entrepreneurial energy objectives within the EU;

43.  Underlines that digital technology and platforms are becoming key in the overall process of providing education and training for women and girls as well as in many work selection processes; regrets the negative impacts of unequal access to technology, which may hinder the development of women’s and girls’ digital literacy and calls on the Commission to ensure that women and girls in all their diversity, including single women and elderly women and those women living in rural areas, inland areas and areas at high risk of depopulation are not disproportionately affected by energy poverty;

44.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to reduce the gender gap in the energy sector by tackling the under-representation of women in STEAM careers and to ensure that women have equal access to vocational training courses and awareness-raising courses in STEAM subjects including those on energy efficiency and sufficiency and to create a positive link between acquiring knowledge and developing skills essential for emerging job opportunities in the digital and green transition;

45.  Recognises that the ultimate objectives of inclusion, equality and achieving gender balance in the energy sector remain unmet; calls on the respective education authorities within Member States to particularly encourage girls to take an interest in the energy sector by fighting gender stereotypes in educational choices and to foster their confidence about possessing the needed skills to become employees, innovators and pioneers in the energy sector;

46.  Stresses that the energy sector is one of the most gender imbalanced industries in the EU, with women accounting only for 24 % labour force(40), as well as regarding its occupational and hierarchical gender segregation; calls on private and public energy companies to eradicate any form of discrimination on a gender basis or any other grounds as set out in Article 21 CFREU; stresses the need to fight against the persistence of structural gender inequalities that perpetuates the obstacles to entry and retention of workforce in the energy sector, including respecting and promoting the use of maternity and paternity rights; underlines that energy companies which promote equality represent more appealing working environments for all their employees and potential employees;

47.  Welcomes the initiatives promoting women to become solar, wind power, geothermal and hydroelectric energy entrepreneurs, as this benefits the women involved as well as the wider community, and calls on the Member States to identify any barriers that prevent women working in these sectors; calls on private companies within the energy sector to ensure that solar, wind power, geothermal and hydroelectric energy technology, and its female innovators, are empowered to support the energy transition;

48.  Notes the Commission’s key objectives within its EU solar energy strategy, which seeks to make EU solar energy systems more competitive and resilient; recognises how solar, wind power, geothermal and hydroelectric energy is giving more women access to energy, particularly in rural areas; highlights the need to integrate women’s safety concerns in relation to the use of lighting when designing and planning urban and mobility policies in view of promoting public spaces that are safe and free of harassment;

49.  Calls on the Commission and the Council to commit to gender budgeting and to ensure that it is applied to the entire EU budget, and that the European Court of Auditor’s recommendations are fully implemented, including in the mid-term review of the current multiannual financial framework and the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 94. (2) OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1. (3) OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82. (4) OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 125. (5) OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17. (6) OJ L 132, 17.5.2023, p. 21. (7) OJ C 479, 16.12.2022, p. 75. (8) OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 2. (9) European Court of Auditors, ‘Gender mainstreaming in the EU budget: time to turn words into action’, 26 May 2021. (10) OJ L 357, 27.10.2020, p. 35. (11) The International Energy Agency, End-Use Prices Data Explorer, 28 April 2023. (12) The International Monetary Fund, ‘The Fog of War Clouds the European Outlook’, October 2022. (13) Eurostat, Living conditions in Europe, 2022. (14) Eurostat, Energy prices on the rise in the euro area in 2021, 10 February 2022. (15) Eurofound, ‘The cost-of-living crisis and energy poverty in the EU: Social impact and policy responses – Background paper’, October 2022. (16) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), 2021 Gender Equality Index. (17) EIGE, 2022 Gender Equality Index. (18) European Union, EP Autumn 2022 Survey: Parlemeter, January 2023. (19) WEF, This is why women are bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis, according to research, January 2023. (20) European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Gender perspective on access to energy in the EU, 18 December 2017. (21) European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Gender Aspects of Energy Poverty, 1 March 2023. (22) European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, The Gender Dimension and Impact of the Fit for 55 Package, 6 December 2023. (23) European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, Energy poverty in the EU, 18 September 2023. (24) OJ C 385, 22.9.2021, p. 68. (25) OJ C 465, 17.11.2021, p. 62. (26) OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 145. (27) OJ C 251, 30.6.2022, p. 58. (28) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0339. (29) Eurostat, Energy prices on the rise in the euro area in 2021, 10 February 2022. (30) The gender security project, Can 70 % of the World’s Poor Celebrate International Women’s Day? March 2022. (31) Eurostat, EU statistics on income and living conditions. (32) European Commission, The gender pay gap situation in the EU. (33) Eurofound, The cost-of-living crisis and energy poverty in the EU: Social impact and policy responses – Background paper, October 2022. (34) EIGE Gender Equality Index 2023. (35) EIGE Gender Equality Index 2023. (36) European Commission, She figures 2021, November 2021. (37) European Commission, Towards a manifesto for gender-inclusive STE(A)M education and careers, October 2022. (38) OJ L, 2023/2407, 23.10.2023. (39) Commission Recommendation on energy poverty. EU guidance on energy poverty. Accompanying document (SWD(2023)0647). (40) EIGE, Gender Equality Index 2023.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on geothermal energy (2023/2111(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0049 A9-0432/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)(1),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652(2),

–  having regard to the amendments adopted by Parliament on 14 March 2023 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast)(3),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Amending Regulations (EU) 2019/943 and (EU) 2019/942 as well as Directives (EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 to improve the Union’s electricity market design,

–  having regard to the amendments adopted by Parliament on 14 September 2023 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020(4),

–  having regard to the amendments adopted by Parliament on 21 November 2023 on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology products manufacturing ecosystem (Net Zero Industry Act) (COM(2023)0161)(5),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 May 2022 entitled ‘REPowerEU Plan’ (COM(2022)0230),

–  having regard to the amendments adopted by Parliament on 14 December 2022 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency(6),

–  having regard to the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Regulation (EU) 2019/2088(7) and the associated Delegated Regulation establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives(8),

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 813/2013 of 2 August 2013 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for space heaters and combination heaters(9),

–  having regard to Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(10),

–  having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138 of 21 December 2022 laying down a list of specific high-value datasets and the arrangements for their publication and re-use(11),

–  having regard to the International Renewable Energy Agency report of February 2023 entitled ‘Global geothermal market and technology assessment’(12),

–  having regard to the report of the Clean Energy Technology Observatory entitled ‘Deep Geothermal Heat and Power in the European Union – 2022 Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value Chains and Markets’(13),

–  having regard to the report of the Clean Energy Technology Observatory entitled ‘Overall Strategic Analysis of Clean Energy Technology in the European Union – 2022 Status Report’(14),

–  having regard to the European Commission study entitled ‘Geothermal plants and applications emissions: overview and analysis’(15),

–  having regard to the Commission report entitled ‘District heating and cooling in the EU – Overview of markets and regulatory frameworks under the revised Renewable Energy Directive’(16),

–  having regard to the Joint Research Centre report entitled ‘The heat pump wave: opportunities and challenges’(17),

–  having regard to the European Commission 2023 study entitled ‘Overview of heating and cooling - Perceptions, markets and regulatory frameworks for decarbonisation’(18),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2021 on the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive(19),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 July 2020 on a comprehensive European approach to energy storage(20) and the Commission recommendation of 14 March 2023 on Energy Storage – Underpinning a decarbonised and secure EU energy system(21),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 January 2021 on access to decent and affordable housing for all(22),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A9-0432/2023),

A.  whereas geothermal energy is a valuable and local source of renewable energy that can provide, in a cost-effective way, dispatchable electricity, heat or a combination of both and has great potential for the power sector and for heat production, as well as for sustainable production of raw materials and can be a source of quality jobs;

B.  whereas the EU solar energy strategy stated that the proportion of the energy demand covered by solar heat and geothermal must increase at least threefold if the EU is to meet its 2030 climate and energy targets;

C.  whereas the production and use of energy account for more than 75 % of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions; whereas regrettably more than a half of final energy consumption in the residential sector for space heating is covered by fossil fuels(23);

D.  whereas the energy price crisis and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have demonstrated the urgent need to increase Europe’s open strategic autonomy; whereas geothermal heating, cooling and power has already contributed to the EU’s efforts to reduce imports of fossil fuels;

E.  whereas geothermal energy can contribute to the objectives laid out in the REPowerEU Plan, especially to increasing the production of clean energy and diversifying energy supplies and it has the potential to provide reliable and affordable electricity and heat to industries and businesses, particularly to SMEs, strengthening their competitiveness, as well as to citizens, addressing, among other things, the problem of energy poverty;

F.  whereas geothermal energy is a renewable, constant and reliable source of energy that is readily accessible once the necessary infrastructure is in place and that provides a net-zero and local solution to decarbonise district heating networks, in line with the Energy Efficiency Directive’s(24) definition of ‘efficient district heating and cooling systems’, and which can contribute to building local ‘energy communities’ and to collective self-sufficiency in renewable energy consumption;

G.  whereas the energy sector’s integration of geothermal technologies will play a crucial role in enhancing the flexibility and efficiency of the energy sector and decreasing its carbon footprint;

H.  whereas heat pumps and geothermal energy technologies are listed as strategic net-zero technologies for Europe in the annex of the Commission’s proposal for a Net Zero Industry Act;

I.  whereas the industry estimates that geothermal energy can supply more than 75 % of the heating and cooling consumed in Europe and over 15 % of its electrical power by 2040;

J.  whereas the comprehensive policy conditions and frameworks needed to boost the development and use of geothermal energy in Europe are still absent at EU level; whereas advances in different policy areas at national level are also urgently needed so as to enable geothermal actors to boost deployment of projects through improved research, strengthening of the supply chain, efficient support schemes and increased public awareness.

Development and potential

1.  Notes that the development of technologies has broadened the area suitable for cost-efficient geothermal projects and their scope;

2.  Stresses the potential of the ubiquitous low-temperature, shallow geothermal resources that are available in all Member States; highlights the potential of deep-geothermal energy that can be directly used for heat and power generation;

3.  Notes that geothermal energy still often plays a peripheral role in the discussion on renewable energy; draws attention to the fact that geothermal installations do not require critical raw materials to the same extent as other renewables; notes that, based on a sustainable life-cycle approach, geothermal has low environmental impact and typically requires limited land use and can easily be integrated into the landscape;

4.  Emphasises that geothermal energy offers long-term benefits that can outweigh the high upfront costs associated with its development, such as its being a sustainable source of energy with a low environmental impact, stable and predictable energy costs, low operating costs, long lifespan and reliability that creates business and employment opportunities in local communities, and helps to reduce dependence on imported fuels;

5.  Regrets that the potential of geothermal energy has not been sufficiently exploited sooner and that its recent uptake is largely being driven by the energy crisis and an urgent need to ease the socio-economic pressure of demand for heating and cooling in Europe; warns that that influx of subsidised gas, limited public awareness and high upfront investments needed have been effectively hampering the development of geothermal energy for years;

6.  Underlines the potential of geothermal energy to make a substantial contribution to attaining key strategic objectives within the EU, including reaching climate targets by decarbonising different industrial sectors, bolstering the EU’s open strategic autonomy by strengthening energy security needs, eliminating fossil-fuel dependencies on unreliable third countries, such as Russia, increasing the competitiveness of European industries and empowering consumers thanks to an affordable and reliable supply of heat and electricity;

7.  Stresses that the process of extracting raw materials from geothermal brines in an environmentally sustainable way could help contribute to securing a local and reliable supply of strategic critical raw materials, including lithium, therefore strengthening the EU’s economic resilience; notes, in this regard, that facilities that extract both geothermal energy and raw materials induce higher employment effects than traditional geothermal plants as well as attract businesses looking to use multiple resource streams;

8.  Draws attention to geothermal solutions that are able to store excess wind and solar energy for subsequent use in heating, cooling and power production, and their crucial role in the development of renewable-based energy systems; stresses in this regard the role of inactive mines that are particularly well suited to large scale seasonal thermal storage and long-duration electrical storage; underlines the potential of geothermal energy for grid balancing and auxiliary services due to its high capacity factor, flexibility of supply and dispatchable potential;

9.  Stresses that the greatest potential of geothermal energy use in the EU lies in district heating and cooling systems and networks of shallow geothermal installations; highlights that they can provide local, baseload and flexible renewable energy and protection against volatile and rising fossil fuel prices; stresses that geothermal can help to decarbonising heating and cooling sector that accounts for almost half of the EU’s overall final energy consumption and contributes up to 35 % of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions related to energy use; notes the potential and growing need for geothermal district cooling that will be an important element of sustainable adaptation to climate change in cities as warmer temperatures and heat waves are expected to become more frequent;

10.  Notes the substantial potential of geothermal heat for industrial processes, in particular for low to medium energy intensive processes (below 200 degrees), representing up to half of industrial heat production in Europe; stresses, in this regard, that developing the use of geothermal heat for this purpose would boost the competitiveness of European companies by providing a reliable and affordable source of heat;

11.  Underlines also the potential of geothermal heat in domestic food production, in particular for the production of agricultural products, horticulture, and aquaculture; notes that there are already successful examples of geothermal application in these sectors in different European regions; underlines that the use of geothermal heat will contribute to decarbonisation of these sectors and to more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices, while reducing production costs, high energy costs, price volatility for producers as well as promoting resilience in food systems;

12.  Notes the potential of cascaded use, where the same geothermal fluid is used for multiple purposes; stresses the need to foster cross-industry synergies between geothermal and other sectors, including through shared use of sites, infrastructure, data and workforce skills;

13.  Considers that the presence of geothermal energy should be taken into account when designating the geographical location of ‘net-zero industry valleys’ as part of the Net-Zero Industry Act;

Policy recommendations

14.  Calls on the Commission to present an EU geothermal strategy giving concrete guidance to Member States and local administrations to accelerate the deployment of geothermal energy in order to decarbonise heating and contribute to the EU’s energy independence and to meet the objective of at least tripling the share of energy demand covered by solar heat and geothermal energy by 2030 as announced in the EU Solar Strategy; highlights that 151 businesses and industries called on the Commission in 2022 to prepare a European strategy to unlock the potential of geothermal energy;

