24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/1

1.

The EESC wholeheartedly appreciates the important work civil society is playing in dealing with the refugees fleeing from war-torn countries, and who, therefore, deserve protection according to the Geneva Convention. Without this response, the tragic humanitarian situation which has unfolded in many European countries could have been catastrophic. The European Economic and Social Committee is directly committed to giving voice to this reality, to ensure that it is properly taken into account by the European institutions, governments and other political actors.

2.

The EESC is currently organising visits to meet with civil society organisations offering assistance to refugees in 11 Member States (Hungary, Poland, Malta, Greece, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Sweden, Italy, Croatia) and Turkey, as these countries are most affected by the flow of refugees. As the representative body of organised civil society to the European institutions, we will act as their voice at European level.

3.

The EESC believes that the current situation requires the EU to develop safe humanitarian corridors for refugees from countries affected by wars and threatened by terrorism and to do this together with the countries where these refugees are mostly concentrated. Beyond that we must establish a truly common European asylum system based on harmonised procedures throughout the EU. This includes uniform asylum status and mutual recognition of asylum decisions, shared responsibility and solidarity and efforts with respect to relocation and resettlement, and a revised Dublin Regulation. In addition, there is a need for robust, solidarity-based systems of burden-sharing, in which a permanent, fair and binding system for allocating those seeking protection between all EU countries would be the first step. Due to the exceptional circumstances and in line with the Stability and Growth Pact, the additional costs of hosting refugees should not, after the thorough examination, be recognised in the public deficits of the Member States.

4.

The EESC is also very concerned about the current undermining of the Schengen Agreement and of the principle of free movement, as it is one of the fundamental achievements benefiting EU citizens. It is important to properly secure the external borders of the Schengen countries. However, reinstalling internal barriers and building walls will do nothing to bring EU citizens closer together or foster EU citizenship.

5.

It is also crucial to develop immediate measures to address the root causes of the current refugee flows. The EU needs to work with countries of origin and transit on these issues and the EESC insists on the human right-based approach to be taken by the Commission for this cooperation, and not only on a security-based approach. Lastly, the EESC underlines the necessity of including civil society in the dialogue with third countries.

6.

The EESC, with its long-standing experience with migration issues, in recent years mainly through the European Integration/Migration Forum, believes integration and inclusion of refugees into our societies must be a two-way process where the social partners and other civil society organisations, together with governments and local authorities, play an essential role. Priority should be given to labour market access and, more specifically, to the recognition of qualifications and the provision of vocational and language training where needed. The European Union should launch a series of measures in reception countries and in the EU to centralise applications for employment, training, and recognition of skills.

7.

In order to create the necessary social consensus across Europe, it is essential to fully respect the equal treatment and social rights of both EU citizens and refugees in Europe, with particular attention to the most vulnerable among them. Early investment in the integration of refugees into society and the labour market is important to help refugees rebuild their lives, while minimising potential conflicts with the local population and avoiding greater costs in the future. Adequate funding of local public services and a civil dialogue between refugees and the local population are key to achieving this.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/3

Rapporteur:

Seamus BOLAND

1.1

The EESC recognises the fact that the European Commission has made it a priority to thoroughly simplify common agricultural policy (CAP) implementation and that it has already proposed, and will continue to propose, the simplification of certain Commission acts, making EU legislation easier to understand and to implement on the ground.

1.2

The EESC believes that increased transparency and legal certainty, and the reduction of unnecessary administration and associated costs for farmers, other beneficiaries, producer organisations and national administrations, is a necessary part of the simplification process.

1.3

Simplifications to the system must be implemented as soon as possible, and must make matters easier for farmers in particular. It is essential that they are accompanied by information- and education-based support.

1.4

The EESC recognises the efforts that the Commission has made to simplify the implementation of the new CAP, taking into consideration the notifications and decisions made by the Member States. With the current approach, it is difficult for the CAP to undergo considerable simplification for the farmer without compromising the rigour with which requirements are fulfilled. Conversely, these requirements are not always coherent and justified from the point of view of converting them into genuine public goods and environmental benefits.

1.5

Inspections and possible fines must be proportionate to the amount of money received by the beneficiary, the reasons for the non-compliance and the willingness to take corrective actions. Clear instances of deliberate fraud must be dealt with via normal procedures. The EESC recommends reducing disproportionality between large reductions of support even for minor infringements.

1.6

The application of greening measures must take into account unexpected factors such as weather conditions, drought or other such events that make the measures impossible to implement.

1.7

Where matters such as permanent grassland have been the subject of decisions in the European Court of Justice, it is important that rules established to respect the judgement are designed in a manner that minimises regulations rather than increases them.

1.8

The current legislative process (Council regulation accompanied by delegated and implementing acts) is highly complex and difficult for citizens to understand. Therefore a study should be carried out on how this system could be simplified.

1.9

After implementation of a flat rate scheme in the context of direct payments, the complex system of payment entitlements should be reviewed.

1.10

Temporary grassland should retain the status of arable land, regardless of how long it is used as grassland.

1.11

The current definition of an ‘active farmer’ must not disadvantage farmers and should be based on the fact that land eligible for aid is being used by the farmer for agricultural purposes.

1.12

The EESC agrees that the simplification of the CAP is an ambitious project, particularly since agricultural and rural development policies are by their nature complex. Simplification must be compatible with broad policy objectives such as:

1.13

Member States should ensure that the methodology that guides action on error rates is designed in such a way as to guarantee fair implementation.

1.14

Measures to ease access by young farmers to the young farmers scheme need to be explored and introduced immediately. Access of young people to agriculture should be supported.

1.15

The EESC recommends that a rule on limiting increased bureaucracy be established. For example, the adoption of a rule to allow for the elimination of an existing regulation when a new one is proposed.

2.1

The CAP budget, amounting to EUR 408 billion for the period of 2014-2020, accounts for 38 % of the entire EU budget. The first pillar, at EUR 313 billion, represents 77 % of all CAP expenditure. Direct payments, at EUR 294 billion, account for 94 % of the first pillar.

2.2

This opinion takes note of other opinions by the EESC (1).

2.3

The last major CAP reform, completed in 2013, was agreed as part of the co-decision process. This means that the European Parliament participated as equal co-legislators with agriculture ministers, who had increased from 15 to 28 since the previous major reform in 2003.

2.4

It is noted that during a previous reform of the CAP there was a Commission proposal for the direct payment regulation, where the evaluation showed a 15-20 % increase in the bureaucratic burden. At the same time, cuts were made to the budget.

2.5

A series of amendments were already introduced in previous years, which did not always maintain a clear distinction between simplifying and dismantling CAP measures. Examples include:

2.6

According to DG AGRI, the share of funds per Rural Development priority is:

3.1

This exploratory opinion follows on from the visit of Commissioner Phil Hogan to the EESC plenary session of July 2015, during which he stated that his main priority was to achieve a greater simplification of the CAP, and the subsequent letter from Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission, which invited the EESC to submit an exploratory opinion on the subject of CAP simplification.

3.2

It is the Commissioner’s view that simplification will ensure that the increased complexity of the CAP and the increased administrative burden that it has placed on farmers, other beneficiaries, and managing authorities will be eased, while at the same time not losing sight of any of its prime objectives.

3.3

The European Commission is finalising the assessment of all contributions on the basis of three guiding principles, namely that actions should:

3.4

Clearly, any simplification process must not threaten employment across the industry.

3.5

Through the rural development pillar, the CAP plays an important role in terms of social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development and benefits the entire population of rural areas. The EESC expressly welcomes the focuses set out in Article 5(6)(a)-(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 (2): job creation, fostering local development and enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication technologies. Simplification of the CAP should therefore ensure that the corresponding funds are made available easily and without bureaucratic hurdles.

3.6

The Commission has undertaken a process involving the comprehensive screening of all existing legislation to identify areas where adjustments and improvements are feasible. It has already received contributions from Member States, MEPs and from farm organisations across the EU. It should be noted that to date these proposals exceed 1 500 pages. From examining the documentation, it can be concluded that the proposals fall into two broad categories:

3.7

The EESC notes the priority list of simplification measures drawn up by the Agricultural Council and Presidency. This list could form the basis of proposals put forward by the Commission.

3.8

The Commission makes it clear that each Member State has considerable freedom in choosing its own methodology to administer and monitor the CAP and that simplification can be achieved by sensible interpretation. However, Member States should seek to improve the simplification process by exchanging best practices.

4.1

It is generally accepted that simplification is required so that implementation of the CAP should never be more complex than is necessary.

4.2

The Commission intends to introduce proposals relating to Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) on a particular farm, adjacent EFAs, compensation of EFAs in case of wrong declaration, and the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS).

4.3

The Commission intends to review the potential for simplification of direct payments (particularly on greening), rural development, the fruit and vegetables scheme and quality policy.

4.4

The Commission is also presenting a package that covers direct payment elements such as young farmers, coupled support and the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). These changes should be applicable, if possible, from claim year 2016 or, at the latest, by claim year 2017.

4.5

The rules regarding permanent grassland are creating problems for the classification of temporary grassland as arable land or permanent grassland. It should be possible to maintain the status of temporary grassland (classified as arable land) even if farmers decide to use this land continuously as grassland for 5 years or more. This would avoid farmers ploughing up their land just to prevent it from becoming permanent grassland. This land could therefore be used for longer as grassland, which has ecological benefits.

4.6

As regards market measures, the Commission is pursuing an ambitious simplification agenda in terms of elaborating the new delegated and implementing acts to align the Commission-level rules with the new Council Regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets (CMO Regulation). The aim is not only to drastically reduce the number and complexity of these rules, but also to ensure real simplification for farmers and operators alike.

4.7

The Commission has recently made two timely changes to the current rules by adopting:

4.8

The Commission intends to introduce a series of proposals on changes which can be made under the current guidelines. Examples include:

5.1

The greening of direct payments is now a crucial element of the common agricultural policy reforms. While farmers are learning to adapt to these changes, they remain fearful that specific measures may not be flexible enough to deal with unexpected conditions caused by the weather or fluctuations in market price.

5.2

It is understood that unannounced inspections will occur. However, these inspections are seen as at least a serious inconvenience and at most can cause huge mental distress to farmers. It is clear that justice demands that reasonable notice is given to the farmer before the inspection takes place.

5.3

Given that fines levied because of non-compliance will be unusually high, farmers fear that they will not get support, particularly in the form of appropriate information. In this instance Member States must convey adequate information to farmers who are most affected by the changes, with particular focus on farmers who are at a social and economic disadvantage.

5.4

The current regulatory framework regarding the definition of an ‘active farmer’ is not satisfactory and will require additional complex administration. Because of this, there is a risk that farmers involved in agricultural production will be excluded and, conversely, those not involved in agricultural production may be included.

5.5

Farmers are still trying to get to grips with greening, currently in its 1st year, and the three agricultural practices that it entails. Diversification of crops, maintaining permanent grassland, and allocating 5 % of land to EFAs are the three aspects of the reform that farmers must satisfy in order to be eligible for aid.

5.6

It is unacceptable that farmers are often held responsible because of errors made at official level. In particular farmers whose income is low and are dependent on this source of income are put in a position where their livelihood is in jeopardy.

5.7

‘Proportionality of sanctions’ is a recurring theme for most European trade associations.

5.8

Farmers with less than 15 hectares or who are receiving payments of less than EUR 10 000 feel that compliance should be based on light-touch inspection, and further inspections should only be carried out with preliminary evidence of serious non-compliance.