15.  Stresses that national and EU-wide measures for geothermal energy should be based on an assessment of Europe’s geothermal potential, taking into account the diverse geological and climate conditions, and an estimate of the cost-efficiency of deploying geothermal solutions;

16.  Calls on the Commission to base the strategy on a comprehensive assessment of the potential of geothermal energy in the shallow, medium, deep, and ultra-deep subsurface across all 27 Member States; notes that this assessment should help identify the potential of geothermal energy for various uses, including but not limited to, district heating, cooling, industrial processes, food production, heat pumps, electricity generation, and renewable hydrogen and lithium production; notes that this study should also assess the impact of developing geothermal energy on the decarbonisation of the economy, job creation, competitiveness, empowering of consumers, and cost-effectiveness compared to other energy sources;

17.  Calls on the Commission to address in the strategy the obstacles for the development of geothermal projects, including cross-borders issues and to provide a guide on best practices in geothermal energy use in the EU for national and local authorities, project developers, and financial institutions;

18.  Welcomes the growing awareness of, and support for, geothermal at national level; asks the Member States to follow the example of countries that have developed geothermal roadmaps, targets and dedicated policy measures for geothermal(25); stresses the need to facilitate the exchange of information about these measures and data to support geothermal policies and to promote existing best practices and knowledge sharing;

19.  Calls on the Commission to establish a ‘geothermal alliance’, including Member States, geothermal adoption enablers, industry, the scientific community and civil society that would facilitate the exchange of best practices and to implement the future geothermal strategy;

20.  Asks the Commission to explore the potential of geothermal energy to contribute to objectives production of clean hydrogen established in the REPowerEU plan;

Geothermal district heating and cooling

21.  Underlines the need to modernise existing heating and cooling networks and build new ones using the potential of geothermal energy; calls on the Commission and the Member States to create strong incentives to support the above and to favour 4th and 5th generation heating and cooling systems; notes that the development of heating and cooling networks is integral to the preparation of comprehensive municipal heating plans, as required by the Energy Efficiency Directive, and is aligned with the objectives of national energy and climate plans; calls on the Commission to provide the Member States with guidelines for the preparation of these plans, including for the assessment of geothermal potential;

22.  Welcomes the growing number of projects involving conversion of existing district heating and cooling (DHC) infrastructure into geothermal-based DHC; emphasises in particular the potential of such conversions in Central and Eastern European countries, where they can significantly contribute to decarbonisation policies; stresses that these actions should be broadly supported by the Modernisation, Just Transition and Cohesion Funds; calls for investments supported by the Modernisation Fund, which support the conversion of exiting district heating systems, to always consider the potential for geothermal energy to be supplied to such systems;

23.  Expresses concern that all too often the development of geothermal projects is prevented or significantly delayed by the lack of developed district heating and cooling networks; stresses the need to ensure coordination between energy companies and local authorities to jointly plan, invest and manage district heating and cooling networks;

24.  Draws attention to the fact that some of recent geothermal DHC projects have been implemented with new business models allowing private companies, including utility companies, to build public infrastructure on behalf of local authorities; invites Member States to explore innovative regulatory possibilities to foster the development of geothermal DHC;

25.  Highlights the importance of making data available from existing district heating networks, including the level of modernisation and heat demand, to geothermal stakeholders across Europe; underscores that this data is crucial to evaluating the potential of a region and engage with local authorities throughout the initial stages of a project; calls on the Commission to facilitate and coordinate the availability of existing DHC data;

Data availability

26.  Notes the lack of easy access to subsurface data is currently an important barrier to de-risking and thereby the fast deployment of geothermal energy projects; underscores that easy and equitable access to subsurface data in Member States is crucial for the project appraisal phase; underlines, furthermore, that this lack of data access prevents scientists from creating the geological models that are essential to predict the potential and yield of geothermal energy in a given subsurface area and are thus crucial in reducing uncertainty for project developers;

27.  Urges the Member States and the Commission to explore methods of collecting different types of geological data from public and private entities with a view to organising, systematising and making it available to the public by expanding existing basic geological databases using the digital formats for collection of the data and making it available; notes that this should be achieved in compliance with applicable rules on data protection, on protection of commercially sensitive data, including the protection of trade secrets, and the protection of intellectual property rights, as well as security considerations and, where necessary, include incentives or compensation for data sharing by private entities; expresses opinion that publicly funded geological data needed for geothermal projects (such as those obtained due to public support received for exploratory drilling) should be made available to the public within a short period of time set by the Member State concerned; draws attention to the fact that in some Member States geological data held by private entities is made available free of charge to the public after a certain period of time;

28.  Urges the Commission to explore the benefits of and barriers to harmonising national legislation on granting access to subsurface data and the storing of geological data on a centralised portal at the EU level that is freely and easily accessible to all;

29.  Stresses that in areas with insufficient subsurface data, governments can play a role in funding geothermal resource mapping and exploratory drilling; welcomes the fact that some Member States have already taken steps in this direction; calls on the Commission to continue supporting this data collection through relevant projects, such as European Geological Data Infrastructure (EGDI), which aims to create a EU-wide atlas of geothermal resources; highlights the relevance of the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS), which can provide reliable land temperature data, which is particularly useful for surface geothermal energy;

30.  Emphasises the geothermal potential of repurposing inactive oil and gas wells and mines; calls on the Member States, in cooperation with oil, gas and coal companies, to prepare public inventories and maps, including specifications, of depleted, abandoned and end-of-life hydrocarbon infrastructure that has the potential to be used as a geothermal resource; stresses the need to prioritise funds to carry out detailed studies of the conditions of this infrastructure in order to assess the potential of each site;

31.  Expresses its concern about the fragmented nature of statistics on geothermal energy; stresses that it is very difficult to assess deployment of geothermal energy in Europe because of the lack of standards for industry data reporting; calls on the Member States, in cooperation with the industry and the Commission, to overhaul existing statistical data collecting procedures for geothermal and to replicate best practices in the sector by creating standards for industry data reporting;

Funding

32.  Reiterates that uncertainty about subsurface resources makes it challenging to secure project funding; notes that the initial project phase, such as the exploration and construction phase, requires a significant amount of upfront costs and major entrepreneurial risks that hinder the investment decision calls on the Member States to explore financial de-risking solutions appropriate to the maturity of their local markets, such as grants, loans that are convertible to grants, state-backed guarantees, exploration insurance and hedging mechanisms, notes examples of risk coverage mechanisms that are backed up not only by public funds but also by contributions from the private sector; notes, in this regard, that an EU financial risk mitigation scheme would be particularly useful for the least mature markets in the geothermal sector; notes the importance of other de-risking measures such as granting easy access to subsurface data, sharing best practices on new types of business models offering synergies between public and private funding;

33.  Expresses concern that high upfront drilling and installation costs tend to discourage the selection of geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) in favour of less efficient technological solutions; calls on the Member States to explore possible financial incentives to bridge this gap, including through ‘pay as you save’ (PAYS) financing models; calls on the Commission to address this issue in the upcoming EU heat pump action plan;

34.  Stresses that high upfront costs are stunting the growth of geothermal energy, particularly for actors with limited financial resources, making them to favour investments that are more profitable in the short term, but offer lower environmental sustainability; calls on the Commission to take appropriate steps to ensure that geothermal projects are better taken into account when using existing European funds and instruments; asks the Commission to dedicate resources under existing funds to support exploration, development, modernisation of geothermal projects, particularly based on innovative technologies, and reskilling and upskilling of workers;

Regulatory issues

35.  Stresses that faster permitting rules for geothermal, in compliance with existing EU environmental legislation, would facilitate the deployment of geothermal energy projects across the EU; notes that deep geothermal energy projects are currently subject to laws designed for large-scale mining projects, which are difficult to comply with, particularly for smaller-scale geothermal projects; calls therefore on the Member States to review existing mining laws in order to better reflect the specificity of geothermal projects and to develop dedicated permitting rules for geothermal, while taking into account the fact that different geothermal technologies have significantly different impacts and risks for the geology and environment; asks the Commission to provide guidelines to ensure the requisite level of coherence, similar to the approach taken for the regulatory framework supporting CO2 storage (Directive 2009/31/EC(26));

36.  Draws attention to the fact that in some Member States project assessment deadlines are rooted in the tacit approval principle under clearly defined conditions unless a reply is required by EU or national law; calls on Member States to explore the benefits of, and barriers to, applying this principle to geothermal projects and to consider its introduction in their legislation;

37.  Expresses concern that geothermal projects encounter lengthy permitting processes; urges the Member States to create more efficient streamlined and digitalised permitting processes for new geothermal projects and for the expansion of existing facilities, including by creating a one-stop shop – where this has not been done already – for the whole permitting process across authorities and to provide support for local authorities to ensure their workforce is adequately skilled; believes that these one-stop shops should also promote information sharing about funding opportunities collected by the Commission via a centralised portal;

38.  Notes the differences between geothermal exploitation in urban and rural settings; draws attention to the specificity of urban geothermal heating projects and calls on the Member States to develop more efficient and streamlined permitting procedures for geothermal heating projects, including facilitating access to urban plots suitable for geothermal plants; calls, therefore, on the Commission to issue recommendations to distribution system operators on the modalities of working with local authorities to establish local heating and cooling plans with a focus on geothermal energy, in order to facilitate the integration of geothermal energy use in both urban management plans and modern approaches to underground space management;

39.  Notes that permits for geothermal installations must be made easier for project promoters to expand to cover the extraction of raw materials or the production of hydrogen from existing capacity under the same lease;

40.  Calls on the Commission to issue guidance for permitting agencies on best practices about managing shallow geothermal permitting applications and potential interference with drinking water to accelerate the permitting process while ensuring the full application of environmental standards;

41.  Regrets that a life-cycle analysis is being applied to geothermal energy but not to other renewables, which contradicts the technology-neutral approach of the Taxonomy Regulation(27), reduces the considerable potential of geothermal energy as a contribution to decarbonisation, especially in heat supply, and exposes it to unequal competitive conditions to other renewable energy sources; calls, therefore, on the Commission to review the classification of geothermal energy applications in the taxonomy provisions in order to put geothermal on an equal regulatory footing with wind and solar;

42.  Stresses that geothermal should have the same regulatory status, including in EU procurement, as already exists for other renewables, and in the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, as well as in any subsequent measures;

Workforce, training and skills

43.  Expresses its concern over the reported backlogs and delays in the installation of GHPs, the drilling of wells and the granting of the requisite permissions owing to a shortage of qualified staff; highlights that the need for a skilled workforce will further increase in future and urges the Member States, in collaboration with industry and, where appropriate, with trade unions, to step up measures for the skilling and reskilling of specialists for geothermal since having an adequate pool of workers will be critical to meeting the objectives for geothermal deployment;

44.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that certification schemes or equivalent qualification schemes are available, particularly for installers of small-scale shallow geothermal systems and heat pumps;

45.  Notes that only a limited number of university courses are dedicated to geothermal energy and are of short duration and optional, with the majority of classes offered only covering basic skills; therefore encourages the Member States to cooperate with educational establishments with a view to updating and strengthening degrees dedicated to geothermal energy so as to adequately train the future generations of workers in the sector; welcomes projects supported by Erasmus+ to remedy the lack of qualified junior graduates in the geothermal energy value chain, such as the Geo3En programme, which aims to lay the foundations for a future Erasmus Mundus Master’s degree in geothermal engineering; underlines, that the geothermal industry needs to raise awareness among students, and teaching staff about the geothermal sector and the career opportunities it offers;

Technology development

46.  Stresses that while the EU is the leader in geothermal research and development, high-value patents, publications and manufacturing, support measures for next-generation geothermal technologies are needed at European and national level in order to maintain this position, particularly in geothermal storage and industrial applications;

47.  Notes that investment in research and development (R&D) in the geothermal energy field has received considerably less funding than other sectors, with only two projects on geothermal energy being supported so far by the Innovation Fund; calls, therefore, on the Commission to support investments in R&D in geothermal technologies, such as, the development of reliable pump technology and new drilling techniques;

48.  Underlines, in particular, the importance of underground pumped hydroelectric and thermal storage projects; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support R&D in these solutions and to implement large-scale pilot plants; asks for broader support for these projects, particularly those developed on a basis of decommissioned mines and quarries that can be converted into water reservoirs, in calls of EU Innovation Fund and Horizon Europe framework, since this solution can be a vital piece in development of decarbonised electricity systems;

49.  Highlights that some Member States have expressed concerns over the lack of conformity of some imported heat pumps to their declared energy efficiency status; stresses that third-party conformity assessment (instead of self-declaration) should be discussed as part of the revision of the ecodesign energy labelling rules;

Territories in transition

50.  Stresses that the exploitation of geothermal potential, in particular for district heating, is one of the natural resources that can contribute to a just energy transition in the affected areas by offsetting job losses, as mines and other extractive facilities close, eradicating energy poverty, and strengthening the self-sufficiency of local communities and their administrations by reducing their dependence on energy imports;

51.  Regrets that the potential of repurposing for geothermal applications of depleted, abandoned and end-of-life hydrocarbon reservoirs as well as oil and gas wells is not being fully tapped;

52.  Draws attention to existing repurposing projects in decommissioned mines, where applied cavern thermal energy storage technology is able to provide heating or cooling; notes the development of projects which plan to use oil reservoirs for geothermal energy storage; takes note of ongoing projects to repurpose decommissioned oil and gas wells for geothermal applications, thereby greatly reducing exploration risks and drilling costs;

53.  Notes that many of these projects are being implemented by the fossil-fuel industry, which sees them as an opportunity to be part of the energy transition, and that there is a need for an even stronger, early involvement of this industry in exploring the potential for geothermal; stresses that early assessment of resources, while the mines are still accessible, ensures the more efficient development of their alternative use; notes that due consideration should be given to the liability regime;