5.9

Issues regarding permanent grassland, raised by the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice, will need to be resolved. The case highlighted many problematic cases of buffer strips (arable land), arable grassland, set-aside arable land and arable land under agri-environmental measures, where farmers saw a risk that this land would be formally declared permanent grassland because of the 5-year definition.

5.10

Where agricultural organisations see a need for simplification, flexibility and proportionality, environmental groups see genuine risks. From an EESC perspective, this represents a failure to reconcile the aims of environmental improvement with that of food production on family farms.

5.11

Regarding horizontal provisions, a more proportional and risk-based approach could apply to the intensity of checks, taking into account the risk and amounts involved, cost-effectiveness and the different objectives and outcomes being sought.

5.12

Multiple checks should be avoided. In cases of non-compliance, particularly with minor infringements, the payment reductions and administrative penalties should be proportional. Additionally:

5.13

There should be a focus on steps that require urgent attention, such as improving guidance notes, provision of technical assistance, and facilitating cooperation and exchange of best practices between administrations.

5.14

Young farmers are having difficulty accessing the young farmers scheme. Barriers that unnecessarily prevent such access are likely to discourage young people from entering farming and need to be dismantled. Access of young people to agriculture should be supported.

5.15

Any amendments to the current legal framework must be agreed with sufficient time to allow farmers to adequately plan for the sowing season. Specifically, amendments affecting applications for the year 2017 should be published in the summer of 2016.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/11

Rapporteur:

Mr Joost VAN IERSEL

1.1

The future of Europe depends heavily on the availability of state-of-the-art knowledge and talented people in an open and knowledge-driven society. Universities have a key role to play in this process. If each Member State acts alone, the result will always be less than ideal.

1.2

The EESC underlines that national and EU competences should be shared and fine-tuned in order to create a European Higher Education (HE) Area. The concept of a civic and entrepreneurial university can also be very helpful in fostering the quality of HE in Europe.

1.3

The state of play shows that despite progress being made, there are still many obstacles and restraints that also hamper effective EU involvement. Different cultures, vested interests, a lack of financial resources and demographic developments often make it hard to provide up-to-date responses to dynamic challenges such as globalisation, new technologies, and mobility.

1.4

The EESC is of the opinion that the European institutions must act as a stimulus and speed up the process of modernising European HE, in terms of education as well as research and innovation. Universities have an autonomous mission that serves the public interest. Subsidiarity and the varied landscape of universities do not allow for a one-size-fits-all approach. Strategic guidance and support at EU level, however, can help decisively to improve conditions.

1.5

What is crucial is that the European Commission stimulate and push forward the agenda for the process of transforming European universities into co-drivers for growth and social cohesion and for the well-being of society.

1.6

Explicit reference should be made to the modernisation of HE in the National Reform programmes (NRP) and in the Country-Specific Recommendations (CSR).

1.7

The EU should demonstrate its commitment to HE through the Europe 2020 Strategy (including the semester), Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, the regional and cohesion funds, and by making cross-border mobility easier for students and lecturers.

1.8

Strategic consultations at EU level should add to discussions and projects in and between countries and universities in order to boost any quality of European universities. Best practices should be systematically disseminated.

1.9

Once again, the EESC underlines the need for HE institutions to develop real autonomy, accountability and transparency as essential prerequisites for modernisation (1). These prerequisites cannot be met without appropriate and adequate funding.

1.10

At a time of deep social and economic change, transforming universities is a long-term and laborious process. Universities need to develop an open attitude to society’s needs, and must include outreach to other stakeholders.

1.11

The EESC welcomes the concept of the civic university and the ‘triple helix’ and ‘quadruple helix’ model (2). The focus is on opening up HE, on broadening access, on the regional context, on integrating ideas from all (potential) stakeholders into programmes, and on a smart, up-to-date relationship between research and education.

1.12

The civic university has a number of elements in common with the entrepreneurial university. It emphasises its autonomous mission, and is open to the labour market and social relevance of educational curricula and of research and innovation. Stakeholder platforms (3) can be very helpful in co-defining requirements. PPP structures between universities and social groupings of any kind can be equally beneficial.

1.13

The level of teaching and adequate preparedness for subsequent jobs should remain a priority whatever the specialisation of a (top) university. Excellence in teaching also needs to be rewarded.

1.14

The Commission should play a stimulating role in cross-border cross-fertilisation projects between universities, lecturers and students as well as in promoting openness to the world; and in developing instruments, such as U-Multirank, where appropriate for students and other stakeholders.

2.1

The considerable variations between universities in Europe are due to highly-differing traditions and cultures (4). In 1999 the Bologna process started a successful trend towards modernising curricula.

2.2

Since 2008, the financial and economic crisis has forced universities to re-evaluate their operations even more closely and to seek out new financing sources and value for money. This has increased competition for scarce resources. A lack of sufficient funding poses a real problem for many universities, and is an impediment to the modernisation agenda.

2.3

The deep and dynamic transformation society is undergoing as a consequence of globalisation and new technologies is leaving its mark on universities. Higher education, research and innovation are at the heart of sustainable economic recovery, but financial constraints and the transformation process reveal equally marked shortcomings.

2.4

One fundamental aspect is the lack of autonomy, accountability and transparency. Substantial discrepancies exist between the Member States (5).

2.5

Best practice demonstrates that a review of structures and curricula, as well as greater openness and cooperation, boost quality and output.

2.6

HE should be within the reach of all talented people today. A growing correlation between access and social-economic background jeopardises the principle of equity. Moreover, in a number of countries HE by no means guarantees a safe job. During the crisis, youngsters with a higher education have by no means been safe from unemployment.

2.7

Demographic trends are detrimental to (increasingly) less populated and less competitive areas. This development often has serious consequences for attracting teachers and students and for the quality of the teachers and students attracted. Some countries are facing a brain drain. New private universities in the countries concerned, lacking adequate quality assurance, generate unsatisfactory outcomes. This is aggravated by a lack of funding for traditional HE.

2.8

The desire for closer relations between universities and society fuels discussions everywhere on their role in society, and on alliances with other stakeholders such as businesses, social partners, and civil society.

2.9

There is often a painfully-felt mismatch between graduates’ skills and labour market needs, between supply and demand. Businesses complain about a lack of skilled professionals, especially in the technical professions and ICT. Rapid changes in the global knowledge-base mean that, now more than ever, the right skill set for the 21st century is needed to enable graduates to systematically update their knowledge.

2.10

Furthermore, new technologies and digitisation are forcing HE to adapt and fine-tune existing methodologies. New forms of teaching and learning are becoming established, including student-centred learning, and online courses. Nevertheless, physical university campuses will continue to play a key role in local and regional communities as meeting grounds for education, research and networking.

2.11

Students and academics/university teachers are becoming increasingly mobile worldwide. In the upper ranks, there is an ongoing ‘battle for talent’, but the overall trend is broader. The quality and attractiveness of European universities are key draw factors for students from abroad, contributing to education and research, and generating long-lasting networks.

2.12

In striving for greater output, (top) universities often emphasise research as their prime task and financial regulations support this. A primary focus on research tends to undermine the optimal balance and interaction between research and teaching.

3.1

The development of universities into knowledge hubs in society as an integral part of the EU ecosystem fuels a discussion on the essential characteristics of HE, on which day-to-day practices must be based.

3.2

While there are different approaches, a common trend seems to be the opening-up of HE to the opinions and interests of public and private stakeholders and students, and to issues such as cross-fertilisation between research and education and greater cooperation and internationalisation.

3.3

For most universities this is a long-term and laborious process. It is not easy for big, traditional institutions to change their behaviour. Moreover, in many countries existing (political) procedures to appoint governors as well as lecturers and researchers are an obstacle to change. In such cases, independent approaches by and within universities are rare. In the view of the EESC, opening up HE and maintaining an open mind should be a high priority for HE across the continent.

3.4

Top-quality research, as well as better-trained and highly-qualified people, is indispensable to the resilience of any economy. The crisis has had a detrimental effect on results in knowledge centres, while analyses prove a direct link between outstanding research and education, and economic performance.

3.5

Universities no longer target the upper echelons of society. Their number and size have increased dramatically. The landscape has become more diverse: more categories, notably, applied sciences universities alongside research universities, regional HE alongside national and international universities, and a greater number of faculties, notably in the economic and technical sectors, etc.

3.6

Broadening access to HE is rightly a political priority across the continent. In the EU, 40 % of the upcoming generation should be able to get a university degree. In addition, curricula, learning tools (the use of modern media in blended learning, etc.), the relationship between research and education, as well as other aspects such as internationalisation and the public interest, bear no resemblance to the way they were in the past. Management methods need to adjust accordingly.

3.7

Autonomous, accountable, and transparent universities should be enabled to act as freely as possible within a legal framework that encourages bottom-up forces and competition as a major contribution to broader participation and smart specialisation.

3.8

An open attitude, including clear outreach to other stakeholders, should sustain universities as drivers for growth, competitiveness and social cohesion.

3.9

For the economic viability of the local and regional community, concepts of the civic and entrepreneurial university can be very useful. These concepts require both ambition and close cooperation between universities, their stakeholders, and public authorities.

4.1

The EESC welcomes the concept of civic university (6). This goes beyond teaching, academic research and knowledge. A civic university engages actively with the public and the surrounding society — at all levels. Every university can add a civic dimension to its performance by taking on the role both of intellectually productive power station for the community and of receiving substation, transforming excellent ideas from elsewhere into its own specific context.

4.2

Such processes are taking place across Europe — through demand-driven research, problem-based learning, cooperation between universities and local communities, schools, hospitals, businesses etc. However, a substantial amount of capacity-building is still needed (7).

4.3

At regional level, universities can support a holistic approach and be leaders in bringing together relevant stakeholders to address common challenges. A well-designed civic university can also play an important role in promoting the output of regions in difficulty.

4.4

The model’s form will vary from university to university. In addition to those universities directly concerned by less affluent areas with weak economic performance and/or demographic difficulties, criteria that would qualify a university as ‘civic’ are valid for a far wider group. These days, world-class European universities and those with similar ambitions are also increasingly and rightly attracted by civic engagement.

4.5

The civic university presents a model for universities that want to move beyond outdated methods of management or traditional approaches. This is particularly important in cases, where young talents should be challenged to contribute to the national or regional economy. Deeper cooperation with the relevant stakeholders in all regions must be a formula that drives openness and modernisation.

4.6

Respective Council presidencies rightly adopted a similar approach in the Lund and Rome Declarations (8), underlining the need for research to focus on the major challenges of our time, moving beyond rigid thematic approaches and involving stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. When it comes to shaping the European Research Area and the Innovation Union, Responsible Research and Innovation is a central objective, spanning all relevant policies and activities. These principles are also priorities under Horizon 2020.

4.7

Alongside the ‘triple helix’ model — which involves cooperation between universities, the private sector, government — is the ‘quadruple helix’ model, which also engages local communities and civil society. It has a strong sense of place and a sense of purpose and is transparent and accountable to its stakeholders and the wider public. This presents a new opportunity for civil society to get involved.

4.8

One specific group requiring attention is former students: alumni. More can be done in Europe to engage them in helping to improve universities’ output and image. Europe could follow the example of common US practice here.

4.9

Alumni should be seen as an integral part of the university community. They can be ambassadors for a university, regionally, nationally and internationally, and driving forces in the discussion on curricula, which is especially useful in times of dynamic change. They can be instrumental in the discussion on the balance between research and education as well as between research and the market. A specific goal could be to use alumni as coaches for recent graduates, especially first-generation students, including those with foreign backgrounds.

4.10

Greater alumni mobility generates successful international networks, which can be equally beneficial for their universities and for industry.

5.1

‘The civic university’ has a number of elements in common with the entrepreneurial university. Universities are not companies. They have an autonomous mission in the public interest, notably to educate, to carry out (top-level) research, and to the use of knowledge by society at large. The entrepreneurial university has a dual focus: on steering and managing the institution and on fostering students’ entrepreneurial skills and sense of initiative.

5.2

The labour market relevance of educational curricula and the societal relevance of research and innovation are very important. Communication and interaction with the private sector at national/regional level are crucial to meet the challenges facing society.

5.3

The silo mentality is no longer useful. Technological dynamics and societal challenges call for continual adjustment. The demand side is increasingly complicated, requiring inter- and trans-disciplinary competences and an openness to any new development. Besides professional competences, this also entails the need to develop skills. Stakeholders platforms, linked with universities, can be very helpful with jointly defining requirements. Teaching staff must be properly prepared for this dynamic context. Entrepreneurship skills (9) should also be taught in all kinds of HE across the European Union.

5.4

Similarly, PPP structures bringing together universities and social groupings, such as business circles and the health sector, can be equally beneficial.

5.5

A valuable project for universities would be to create ‘Education Value Chains’, in cooperation with business sectors. There are two main purposes to this:

5.6

Similarly, performance agreements, as applied in some Member States, will boost universities’ specialisation, profile and image. They can have a wide international as well as a regional focus, and improve the ambition and quality of both programmes and students. To achieve this, consistent commitment on both sides (governments and HE) is essential.

5.7

Innovation should affect research and education as well as governance. A successful example of bottom-up improvement is HEinnovate, an independent online self-assessment tool, developed by the European Commission (10). Wider use of this tool should be encouraged.

5.8

Internationally-presented university programmes as well as a broad panoply of competing online courses is on offer for students who want to be more mobile. Comparability and transparency should foster competition and convergence in terms of performance. Transparency tools such as U-Multirank in the EU have great potential and universities need to consider how to use this type of instrument more effectively.

5.9

All talented people should have a fair chance to enter higher education. Fee-paying systems are becoming increasingly widespread. As a result, students become more critical of the education they receive. But any social selection resulting from the introduction of fees must be excluded. Student support (based on socioeconomic background) must ensure fair access for everyone to appropriate education. Moreover, fee-paying systems must not be misused to replace existing public funding.

5.10

Demographic developments also call for additional efforts to be made to boost the number of graduates in the regions concerned, specifically to promote the resilience and future viability of those regions.

5.11

Where both students and business are concerned, higher education and research must be strongly interlinked. By contrast, financing models tend to favour research outputs, resulting in fewer university teachers actually teaching.

5.12

Universities must take due account of the fact that the vast majority of graduates with bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and even PhDs, will take up jobs in society and business, outside academia. Consequently, educational standards and adequate preparedness for jobs should remain a priority whatever the specialisation of a (top) university. In this respect, the US provides an example that Europe should not follow (11). The formula for Europe is to strive for excellence and equity.

5.13

Digitisation is a paradigm shift that is affecting HE profoundly in terms of teaching and (blended (12)) learning, teachers’ and students’ skills, and governance structures. More dynamism and flexibility will be required at all levels. In this regard, closer cooperation between HE and the private sector is also beneficial, if not essential.

6.1

The EESC welcomes the fact that all of the above subjects, together with the modernisation of HE, are increasingly present on the EU agenda. It would be desirable to find a common approach to ensuring successful completion of the European HE Area and the European Research Area.

6.2

Open and transparent universities, in addition to a well-defined European guiding strategy, will be highly beneficial for the single market and for the modernisation of a resilient European society in the global arena. The free movement of students, researchers and knowledge is essential to this.

6.3

EU engagement in HE began with the promotion of scientific research in consecutive framework programmes. Meanwhile the EU’s commitment to the field of education is expanding. The Stability and Growth Pact emphasises the need to uphold growth-inducing expenses, including HE in particular.

6.4

Two of the five Europe 2020 headline targets are directly related to HE: investment in R & D and innovation, and education. They commit a number of different commissioners. In 2014, the CSRs revealed that around half the Member States face serious problems regarding skills mismatch and labour market relevance, as well as an ongoing lack of cooperation between HE and business or other stakeholders.

6.5

The CSRs point to the need to address employability and the needs of the private sector and of students/graduates as future employees (or employers) as well as competitiveness, through more effective cooperation between HE, research institutions and business. The EESC insists that the follow-up of the CSRs should be monitored more effectively and the results discussed openly by the Commission and the Council.

6.6

However, in contrast to the need for HE to be autonomous and accountable, there are political forces in Member States calling for more regulation, which would lead to less autonomy. In these cases, subsidiarity is invoked as a principle, consequently preventing the harmonisation of HE systems in Europe. This would damage the interests of students and of society as a whole.

6.7

Higher and broader qualifications should be put to use in the EU and beyond. This calls for cross-border cross-fertilisation between universities, lecturers and students and for openness to the world. An explicit commitment from the Council, the Member States and the Commission should lead to enhanced HE performance through better sharing and fine-tuning of national and EU competences.

6.8

The EESC constantly underlines the crucial importance of EU research and innovation programmes. Cross-border research fosters return on investment, EU programmes encourage a focus on key technologies and strategic themes, cross-national financing leads to higher outputs, and European scientific alliances give a real boost to European competitiveness. To this end, new knowledge also needs to be shared more widely, notably by open access.

6.9

Under the seventh framework programme (FP7) and, since 2014 under Horizon 2020, the European Research Council successfully supports high quality research through competitive funding. However, structural barriers still impede the cross-border mobility of researchers, academics and students.

6.10

Increasingly, the performance of HE and research is assessed and made transparent worldwide. Universities are cooperating and competing on a global scale, working on joint research projects, pursuing excellence and, increasingly, recruiting both students and staff from outside the EU. This is a key issue, and yet national regulations and a lack of stimulus can stifle progress in this area. International measuring proves that the gap between Europe’s best performers and others is widening.

6.11

Greater efforts need to be made to involve excellent researchers from all over Europe in joint projects. Pockets of excellence across the continent need to be connected and to participate in Europe’s excellent research projects.

6.12

Mobility among academics and students in Europe is limited, as cross-border movement is still artificially hampered. Ensuring equal working conditions for researchers and academics, along with greater convergence of curricula and student degrees in Europe is a matter of urgency.

6.13

Inadequate statistics should be improved and put to better use in order to measure the extent of mobility and to support it.

6.14

The opening-up and upgrading of universities, as well as cultural diversification through increased internationalisation are healthy. Moreover, students, supported by up-to-date social media, transparency instruments such as U-Multirank, and the specialisation of universities are encouraged to make specific choices. Pragmatic solutions at EU level should help them.

6.15

Closer cooperation among those willing can show the way forward. One example is the recent agreement between the Benelux countries concerning the automatic mutual recognition of diplomas. This is a decisive step forwards (13). A trend for the mutual recognition of university degrees and the different degrees in sciences will help reduce barriers between universities and create open exchanges.

6.16

Adequate quality-assurance systems need to be internationalised and should have a clear European connection. This includes the need to recognise accreditation decisions. Any initiative in this field should be welcomed (14). A process of mutual recognition should gradually lead to Europe-wide accreditation and will, in particular, boost the quality of teaching in underperforming universities.

6.17

Such practices would be beneficial across Europe for both mobility and employability. By introducing one degree for several universities, joint programmes between universities would become far more attractive. Support for twinning should be considered. The exchange of administrative and teaching practices on the spot may enhance quality.

6.18

A basic condition for internationalisation is the use of common languages. Knowledge of (more than two) languages is desirable for cultural and economic reasons. English might be today’s lingua franca. Progress on improving language skills is too slow. Making it mandatory for students to know one foreign language should be taken into consideration.

6.19

The Erasmus+ programme has been a great success and a huge step forward in facilitating mobility. It is also well received by business. It fits in very well with the Commission’s guiding principle of growth and jobs. The financing of the programme should meet growing demand. Any legal constraints to student exchanges should be removed.

6.20

European structural and investment funds are rightly focusing on innovation and growth factors, including research. The Commission must play a guiding role in improving the participation of universities in regional projects.

6.21

As a rule, universities are independent from local and regional authorities, although there are notable exceptions. These should be highlighted. A very positive contribution is also being made by the ESIF programme, which links research through RIS3 (15) to EU regional programmes, fostering an innovation-friendly environment.

6.22

Universities should be aware of RIS3 and its application at various levels. Together with committed regional authorities they should play an active role in the programme.

6.23

Unfortunately, for reasons of governance, universities are still underusing the ESIF programme. Synergies between EU programmes (ESIF, Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+) need to be sought, but tend to be blocked by conflicting conditions.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/20

Rapporteur:

Antonello PEZZINI

Co-rapporteur:

Zbigniew KOTOWSKI

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) believes that both individual European engineers and technicians and their national and European organisations are a key resource in the European reindustrialisation process as they help speed up the conversion of research into innovative market applications.

1.2.

The European Union (EU)’s economic development is increasingly linked to a process of reindustrialisation, seen as a strategy for shifting to new sustainable models for design, production and marketing of high value-added, innovative products incorporating new, high-quality technologies, materials and services in an increasingly digitalised world.

1.3.

The EESC believes that the key role played by engineers and technical professions in this process of attempting to resolve the difficulties facing European society as a result of the challenges posed by reindustrialisation should be more strongly emphasised and highlighted, and calls for the launch of a participatory foresight exercise on the future of the profession.

1.4.

The EESC recommends promoting a European culture of entrepreneurship and innovation and launching tangible initiatives to revive the professions of engineer and technician, which drive civilisation and prosperity.

1.5.

The EESC supports the need for a harmonious European framework driving the profession forward, covering areas such as:

1.6.

The EESC believes that high levels of training and qualifications are a prerequisite in engineering for an effective mutual recognition system. High levels of education and training need to be maintained, with the introduction of an optional EU ‘29th regime’ based on voluntary European Professional Card pilots (1) and with active support from national and European professional associations if we want to ensure that each country has confidence in mutual, knowledge-based professional mobility.

1.6.1.

The way society is currently developing is creating a multitude of new jobs outside the technical area, which, thanks to the influence of the media and the desire for social popularity, are attractive to young people looking for a rapid and prestigious career. From this point of view the engineering profession is perceived as traditional, providing no possibilities for an easy and fast career. This means that engineering disciplines will not be attractive to future generations, which presents a serious threat to the success of European reindustrialisation and the competitiveness of European industry. It is a serious challenge to existing educational systems and suggests that primary education needs to be steered firmly towards mathematics, physics and engineering, presenting them as attractive so as to arouse the curiosity of younger generations. Likewise, the principle and best practices of dual education (Germany, Switzerland and Austria) deserve special attention from all the Member States which lack such a system.

1.7.

The EESC believes that it is necessary to create a European single market for engineering and develop a common, multidimensional approach for increased mobility throughout the European Union, given the importance of mutual recognition, in particular for independent self-employed engineers.

1.8.

The EESC recommends that the engineering sector be given a substantial role in European standardisation policy to speed up, simplify and modernise procedures and ensure the interoperability of systems and networks.

1.9.

The EESC recommends that organisations in which engineers work develop, on the basis of the European Qualifications Framework, electronic training models geared to the younger generations and governance and evaluation arrangements geared to new engineers and their characteristics, with appealing working environments and career paths.

1.10.

According to the EESC, representative organisations and professional bodies need to find more common ground in order to act as a united driving force, both within and outside the EU, and provide their members with lifelong learning in accordance with common European parameters.

1.11.