54.  Calls on the Member States to make use of existing European funding opportunities to support the re-skilling of the workforce in transition areas, with a view to capitalising on the jobs arising from geothermal projects; notes that oil and gas industry skills can be applied to and be highly valuable for the geothermal sector; stresses, therefore, the need to attract and support relevant workers to the geothermal sector, including by the creation of incentives and training programmes;

55.  Draws attention to the specific needs of the outermost regions to develop renewable energy sources in line with their geographical, geological and meteorological characteristics; points out that, due to their geographical remoteness, these regions are not connected to European energy grids; notes that a large proportion of the outermost regions are volcanic territories, presenting high potential for the production of both surface and deep geothermal energy; underlines the essential role that geothermal energy can play in these regions to guarantee their energy autonomy;

Visibility and public acceptance

56.  Draws attention to the online mapping of existing geothermal installations in a given city or region as a good practice that can raise the visibility of geothermal solutions and help support public and private investment decisions;

57.  Notes that public acceptance remains a challenge for geothermal projects, particularly on the basis of environmental concerns such as the possible interference with ground water, non-condensable gas emissions, over-exploitation of water resources, and seismic activity; recalls the importance of maintaining high environmental and scientific standards throughout all stages of geothermal energy projects and of taking a sustainable life-cycle assessment approach; stresses that strict observance of these requirements, transparency of the investment, greater stakeholder engagement, and involvement of local communities in the planning and implementation phases can serve as an efficient way of addressing public concerns and overcoming distrust; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the geothermal industry and Member States, to develop guidelines and best practices for cooperation between project promoters and local authorities and communities in order to build trust, foster support and create mutually beneficial relationships;

International cooperation

58.  Stresses the need to share best practices, technological know-how, results of research and innovation on geothermal technologies with partner countries and organisations that have already developed deep and surface geothermal energy on a larger scale or are in process of implementing ambitious plans to rapidly grow the geothermal energy sector;

59.  Highlights the importance of inclusion of geothermal energy in the cooperation agenda with developing countries in a view of transfer of environmentally sound technologies, knowledge sharing and capacity building to meet growing energy demand;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1. (2) OJ L, 2023/2413, 31.10.2023. (3) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0068. (4) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0325. (5) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0401. (6) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0441. (7) Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector, OJ L 317, 9.12.2019, p. 1. (8) OJ L 442, 9.12.2021, p. 1. (9) OJ L 239, 6.9.2013, p. 136. (10) OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1. (11) OJ L 19, 20.1.2023, p. 43. (12) ISBN: 978-92-9260-495-0. (13) Bruhn, D. et al., Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Deep Geothermal Heat and Power in the European Union – 2022 Status Report on Technology Development, Trends, Value Chains and Markets, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022. (14) Georgakaki, A. et al., Clean Energy Technology Observatory: Overall Strategic Analysis of Clean Energy Technology in the European Union – 2022 Status Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022. (15) Ernst & Young, RINA Consulting S.p.A , Vito Study on ‘Geothermal plants’ and applications’ emissions: Overview and analysis, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020. (16) Bacquet, A., Galindo Fernández, M., Oger, A. et al., District heating and cooling in the European Union – Overview of markets and regulatory frameworks under the revised Renewable Energy Directive. Annexes 6 and 7 – Final version, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. (17) Toleikyte, A., et al., The Heat Pump Wave: Opportunities and Challenges, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023. (18) Breitschopf, B., et al., Overview of heating and cooling – Perceptions, markets and regulatory frameworks for decarbonisation – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023. (19) OJ C 251, 30.6.2022, p. 58. (20) OJ C 371, 15.9.2021, p. 58. (21) OJ C 103, 20.3.2023, p. 1. (22) OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 145. (23) Eurostat 2021, Energy consumption in households. (24) Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1. (25) Such as the national initiatives launched by Poland (Multi-year Program for the Development of the Use of Geothermal Resources in Poland – 2022), France (National Action Plan on Geothermal Energy – 2023), and Germany (The German Geothermal Energy Strategy 2022). (26) Directive 2009/31/EC of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 114). (27) Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13).

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union – annual report 2022 and 2023 (2023/2028(INI))

P9_TA(2024)0050 A9-0376/2023

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’),

–  having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union(1),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget(2) (the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014(3),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’)(4),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural person with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)(5),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law(6),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law(7),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(8) and to the ongoing infringement proceedings launched by the Commission based on this Directive against several Member States, out of which one has been referred by the Commission to the Court of Justice,

–  having regard to the Council Recommendation of 12 March 2021 on Roma equality, inclusion and participation (2021/C 93/01)(9),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 9 January 2023 entitled ‘Assessment report of the Member States’ national Roma strategic frameworks’ (COM(2023)0007),

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1534 of 16 September 2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union(10),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 9 December 2021 entitled ‘A more inclusive and protective Europe: extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime’ (COM(2021)0777),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 5 March 2020 entitled ‘A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0152),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 June 2020 entitled ‘EU Strategy on victims’ rights 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0258),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 12 November 2020 entitled ‘Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0698),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 2 March 2022 on combating racism and antisemitism,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 2 December 2020 entitled ‘Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU’ (COM(2020)0711),

–  having regard to the Commission report of 6 December 2022 entitled ‘A thriving civic space for upholding fundamental rights in the EU – 2022 Annual Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (COM(2022)0716),

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/681 of 8 December 2022 on procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions(11),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 5 July 2023 entitled ‘2023 Rule of Law Report – The rule of law situation in the European Union’ (COM(2023)0800), the 27 country chapters and its accompanying recommendations to the Member States,

–  having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights, including its third principle on equal opportunities, and to the Commission communication of 4 March 2021 entitled ‘The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan’ (COM(2021)0102),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2022 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’) (COM(2022)0177) (‘the anti-SLAPP directive’), and its accompanying recommendation,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2022 on establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (COM(2022)0457) (‘the Media Freedom Act’), and its accompanying recommendation on internal safeguards for editorial independence and ownership transparency in the media sector(12),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council directive of 7 December 2022 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation between persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and men in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services, and deleting Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC and Article 12 of Directive 2004/113/EC (COM(2022)0689),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council regulation of 7 December 2022 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood (COM(2022)0695),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 December 2022 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation, and deleting Article 20 of Directive 2006/54/EC and Article 11 of Directive 2010/41/EU (COM(2022)0688),

–  having regard to the reports of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), in particular its fundamental rights reports for the years 2022 and 2023, including FRANET country reports,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the UN instruments on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the recommendations and reports of the UN Universal Periodic Review, the case-law of the UN Treaty Bodies and the special procedures of the Human Rights Council,

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

–  having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, which was opened for signature in Istanbul on 11 May 2011 (‘the Istanbul Convention’) and was ratified by the European Union on 28 June 2023,

–  having regard to the recommendations and reports of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the High Commissioner on National Minorities and other bodies of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe report of 23 March 2023 entitled ‘Human Rights Defenders in the Council of Europe Area in Times of Crises’ following the round-table with human rights defenders organised by the Office of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, held in Dublin on 24-25 October 2022(13),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,

–  having regard to the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe,

–  having regard to the statements, recommendations and reports of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights,

–  having regard to the recommendations and reports of the Council of Europe, in particular of the Venice Commission, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), GREVIO and GRECO,

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU(14),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2019 on gender equality and taxation policies in the EU(15),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the EU: the undue use of actions under civil and criminal law to silence journalists, NGOs and civil society(16),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2021 on the evaluation of preventive measures for avoiding corruption, irregular spending and misuse of EU and national funds in case of emergency funds and crisis-related spending areas(17),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2022 with recommendations to the Commission on a statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations(18),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2022 on the shrinking space for civil society in Europe(19),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2022 on the rule of law and the consequences of the ECJ ruling(20),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2022 on the rule of law and the potential approval of the Polish national recovery plan (RRF)(21),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2022 on intersectional discrimination in the European Union: the socio-economic situation of women of African, Middle-Eastern, Latin-American and Asian descent(22),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2022 on the proposal for a Council decision determining, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded(23),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 October 2022 on the situation of Roma people living in settlements in the EU(24),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2022 on suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the European institutions(25),

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2022 on the US Supreme Court decision to overturn abortion rights in the United States and the need to safeguard abortion rights and women’s health in the EU(26),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 May 2022 on the persecution of minorities on the grounds of belief or religion(27),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2022 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary(28),

–  having regard to its Decision (EU) 2023/325 of 18 October 2022 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) for the financial year 2020(29),

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2022 on growing hate crimes against LGBTIQ+ people across Europe in light of the recent homophobic murder in Slovakia(30),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 November 2022 on racial justice, non-discrimination and anti-racism in the EU(31),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2022 towards equal rights for persons with disabilities(32),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 April 2023 on combating discrimination in the EU – the long-awaited horizontal anti-discrimination directive(33),

–  having regard to its position of 10 May 2023 on the draft Council decisions on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regards to institutions and public administration of the Union(34), as well as with regard to matters related to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, asylum and non-refoulement,

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2023 on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-US Data Privacy Framework(35),

–  having regard to its report and recommendation of 22 May 2023 on the investigation of alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware,

–  having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2023 on the breaches of the Rule of Law and fundamental rights in Hungary and frozen EU funds(36),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 July 2023 on public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-2021(37),

–  having regard to its resolution of 4 October 2023 on the segregation and discrimination of Roma children in education(38),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0376/2023),

A.  whereas the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 TEU and the Charter, and embedded in international human rights treaties; whereas these values should be shared and upheld and actively promoted by the EU and the Member States in their internal and external action; whereas, in recent years, some Member States have shown a worrying decline in respect for these values;

B.  whereas democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing values, which, when undermined, pose a systemic threat to the Union and the rights and freedoms of all people in the EU; whereas respect for the rule of law is binding on the Union as a whole and its Member States at all levels of governance;

C.  whereas free, independent and transparent elections are a pillar of democracy;

D.  whereas the increasing spread of disinformation poses a threat to the democratic functioning of the Union; whereas reducing the manipulation of information is a matter of public interest; whereas disinformation reduces the ability of EU citizens and residents to make fact-based decisions and participate freely in democratic processes; whereas independent and pluralistic media are a powerful tool in fighting disinformation;

E.  whereas media freedom, pluralism and the independence and safety of journalists are crucial components of the right to freedom of expression and information, and are essential to the democratic functioning of the EU and its Member States; whereas, in recent years, journalists and other media actors in many Member States and abroad have been increasingly subject to threats, undue pressure, intimidation, violence and other forms of interference with their work, particularly when focusing on the misuse of power, corruption, fundamental rights violations and criminal activities; whereas SLAPPs remain a pressing issue across the EU; whereas the alarming situation as regards threats and attacks is not exclusively limited to professional journalists and other traditional media actors; whereas the definition of media actors has expanded as a result of new forms of media in the digital age and therefore includes others who contribute to public debate and perform journalistic activities or fulfil public watchdog functions;

F.  whereas government bodies in some Member States and non-EU countries have used Pegasus and other surveillance spyware against journalists, politicians, law enforcement officials, diplomats, lawyers, business people, civil society actors and other actors, for political and even criminal purposes; whereas such practices are extremely alarming and underscore the risk of the abuse of surveillance technologies to undermine fundamental human rights, democracy and electoral processes;

G.  whereas corruption is a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law; whereas there are persistent and serious concerns about the fight against corruption in some Member States; whereas the mechanisms to stop corruption are weak in several Member States and the lack of protection given to whistleblowers continues to be a widespread deficiency; whereas the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation aims to protect the Union budget against breaches of rule of law principles;

H.  whereas journalists, media outlets and bloggers, human rights defenders, civil society organisations (CSOs), activists, trade unions, artists, researchers, whistleblowers, and politicians increasingly face threats, harassment and other forms of intimidation as a result of their engagement in public participation;

I.  whereas the independence of the judiciary – an essential requirement for the democratic principle of separation of powers and central to guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights – is facing serious threats and is even being structurally undermined in an increasing number of Member States;

J.  whereas the Court of Justice recalled(39) that the right to freedom of association, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Charter, is one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society, as it allows people in the EU to act collectively in fields of mutual interest and, in doing so, to contribute to the proper functioning of public life; whereas increasing attacks against the right to assembly and association through the disproportionate use of force against peaceful protesters, including the beating of protesters, have been reported in some Member States;

K.  whereas some Member States have imposed restrictions with the deliberate aim of limiting civic space; whereas the civic space in many Member States faces legal, administrative and fiscal harassment, criminalisation and negative rhetoric aimed at stigmatising and delegitimising CSOs, activists and human rights defenders and diminishing their capacity to carry out their work;

L.  whereas, in March 2023, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights assessed that the situation of human rights defenders in Europe had deteriorated alarmingly, and that governments had an increasing tendency to disregard their human rights commitments, prioritising national security and public safety concerns over human rights; whereas the Commissioner reported increasing restrictions on their ability to work freely and safely, as well as various forms of reprisal, including judicial harassment, prosecution, abusive controls and surveillance, smear campaigns, threats and intimidation in Member States and neighbouring countries; whereas the absence of effective investigations into violations committed by state and non-state actors against human rights defenders remains a major concern; whereas this undermines democracy and is part of a wider problem of polarisation in society, characterised by increasing expressions of hatred and violence against different social or minority groups;

M.  whereas there have been multiple incidents of migrant deaths and human rights violations at European borders owing to ineffective management and disproportionate use of force by the authorities; whereas increasing amounts of technology, including artificial intelligence, are being used to monitor migrants at the EU’s external and internal borders; whereas the criminalisation of non-governmental organisations or any other non-state actors that carry out search and rescue operations, while complying with the relevant legal framework, amounts to a breach of international law(40) and therefore is not permitted by EU law; whereas the Court of Justice recalled that non-EU nationals can only be imprisoned when there is a specific legal basis to restrict their right to liberty and not when there is only a general criterion(41);

N.  whereas fatalities at Europe’s sea borders decreased slightly in 2022 compared to 2021, but still remained higher than in the three years prior to 2021(42); whereas most deaths occurred in the Central Mediterranean, off the North African coast(43);