The EESC recommends that the Commission take practical steps towards the establishment of a European liberal profession forum (2), in which engineering associations and professional bodies should be widely represented, and calls for the creation of a European engineering portal where issues such as liability, intellectual property, taxation, pensions, ongoing training and codes of good practice can be addressed.

1.12.

The EESC recommends that the Commission draw up a European code of good engineering practice on the basis of the experience of national organisations of engineers and technicians, providing these professionals with the legal and financial prerequisites for innovative projects, particularly SMEs and R & D operators.

1.13.

The EESC believes that the profession needs to be increasingly focused on the management of complex issues relating to economic, social and environmental sustainability, making increasing use of advanced multidisciplinary approaches and proper interoperability between manufacturing systems and the new Industry 4.0 systems.

1.14.

The EESC calls on the Commission and Member States to take due account of the European Council conclusions of 20—21 March 2014 urging them to address shortages in the area of science, technology, engineering and mathematics — the so-called STEM skills — as a matter of priority, with increased involvement of industry.

2.1.

European engineering is rooted in the pursuit of innovation, as epitomised in the genius of Leonardo da Vinci, a fact that reflects European society’s openness to new ideas and a culture of valuing civic engagement, good governance and hard work.

2.2.

As underlined by the European Parliament (EP), ‘The crisis has hit European economies hard. (…) The EU needs a comprehensive growth strategy to overcome these challenges’ (3).

2.3.

The EU’s reindustrialisation strategy focuses especially on investment in innovation, where engineers play a key role, particularly in fast growing sectors.

2.4.

The convergence of digital technologies, communication systems and smart grids, nanobiotechnology, sustainable industrial technologies, 3D printers and cross-sectoral enabling clean technologies is radically changing how economies and societies operate, with speed that has become exponential as a result of globalisation.

2.5.

The EU’s future is linked to a process of reindustrialisation, which means, first and foremost, a strategy for shifting to new sustainable models of design, production and marketing for high value-added products incorporating new technologies, materials and services in an increasingly digitalised world.

2.6.

The EESC firmly believes that without scientific and technical human resources, with the requisite assets in terms of experience and know-how, it will be difficult to achieve the objectives outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy. Here, too, the role of professional organisations and associations of engineers and technicians needs to be highlighted, at national and European level.

2.7.

In Europe, the highest concentration of technical skills is in the engineering sector, which boasts some 130 000 companies employing more than 10 million highly qualified and skilled people, with an annual output worth approximately EUR 1 840 billion, equivalent to around one third of all EU exports. Engineers and technicians also play an important role in all other sectors of the economy (4).

2.8.

Europe needs to develop a new, ‘smart’ approach to its policies, ensuring a new role for professionals with a technical background. There is an increasing need to manage smart transformation processes in the regions, something that is explicitly required by the new European agenda.

2.9.

If it is to achieve these objectives, the EU must improve the skills levels of its workforce. There will be an increase in demand in the public and private sectors for engineering expertise in particular. The public sector will require increased technical skills to meet challenges in a range of sectors (energy, transport, health, waste management, education, the carbon footprint, the internet of things and the circular economy) applying the new public procurement directives with forms of cooperation involving business networks, work in clusters and new software.

2.10.

The private sector will also have to upgrade engineering skills if it wants to reap the benefits of more advanced skills in the workplace. Analysis of consumer behaviour reveals a constantly increasing demand for intelligent products and services.

2.11.

Technical know-how and experience must be constantly updated to respond to the challenges posed by new industrial processes. New forms and methods of learning and training are needed to allow for optimal, flexible use of human and social capital in the sector. It will be necessary to organise new forms of work for professionals operating in the area of vocational, technical and scientific services in Europe.

2.12.

Greater mobility in national, European and global labour markets will lead to better use of the workforce available within an attractive European engineering pool. With the possibility of opting for a voluntary EU ‘29th regime’, the dissemination of an EU professional card could be encouraged, to make it easier for specialised engineers to build up professional experience in the different European countries.

2.13.

To make potential engineering students more aware of the profession, greater cooperation is needed between industry and academia and between employers and state and private schools, at both primary, secondary and R & D levels. This would encourage companies to put corporate social responsibility into practice and promote appropriate training.

2.14.

Involving entrepreneurs and taking on new and more complex issues will make it clear to young people that maths, information technology, physics and chemistry are necessary to solve the problems that society has to address and are the keys to new innovative solutions in medicine and healthcare, transport, pollution and energy savings.

2.15.

Cooperation of this kind must be forged at local level, but experience and best practice should be shared at European level. This would make for new jobs and career opportunities for engineers, and could help to make these subjects more alive and relevant for future generations.

2.16.

At the same time, taking into account parallel progress in all the various disciplines and the multi-disciplinary nature of practical applications, quality and effectiveness need to be guaranteed, introducing educational pathways that incorporate other subjects into secondary and university education, such as social psychology and human resources team management, stimulation of creative processes, nanotechnologies, biomedical engineering, technical history, economic geography, etc.

2.17.

A process of accrediting educational curricula is one way in which these professions can guarantee compliance with standards. Quality assurance involves the establishment of reference and evaluation standards in line with the European and national qualifications frameworks.

2.18.

External accreditation and internal quality assurance are two very important factors in maintaining high quality engineering training.

3.1.1.

At the same time, the EESC points to the need for a European framework driving the profession covering the following areas:

3.2.1.

The EESC believes that high levels of engineering training and qualifications are a prerequisite for an effective mutual recognition system: lowering educational standards in order to preserve mobility might be likely to reduce mutual confidence in a knowledge-based EU that can address new engineering challenges.

3.2.2.

In the EESC’s view, there is a need to develop a common, multidimensional approach (with the European Professional Card) (6), subject to greater alignment of training paths, the adoption of a parallel optional regulatory framework for a voluntary EU professional card, and a common training framework and systems for the validation of formal and/or informal qualifications obtained.

3.2.3.

The EESC recommends launching specific measures to revive the professions of engineer and technician, as they are the main drivers speeding up the conversion of research into market applications and solutions to society’s problems. In particular, the EESC calls for specific reinforcement for engineers of the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE) initiative and micro-credit facilities, along with the introduction of an EU creative engineering prize, to give the profession a higher profile and to encourage the formulation of engineering concepts and projects of excellence.

3.3.1.

Given the pace of technological progress, the EESC considers it important for Europe to support the development of training modules in partnership with industry, to impart high levels of specific skills and develop collaborative learning and learning by doing projects for better interpersonal communication and online digital technology modules, and communication networks for gathering and evaluating information.

3.3.2.

With regulatory support from the EU, global standards need to be developed for validation of leadership and risk-taking abilities acquired through non-formal learning (7).

3.3.3.

Harnessing the skills of the new generations: Gen C requires a new configuration of production, organisational, communication and leadership structures.

3.4.1.

The EESC believes that the key role played by engineers and the technical professions in addressing the difficulties facing European society as a result of the challenges of reindustrialisation should be more strongly emphasised and highlighted, and calls for a participatory foresight exercise to be launched, involving development players, administrations, policymakers and stakeholders, to identify and highlight the profiles that will be required by the profession in future in terms of problem-solving ability and the speed with which new technologies are acquired and applied.

3.4.2.

In this respect, engineers should be given a specific role in giving this reindustrialisation process economic, social and environmental sustainability, to bring about a gradual transition to a circular economy ‘including re-manufacturing and reuse’ (8).

3.5.1.

The EESC believes that European engineers and technicians are a key resource in the reindustrialisation process as they help speed up the conversion of research into innovative market applications and resolve the complex difficulties involved in shifting to a sustainable, sound, competitive social market economy: this resource must be given access to support in the form of innovative solutions that reward quality as well as economy and encouragement of all kinds of joint cooperation in networks and clusters through EU policies and programmes, starting with:

4.1.

The EU is facing major challenges that present European engineers with just as many difficulties:

4.2.

The EESC believes that the new Gen C of engineers will have to obtain higher formal and informal qualifications and levels of skill, given that simpler problem-solving will be carried out by autonomous digital systems, and develop cross-disciplinary abilities and flexibility to manage complex issues.

4.3.

The organisations in which the engineers operate will have to develop digitalised training modules and systems on the basis of the European Qualifications Framework, with governance arrangements geared to the new generation of engineers and their qualities, increasing buy-in to corporate values and goals and fostering attractive working environments and career paths.

4.4.

The EESC believes that engineers’ representative organisations and professional bodies should find more common ground at European level in order to be able to act as a greater driving force both within and outside the EU in the creation of a single European engineering market.

4.5.

The EESC recommends that the Commission take practical steps towards the establishment of a European liberal profession forum, in which engineering associations and professional bodies (9) of independent engineers and engineering SMEs should be widely represented, and calls for the creation of a European engineering portal where key issues such as management of responsibility, protection of intellectual property and taxation and pensions systems can be addressed interactively.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/27

Rapporteur:

Mr Egbert BIERMANN

Co-rapporteur:

Mr Tautvydas MISIŪNAS

1.1.

The EESC supports the activities for developing a European industrial policy and in particular those supporting key enabling technologies (KETs), which strengthen our competitiveness. When Europe speaks with one voice internationally, its role within global dialogue is strengthened. The innovative power of nanomaterials and nanotechnology — particularly in the chemical industry — is making an important contribution in this regard.

1.2.

An initiative to promote nanotechnology can also help further develop common European industrial policy. Research and development are so complex that they cannot be undertaken by individual companies or institutions working alone. They require overarching cooperation between universities, scientific institutions, companies and business incubators. Research hubs, such as those set up in the chemical and pharmaceutical sector, are a positive approach. It must be ensured that SMEs are included.

1.3.

European clusters of excellence (nanoclusters) should be further developed to support nanotechnology. Specialists from the world of business, science, politics and society must form networks in order to promote technology transfer, digital and person-to-person cooperation, better risk assessment, a special life-cycle analysis and the safety of nano products.

The financial instruments provided for in the Horizon 2020 research framework programme relating to the area of nanotechnology must be made simpler and more flexible, particularly for SMEs. Public financing must be reinforced and the supply of private capital stimulated.

1.4.

In order to better anchor multidisciplinary nanotechnology within education and training systems, qualified scientists and technicians from disciplines such as chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine or the social sciences should be involved. Businesses must meet their staff’s growing need for qualifications through targeted initial and further training measures. Employees, with their experience and competences, should be included.

1.5.

The EU standardisation process should be further boosted. Standards play a key role in ensuring compliance with laws, particularly where employee safety requires a risk assessment. Tools should therefore be devised for certified reference materials, in order to test the procedures for measuring the characteristics of nanomaterials.

1.6.

Consumers should be fully informed about nanomaterials. It is essential to promote acceptance of these key enabling technologies. Regular dialogues must take place between consumer and environmental organisations, businesses and politicians. Pan-European information platforms and tools for increasing acceptance must be developed to this end.

1.7.

The EESC expects the European Commission to set up an observatory to record and evaluate the development processes, applications, use (recycling) and disposal of nanomaterials. It should also monitor and assess the impact on employment and the labour market and describe the political, economic and social conclusions to be drawn. An up-to-date ‘Report on nanomaterials and nanotechnologies in Europe’ should be presented before 2020, identifying development trends to 2030.

2.1.

There have been and continue to be various European Commission initiatives designed to promote innovation and key enabling technologies with a view to increasing competitiveness. Examples include the Commission communications on a common strategy for key enabling technologies (2009 and 2012) and its 2014 communication on research and innovation. Particular attention has been paid to nanotechnology in several EESC opinions (1).

2.2.

With the adoption of the 2014 Juncker Plan, EU industrial policy is taking on a special importance — as is the promotion of innovative technologies. The favoured technologies set out show that a competitive European industrial policy must focus strategically on forward-looking technologies and materials. This particularly applies to the chemical and pharmaceutical industry.