O.  whereas several reports and investigations have been conducted on Frontex on issues related to fundamental rights, including by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Ombudsman; whereas the former Director of Frontex resigned from his position in April 2022; whereas all EU agencies must comply with fundamental rights and be accountable where there are instances of fundamental rights violations;

P.  whereas there has been an organised backlash against women’s and girls’ rights in recent years; whereas, in some Member States, there have been attempts to further roll back on sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as on existing legal protections for women’s access to abortion care; whereas, in recent years, the denial of access to safe and legal abortion in some Member States has led to the death of a number of women; whereas the prevalence of gender-based violence, including sexual violence and rape, remains high across the EU; whereas some Member States have still not ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention); whereas movements against promoting and providing sexuality education are growing in the EU;

Q.  whereas gender-based violence is both a cause and a consequence of the structural inequalities that are rooted in gender stereotypes and power asymmetries, including those in the private, social, public and economic sphere;

R.  whereas FRA survey data shows that the prevalence of discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin or religious beliefs (including Roma, Muslims, Jewish people and people of African descent) remains consistently high, both over time and across different population groups, in particular individuals from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, in different Member States; whereas racial and ethnic minorities face systemic racism, hate crime and hate speech, a lack of access to justice and sustained socio-economic inequalities in areas such as housing, healthcare, employment and education, which need to be acknowledged as major barriers to the full enjoyment of their fundamental rights and a key barrier to inclusion and equality; whereas antisemitism, anti-gypsyism, islamophobia and racism are persistent forms of hatred and discrimination; whereas far-right extremism poses a particular threat to people affected by discrimination and to society as a whole; whereas, according to FRA, there are indications of systemic racism in the EU, including within law enforcement; whereas intersectional discrimination must be taken into account in policies and measures aimed at combating racism and discrimination;

S.  whereas persons with disabilities living in the EU continue to face discrimination, including the denial of reasonable accommodation, harassment and multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination in all areas of their lives, including socio-economic disadvantages, social isolation, maltreatment and violence, including gender-based violence, forced sterilisation and abortion, lack of access to community services, low-quality housing, institutionalisation, inadequate healthcare and denial of the opportunity to contribute to and actively engage in society;

T.  whereas a significant portion of Romani people(44) in Europe live in extremely precarious conditions in both rural and urban areas, and in very poor socio-economic circumstances; whereas most Romani people are deprived of their fundamental human rights in all areas of life; whereas the placement of children into segregated schools and the discriminatory practice of placing children of ethnic and racial minorities into schools for children with mental disabilities continue to persist in some Member States;

U.  whereas the continuous trend of increasing discrimination, hate speech and violence against LGBTIQ+ people and LGBTIQ+ rights defenders persists across the EU; whereas LGBTIQ+ people still face discrimination and exclusion in several Member States regarding social protection, social security, access to healthcare, education, legal protection and access to and supply of goods and other services that are available to the public, including housing; whereas the case-law of the Court of Justice that protects the social rights and private life of same-sex couples and children born to same-sex parents is not being implemented, such as the ‘Coman case (C-673/16)’ and the ‘Baby Sara case (C-490/20)’; whereas surgeries and medical treatments are being performed on intersex children without their prior, personal, full and informed consent; whereas intersex genital mutilation can have lifelong consequences, such as psychological trauma and physical impairments;

V.  whereas incidents of hate crimes and hate speech have steadily increased across the EU over the last few years(45), largely due to the increasing number of social media users and the fact that hate speech thrives online; whereas the business model of social media platforms, based on micro-targeted advertising, plays a role in spreading and amplifying hate speech, inciting discrimination and violence; whereas education systems are key to providing digital education, literacy and skills for everyone, promoting users’ understanding of digital technologies, overcoming inequalities, improving digital inclusion and empowering and protecting individuals and their rights, while outlining their responsibilities; whereas hate speech can lead to hate crime; whereas, according to the FRA, up to nine in ten hate crimes and hate-motivated attacks in the EU are not reported and are therefore not sanctioned;

W.  whereas Article 21 of the Charter prohibits all discrimination based on language or membership of a national minority; whereas Article 22 thereof guarantees respect for linguistic diversity;

X.  whereas the EU is based on the promotion of social, cultural and economic rights; whereas the number of people living in poverty in the EU remains high, with more than one in five children at risk of poverty and almost one in four European citizens at risk of poverty or social exclusion; whereas the poverty cycle exacerbates other inequalities such as people’s access to education, affordable housing, healthcare and employment; whereas the energy crisis and inflation have increased the number of people affected by insecurity, poverty and social exclusion; whereas Article 151 TFEU refers to fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter; whereas the European Pillar of Social Rights and the implementation of its Action Plan are key instruments to mainstream social priorities across all EU policies and a guide for the actual implementation of its 20 principles;

Y.  whereas EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an obligation under Article 6(2) TEU and remains a high priority;

Z.  whereas Member States and EU institutions and bodies, including the Court of Justice, the FRA and the EPPO all have a crucial role to play in upholding EU values and ensuring respect for fundamental rights;

AA.  whereas the European Ombudsman conducted an investigation into the exchange of personal texts and calls related to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines between the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO, which the Commission refused to disclose afterwards; whereas, in July 2022, the Ombudsman found that this refusal constituted maladministration(46);

AB.  whereas, for several years, the rule of law has been deteriorating in several Member States as a result of the systematic actions of their governments, particularly in Hungary and Poland, which have ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures against them; whereas rule of law and fundamental rights concerns are rapidly growing in other Member States; whereas it is crucial to ensure that Member States comply with OSCE commitments and other international obligations and standards for democratic elections, including the Venice Commission;

AC.  whereas poverty is a form of structural and social injustice, which is grounded in gender inequalities, discrimination and unequal opportunities to access goods and services, leading to the violation of fundamental rights; whereas tackling poverty requires taking an intersectional approach into account and paying particular attention to individuals in vulnerable situations, such as children, women, racialised and ethnic communities, LGBTIQ+ people, migrants and asylum seekers and people with disabilities, as well as individuals from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds;

AD.  whereas, according to the report of the European Environment Agency entitled ‘Air quality in Europe 2022’, 238 000 premature deaths resulted from exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution in the Union in 2020 alone;

The rule of law and access to justice

1.  Recalls the importance of free media in upholding democracy, holding public and private institutions to account and allowing citizens to access fact-based information; stresses the importance of media pluralism and journalistic freedom; strongly condemns the fact that, in 2022, another global record for the number of imprisoned journalists was set, and calls for the full delivery of justice with regard to the killing of investigative journalists in the EU;

2.  Calls on the Member States to implement the Commission Recommendation on protecting journalists and human rights defenders that engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, and specifically to remove prison sentences for defamation cases, decriminalise defamation and favour civil or administrative procedures instead; urges the Commission to address the seriousness of SLAPPs brought through criminal proceedings by presenting a proposal for measures to ensure that defamation, libel and slander, which constitute criminal offences in most Member States, cannot be used for SLAPPs through public or private prosecution; stresses that SLAPPs are only one method used to silence journalists and calls on the Commission to further investigate other practices and to intervene; calls on politicians to publicly condemn threats and attacks against journalists;

3.  Reiterates its concern over the breach of fundamental rights with regard to the use of Pegasus and equivalent spyware to target individuals and high-profile personalities, such as journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, politicians, or other actors; underlines that the illegitimate use of spyware by national governments directly and indirectly affects the integrity of decision-making, thus undermining EU democracy and highlighting the urgent need for greater transparency and legal accountability in the surveillance industry;

4.  Calls on the Member States, in particular Greece, Hungary, Poland, Spain and Cyprus, to follow their respective recommendations from its report on the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware; recalls its recommendations for common EU standards to be followed, as individual rights cannot be put at risk by permitting unfettered access to surveillance;

5.  Urges the Member States to draw up national action plans for the safety of journalists, to create a favourable environment for plural and independent media to flourish and to play their essential watchdog role to hold governments and other actors to account;

6.  Recalls that the trade in and use of spyware needs to be regulated strictly; underlines that the use of spyware must be authorised only in exceptional and specific cases with respect to investigations into a limited and closed list of clearly and precisely defined serious crimes, be justified on a case-by-case basis, comply with the Charter and other relevant Union law, and be ordered, ex ante, by an independent and impartial judicial authority with effective, known and accessible remedial measures; stresses that all spyware surveillance must be scrutinised by an independent ex post oversight authority, which must ensure that any authorised surveillance is carried out in compliance with fundamental rights and in accordance with the conditions set out by the Court of Justice, the ECtHR and the Venice Commission; insists that individuals targeted with spyware be given access to real and meaningful legal remedy;

7.  Stresses that corruption is incompatible with the values of democracy and the rule of law as it deepens inequalities and erodes citizens’ trust in good governance; is deeply concerned by the increasing level of corruption in several Member States, in particular cases involving high-level officials and politicians; reiterates its condemnation of the alleged cases of corruption involving current and former Members of the European Parliament; underlines, in this light, the adoption of the amendments to its Rules of Procedure that aim to strengthen its integrity, independence and accountability; is concerned about the varying levels of implementation of the EU anti-corruption framework in Member States; requests that zero tolerance for corruption must be the rule; calls for the establishment of an independent ethics body; calls on the Member States to ensure the full implementation of the Whistleblower Protection Directive(47);

8.  Stresses that judicial independence and effective checks and balances, which can vary from one Member State to another, are key components of the rule of law; highlights that serious concerns remain as to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in several Member States; condemns any attempts by Member State governments to exert political influence or control over the independent decision-making of the judiciary either directly or by organisational means;

9.  Supports the creation of an EU strategy to ensure concrete and coordinated action at EU level, including through the creation of a protection mechanism for human rights defenders in Europe, building on the examples in EU foreign policy, to ensure prevention, direct assistance and accountability;

10.  Supports the use of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the horizontal enabling conditions for the freezing of EU funding to fight corruption and rule of law backsliding in Member States; stresses that funds restricted through different conditionality measures must only be released once key enabling conditions are met; urges the Member States to complete the appropriate measures to reach the milestones set out in their respective recovery and resilience plans; calls on the European Council to take action and to determine whether Hungary has committed serious and persistent breaches of EU values under Article 7(2) TEU; strongly deplores the systematic scapegoating of the LGBTQI+ community by the Hungarian authorities; underlines that the Council shares the responsibility for the protection of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and that the failure to do so would have long-lasting and potentially damaging consequences; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

11.  Deplores the fact that some Member States are prolonging state of emergency measures beyond what is necessary and proportionate, and rushing to adopt legislation without proper consultation;

12.  Reiterates the imminent need to establish an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and urges the Commission and the Council to immediately enter into negotiations with Parliament on this agreement;

13.  Welcomes the introduction of broadcasting and live-streaming in 2022 by the Court of Justice to facilitate partial public access to its judicial activity;

Freedoms

14.  Expresses deep concern about the increasing threats to the freedoms of association, speech and assembly; reiterates that the right to peaceful assembly can only be restricted when provided for by law and when necessary and proportionate to protect a general interest recognised by the Union or the rights and freedoms of others; condemns the use, in some instances, of violent and disproportionate intervention by law enforcement authorities during peaceful protests and condemns cases of discretionary mass arrests of potential protesters; encourages the relevant national authorities to ensure transparent, impartial, independent and effective investigations into the suspected or alleged use of disproportionate force; calls on the Member States to use alternative practices to maintain public order that have already proven to be effective in other Member States;

15.  Emphasises that in order to ensure the right to freedom of expression and information, which is foundational for any democracy, information must be universally accessible and diverse; underscores that artistic freedom must be guaranteed; stresses that disinformation can be highly disruptive to the functioning of democratic societies, economies and political systems; recalls the need for media and digital literacy to be included in civic education in order to counter the spread of disinformation; reiterates its recommendations to take effective measures to tackle disinformation from malicious foreign powers, in particular with a view to the upcoming European elections; underlines that an independent and pluralistic media landscape, both online and offline, is indispensable to effectively counter disinformation and propaganda, and therefore must be promoted, including through effective action against media concentrations;

16.  Stresses that, under Union law, national regulatory authorities and/or bodies must be functionally independent from their government and must not seek or take any instructions from any other body; notes that the political independence of media regulation and oversight by the Member States and the Commission, the protection of editorial independence throughout the EU, the protection of journalists from surveillance and the protection of journalistic sources are of paramount importance; calls, in this regard, for the adoption of a strong European media freedom act to guarantee the independence, plurality and freedom of media across the EU, ensuring transparency of ownership and financing;

17.  Underlines the crucial role of CSOs in promoting active citizenship, fundamental rights and democratic participation in Europe; urges the Commission to present a strategy and establish minimum standards for the protection of CSOs in all Member States in order to promote a regulatory and political environment free from chilling effects, threats and attacks, to provide CSOs with sustainable and non-discriminatory access to resources and to support their engagement in civil dialogue and participation in policymaking; deplores the fact that the situation of human rights defenders in the EU has deteriorated alarmingly in recent years; urges the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that human rights defenders are able to work free from hindrance and insecurity;

18.  Recalls that, under Article 6 of the Charter, everyone has the right to liberty and security, which means that everyone in the EU should be protected from unlawful and arbitrary arrest; calls on the Member States to follow the Commission Recommendation on procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in order to improve detention conditions and, thus, ensure a higher level of protection for the right to liberty and security;

19.  Condemns the rise in religion or belief-based discrimination and racist incidents in the EU; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take decisive action in this regard, including at international level; recalls that, under Article 10 of the Charter, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; deplores the fact that incidents of discrimination and racist and xenophobic crimes are often not reported to the authorities, which leads to de facto impunity; regrets the fact that not all Member States have fully transposed the framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law;

20.  Is concerned over the increasing number of incidents of police violence against the Romani population; calls on the Member States to rigorously investigate these incidents to ensure that there is no impunity for introducing and/or implementing repressive, violent measures against Romani individuals or communities; calls further on the Member States to address biased police recordings, reporting, prosecution and court judgments and the inadequate access to justice of Romani people;

21.  Points out that, as a result of the datafication of everyday life and data scandals, the right to the protection of personal data is of growing importance; reiterates its concerns about the uneven application of the General Data Protection Regulation; supports the initiatives to strengthen the legislative process on an EU regulatory framework on artificial intelligence providing for strong safeguards for fundamental rights;

22.  Strongly condemns the widespread fundamental rights violations and the use of disproportionate violence at EU borders against migrants including refugees, such as arbitrary detention, inhumane living conditions and lack of access to healthcare, unlawful returns and violent pushbacks; is very concerned about Member States codifying the use of pushbacks into their national law; condemns all laws in the Member States that undermine the effective protection of the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants on the land and at sea, as well as the criminalisation of humanitarian workers and activists; highlights that almost a third of asylum seekers are children and reiterates that immigration detention of children should not be permitted;

23.  Calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure that effective oversight mechanisms are put in place to ensure fundamental rights compliance at the external borders, which should also cover the monitoring of border surveillance activities; calls further on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the individuals whose data are stored in the databases of the EU’s large-scale information systems are informed about their rights and have access to available remedies;

24.  Strongly deplores the numerous deaths of refugees and migrants at sea who are often victims of trafficking of human beings and have to face inhumane and degrading treatment without any consideration for their safety; reiterates the obligation under the international law of the sea to assist persons in distress and urgently calls for permanent coordinated search and rescue operations with swift disembarkations, and for Member States to take every action possible to save the lives of people at risk at sea; calls for the right to asylum of all persons rescued at sea to be respected, by assessing individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis;

25.  Notes that several Member States use national security as a determinant for internal policies, such as migration; stresses that any measures taken on the basis of national security must be necessary and proportionate, and must not undermine the rights guaranteed by the Charter; recalls that Article 19 of the Charter provides for protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition by prohibiting collective expulsions and, therefore, requires individual assessments and prohibits the rejection of applications for international protection based solely on a specific nationality;

26.  Welcomes the activation of the EU Temporary Protection Directive (TPD)(48) following the war in Ukraine, which aims to ensure access to protection for refugees and asylum seekers of any origin; recalls that access to accommodation, employment, education, healthcare and social welfare services under the TPD must take into account a gender approach; deplores the unequal treatment, racial discrimination and violence faced by non-Ukrainians fleeing the conflict, in particular people of colour and LGBTIQ+ people; deplores the double standards on migrants and refugees in the EU and calls for an end to this situation;

27.  Welcomes the recommendation of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on protecting the rights of migrant, refugee and asylum-seeking women and girls, calling on Member States to take measures to prevent discrimination against such women, including by promoting access to employment and sexual and reproductive healthcare, and facilitating access to services and justice for survivors of gender-based violence(49);

28.  Notes, with concern, the large population of stateless persons in the EU, especially children being born stateless; calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive strategy and action plan to address statelessness in the EU and to protect them from expulsion; calls on the Member States to properly identify, recognise and protect stateless people, addressing the specific vulnerabilities of stateless persons;

Equality and dignity

29.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the right to non-discrimination and equal treatment is respected across the EU; deplores the fact that the proposal on the horizontal anti-discrimination directive has remained blocked in the Council since 2008; considers that any update of this proposal by the Commission must build on Parliament’s position, address intersectional discrimination and explicitly prohibit discrimination on any combination of grounds listed in the Charter; regrets the fact that the Council has ignored these requests and urges the Council to integrate them into its mandate and to take all appropriate actions to fight discrimination in the EU;

30.  Calls on the Commission to monitor and ensure proper follow-up of the implementation of the Member States’ national action plans against racism and the EU anti-racism action plan; urges, furthermore, the Commission to mainstream anti-racism and anti-discrimination in all EU policies; calls on the upcoming Council presidencies to seriously consider establishing a Council configuration on gender equality and equality;

31.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to tackle racial discrimination in all areas of society, with a specific emphasis on education and the prevention of school segregation, through effective legislative and policy measures, both in the Member States and in enlargement countries;

32.  Recalls, with regard to digitalisation, the need to pay close attention to discriminatory biases being introduced into new technologies and the need to require developers and deployers to provide publicly accessible information on how these systems are trained; calls on the Commission and the Member States to put in place measures to prevent new technologies, including artificial intelligence, from exacerbating discrimination, existing inequalities and poverty; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that artificial intelligence systems are guided by the principles of transparency, explainability, fairness and accountability, and that fundamental rights impact assessments are put in place; calls further on the Commission and the Member States to tackle the gender and diversity gaps in the information and communications technology (ICT) and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) sectors, particularly in the development of new technologies, and especially in decision-making positions;

33.  Recalls the importance of children belonging to national minorities being able to find dedicated schools offering education in their language; encourages the inclusion of national minority representatives in decision-making processes impacting their education systems;

34.  Recalls that gender-based violence is highly prevalent in all Member States across the EU; strongly condemns the rapid backsliding on women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights in several Member States; strongly condemns the denial of access to safe and legal abortion services as it is a form of gender-based violence; highlights that the ECtHR has ruled that restrictive abortion laws and lack of implementation violate women’s right to bodily autonomy and integrity; reiterates its condemnation of Poland’s law that imposes a near total ban on abortion; recalls that citizens who help people to access abortion services when it is not freely or legally available should not be persecuted; reiterates its call for the right to abortion to be included in the Charter;

35.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a directive to combat violence against women and domestic violence and calls for the swift conclusion of the negotiations and for gender-based violence to be included in the list of EU crimes; highlights that such a directive should guarantee the obligations laid down in the Istanbul Convention as a minimum standard and aim to strengthen these standards to increase the level of protection; welcomes the EU’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention which entered into force on 1 October 2023; calls on the remaining Member States to swiftly ratify the Convention in order to protect women against violence;

36.  Underlines that persons with disabilities, in particular women with disabilities, continue to face multiple and intersectional discrimination based on their disability, gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation, migration status or socio-economic background; stresses that women and girls with disabilities are particularly subject to gender-based violence, including physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that mechanisms for reporting violence against persons with disabilities, as well as support services for victims, are put in place and are made accessible;

37.  Stresses that the rights of the child are universal and that every child should enjoy the same rights, free of discrimination, such as the right to the recognition of parenthood, including for same-sex couples; welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood to protect the rights of all children by ensuring that their parental ties, including, in particular, same-sex parents, established in one Member State are recognised in all EU Member States;

38.  Calls on the Member States to make forced sterilisation punishable as a criminal offence; reiterates its position that the directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence should include forced sterilisation as a criminal offence under Article 83(1) TFEU;

39.  Recalls that hate crimes and hate speech motivated by racism, xenophobia or religious intolerance, or by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics are extreme examples of discrimination; notes that the Member States have a duty to combat and investigate hate crime, punish perpetrators and take preventive measures; stresses the need for the appropriate recording of hate crimes by law enforcement authorities in order to better understand the nature and prevalence of the phenomenon and its impact on victims, and to address its root causes;

40.  Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to expand the list of EU crimes in Article 83(1) TFEU to hate speech and hate crimes, highlighting the need to ensure a robust EU criminal law response to hate speech and hate crime; strongly deplores the delayed approval of the initiative, and reiterates its call on the Council to work diligently towards a consensus;

41.  Recalls that EU legislation on hate speech and hate crimes should universally protect human dignity and combat hatred and intolerance irrespective of their motivation, with a special focus on targeted persons, groups and communities; strongly condemns all forms of hate speech and smear campaigns in public media against journalists, politicians, public officials, activists and other actors;

42.  Calls on the Commission to effectively monitor the implementation of the measures contained in the various equality strategies, such as the EU LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the Strategy on Roma Equality and Inclusion, and the EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025; urges the Member States to swiftly draw up and implement national action plans against racism;

43.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission, for the first time, invoked an isolated violation of Article 2 TEU when it referred the Hungarian ‘child protection law’, which camouflaged other objectives, to the Court of Justice;

Social, economic and environmental rights

44.  Recognises that poverty is another form of discrimination that leads to the violation of fundamental rights and unequal opportunities to access goods and services; highlights the particular vulnerability of children and the impact that poverty has on them and on their physical and psychological development; calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to develop policies to reduce poverty and social exclusion, taking into account an intersectional approach and paying particular attention to individuals in vulnerable situations; welcomes the approval of the European Child Guarantee, but considers that more efforts are needed, particularly in the area of social protection; calls on the Member States to guarantee equal access and opportunities for quality education and employment, as they play a critical role in helping to alleviate inequality and lifting people out of poverty;

45.  Is deeply concerned about the increase in poverty, inequalities and social exclusion in the EU; calls on the Member States to tackle ‘period poverty’ and to eliminate VAT on personal hygiene products; stresses that the long-term economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in food and energy prices have severely impacted the rights of people living on low incomes or in poverty, including to an adequate standard of living, to food, to health, to housing and to social security; calls on the Commission and the Council to develop macroeconomic policies guided not only by economic growth, but also by social standards and recalls the importance of social standards in the European Semester;

46.  Welcomes the Council Recommendation of 30 January 2023 on adequate minimum income(50) ensuring active inclusion as a step forward in implementing principle 14 of the European Pillar of Social Rights; regrets, however, the lack of concrete measures to overcome structural discrimination towards vulnerable groups; calls on the Member States to collect disaggregated data on minimum income for these groups;

47.  Stresses that digitalisation is a transversal process that impacts access to all services, particularly healthcare, and the exercise of fundamental rights; underlines that digital poverty in the EU should be monitored and assessed in relation to access to essential services and fundamental rights, including for elderly people, people living in remote areas, people living in situations of homelessness and Roma people; recalls the obligation of Member States, under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to ensure that people with disabilities have full access to society; recalls that technological addictions constitute a public health problem that particularly affects minors and their physical and mental integrity;

48.  Notes that housing is not a commodity, but a necessity, and that it is a precondition for participating fully in society; calls on the Member States to step up investment in social and affordable housing to eradicate housing cost overburden, particularly among disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and to avoid competition between these groups;

49.  Welcomes the recognition of the universal right to access to a healthy and sustainable environment by the UN Human Rights Council on 8 October 2021; highlights that environmental impairment and the failure of some public authorities to provide information about serious environmental risks to which individuals are exposed, may have severe harmful consequences for individuals; recalls the need to fully align the EU ambient air quality standards with the latest World Health Organization guidelines by 2030;

Institutional safeguards for fundamental rights

50.  Welcomes the progress made since the resumption of the negotiations towards EU accession to the ECHR in June 2020 and the provisional agreement on the draft revised accession instruments reached in March 2023; calls on the Commission and the Council to resolve the remaining issue on the situation of EU acts in the area of the common foreign and security policy as swiftly as possible in order to complete the accession process;

51.  Supports the FRA’s work on analysing data in order to document discrimination and welcomes further developments in this field; welcomes the Commission’s proposals for two directives on standards for equality bodies, aiming to ensure the implementation and enforcement of EU anti-discrimination rules; calls on national bodies cooperating with the FRA to provide impartial data; calls on the FRA to consult additional sources when serious concerns persist on the quality of data;

52.  Highlights the importance of supporting and strengthening cooperation between the EU institutions, the Member States, OLAF and the EPPO; calls on the Commission to present a report assessing the possibility and modalities of expanding the mandate of the EPPO, as provided for in Article 86 TFEU, to include serious environmental crimes that are detrimental to the interests of the Union or that affect the consistent application of EU policies related to the protection of the environment;

53.  Calls for the FRA to be established as an independent human rights authority, similar to national human rights institutions and in line with the UN General Assembly’s Paris Principles of 1993, to protect and promote the Charter policies and practices from Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and from Member States when implementing EU law; considers that this requires a legal basis in the Treaties for the creation of an EU authority for fundamental rights, enshrining its independence and introducing the ordinary legislative procedure for adopting and amending its mandate; calls for this new authority to be entitled to bring actions under Article 263 TFEU on grounds of infringement of the Charter; calls for the power to handle complaints and the mandatory consultation by the Commission of the FRA when preparing proposals for legislative acts or recommendations which have an impact on fundamental rights to be included in its mandate;

54.  Recalls the importance of the relevant Court of Justice case-law upholding the respect for fundamental rights and further defining the rule of law; is concerned by the persistent refusal of some Member States to implement domestic, Court of Justice and ECtHR judgments, which contributes to the erosion of the rule of law; stresses that the non-implementation of judgments can lead to human rights violations being left without remedy; highlights that the primacy of EU law constitutes the bedrock of the EU’s legal order; calls on the Commission to ensure adequate follow-up in case of non-implementation of this principle;

55.  Stresses the role of national and local administrations, and the Member States’ parliaments and law enforcement authorities in promoting and protecting Charter rights;

56.  Notes the FRA observation that Member States appear to lack a structured engagement with the implementation of the Commission strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter, such as definitions of clear targets, milestones and timelines; calls on the Member States to fully implement the strategy;