2.3.

The European chemical and pharmaceutical industry drives innovation in other sectors. Nanotechnology plays a key role in developing new products. This improves competitiveness and also contributes to sustainable industrial development.

2.4.

Nanomaterials are already present in many everyday products (e.g. sports clothing, cosmetics, coatings). Innovations for new products and processes are also emerging (for example, energy and environmental technology, medical technology, optics, the development and manufacture of chips, technical data protection, the construction industry, as well as varnishes and paints, medicinal products and medical technology).

2.5.

Due to their small size, nanomaterials can have new optical, magnetic, mechanical, chemical or biological properties. They can be used to develop innovative products which incorporate new functionalities and special features.

2.6.

According to a recommendation adopted by the European Commission, nanomaterials are materials whose main elements measure between 1 and 100 billionths of a metre. This definition is an important step forward, as it clearly describes which materials should be regarded as nanomaterials and makes it possible to select the most appropriate test procedure (2).

2.7.

Nanotechnology offers huge potential for growth. Experts expect the market to grow from USD 8 billion in 2006 to USD 119 billion in 2021 (3).

3.1.

The range of nanotechnology used in the chemical industry is enormous. It must be noted that much of what comes under the heading ‘nano’ today is nothing new, though ‘nanotechnology’ may sound new. Mediaeval stained-glass church windows, for example, include gold nanoparticles. What is actually new about nanotechnology as we understand it today is the fact that we now have a better understanding of how it works.

3.2.

Medicine offers many fields of application for nanotechnology. The desire to deliver active substances to diseased tissue in a targeted way is as old as the production of medicines and stems from the fact that many active substances have powerful side effects. These side effects are often caused by active ingredients being distributed throughout the body in a non-specific way. The development of nano-scale drug delivery systems makes it possible to concentrate active substances in the diseased tissue and thereby reduce side-effects.

3.3.

There are specific nano developments in the field of life sciences such as, e.g. ‘biochips’ for tests which enable the early diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis (5). Nanoparticle-based contrast media bind specifically with diseased cells, leading to significantly faster and better diagnostics. Nanogels speed up the regeneration of cartilage. Nanoparticles that can cross the blood-brain barrier may help, for example, with the targeted treatment of brain tumours (6).

3.4.

In artificial membranes, small pores measuring around 20 nanometres ensure that bacteria and viruses can be filtered from water. ‘Ultrafiltration’ is used in the purification of both drinking water and process water, i.e. water from industrial production processes.

3.5.

In the near future nanotechnology will significantly increase the efficiency of solar cells. Energy generation and energy efficiency can be increased considerably through the use of new surface coatings.

3.6.

Whether as an additive in plastics, metals or other materials, nanotubes, carbon nanotubes or graphene can provide materials with new characteristics. For example, they improve electrical conductivity, increase mechanical resilience or promote lightweight construction.

3.7.

The use of wind turbines can also become more efficient using nanotechnology. Modern building materials make wind turbines lighter, leading to lower energy generation costs and optimised construction.

3.8.

Around 20 % of the energy consumed globally is used for lighting. Nanoresearch promises energy-saving light bulbs that use much less electrical energy, with the result that energy consumption is set to fall by more than a third. Electric cars will also become cost-effective thanks to lithium-ion batteries, which would not be possible without nanotechnology.

3.9.

Concrete is one of the most commonly used building materials. Using nano-based calcium crystals, precast concrete components can be manufactured very quickly and to a higher standard using less energy.

3.10.

The automotive industry is already working with nano-coatings, each with their own particular characteristics. The same is true of other carriers, such as planes or ships.

4.1.

The competitive factors in the global market are constantly changing. Whilst many things are planned, much of what happens is unforeseen. Policy programmes are drawn up in order to secure development. For example, 2010 saw the adoption of the Europe-2020 strategy. This strategy aims at sustainable and inclusive growth with greater coordination of pan-European policy measures. It is hoped this will lead to success in the headlong race for innovation. The strategy concerns research and development, patent protection, production sites and jobs.

4.2.

The chemical industry is one of the EU’s most successful sectors, boasting EUR 527 billion in sales in 2013, which makes it the second-largest producer. But despite this strength, there seems to be reason for concern about the current situation. Following a rapid cyclical trend, production has stagnated since the beginning of 2011. Over a longer time horizon, the EU’s share of global production and exports has fallen (7).

4.3.

In 2012, the EU chemical industry invested around EUR 9 billion in research. Since 2010, the amount spent has plateaued at this level. In contrast, the research and development of nanotechnology occupies an increasingly important position for example in the USA and China, but also in Japan and Saudi Arabia, meaning that competition in this area is set to increase further.

5.1.

Green business practices are a significant factor for competitiveness in European industrial policy, both with regard to the single market and the global market.

5.2.

Whether as upstream, intermediate or finished products, nanomaterials with their multifarious properties help to increase the efficiency of energy conversion and to reduce energy consumption. Nanotechnology offers the prospect of reducing CO2 emissions (8). As such, it contributes to climate protection.

5.3.

The German state of Hesse has published a study highlighting the innovation potential of nanotechnology in the area of environmental protection (9), e.g. for water treatment and purification, waste prevention, energy efficiency and air purification. This will mean stronger orders, particularly for SMEs. The chemical industry is researching and developing the foundations and the relevant upstream and finished products.

5.4.

The environmental component must be integrated into the strategies of businesses, including SMEs, as part of a sustainability approach. Employees should be actively involved in this process.

5.5.

The precautionary principle is an integral part of current EU environmental policy and health policy. Harm or risks to the environment or human health should be minimised from the outset. However, it is necessary to ensure the proportionality of the costs, benefits and burdens involved in implementing preventive measures, in particular to protect SMEs.

6.1.

Nanotechnology’s potential to create jobs worldwide is very high. The number of nano-related jobs in the EU is already estimated at between 300 000 and 400 000 (10).

6.2.

Alongside this growth, the risks associated with job losses, the relocation of production sites and the evolving qualification spectrum must also be considered.

6.3.

The number of jobs is one thing; the quality of those jobs is another. The jobs created in nano-related areas of various businesses, not just in the chemical industry, tend to be well-paid jobs for skilled employees (11).

6.4.

This generates a significant need for education and training within businesses. New forms of cooperation emerge. Social partnership itself becomes a factor in innovation in the sense that an ongoing dialogue is needed, e.g. regarding the organisation of work, occupational health and training. In the German chemical industry, there are far-reaching social partnership agreements (12) to this end.

7.1.

The European Commission is already spending between EUR 20 and 30 million annually on nano-safety research. This is on top of roughly EUR 70 million from the Member States (13). The scale of this effort is appropriate and sufficient.

7.2.

A comprehensive programme of public and private long-term research should be coordinated at European level with view to expanding knowledge about nanomaterials, their characteristics and the potential opportunities and risks for employee and consumer health and the environment.

7.3.

Many chemical companies have taken various risk management measures in order to implement sustainable occupational and product safety in a responsible manner. In many cases this is done under the umbrella of the chemical industry’s global Responsible Care initiative (14). Similar initiatives also exist in other sectors.

7.4.

The principle of product stewardship applies from the research stage through to disposal. As early as the development stage, companies examine how their products can be manufactured and used safely. The examinations must be completed and safe usage guidelines drawn up before products are released on the market. In addition, companies must also provide details on how to dispose of the products correctly.

7.5.

In its publications regarding the safety of nanomaterials, the European Commission stresses that scientific studies have shown that nanomaterials essentially qualify as ‘normal chemicals’ (15). Knowledge about the properties of nanomaterials is constantly increasing. Existing risk assessment methods can be used.

7.6.

The European Commission considers REACH (16) to be the best framework for managing the risks associated with nanomaterials. Some clarifications and further details are required in the annexes to the REACH Regulation and the European Chemicals Agency guidance documents — but not in the main text of the regulation (17).

7.7.

In the pharmaceuticals industry, ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ (GMP) play a key role in the processing of nanomaterials. This relates to the quality assurance guidelines for the production processes associated with the production of pharmaceutical drugs and active ingredients.

7.8.

It goes without saying that consumers must be informed. The dialogues on nanotechnology conducted by large chemical companies are positive examples of this (18). These dialogues aim to provide information, promote acceptance and identify hazards. To improve access to information about nanomaterials, the European Commission launched a web platform at the end of 2013 (19). This includes references to all available information sources, including national and sectoral registers.

8.1.

A positive climate for research and innovation is an essential factor for competitiveness. This applies to innovations in products and processes as well as social renewal. The importance of nanotechnology should also be more strongly reflected and supported in the EU’s priorities and in its research and regional funding programmes.

8.2.

Research and development must take on a key role in the EU. Europe-wide networking, cooperation and clustering between start-ups, established businesses, universities and research institutions focusing on fundamental and applied research are important in this regard. Nowadays, this is the way to generate effective innovation potential. Hubs linking companies are being set up at key geographical points in order to optimise cooperation.

8.3.

Initial and further training are a key factor in highly innovative processes such as nanotechnology. A mixture of skilled workers and graduates produces the strongest innovation effects, with the exchange of knowledge between employees with different types of qualification supported by complementary organisational and HR policy measures such as teamwork, job rotation and the delegation of decision-making. Global competition for innovation also gives rise to competition for skilled workers. Appropriate incentives must be developed by policy-makers and industry stakeholders.

8.4.

More freedom in research focus and fewer bureaucratic requirements would ensure competitiveness. Medicines, medical technology, surface coatings and environmental technology are very important for European exports and the single market. In particular, the single market with its regional hubs opens up a wide range of opportunities in this area for SMEs.

8.5.

Labour-related costs should not be solely taken to mean salaries. The administration costs entailed (e.g. control activities, quality assurance) must be included in the assessment.

8.6.

Energy costs are a relevant factor for competitiveness in the energy-intensive chemical industry. Competitive prices and a stable energy supply in the EU are preconditions for competitiveness, particularly for SMEs.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/33

Rapporteur:

Reine-Claude MADER

1.1.

The EESC welcomes the various initiatives taken by the Commission to promote fair competition, which safeguards the interests of economic operators (businesses, consumers, workers).

1.2.

It supports the steps taken by the Commission to ensure compliance with competition rules, including measures to tackle anti-competitive practices such as abuse of dominant position. These hinder the economic development of the EU and particularly that of small and medium-sized enterprises, which play a key role in growth and employment, as well as the development of social economy enterprises which promote social cohesion.

1.3.

It does regret, however, that yet again the Commission has failed to adopt a genuine legal mechanism for collective actions that would provide effective enforcement of the right to damages for those affected by anti-competitive practices.

1.4.

It supports the Commission’s efforts to publicise the rules and make them transparent, which provides stability for businesses and thus the market too. It wishes to point out in this connection that the practices of the retail sector deserve continued attention.

1.5.

The EESC welcomes the impetus given by the Commission to cooperation with national competition authorities (NCAs), which have a key role to play, particularly in terms of prevention and the development of programmes to raise awareness of competition law. It believes that NCAs should have the necessary means to carry out this work.

1.6.

Given the globalisation of trade, the abovementioned cooperation should be extended to the international level so that Europe is not undermined by unfair competition.

1.7.

The Committee would like political dialogue between the different European institutions (EP, EESC, Committee of the Regions) to be bolstered and even reinforced.

1.8.

The EESC supports the changes to State aid rules which have been aligned so as to support innovative enterprises, particularly in the digital domain. This is creating major opportunities in terms of economic development and job creation, benefiting both consumers and businesses.

1.9.