57.  Recalls that the right to participate in democratic life and the obligation to ensure that decisions are taken as openly and as close to citizens as possible are protected under the Treaties and Article 10 TEU in particular; calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to ensure sufficient time for public consultation and transparency and to publish public documents in a proactive manner;

o
o   o

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

(1) Inter alia: Commission v. Hungary (Transparency of associations), Case C-78/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:476; Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2022. I. L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet, Case C-241/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:753. (2) OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1. (3) OJ L 156, 5.5.2021, p. 1. (4) OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1. (5) OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. (6) OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29. (7) OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. (8) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. (9) OJ C 93, 19.3.2021, p. 1. (10) OJ L 331, 20.9.2021, p. 8. (11) OJ L 86, 24.3.2023, p. 44. (12) OJ L 245, 22.9.2022, p. 56. (13) Council of Europe, ‘Human Rights Defenders in the Council of Europe Area in Times of Crises’, 23 March 2023. (14) OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13. (15) OJ C 411, 27.11.2020, p. 38. (16) OJ C 205, 20.5.2022, p. 2. (17) OJ C 251, 30.6.2022, p. 48. (18) OJ C 342, 6.9.2022, p. 225. (19) OJ C 347, 9.9.2022, p. 2. (20) OJ C 347, 9.9.2022, p. 168. (21) OJ C 493, 27.12.2022, p. 108. (22) OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 184. (23) OJ C 125, 5.4.2023, p. 463. (24) OJ C 132, 14.4.2023, p. 29. (25) OJ C 177, 17.5.2023, p. 109. (26) OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 268. (27) OJ C 465, 6.12.2022, p. 33. (28) OJ C 465, 6.12.2022, p. 147. (29) OJ L 45, 14.2.2023, p. 13. (30) OJ C 149, 28.4.2023, p. 22. (31) OJ C 161, 5.5.2023, p. 10. (32) OJ C 177, 17.5.2023, p. 13. (33) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0111. (34) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0196. (35) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0204. (36) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0216. (37) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0295. (38) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0342. (39) European Commission v. Hungary (Transparency of association), Case C-78/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:476. (40) Providing assistance to any persons found in distress at sea is a legal obligation of EU countries, established in international customary and conventional law (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea – SOLAS Convention, 1974; United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea – UNCLOS, 1982; International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue - SAR Convention, 1979), as well as EU law. (41) Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2022, I. L. v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet, Case C-241/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:753. (42) The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘Fundamental Rights Report 2023’, p. 148, 8 June 2023. (43) The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ‘Fundamental Rights Report 2023’, p. 148, 8 June 2023. (44) The term ‘Romani people’ encompasses diverse groups, including Roma, Kalè, Manouches, Ashkali, Travellers, Lovara, Rissende, Boyash, Domare, Kalderash, Romanichal and Sinti. There is no commonly agreed terminology, as some communities prefer the term ‘Roma people’. (45) European Parliamentary Research Service, at a glance briefing, ‘Combating hate speech and hate crime in the EU’, June 2022. (46) European Ombudsman, ‘Recommendation on the European Commission's refusal of public access to text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID 19 vaccine (case 1316/2021/MIG)’. (47) Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17. (48) Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12. (49) Council of Europe, ‘Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)17 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on protecting the rights of migrant, refugee and asylum-seeking women and girls’, 20 May 2022. (50) Council Recommendation of 30 January 2023 on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion, OJ C 41, 3.2.2023, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the need to reach a ceasefire and the risks of regional escalation (2024/2508(RSP))

P9_TA(2024)0051 RC-B9-0068/2024

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions and recommendations on the Middle East conflict, in particular its resolution of 19 October 2023 on the despicable terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel, Israel’s right to defend itself in line with humanitarian and international law and the humanitarian situation in Gaza(1),

–  having regard to the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, in particular UN Security Council Resolution 2720 (2023) of 22 December 2023,

–  having regard to the Protocol on Economic Relations between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, representing the Palestinian people, of 29 April 1994 and to the Oslo II Accord of 28 September 1995,

–  having regard to international humanitarian law, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto,

–  having regard to the EU list of terrorist organisations, which includes Hamas,

–  having regard to the International Convention against the taking of hostages of 1979,

–  having regard to Rule 132(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas on 7 October 2023, Hamas terrorists committed a long-planned attack on Israel, deliberately murdering 1 139 Israeli and foreign citizens, including 36 children; whereas Hamas took over 240 people hostage, of which 136 are still being held in the Gaza Strip in terrible conditions; whereas over 5 400 Israelis have been wounded since 7 October 2023; whereas Hamas continues to indiscriminately shoot rockets at Israel on a daily basis;

B.  whereas on 8 January 2024, UN experts called the growing body of evidence about reported sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas in Israeli villages ‘particularly harrowing’, referring to allegations of sexual torture, rapes and gang rapes, as well as sexual assaults; whereas the EU and its Member States have strongly condemned the crimes committed by Hamas and have repeatedly called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held in the Gaza Strip;

C.  whereas during a humanitarian pause, 81 hostages were released as part of an Egyptian- and Qatari-mediated deal in exchange for the release of Palestinian detainees, and more humanitarian aid was allowed to enter the Gaza Strip; whereas the hostages that were freed during the humanitarian pause, mainly women and children, have recounted psychological, physical and sexual abuse by their captors;

D.  whereas Hamas is an internationally recognised terrorist organisation espousing extreme violence; whereas its principal stated goal is to annihilate Israel and reject a two-state solution; whereas since its establishment it has been responsible for many suicide bombings and other deadly attacks on civilians and Israeli soldiers; whereas in 1997 the US State Department designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, which was followed by a similar decision by the EU; whereas in 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip entirely, leaving its administration to the Palestinian Authority;

E.  whereas since the attack of 7 October 2023, the response of the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip has resulted in over 23 000 people being killed, including 10 000 children, 60 000 being wounded and almost two million being displaced, according to figures reported to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); whereas approximately half of the population of the Gaza Strip is made up of children; whereas 30 % of all civilian infrastructure has been destroyed; whereas, in particular, water infrastructure, including treatment plants and pipelines, has been largely destroyed or cut off by the Israeli authorities, with only two pipelines reopened in December 2023;

F.  whereas over 140 UN staff have been killed, which is the highest death toll in UN history; whereas at least 81 journalists and media workers have been killed, including 18 in connection with or while carrying out their work, according to Reporters Without Borders; whereas over 600 medical workers and patients have been killed at hospitals, according to the World Health Organization (WHO); whereas over 370 schools have been damaged since 28 December 2023, according to UNICEF; whereas two thirds of hospitals in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed and one third remain barely operational, according to the WHO; whereas Hamas uses hospitals and other health facilities as shelters for its terrorist activities; whereas the IDF has exposed the tunnel system under the Al-Shifa Hospital compound, as well as in other parts of the Gaza Strip;

G.  whereas the Israeli authorities control entry to and exit from the Gaza Strip through all border crossing points, including the one with Egypt; whereas Israeli control over the Gaza Strip’s entry and exit points is severely restricting aid and there has been a significant decrease in aid trucks allowed to enter since 7 October 2023, according to OCHA; whereas 100 % of the population in the Gaza Strip is suffering from acute food insecurity, 50 % are experiencing an extreme lack of food and starvation and 26 % are suffering from catastrophic hunger and starvation, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) of 21 December 2023;

H.  whereas essential items, including medical equipment and solar panels, have been denied entry to the Gaza Strip; whereas the EU is leading efforts in providing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip with funding for UN agencies, medical equipment and other urgent supplies, and has quadrupled its aid since 7 October 2023; whereas on 21 November 2023, the Commission reported that ‘no money has been diverted for unintended purposes’ following a review of EU financial assistance for Palestine;

I.  whereas attacks by Israeli forces and settlers have killed at least 330 Palestinians in the West Bank since 7 October 2023;

J.  whereas Egypt has proposed a three-point plan for a permanent ceasefire, including a preliminary humanitarian truce for a renewable two-week period to exchange 40 Israeli hostages for 120 Palestinian prisoners, during which hostilities would cease, tanks withdraw, and essential supplies such as food, medical aid, cooking gas and fuel be allowed in;

K.  whereas the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation regarding the occupied Palestinian territories in 2021; whereas on 29 December 2023, South Africa filed an application against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ); whereas on 10 October 2023, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC confirmed that the court’s mandate applied to the current conflict;

L.  whereas the risk of escalation in the region is the highest in decades given Iran’s aggressive actions and use of proxies as a means of deliberately destabilising the region; whereas Houthi attacks have targeted commercial shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait since 19 November 2023, when Houthi rebels hijacked the Japanese-registered vessel Galaxy Leader; whereas several countries have retaliated militarily;

M.  whereas Iran has armed and funded the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah and Hamas; whereas Qatar has long provided financial support to Hamas; whereas questions have been raised by western intelligence services about Qatar’s prior knowledge of Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel;

1.  Calls for a permanent ceasefire and to restart efforts towards a political solution provided that all hostages are immediately and unconditionally released and the terrorist organisation Hamas is dismantled; reiterates its unwavering support for a negotiated two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 lines with two sovereign, democratic states living side by side in peace and guaranteed security, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, and in full respect of international law;

2.  Expresses its deepest sorrow for the innocent victims on both sides; reaffirms its condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of the despicable terrorist attacks committed by the terrorist group Hamas against Israel; condemns the disproportionate Israeli military response, which has caused a civilian death toll of unprecedented scale;

3.  Calls for humanitarian access to be ensured in order to address the medical needs of all hostages and for the bodies of deceased hostages to be returned; recalls that the taking of hostages is a violation of international law and constitutes a war crime; calls for the perpetrators and organisers of those crimes to be prosecuted and punished;

4.  Recalls that Israel has the right to defend itself within the limits of international law, which outlines that all parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians at all times and that attacks must only be directed at military objectives and that civilians and civilian infrastructure must not be targeted in attacks; deplores Hamas’s abuse of Palestinian civilian infrastructure, its combat operations in densely populated civilian areas, building of tunnels and use of human shields;

5.  Expresses deep concern about the dire and rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and its grave impact on the civilian population; underlines the urgent need for full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to and throughout the entire Gaza Strip; emphasises the obligations of the parties to the conflict under international humanitarian law regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance; urges the Israeli authorities to ensure the continuous access of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, with an emphasis on the uninterrupted delivery of essentials such as fuel, food, water, medical supplies and shelter, in line with international law, and demands the immediate restoration of vital infrastructure, in particular to prevent the risk of catastrophic hunger and starvation, as well as the possible spread of infectious diseases;

6.  Calls for a European initiative to put the two-state solution back on track; emphasises the absolute necessity of immediately relaunching the peace process; welcomes, in that respect, the Peace Day Effort for Middle East Peace launched just before the attacks by the EU and the Arab League;

7.  Reiterates its call for an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories; recalls that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law; calls for the de-escalation of tensions in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; strongly condemns the rise in extremist settler violence committed against Palestinians and calls for restrictive measures to be imposed on extremist settlers who violate human rights and international law; calls for Hamas’s senior political leadership to be added to the EU terrorist list, including Ismail Haniyeh, Khaled Mashal, Khalil al-Hayya and Mahmoud Zahar, in order for their funds and financial assets in EU Member States to be frozen;

8.  Is appalled that Hamas’s leaders have accumulated huge wealth at the expense of Palestinian civilians who have mostly been living in poverty;

9.  Reiterates its full support for the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which proposes a full normalisation of relations between the State of Israel and all Arab states in return for Israel’s full withdrawal from all Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 and mutually agreed equivalent land swaps between Israel and Palestine; recalls its support for the normalisation of relations between Israel and all Arab states; calls urgently for the full inclusion of the Palestinian Authority in this process, in line with EU and UN efforts to achieve a two-state solution for peace, security and stability in the region;

10.  Stresses that the UN Security Council, in its resolution of 22 December 2023, ‘reiterates its demand that all parties to the conflict comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law’ and ‘recalls that civilian and humanitarian facilities, and facilities of the UN, as well as humanitarian personnel, and medical personnel, and their means of transport, must be respected and protected, according to international humanitarian law’; condemns the killing of journalists, media workers, UN staff and healthcare workers and reiterates the importance of their work;

11.  Emphasises the role of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is currently providing shelter for over one million internally displaced persons and has become the primary platform for humanitarian assistance to the population of the Gaza Strip;

12.  Expresses deep concern about the Israeli Government’s evacuation orders, forcibly displacing the civilian population from the northern Gaza Strip to the southern Gaza Strip, confining them to less than a third of Gazan territory, while targeting zones and civilian infrastructure;

13.  Reiterates that the EU is the largest humanitarian and development donor to the occupied Palestinian territories; insists that EU development assistance to the Palestinian Authority should not be impeded or interrupted; welcomes the appointment of Sigrid Kaag as Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza; welcomes efforts by the EU and its Member States to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of the Gaza Strip; welcomes the fact that EU humanitarian funding for the Gaza Strip has increased fourfold in the last three months;

14.  Reiterates that respect for human rights and democratic principles constitutes an essential component of the EU-Israel Association Agreement as well as of the EU’s relations with the Palestinian Authority;

15.  Reiterates the EU’s strong support for the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ); calls for those responsible for terrorist acts and for violations of international law to be held to account and calls, to that end, for all possible war crimes to be investigated; reiterates that deliberate attacks on civilians are serious violations of international law, as is the forcible transfer of populations; demands justice for the victims of unlawful killings and sexual torture by Hamas during the 7 October 2023 attacks; takes note of the case brought by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ;

16.  Supports an increased role for the two EU civilian common security and defence policy missions – the EU Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support and the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point – so that they both participate in facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip and in improving the efficiency of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank;

17.  Strongly condemns the strikes by Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the rockets launched by Iran from Syria against Israel following the 7 October 2023 attacks; is extremely concerned about the hundreds of strikes in southern Lebanon and northern Israel that have taken place since then;

18.  Reiterates its call for the prompt initiation of de-escalation measures aimed at averting the potential escalation of current tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border into a full-scale conflict; underlines the importance of applying UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006; urges the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) to support all diplomatic efforts to bring all parties to the table following Lebanon’s expressed readiness to reach an agreement on de-escalation; calls for restraint on both sides;

19.  Recalls the importance of providing EU support to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and Lebanon’s armed forces and internal security forces in order that they fulfil their essential role; recalls that all armed groups, including Hezbollah, must disarm in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006);

20.  Condemns, in the strongest terms, the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping off the coast of Yemen; calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the crew of the Japanese-registered vessel Galaxy Leader, including Romanian and Bulgarian nationals, who have been held since 19 November 2023; calls on the Member States to make immediate and concerted efforts to address these attacks, including by creating a naval operation under the common security and defence policy, in close cooperation with regional actors and international partners; welcomes the US-led ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’ to safeguard Red Sea shipping and freedom of navigation, which must be ensured at all times;

21.  Urges the VP/HR to coordinate these efforts to respond to the situation so as to deliver a strong EU response in order to protect the right of passage as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982; urges the VP/HR to maintain and support the UN-led peace process to end Yemen’s conflict;

22.  Denounces the role played by third states and non-state entities in providing financial, material and operational support to Hamas and Hezbollah; calls for thorough investigations to be launched to determine the origins of the funds and arms systems used by them; calls for the EU to impose sanctions on the states and entities that facilitated the attacks, notably Iran and Qatar;

23.  Condemns the spike in antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred and racism across Europe;

24.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, the Knesset and the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council.

(1) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0373.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the revision of the European Labour Authority mandate (2023/2866(RSP))

P9_TA(2024)0052 B9-0059/2024

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights, solemnly proclaimed by Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 17 November 2017,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 4 March 2021 entitled ‘The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan’ (COM(2021)0102),

–  having regard to the Porto declaration of the European Council of 8 May 2021,

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2023 on a roadmap towards a social Europe – two years after the Porto Social Summit(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 January 2014 on effective labour inspections as a strategy to improve working conditions in Europe(2),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU) 2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344(3),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 13 March 2018 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority (COM(2018)0131), and to the accompanying impact assessment (SWD(2018)0068),

–  having regard to the European Labour Authority’s consolidated annual activity reports of 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022,

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

–  having regard to Article 45(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states that ‘freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment’,

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

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

A.  whereas in 2021, there were about 10 million EU citizens of working age living in another Member State(5); whereas the number of third-country nationals living and working in the EU has increased in recent years; whereas in 2022, 9,93 million third-country were employed in the EU labour market, corresponding to 5,1 % of the total working age population(6); whereas workers from third countries do not yet fall under the scope of the European Labour Authority (ELA), although their problems related to labour mobility and working conditions are often similar to those of EU workers;

B.  whereas the free movement of workers and the freedom to provide services are two of the four basic freedoms of the EU; whereas these freedoms are essential to the proper functioning of the single market; whereas they are among the main achievements of EU integration;

C.  whereas workers’ mobility can be hampered by insufficient coordination between social security systems across the Member States; whereas issues affecting the portability of rights and entitlements related to social security can act as disincentives for workers considering working in another Member State;

D.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for the creation of a EU-wide social security number to allow for the easy identification of workers, their employment status and their social security rights;

E.  whereas labour mobility boosts economic growth and benefits the EU as a whole by balancing labour supply and demand; whereas labour mobility can also result in bad working conditions and the exploitation of mobile workers through the abuse and circumvention of existing laws, or workers’ lack of information about their rights and any applicable collective agreements;

F.  whereas ensuring fair mobility and fair competition based on non-discrimination and the principle of equal pay for equal work remains a challenge as a result of the 27 different labour market regimes with national regulations and practices; whereas Union legislation on workers’ labour and social rights must be duly implemented and enforced in all Member States, as well as in cross-border situations; whereas ELA should also encourage the use of innovative approaches to efficient cross-border cooperation and the collection, analysis and exchange of information; whereas there is a lack of sufficient support services available for mobile workers, in particular for third country nationals, such as legal, social and psychological counselling;

G.  whereas the European Pillar of Social Rights, proclaimed in Gothenburg in 2017, sets out 20 principles and establishes a social rulebook for a strong, social Europe that is fair and inclusive; whereas equal rights and opportunities, access to the labour market, fair working conditions, social protection, inclusion and the autonomy of social partners are cornerstones of the Union anchored in the Treaties;

H.  whereas national enforcement authorities, such as labour and social security inspectorates, and social partners involved in labour and social security inspections do not always have the necessary resources and thus may struggle to effectively enforce national and EU law, especially in cross-border situations; whereas effective enforcement requires sufficient resources, as well as structured cooperation and regular and secure information exchanges between Member States and all relevant stakeholders;

I.  whereas ELA was established with the aim of facilitating cross-border cooperation in the effective enforcement of labour law, including joint and concerted inspections, and the exchange of information between Member States on labour mobility issues, with a view to supporting fair and well-functioning labour markets and welfare systems, protecting workers and ensuring fair competition in the single market;

J.  whereas the Member States should provide support, information and advice for workers and employers; whereas neither ELA nor the trade unions involved have sufficient resources to act as the helpdesk for individuals;

K.  whereas based on its founding regulation, ELA must contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the Union and assist the Member States and the Commission in the coordination of social security systems within the Union; whereas the ELA carries out several tasks in this regard, including facilitating access to information for individuals, employers and social partners on labour mobility, supporting Member States in promoting cross-border job matching and coordinating the European Employment Services (EURES), facilitating cooperation and the exchange of information between Member States, coordinating and supporting concerted and joint inspections, carrying out analyses and risk assessments on issues related to cross-border labour mobility, supporting Member States with capacity building in the field of labour mobility, tackling undeclared work and mediating disputes between Member States on the application of relevant EU law;

L.  whereas ELA has not yet reached its full operational potential; whereas ELA’s activities and impact are restricted owing to the voluntary nature of the cooperation and participation of Member States and to its limited competences to request and process data from affected workers and companies; whereas ELA’s legal framework prevents it from carrying out investigations on its own initiative and addressing issues related to labour mobility from third countries;

M.  whereas rules and practices on how to carry out labour inspections vary significantly between Member States, as does the cooperation between national authorities and ELA;

N.  whereas the European Banking Authority was given the mandate of carrying out investigations on its own initiative; whereas some European agencies, such as Europol, have access to the Internal Market Information System’s database and are allowed to process personal data; whereas ELA is lacking similar rights;

O.  whereas social partners do not need to first exhaust domestic enforcement options, as they may bring cross-border cases to the attention of ELA any time, with a view to initiating cross-border inspections; whereas the timely, systematic and structural involvement of EU, sectoral and national social partners is indispensable in improving ELA’s effectiveness;

P.  whereas the European Platform tackling undeclared work has been integrated into ELA; whereas undeclared work remains an acute problem in the EU; whereas some sectors, such as hospitality, construction, tourism, care and household-related services, are more affected than others;

Q.  whereas ELA surveys and analyses are often outsourced to external contractors, which prevents the authority from building up own expertise and could call its independence into question;

R.  whereas one of the objectives of establishing ELA was to address the insufficient exchange of information between national authorities responsible for the different aspects of labour mobility and the coordination of social security systems in order to ensure that all available means are used as efficiently as possible in areas where ELA can provide added value;

S.  whereas skills mismatches and labour shortages are on the rise in the EU; whereas EURES can play a central role in fostering labour mobility and cross-border job matching; whereas ELA does not have the capacity to provide helpdesk services to individual jobseekers and companies; whereas the full potential of EURES has not been reached; whereas the use of EURES should be more strongly promoted by national authorities, employment agencies and social partners;

T.  whereas by 1 August 2024, and every five years thereafter, the Commission must assess ELA’s performance in relation to its objectives, mandate and tasks, in compliance with Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149; whereas the Commission’s evaluation should take into account input from the ELA and relevant stakeholders and should, in particular, assess whether there is a need to change the ELA’s mandate and the scope of its activities, including an expansion of its scope to cover sector-specific needs; whereas the evaluation should also explore further synergies and opportunities to align with other agencies in the areas of employment, social policy and fundamental rights, and should identify where ELA’s activities could bring more added value to national authorities;

U.  whereas the evaluation should further explore regular cooperation and exchange with Europol and Eurojust in instances of crimes, in particular when organised crime is involved, for example in the construction sector, and, when European subsidies are involved, with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;

V.  whereas in its resolution of 11 May 2023 on a roadmap towards a social Europe – two years after the Porto Social Summit, Parliament underlined the importance of a well-functioning and efficient ELA; whereas Parliament has already called on the Commission to make use of the opportunity presented by the forthcoming evaluation to submit a legislative proposal to review the scope of ELA’s founding regulation and allow it to realise its full potential, especially as regards its inquiry and investigation powers;

1.  Calls on the Commission, based on the lessons learned since 2019 and on its ongoing assessment of ELA’s mandate and operational capacity, to present a proposal for a targeted revision of ELA’s founding regulation, with a view to strengthening its mandate and added value for national authorities to allow it to fully achieve its mission of ensuring fair labour mobility;

2.  Calls for ELA’s mandate to be substantially strengthened to ensure its added value to national enforcement authorities, by allowing it to investigate alleged breaches or the non-application of EU law and to initiate and conduct inquiries into and inspections of cross-border cases on its own initiative, after notifying the relevant national competent authorities, in particular in cases involving breaches of EU law or where competent national authorities have not followed up on alleged breaches or the non-application of EU law; stresses the need to notify the national competent authorities and keep social partners informed of any ELA inquiries or investigations in their jurisdiction and to ensure that the national competent authorities provide ELA with any information that it considers necessary for its investigations, following national laws and practices, without delay;

3.  Recalls that, in some Member States, labour inspections are carried out by social partners; stresses the importance of ensuring that ELA and the national competent authorities effectively cooperate with social partners, while respecting their autonomy, rights and prerogatives in line with national industrial relations;

4.  Recalls that the scope of ELA is limited to the Union acts mentioned in its founding regulation; notes, however, that the authority is often confronted with problems relating to the working conditions of third-country nationals to whom the relevant labour legislation applies; calls, therefore, for an expansion of the scope of ELA’s mandate to cover labour mobility for third-country nationals, with a special focus on putting an end to bogus posting and bogus self-employment; stresses the need to better support Member States in the application of relevant EU law and to explicitly include sector-specific legislation pertaining to labour law in the context of labour mobility in its mandate, for example, in the transport sector, the construction sector and the agriculture sector, as well as for temporary agency work;

5.  Highlights the need to ensure adequate follow-up on concerted and joint inspections supported or facilitated by ELA; calls for effective procedures in order to ensure that breaches of national and EU law detected in the area of labour mobility are properly addressed through administrative or legal procedures in the Member States; underlines that ELA should be empowered to initiate administrative and legal proceedings in cases of suspected breaches; stresses that ELA, under its mandate, should support the recovery of unpaid wages and social security contributions in cross-border cases, for example by providing available information and evidence;

6.  Stresses that ELA should thoroughly pursue cases brought to its attention by social partner organisations, by launching joint and concerted inspections with the relevant national authorities or by conducting inspections on its own; highlights that social partners should be able to request an ELA inquiry or inspection; stresses that social partners should receive follow-up information on the proceedings and, in the event that ELA rejects a request, a comprehensive justification;

7.  Underlines that effective enforcement, including deterrent financial sanctions, is needed to bring an end to non-compliance with labour legislation, the circumvention of social security payments and tax evasion in cross-border activities; urges ELA therefore to prioritise, under its mandate, cross-border law enforcement and controls, and to cooperate with other relevant EU agencies; stresses that ELA should keep a record of cases in which EU and national law in the area of labour mobility were violated, in line with the applicable EU data protection rules;

8.  Recalls that the Commission proposal for a regulation establishing a European Labour Authority (Article 10(7)) provided for an obligation for ELA to report suspected irregularities ‘in the application of Union law, including beyond the scope of its competences’ to the Commission and the authorities in the Member State concerned should it become aware of such irregularities during its work; regrets that this provision was not included in the adopted text of the founding regulation; stresses that a revision of ELA’s founding regulation should include such a provision;

9.  Calls for the timely, systematic and structural involvement of EU, sectoral and national social partners in the development and carrying out of the ELA’s activities to improve its effectiveness; calls on the national competent authorities to cooperate more closely with their national social partners, as they are experts in the field of labour law;

10.  Calls on the Member States to recognise the added value of ELA, to strengthen cooperation between their competent authorities and ELA and to provide sufficient resources at national level to ensure that the competent authorities have the means, capacity and structure to cooperate and act effectively; recalls the key role of national liaison officers in facilitating cooperation between the Member States and ELA, by acting as national contact points, and in facilitating the exchange of information between ELA and the Member States; underlines that national experts seconded by the Member States, including national liaison officers, should help carry out ELA’s tasks and should not be working under the direction or supervision of their Member State; stresses the need to offer EU-level social partners the opportunity to designate one liaison officer each;

11.  Notes the greater prevalence of precarious working and living conditions among third-country nationals, who, for example, depend on housing provided by their employer; underlines that ELA should be empowered to address the situation of third-country nationals, on the basis of applicable EU labour legislation, and that close cooperation with the Member States, social partners and civil society organisations is needed in this regard; points out that the Member States could benefit from ELA’s ability to provide information on the working conditions of mobile third-country nationals; stresses that ELA should be able to collect and access data related to the situation of mobile workers, including third-country nationals, in line with the applicable EU data protection rules, and to support the Member States to better enforce existing legislation for third-country nationals working in the single market; notes that ELA could also play a role in facilitating cooperation and the exchange of information between Member States on improving access for third-country nationals to the competent authorities for labour mobility and working conditions;

12.  Regrets that the Commission has not followed up on Parliament’s resolution of 25 November 2021 on the introduction of a European social security pass for improving the digital enforcement of social security rights and fair mobility(7) or on its repeated call for a legislative proposal on the creation of a European social security number; reiterates, therefore, its call on the Commission to present such a proposal without delay in order to facilitate enforcement activities by ELA and national authorities and to enable social security coordination and to safeguard fair labour mobility;

13.  Points out that exploitative, fraudulent and abusive corporate practices related to labour mobility by international actors are not always easy to identify and tackle at national level; is therefore convinced that ELA could provide added value through operational analyses at EU level, with a view to better identifying and exposing risk sectors and the unfair practices of the entities involved and to exchanging best practices on how to tackle such cases; regrets that the current ELA regulation provides neither a sufficient legal basis for conducting operational risk analyses nor any follow-up procedures; recalls that any breach or infringement of EU law in the area of labour mobility should entail investigations and, where appropriate, dissuasive sanctions;

14.  Calls for a clear provision allowing ELA to process data related to investigations and operational analyses, in line with the applicable EU data protection rules; calls for ELA to be given access to the Internal Market Information System and other relevant databases, provided that data confidentiality is ensured and that all data subjects’ fundamental rights are respected; stresses that, in order to carry out its tasks in a timely and effective manner, ELA also needs access to all national data relevant to its work, including findings from inspections and enforcement activities by Member States;

15.  Highlights the important role that EURES can play in addressing labour shortages and skills mismatches(8) across the EU, as well as in providing general information about national labour markets and social security systems and real time information about available jobs; stresses the importance of a more user-friendly EURES portal for mobile jobseekers and potential employers;

16.  Calls for improved coordination and cooperation among Member States, social partners and ELA on providing information regarding labour mobility and workers’ rights to workers and employers;

17.  Stresses the need for efficient cooperation between EU agencies in order to create synergies;

18.  Calls for expanded cooperation on the exchange of information with Europol and Eurojust in instances of crimes, in particular when organised crime is involved, for example in the construction sector, and, when European subsidies are affected, with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;

19.  Stresses that ELA needs sufficient resources, including its own staff, to carry out its tasks, in particular field inspections to detect breaches of labour law; notes that the high proportion of seconded national experts (SNEs) in ELA is a significant obstacle to its operations in the medium and long term; recalls that SNEs only have temporary assignments, which may contribute to institutional inconsistency, jeopardise operational continuity and lead to difficulties in delivering on ELA’s core tasks; calls, therefore, for the conversion of a sufficient number of SNE posts to permanent posts;

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

(1) OJ C, C/2023/1072, 15.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1072/oj. (2) OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 31. (3) OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21. (4) OJ C 362, 8.9.2021, p. 82. (5) European Commission, ‘Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 2022’, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, 2022. (6) European Commission, ‘Statistics on migration to Europe’, May 2023. (7) OJ C 224, 8.6.2022, p. 81. (8) EURES, ‘Report on labour shortages and surpluses – 2022’, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023.