While conscious of the limits of the Commission’s action on tax planning, the EESC would like the Commission to continue to take steps to rectify, limit or put an end to fiscal and social distortions in so far as its powers allow, while ensuring that this does not lead to a race to the bottom.

1.10.

The Committee believes that there should be a strong focus on the energy market. It is in favour of creating a European Energy Union to ensure security of supply and affordable energy prices across the EU.

1.11.

It also attaches importance to measures that contribute to energy-saving, improved energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy.

1.12.

It believes that the measures to open up the energy market should benefit consumers, who lack genuine scope for negotiation.

1.13.

The EESC calls for every effort to be made to provide free access to digital infrastructure so as to enable rural areas to develop. This objective justifies an approach which dovetails private investment and public support.

1.14.

The EESC calls on the Commission to continue to pay particular attention to the provision of financial services for the purposes of financing the real economy and ensuring that consumers can continue to enjoy the best conditions for the services they use.

1.15.

Finally, in the EESC’s view, it is essential to follow up and assess any policy measures taken.

2.1.

Essentially, this annual report focuses on the digital single market, energy policy and financial services. It also raises questions relating to making European industry more competitive, State aid control, promoting a culture of competition inside and outside the EU and interinstitutional dialogue.

2.2.

It highlights the digital economy as a factor that could boost innovation and growth in energy, transport, public services, health and education. To this end, all the tools of competition law have been used to support development and modernisation of infrastructure, including ‘new generation’ broadband networks on the basis of State aid, while preserving the principle of technological neutrality.

2.3.

The smart mobile device market is developing very rapidly, as illustrated by Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp following the first examination phase of the merger, authorised unconditionally by the European Commission in application of Merger Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1)  (2).

2.4.

2014 was another opportunity to see that the application of competition law to the digital sector is characterised by the complex relationship — and the need to ensure a balance with — intellectual property rights deriving from a patent, as illustrated by the Samsung and Motorola (3) decisions, or from copyright, as shown by the opening of formal proceedings against several US film studios and European pay-TV broadcasters in the ‘cross-border access to pay-TV content’ case (4).

2.5.

The report then turns to the energy sector, underlining the need to reform European energy policy. The Commission plans to support infrastructure investment by providing a framework for State aid and simplifying its implementation: the new General Block Exemption Regulation stipulates that, under certain conditions, prior authorisation by the Commission will no longer be necessary (5) for aid for energy infrastructure, aid to promote energy efficiency in buildings and support for renewable energy production, decontamination of polluted sites and recycling.

2.6.

However, aid for nuclear energy is not included in the new guidelines. For this reason it is still being examined by the Commission under Article 107 TFEU, as was the case with UK plans to subsidise the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point (6).

2.7.

Finally, competition policy was used as a tool to lower energy prices by penalising the misconduct and collusive practices of operators such as EPEX Spot and Nord Pool Spot (NPS) (7) and OPCOM in Romania, where it had abused its dominant position (8), the Bulgarian Energy Holding (BEH) in Bulgaria (9), and even Gazprom in connection with upstream gas supplies to central and eastern Europe (10).

2.8.

In 2014, competition policy also sought to improve the transparency of the financial sector and to support better regulation and supervision of the banking sector.

2.9.

For example, the Commission monitored implementation of State aid in Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Ireland and Spain, whilst ensuring that development banks did not distort competition (11).

2.10.

It also instituted legal proceedings on two occasions against the banks RBS and JP Morgan, which were involved in both an illegal bilateral cartel aimed at influencing the Swiss franc Libor benchmark interest rate and a cartel with UBS and Crédit Suisse on bid-ask spreads of Swiss franc interest rate derivatives in the EEA (European Economic Area) (12). The Commission imposed a fine of EUR 32,3 million (13).

2.11.

Finally, the Commission continued to institute legal proceedings against anti-competitive practices by Visa Europe, Visa Inc., Visa International and MasterCard which were linked to the multilateral interchange fees: the Commission made binding the commitments offered by Visa Europe and at the same time instigated proceedings against Visa Inc. and Visa International in relation to international inter-bank fees.

2.12.

The report also mentions the Commission’s efforts to boost the competitiveness of European enterprises, notably SMEs, by making it easier for them to access funding in the development phase (14) and by supporting research and innovation through a new aid framework establishing a block exemption (15).

2.13.

SMEs are also the main target of the revision of the De Minimis Notice, which provides them with guidance on assessing whether their agreements fall within the scope of Article 101 TFEU prohibiting illegal cartels between undertakings (16).

2.14.

2014 also saw the Commission paying particular attention to some businesses’ use of differences between Member States’ tax regimes to reduce their tax base; it opened formal investigations into Apple in Ireland, Starbucks in the Netherlands and Fiat Finance & Trade in Luxembourg.

2.15.

Above all, the year marked the tenth anniversary of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the revision of the regulation on merger control (17). In this connection, the report states that progress would be welcome on the independence of competition authorities and on the mechanism enabling them to institute proceedings against — and to penalise — illicit practices. It also stresses the need to further streamline merger control.

2.16.

The Commission also reports that a major achievement in the field of competition policy in the year was the adoption of the Directive on antitrust damages actions which came into force in 2014, arguing that thanks to this Directive, it will be easier for European citizens and companies to receive effective compensation for the harm caused by antitrust violations, such as cartels and abuses of dominant market positions.

3.1.

The EESC supports digital development policy and initiatives taken to boost innovation and growth. It believes that broadband should be available throughout the EU, which may require the use of State aid accompanied by additional EU funding. The guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks should be useful in this connection (18).

3.2.

Moreover, there can be no digital market without a broadband network across the whole EU. The Commission’s objectives are rather modest, given private operators’ lack of interest in certain areas, including rural areas which need support for their economic development.

3.3.

The EESC supports the Commission in its desire to penalise infringements of competition rules: it believes that the size of the penalties should act as a deterrent and that they should be made more severe in the event of a repeat infringement. Furthermore, competition policy should be explained, including to businesses, so as to prevent anti-competitive behaviour.

3.4.

The EESC notes, as the Commission states, that the number of users of smart mobile devices is increasing. Innovation is crucial here, but the ‘rules of the game’ must be drawn up for operators, they must be widely known and should be transparent. The Committee believes that the ubiquity of major international groups, such as Google, has given rise to the risk that a dominant position might be abused and that it is important to enforce the existing rules to allow new operators to enter the market.

3.5.

In addition, the EESC maintains that patent holders must propose patent licence agreements on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

3.6.

The Committee supports the adaptation of the legislative framework applicable to copyright in the digital era (19); it must keep up with the times, as the Commission quite rightly points out.

3.7.

As regards the functioning of energy markets, the EESC believes that there can be no economic development without a common energy policy. It therefore welcomes the Commission’s intention to create a European Energy Union.

3.8.

It believes that this Union will be good for businesses and consumers, who should also benefit from reasonable prices and security of supply.

3.9.

The Committee supports the attention paid by the Commission to the energy market with a view to ensuring genuine competition and the steps taken to remove obstacles to competition on these non-regulated markets. It is keen for the Commission to use all means to avoid shortcomings that have repercussions for the economy.

3.10.

Finally, it attaches particular importance to measures that contribute to energy-saving, improved energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources and bioenergy.

3.11.

The EESC would like the whole financial sector to behave in a more ethical and transparent way, while at the same time supporting growth.

3.12.

It welcomes the fact that State aid control has contributed to a consistent policy response to financial challenges and helped limit distortions of competition, while at the same time reducing the use of taxpayers’ money to the minimum necessary. It points out that steps taken to consolidate and establish supervision mechanisms as part of State aid control have made it possible to limit certain distortions of competition in the market.

3.13.

The Committee feels that the measures taken by the Commission to reduce the costs of using bank cards, which have led to a 30-40 % reduction in operational costs in the single market, should be highlighted.

3.14.

The announced objective of promoting economic growth is absolutely essential and could be supported by the policy on innovation aid included in the ‘Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation’.

3.15.

In its earlier opinions, the EESC welcomed the Commission’s initiative on State aid modernisation and expressed the belief that the new guidelines (20) were more in tune with the needs of Member States and the realities of the market. It believes that increased transparency will lead to a better understanding of the allocation of State aid. Supervision by the Commission will verify that aid has been allocated in accordance with the rules laid down. Finally, the evaluation will enable Member States to make sure that the allocated aid has been used correctly.

3.16.

The Commission communication on the conditions to promote implementation of European projects, together with the announcement of the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, should help meet this objective.

3.17.

The EESC also welcomes the recognition of the need to grant State aid for the rescue and restructuring of businesses which are in difficulty, but which are viable. It supports measures to put an end to the illegal cartels that undermine development — especially that of SMEs (which create jobs) — and have an impact on employment and prices.

3.18.

The Committee notes that large companies continue to conduct their tax planning in a way that takes account of the subtle differences between tax systems. It welcomes the Commission’s efforts to tackle tax evasion arising from tax distortions, to limit it or put an end to it in so far as its powers allow.

3.19.

The Commission’s efforts to ensure convergence with and between national competition authorities (NCAs) are particularly important.

3.20.

The Committee will closely monitor the follow-up to the White Paper entitled Towards more effective EU merger control, which seeks to improve existing mechanisms.

3.21.

Given the globalisation of trade, the EESC supports the development of multilateral cooperation (OECD, ICN and Unctad), as well as cooperation and technical assistance programmes.

3.22.

DG Competition’s dialogue with the European Parliament, the EESC and the Committee of the Regions must ensure that the interinstitutional debate on policy implementation is transparent.

3.23.

This commitment to dialogue should be maintained, particularly as Mr Juncker emphasised this political partnership in his mission letter to Ms Vestager.

3.24.

Unlike the Commission, the EESC does not believe that Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (21) or the recommendation on common principles for collective redress mechanisms in disputes concerning infringements of competition law are capable of providing the necessary collective redress for the rights of those affected by such violations.

4.1.1.

According to the Commission, better standard-setting procedures and increased interoperability are crucial if the digital agenda is to be effective. What is meant by ‘better’ standard-setting procedures still has to be established.

4.1.2.

The Motorola case (22), one episode in the ‘smartphone patent wars’, is used as an example for the guidelines to be followed by businesses in the sector. In this particular case, the Commission had decided that Motorola, the holder of GPRS standard essential patents (SEPs), had abused its dominant position by seeking to get and have enforced an injunction against Apple before a German court. These SEPs were considered ‘essential’ because they were vital for the implementation of the GSM standard. Potentially, companies holding a SEP have considerable market power. Therefore, standardisation bodies often require them to commit themselves to licensing their essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms in order to ensure that all market participants have access to this standard.

4.1.3.

In this instance, without access to the essential patent of which Motorola was the holder, it was not possible for its competitor, in this case Apple, to produce and market a certain category of smartphone.

4.1.4.

It is legitimate for a patent holder to seek an injunction before a national court in the event of that patent being infringed, but this may constitute abusive conduct where the SEP holder has a dominant market position, where it has pledged to grant access on FRAND terms and where the competing business which is the subject of the injunction is prepared to obtain a licence under these FRAND conditions. In spite of this, the Commission did not impose a fine on Motorola owing to the absence of case-law in EU jurisdictions on the legality, under Article 102 TFEU, of SEP-related injunctions and because of the differences in national case-law. However, the Commission did order Motorola to put a stop to its abusive conduct.

4.1.5.

In a similar case, the Commission accepted the commitments offered by Samsung not to seek injunctions in the EEA, on the basis of SEPs for smartphones and tablets, against businesses belonging to a specific licensing framework.

4.1.6.

These cases illustrate that it is very difficult to strike the right balance between competition, patent rights and innovation in pursuing the ultimate goal of enabling the consumer to acquire technological products at a reasonable price, whilst also benefiting from the widest possible choice between interoperable products.

4.1.7.

The EESC supports the Commission’s efforts in this connection and urges it not to lose sight of the fact that the objective of competition is not simply to apply the rules of competition per se, but rather to ensure a form of competition which ultimately benefits the consumer.

4.1.8.

The EESC supports the idea of supplementing private investment with public investment in order to avoid a digital divide within the EU, provided that State aid does not impede private investment. The EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks (23) were the first document to be adopted definitively as part of efforts to modernise State aid — a sign, perhaps, of the Commission’s interest in the subject.

4.1.9.

However, the EESC regards as insufficiently ambitious the Commission’s goal of achieving blanket fast broadband coverage (30 Mbps) for services and the adoption of ultra-fast broadband (100 Mbps) services for 50 % of Europeans by 2020.

4.2.1.

Ensuring Europe’s energy independence and promoting the creation of an integrated energy market are crucial for access to energy, the abolition of energy islands and security of supply. The EU must have a genuine political commitment to meeting this objective and encouraging diversification of energy sources by promoting renewables. Mr Juncker’s goal of a European Energy Union (24) will undoubtedly play this role of policy catalyst.

4.2.2.

The EESC believes that the third ‘energy package’ must be implemented swiftly, especially as the rules on the cross-border trade in energy remain fragmented.

4.2.3.

The EESC underlines the need to implement without further delay the structural reforms needed to remove barriers to investment in infrastructure, in particular those with a cross-border dimension.

4.2.4.

The EESC is in no doubt that promoting competition rules helps open up domestic energy markets, as demonstrated by the ‘power exchanges’ and ‘OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange’ cases mentioned in the Commission’s report (25), where the Commission imposed a fine under Article 101 TFEU on two exchanges which had agreed not to compete and to divide up geographical areas between them and another fine on the Romanian power exchange OPCOM, under Article 102 TFEU, for discrimination against electricity traders from other Member States.

4.2.5.

However, the Committee questions the assertion that, while wholesale electricity prices have fallen thanks to increased competition, this has not often led to a reduction in the overall level of prices for final consumers (26).

4.2.6.

In this connection, the EESC supports the Commission’s investigations under Article 102 TFEU on abuse by Gazprom of its dominant position in the supply of natural gas to central and eastern Europe (27).

4.3.1.

2014 saw the continuation of the in-depth revision of bank regulation and supervision. The proposed rules seek to make financial markets more transparent.

4.3.2.

The Commission has also ensured that financial undertakings supported by State aid are either restructured or exit the market and has paid particular attention to the risks of distorting competition between such undertakings (28).

4.3.3.

The EESC has followed attentively the Commission’s investigations into anti-competitive business practices and welcomes the decisions taken by the Commission and the national competition authorities penalising ‘interchange fees’.

4.3.4.

The EESC welcomed the ruling of the EU Court of Justice in the MasterCard case (29), confirming the Commission’s analysis. The interbank fees paid by consumers at the time of payment by bank card were indeed increasing in size and number and becoming less and less transparent.

4.3.5.

In addition, these business practices prevented non-bank economic operators from entering the payments market. Such operators would probably have offered consumers other means of electronic, mobile and secure payment — via their smartphones, for example.

4.3.6.

The particularity of the MasterCard case also stemmed from the fact that the restriction engendered by the mechanism for setting multilateral interchange fees was an effect of that mechanism and not the objective.

4.3.7.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Court of Justice, like the General Court, found that multilateral interchange fees were not objectively necessary for the operation of the MasterCard system.

4.4.1.

The EESC welcomes the attention paid to SMEs, which play a fundamental role in growth and an important role in meeting the Europe 2020 targets. It endorses the Commission’s decisions to support the financing of their operations and adapt the rules to their specific needs.

4.4.2.

The EESC appreciates that these policies signal an openness towards the intellectual professions and recognises the crucial role Europe’s professionals play in growth by providing, sector by sector, the vital contribution of knowledge needed to solve the complex problems faced by the public and businesses. The EESC also recommends that the Commission continue, and if possible redouble, efforts in this direction.

4.4.3.

For example, the guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments (30) could enable Member States to make it easier for SMEs to access finance in their start-up phase. Moreover, they seem to have been designed to be more attuned to the realities of the market.

4.4.4.

It also supports the measures taken by the Commission to tackle abuses of dominant position that could hinder the creation and development of SMEs and affect their activities.

4.4.5.

The 2014 De Minimis Notice (31) provides a safe harbour for such agreements with no tangible effect on competition, as they are implemented by companies which do not exceed certain market share thresholds. The Commission has also published a guidance document for SMEs. However, the EESC believes it would be a good idea to publicise information at grassroots level.

4.5.1.

The EESC welcomes the quality of cooperation between the Commission and NCAs. It believes that this cooperation ensures the interaction which is essential if the market is to function smoothly.

4.5.2.

It supports all measures required for cooperation with NCAs, which means that they must have resources and must be independent.

4.5.3.

The EESC approves of the Commission’s initiatives to create a genuine European area of competition, which implies that the basic rules of national law must be harmonised, since this safeguards economic activity in the single market.

4.5.4.

It also believes that Member States need to have a comprehensive set of legal tools to conduct the necessary inspections and to impose effective and proportionate fines.

4.5.5.

Leniency programmes which have proved their worth in the fight against cartels must also be rolled out across all Member States.

4.5.6.

There must continue to be active multilateral cooperation with the OECD, the International Competition Network and Unctad and the Commission should seek to play a leading role in this connection.

4.5.7.

Finally, the EESC stresses that technical assistance should play a greater role in accession talks with candidate countries.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/42

Rapporteur:

Mr Petru Sorin DANDEA

Co-rapporteur:

Mr Paulo BARROS VALE

1.1.

Combating aggressive tax planning has been one of the key concerns of Member States and the Commission in recent years. The action plan for implementing a fair and efficient corporate tax system presented by the European Commission is an important step towards reducing this damaging phenomenon. The EESC welcomes the publication of the plan and expresses its support for the Commission in combating this practice which erodes Member States’ tax bases and promotes unfair competition.

1.2.

As previously stated (1), the EESC endorses the introduction of a compulsory CCCTB for transnational companies. An optional CCCTB would be less effective because companies engaged in profit shifting in order to reduce taxes will refuse to adopt the CCCTB.

1.3.

The EESC recommends that the Member States and the Commission consider extending the CCCTB in the future to all companies, to avoid operating two different tax bases. Before extending the CCCTB to all companies, a thorough impact assessment should be carried out, particularly with regard to the impact of this system on micro and small businesses operating locally.

1.4.

The EESC recommends that, when drafting the proposal, the Commission pay attention to the clarity of the definitions and concepts that are to govern the common base. The clarity of these definitions will be pivotal as regards the quality of the transposition process and preventing major discrepancies between the Member States, which could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the legislation.

1.5.

The EESC considers that the mechanism for cross-border loss relief, which the Commission wishes to introduce until consolidation is adopted, should not affect the right of a Member State to tax the profits resulting from an activity carried out on its territory.

1.6.

The EESC is pleased that in the appendix to the communication, the Commission has published a list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. The Committee reiterates the proposal it made in previous opinions, that EU rules should include sanctions for companies that continue to run their business through tax havens and thereby avoid having to pay tax within the tax systems of the Member States in which they operate.

1.7.

The EESC recommends that, following the adoption of the CCCTB directive and the introduction of consolidation, the Commission carry out an impact assessment of the new rules. Should this assessment show that there has been no decrease in profit shifting to Member States with lower tax rates, the EESC proposes that targeted complementary measures be adopted.

1.8.

The EESC recommends to the Commission that in the context of reviewing the mandate of the Platform for Tax Good Governance, it also consider including among its members representatives of the European social partners. They could make an important contribution to the work of the platform.

2.1.

On 17 June 2015, the European Commission presented a communication (2) setting out an action plan for implementing a fair and efficient corporate tax system in the European Union. The action plan follows on from the tax transparency package presented by the European Commission in March, which included a proposal for a directive on the mandatory automatic exchange of information on advance tax rulings.

2.2.

The plan sets out the following four objectives aimed at fostering a new approach to corporate taxation in the EU: re-establishing the link between taxation and where economic activity takes place; ensuring that Member States can correctly value corporate activity; creating a competitive and growth-friendly corporate tax environment for the EU; and protecting the single market and securing a strong EU approach to external corporate tax issues, including measures to implement the OECD BEPS project.

2.3.

The action plan outlines a series of measures to help meet the objectives. These are as follows: implementing a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB); ensuring effective taxation where profits are generated; introducing additional measures for a better tax environment for business; making further progress on tax transparency; and making better use of EU tools for coordination on tax matters.

2.4.

The Commission also wishes to address the issue of the tax breaks granted by Member States for patents. The Commission is aiming to ensure that these preferential tax regimes do not create distortions in the internal market and will provide guidance to Member States as regards the new approach. Should the Commission find that Member States are not applying this new approach consistently, it will prepare binding legislative measures.

2.5.

The Commission is continuing to work with its international partners here and stresses the importance of the implementation of the OECD BEPS action plan, which is aimed at fostering a level playing field for the taxation of multinational corporations, including in developing countries.

3.1.

The Commission’s plan seeks to combat the damaging phenomenon of profit shifting used by businesses with cross-border activities which transfer profits to States or jurisdictions with very low or non-existent tax rates, eroding Member States’ tax bases and causing them to increase other taxes and thus increase the tax burden for compliant taxpayers (individuals or SMEs). The Committee welcomes the publication of the plan and expresses its support for the Commission in combating this practice.

3.2.

The Commission’s main proposal in this plan is the implementation of a mandatory CCCTB. The proposal for a directive presented by the Commission in 2011 proposed an optional CCCTB. At that time, the EESC issued an opinion containing a number of substantive proposals on the CCCTB (3), which it still stands by today.

3.3.

The Commission considers that the CCCTB should be compulsory because transnational companies engaged in aggressive tax planning will avoid adopting the CCCTB if it is optional. The EESC agrees with making the CCCTB mandatory and recommends that the Commission assess whether the CCCTB should be applied in the future to all companies so that Member States would not have to operate two different tax bases.

3.4.

Taking account of consultations with the Member States, the Commission is proposing that the initial focus be on introducing the common tax base, with consolidation envisaged at a later stage. Given that aggressive tax planning is seriously affecting competition in the single market and leading to a significant loss of revenue for the Member States, the EESC recommends speeding up the timetable for implementation.

3.5.

The proposal for a directive is to be published next year. The EESC recommends that, when drafting the proposal, the Commission pay attention to the clarity of the definitions and concepts that are to govern the common base. The clarity of these definitions will be pivotal as regards the quality of the transposition process and preventing major discrepancies between the Member States, which could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the legislation.

3.6.

The Commission is planning to include a mechanism for cross-border loss relief in its proposal for a directive, to be in place until consolidation is introduced at a later stage. As consolidation is the chief economic advantage of the CCCTB, it should really have been introduced from the outset. Given the difficulties involved in securing a political agreement on this point, however, the EESC endorses the proposed mechanism. Bearing in mind the demands from the European Parliament and the Member States for profits to be taxed where they are generated, the EESC feels that this mechanism should not unduly affect the right of a Member State to tax the profits resulting from an activity carried out on its territory.

3.7.

The Commission’s analysis shows that some companies with cross-border activities are shifting profits to Member States with a lower rate of taxation. This practice is encouraged by current corporate legislation (4). The EESC believes that should companies continue this practice in the single market even after the introduction of consolidation, appropriate legal measures should also be introduced.