European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the situation in Hungary and frozen EU funds (2024/2512(RSP))

P9_TA(2024)0053 B9-0086/2024

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 2, 4(3) and 7(1) thereof,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’),

–  having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the protocols thereto,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the international human rights treaties of the United Nations and the Council of Europe,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 22 December 2021 for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (COM(2021)0569),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget(1) (the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility(2) (the RRF Regulation),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy(3) (the Common Provisions Regulation),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the rule of law in Hungary, in particular those of 12 September 2018(4), of 8 July 2021(5), of 15 September 2022(6), of 16 January 2020(7), of 24 November 2022(8) and of 1 June 2023(9),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 June 2023 on the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021 – 2027 (COM(2023)0336),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2023 on the proposal for a mid-term revision of the multiannual financial framework 2021-2027(10),

–  having regard to the country chapters on Hungary in the Commission’s annual rule of law reports, in particular those of 2021, 2022 and 2023,

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

A.  whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 TEU, and as reflected in the Charter and embedded in international human rights treaties;

B.  whereas a Member State’s compliance with the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU is a condition for the enjoyment of all of the rights derived from the application of the Treaties to that Member State; whereas according to Article 7 TEU, the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 or it can determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2;

C.  whereas for several years, the rule of law has been deteriorating in Hungary as a result of the systematic actions of its government; whereas this situation has not been sufficiently addressed, many concerns remain and many issues continue to arise; whereas the situation of various vulnerable groups, in particular women, LGBTIQ+ persons, Roma, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees has significantly deteriorated in recent years, and they continue to face fundamental rights violations without independent institutions capable or willing to protect them; whereas the absence of the rule of law has led to control over both state and private media and the constant abuse of the already lax labour laws by the Hungarian Government, as well as to environmental degradation;

D.  whereas on 3 May 2023, the Hungarian National Assembly adopted a judicial reform package without proper parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation; whereas this package, despite subsequent additions, does nothing to review the recent political appointments to the highest levels of the country’s justice system;

E.  whereas on 12 December 2023, the Hungarian National Assembly adopted a ‘national sovereignty protection’ package without proper parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation; whereas this package provides the executive with even more opportunities to silence and stigmatise independent voices and opponents;

F.  whereas Hungary is one of the largest recipients of EU funds (with over EUR 32 billion in Common Provisions Regulation and NextGenerationEU funds allocated to Hungary in the current multiannual financial framework (MFF)); whereas the deterioration of the rule of law in Hungary poses a significant risk to the protection of the financial interests of the EU and to the implementation of the EU budget in Hungary;

G.  whereas the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation is of the utmost importance, as it is one of the most effective instruments which allows the protection of the EU budget;

H.  whereas on 15 December 2022, the Council adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary(11); whereas pursuant to the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, the Commission has been monitoring the implementation of the remedial measures proposed by Hungary in the course of the procedure in the framework of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506; whereas the measures include the suspension of 55 % of budgetary commitments under three operational cohesion policy programmes, as well as a prohibition on entering into legal commitments with any public interest trust established on the basis of the Hungarian Act IX of 2021 or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust; whereas in December 2023, the Commission re-evaluated Hungary’s situation and confirmed that the risk to the Union budget has remained unchanged since December 2022, and the Council’s measures should neither be adapted nor lifted;

I.  whereas on 15 December 2022, the Council adopted an implementing decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Hungary, which set out several milestones that should be effectively implemented before the submission of the first payment request; whereas on 7 December 2023, the Council adopted an implementing decision approving Hungary’s amended recovery and resilience plan, including a REPowerEU chapter;

J.  whereas on 22 December 2022, the Commission adopted a Partnership Agreement with Hungary; whereas the Commission also approved several operational programmes, while referring to several horizontal and thematic enabling conditions; whereas the Commission concluded that Hungary was not fulfilling the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter with regard to judicial independence and the provisions of several laws posing serious risks to LGBTIQ+ rights, academic freedom and the right to asylum; whereas Hungary concluded in its self-assessment on the lack of fulfilment of several thematic enabling conditions and the Commission took note of this; whereas both the horizontal and thematic enabling conditions must be respected throughout the whole programming period for expenditure to be reimbursed from the EU budget;

K.  whereas the Commission adopted a decision on 13 December 2023 considering that the horizontal enabling condition on the Charter had been fulfilled in relation to judicial independence; whereas this decision means that the Hungarian authorities may start claiming reimbursements of up to around EUR 10,2 billion from European Structural and Investment Funds;

L.  whereas the European Council failed to reach unanimity on 14-15 December 2023 on a decision to amend the MFF for 2021-2027; whereas this failure was reportedly the result of the opposition of the Prime Minister of Hungary; whereas the failure to reach an agreement on the MFF revision seriously jeopardises the continuity and predictability of the financial aid granted by the EU to Ukraine, with grave strategic implications for the EU;

M.  whereas over the past decade, Hungary has turned into a hybrid regime of electoral autocracy, according to the relevant indices;

1.  Reiterates its findings, concerns and recommendations expressed in its previous resolutions on the state of the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary; condemns the deliberate, continuous and systematic efforts of the Hungarian Government to undermine the founding values of the EU enshrined in Article 2 TEU; is strongly concerned about the further erosion of democracy, as well as the deterioration of the rule of law and the fundamental rights situation in Hungary since Parliament’s adoption of its resolution of 15 September 2022, in particular, the recent adoption of the ‘national sovereignty protection’ package; recalls that the Hungarian Government is solely responsible for restoring compliance with EU law and respecting the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;

2.  Strongly regrets the failure of the Council to make meaningful progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; reiterates its call on the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the context of this procedure; underlines that the Council shares the responsibility for the protection of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and that the failure to do so would have long-lasting and potentially damaging consequences; calls on the European Council and the Member States to take action and to determine whether Hungary has committed serious and persistent breaches of EU values under Article 7(2) TEU; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respected;

3.  Strongly condemns the actions of the Prime Minister of Hungary, who decided to block the decision on the essential MFF revision, including the Ukraine aid package, in full disrespect and violation of the EU’s strategic interests; believes that such actions are in violation of the principle of sincere cooperation, as enshrined in the Treaties; points to the fact that in no way can the EU give in to blackmail and trade the strategic interests of the EU and its allies by renouncing its values; forcefully reiterates its insistence on the need for an urgent and targeted reinforcement of the MFF, providing for citizens’ needs and delivering on political commitments already undertaken, including funding for Ukraine; calls on the European Council to urgently agree on such a position in the extraordinary summit on 1 February 2024;

4.  Welcomes the Commission communication of 13 December 2023 confirming that the risk to the Union budget has remained unchanged since December 2022, and thus prolonging the measures adopted under the Conditionality Regulation; is of the opinion that this confirms Parliament’s previous concerns and recommendations on the matter; reiterates its call on the Commission to ensure that the final recipients or beneficiaries of EU funds are not deprived of these funds, as set out in the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation; underlines that measures tackling breaches of the rule of law are essential to increase citizens’ trust in the EU;

5.  Expresses its regret and reaffirms its serious concerns about the Commission decision considering that the horizontal enabling condition of the Charter had been fulfilled in relation to judicial independence, thus enabling the Hungarian authorities to submit reimbursement claims of up to EUR 10,2 billion without adequate control mechanisms or public procurement procedures in place to guarantee sound financial management and the protection of the EU budget; believes that this decision politically contradicts the decision to prolong the measures adopted under the Conditionality Regulation and expresses its disappointment that Parliament was not adequately informed during the process; underlines that the Commission is tasked with independently and objectively assessing Hungary’s compliance with applicable legislation, without compromising on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; believes that even after the recent reforms, Hungary does not meet the standard of judicial independence set out in the Charter, as indicated by experts in Hungary and internationally, as the measures adopted do not ensure sufficient safeguards against political influence and can be either circumvented or inadequately applied; is concerned, in particular, about the persistence of obstacles to preliminary references, problems with the allocation of cases in the Kúria, and the deficient system for the nomination of President of the Kúria; urges the Commission to share, together with the decision, a detailed written justification; calls on the Commission to re-assess its decision, particularly in light of the national measures taken since its adoption, and to refrain from disbursing any funds until all of the relevant legislation has been fully implemented and the adopted measures have proven their effectiveness in practice;

6.  Reiterates its previous calls on the Commission to ensure that no payments under the RRF should be made to the Hungarian authorities until the milestones (including the ones referred to as ‘super milestones’) and targets linked to the first payment have been satisfactorily met and have proven their sustainability in practice; is of the opinion that the current audit and control arrangements put in place by the Hungarian authorities, through a fast-track procedure to meet the required criteria for judicial reforms, must show concrete, sustainable and verifiable results in practice, particularly as regards addressing systemic issues, before EU funds can be disbursed; calls on the Commission to conduct a new updated assessment, in particular, of the state of judicial independence in Hungary, especially in the light of the developments since the decision was taken;

7.  Underlines that the Hungarian authorities must guarantee equal opportunities to access EU funding for individuals, companies, civil society, NGOs and local and regional authorities, and must ensure independent judicial oversight, as well as impartial and effective complaints mechanisms; condemns the reported systemic discriminatory practices against academia, journalists, political parties and civil society, as well as companies in certain sectors; regrets the politically motivated business practices that give an unfair advantage to competitors, non-transparent and manipulated public procurement procedures, takeover bids by the government and entities with ties to the Prime Minister, and the use of EU funds to enrich political allies of the government in contradiction to EU competition and public procurement rules; stresses that the rule of law is key for a functioning single market in the EU;

8.  Underlines the important role of the presidency of the Council in driving forward the Council’s work on EU legislation, ensuring the continuity of the EU agenda and representing the Council in relations with the other EU institutions; questions if the Hungarian Government will be able to credibly fulfil this task in 2024, in view of its non-compliance with EU law and the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as well as the principle of sincere cooperation; recalls that, in some cases, the President of the European Council could be replaced by the member of the European Council representing the Member State holding the six-monthly Presidency of the Council; asks the Council to find proper solutions to mitigate these risks as soon as possible; recalls that Parliament can take appropriate measures if such a solution is not found; calls on the President of the Council and the Member States to start procedures immediately to reform the decision-making process in the Council, in order to end the abuse of the right of veto and the blackmail in the European Council and other European institutions;

9.  Stresses that the measures required for the release of EU funding, as defined by the relevant decisions taken under the Common Provisions Regulation, the RRF Regulation and the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, must be treated as a single, integral package, and that no payments should be made even if progress is made in one or more areas but deficiencies still persist in another; remains committed to ensuring that EU funds reach the Hungarian population, including through direct funding for local and regional authorities, and civil society, once the conditions have been fulfilled and stresses that the Hungarian authorities bear sole responsibility for the current situation;

10.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to make full use of the tools available to it to address the clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded, in particular, financial measures and expedited infringement procedures, applications for interim measures before the Court of Justice of the European Union and actions regarding the non-implementation of its judgments; expects prompt action following the adoption of the ‘national sovereignty protection’ package;

11.  Instructs its Committee on Legal Affairs to take the necessary steps as soon as possible in relation to the Commission’s decision leading to the unfreezing of EUR 10,2 billion, including requesting the Legal Service’s analysis in accordance with Rule 149, with a view to reviewing the legality of Decision C(2023)9014 before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; recalls the possibility for Parliament to use any of the legal and political measures at its disposal if the Commission releases funding without the criteria being fulfilled or if it fails to ensure the full implementation of the relevant legislation, considering its responsibility to act as the guardian of the Treaties and to protect the EU’s financial interests; reminds that the Commission is politically accountable to Parliament;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations.

(1) OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 1. (2) OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17. (3) OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159. (4) European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded (OJ C 433, 23.12.2019, p. 66). (5) European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2021 on breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary as a result of the legal changes adopted by the Hungarian Parliament (OJ C 99, 1.3.2022, p. 218). (6) European Parliament resolution of 15 September 2022 on the proposal for a Council decision determining, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded (OJ C 125, 5.4.2023, p. 463). (7) European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2020 on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary (OJ C 270, 7.7.2021, p. 91). (8) European Parliament resolution of 24 November 2022 on the assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law conditions under the Conditionality Regulation and state of play of the Hungarian RRP (OJ C 167, 11.5.2023, p. 74). (9) European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2023 on the breaches of the Rule of Law and fundamental rights in Hungary and frozen EU funds (OJ C, C/2023/1223, 21.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1223/oj). (10) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0335. (11) OJ L 325, 20.12.2022, p. 94.