4.1.

The aggressive tax planning carried out by businesses with cross-border activities costs Member State budgets hundreds of billions in losses each year. The EESC agrees with the implementation of the CCCTB, and believes that this should become a general standard for corporate taxation in the EU. This would simplify the tax system for companies and prevent Member States having to apply the CCCTB to companies with cross-border activities and a different system to other companies.

4.2.

The EESC recommends that, following the adoption of the CCCTB directive and the introduction of consolidation, the Commission carry out an impact assessment of the new rules. Should this assessment show that there has been no decrease in profit shifting to Member States with lower tax rates, the EESC proposes that targeted legal measures also be adopted that discourage companies with cross-border activities from continuing to engage in profit shifting to Member States with lower tax rates.

4.3.

The Commission proposes better regulating the corporate concept of ‘permanent establishment’. The EESC believes that only by taxing the profits resulting from an activity carried out within a Member State can the possibility be ruled out that, in certain situations, companies can artificially avoid having a taxable presence. Adopting the OECD BEPS plan could significantly reduce the cases in which businesses can avoid corporate tax on the grounds of current EU legislation.

4.4.

Consolidation is the operation through which the profits and losses of a company can be aggregated for the whole EU territory. The EESC recognises that, once adopted, this will constitute the main element of the CCCTB for combating the complex transfer pricing practices engaged in by companies with cross-border operations within the EU in order to reduce the tax they pay. However, the EESC recommends that the Commission factor in protecting the right of a Member State to tax the profits resulting from an activity carried out on its territory.

4.5.

The Commission communication includes an appendix containing a list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. The Committee sees this as only a first step in the fight against uncooperative tax jurisdictions, which are generally referred to as tax havens. It reiterates the proposal it made in previous opinions (5), that EU rules should include sanctions for companies that continue to run their business through tax havens and thereby avoid having to pay tax within the tax systems of the Member States in which they operate.

4.6.

The Commission recognises the important role played by the various groups, which have ensured cooperation with the Member States on tax matters. The two main groups here are the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation Group and the Platform on Tax Good Governance. The EESC recommends that the Commission and the Member States assess the possibility of incorporating the provisions of the code into EU legislation — so that they become binding.

4.7.

The EESC recommends to the Commission that in the context of reviewing the mandate of the Platform for Tax Good Governance, in addition to prolonging its mandate beyond 2016, it also considers including among its members representatives of the European social partners. They could make an important contribution to the work of the platform.

4.8.

The Committee recommends that the Commission and the Member States continue to address the issue of simplifying and harmonising the existing legal framework at both EU and national levels. This would help boost investment at European level, laying the foundations for sustainable growth and job creation.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/46

Rapporteur:

Stefano MALLIA

Co-rapporteur:

Cristian PÎRVULESCU

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s ‘European Agenda on Migration’, which it believes symbolises a new-found understanding of the need to address migration at a European level, and encourages the Member States to collectively support the implementation of this Agenda.

1.2

The immediate challenge for the EU is to bring the current chaotic situation under control and to ensure that people seeking international protection are treated properly. The EESC supports the immediate setting up of ‘hotspots’ to support countries faced with a large influx of migrants and insists they are given the necessary resources and support.

1.3

The EESC believes that the current situation requires the EU to establish a truly common European asylum system based on harmonised procedures throughout the EU. This includes uniform asylum status and mutual recognition of asylum decisions, shared responsibility and efforts with respect to relocation and resettlement, and a revised Dublin Regulation. There is a need for robust, solidarity-based systems of burden-sharing, especially a permanent, fair and binding system for allocating those seeking protection between all EU countries. In addition, long-term solutions for the event that mass migrations continue or occur again in the future must also be sought.

1.4

Europe has an ageing population and faces a skills shortage, which can be addressed through migration. However, the EU must have a more effective immigration policy in place. The EU should design a comprehensive legal migration policy aimed at welcoming newcomers that is transparent, predictable and just. At the same time, it has to be recognised that immigration is not the only response to labour market shortages and demographic challenges, and that Member States may consider other, more appropriate solutions.

1.5

The integration of migrants and refugees is a very significant challenge that the EU and its Member States need to confront by building robust integration systems. The EESC considers that the cost of non-integration greatly exceeds the cost of integration. The EESC, with its long-standing commitment to the European Integration/Migration Forum, believes integration must be a two-way process where social partners, local authorities and civil society all play an essential role. Priority should be given to labour market access and, more specifically, to the recognition of qualifications and professional and language training. Particular attention should be paid to the integration of women.

1.6

The EU must secure its external borders. Given the current complex security situation, a European rather than a national effort is required, which may entail sharing some national competences in this area.

1.7

All EU external policies must be streamlined and focus on helping the countries of origin to reach a reasonable level of human security, stability and prosperity. The EESC is well aware that this is a long-term goal fraught with enormous difficulties.

1.8

It is necessary to enforce cooperation in the field of readmission to ensure an effective and timely implementation of the Return Directive.

1.9

Civil society plays a vital role in dealing with the migration crisis, for example by providing the necessary first responses to migrants upon arrival and by organising the ensuing activities to integrate them into society and the labour market. It is essential that governments, local authorities, and civil society organisations work towards creating a cultural and social consensus among European nations that it is important and beneficial to invest in integrating immigrants into society and the labour market.

1.10

The EESC therefore calls on the EU and its Member States to increase funding and material support for national NGOs and civil society organisations.

1.11

The appropriate financial resources must be raised in a joint effort by the entire international community. It should be clarified in the process that expenditure incurred by the Member States in connection with the reception and integration of asylum seekers and refugees is not long-term, structural expenditure and should not, therefore, be included in the calculation of structural budget deficits. The necessary resources must not be raised at the expense of existing funds for social objectives in the EU. This would jeopardise public consent from some sections of the population.

2.1

The European Commission published its Communication on ‘A European Agenda on Migration’ on 13 May 2015. This and the ensuing implementing proposals were subsequently discussed by various Council constellations between June and October. The EESC welcomes the Commission’s Communication, considering that it is comprehensive and also focuses on essentials.

2.2

Implementation of the initiatives proposed in the Agenda is ongoing and most Member States are gradually realising that only collective action based on the principles of solidarity and shared responsibility can lead to an effective management of the challenge posed by migration. Effective action requires mobilisation of more resources from the EU’s budget, as well as increased contributions from the Member States. It should be clarified in the process that expenditure incurred by the Member States in connection with the reception and integration of asylum seekers and refugees is not long-term, structural expenditure and should not, therefore, be included in the calculation of structural budget deficits.

2.3

In terms of funding, the EU has tripled resources for the Frontex joint operations, Poseidon and Triton. In parallel to this increase, assets (ships and aircraft) are being deployed by several Member States. The European Commission has also allocated EUR 1,8 billion from the EU budget to set up an Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing the root causes of irregular migration in Africa, mobilised EUR 60 million in emergency funding for frontline Member States, proposed a EUR 50 million resettlement scheme, and freed EUR 30 million for a Regional Development and Protection Programme.

2.4

EU leaders have pledged increased resources to Frontex, Europol and EASO in order to strengthen the EU’s external borders, placing particular emphasis on hotspots to ensure the identification, registration and fingerprinting of migrants. However, EU financial support is necessary to ensure that the hotspots operate efficiently and achieve their objective.

2.5

At Council meetings in July and September, agreements were reached on the relocation of 160 000 migrants from Greece and Italy and the resettlement of another 22 000 people in need of international protection. The successful implementation of these decisions, which is in its initial phase, is crucial for the success of any future EU migration policy.

2.6

On 23 September 2015, the European Commission adopted 40 infringement decisions against several Member States for failing to implement legislation establishing the Common European Asylum System. The EESC welcomes this decision, but is very concerned that it had to resort to this mechanism to convince Member States to properly implement EU law in this crucial domain.

2.7

On the international front, several decisions may potentially lead to an improvement in the overall situation. These include increasing the EU’s budgetary resources for providing refugees with immediate relief, strengthening dialogue and cooperation with non-member countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and the candidate countries in the Western Balkans, as well as increasing humanitarian aid in 2016 and establishing the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. The necessary resources must not be raised at the expense of existing funds for social objectives in the EU. This would jeopardise public consent from some sections of the population. The EESC welcomes the European Council’s endorsement on the 23 September 2015 of the joint Action Plan with Turkey as part of a comprehensive cooperation agenda based on shared responsibility, mutual commitments and delivery.

3.1.1

The concept of smart borders is welcome and overdue. The main challenge associated with stronger and smarter borders is to ensure that migrants’ human rights are not violated. Furthermore, the principle of non-refoulement should not be undermined even if this could prove challenging because the distinction between refugees and economic migrants is not always clear and straightforward. Smart borders must fully respect fundamental rights and freedoms.

3.1.2

The Schengen agreement is one of the pillars of the EU and has more than symbolic significance for European integration. It is one of the most tangible rights enjoyed by European citizens, giving them a real taste of a border-free Europe. The EESC wants the operation of the Schengen regime to return to normal as soon as possible and strongly urges the Member States to take all possible steps to prevent the permanent collapse of the system.

3.1.3

So far an agreement has been reached on the relocation of 160 000 refugees in the EU. The swift implementation of this agreement would enable much valuable experience to be gathered with a view to developing long-term solutions for the event that mass migrations continue or occur again in the future. The EESC considers that more ambition is needed. The global mass movement of people will not subside for many years to come.

3.1.4

It is in the interest of all Member States that a robust, solidarity-based system of solutions for the event that mass migrations continue in the future is implemented. An immediate measure must be a permanent, fair and binding system of burden sharing, whereby those seeking protection are allocated between all EU countries. This must be supported by a permanent distribution key based on a number of considerations such as the size of a country’s economy and territory, GDP, job opportunities and skills shortages, the existence of co-national/ethnic communities and minorities in the receiving country. Such a distribution key should be reviewed periodically. The preferences of the asylum seeker should also be taken into account as long as they are linked with considerations that would facilitate integration (e.g. knowledge of the language, family in the country, etc.). This will hopefully end the continuous and discordant Council meetings that have tarnished Europe’s image.

3.1.5

The EESC welcomes the proposal to activate the Civil Protection Mechanism and to mobilise Migration Management Support Teams as well as Rapid Border Intervention Teams to help Member States deal with emergency situations.

3.1.6

The EESC also welcomes the increase in EU funding for Frontex, EASO and Europol in 2015 and the EUR 600 million increase for the three agencies in 2016 to help the most affected states. These efforts need to be complemented by an effective return policy. Currently, only about 38 % of those who have been found not to be in need of protection have been returned to their countries.

3.1.7

The EU needs to increasingly link aid to developing countries to internal reforms as well as foster effective cooperation on migration issues, particularly legal migration (including temporary movement/visas) and return policy. It is however important for EU Member States to honour their commitment to assign 0,7 % of gross national income (GNI) to development aid.

3.1.8

The EESC welcomes the proposal to step up diplomatic efforts in order to engage countries of origin and transit countries in a cooperative effort to deal with the challenge. The first appointment in this endeavour was the summit on migration held in Valletta on 11—12 November 2015.

3.1.9

In this respect, it is important to stress that the EU needs to listen as much as it needs to talk to its partners and that it needs to treat them as such. Many misapprehensions and different perceptions still prevail between the EU and its partners in Africa and the Middle East regarding the objectives to be reached and the means to achieve them.

3.1.10

The EESC welcomes the EU’s pledge to continue to work more closely with international organisations such the UNHCR, UNDP, IOM and the Red Cross. However, it observes that many EU Member States do not meet their obligations, one case in point being the sorry state of support for the World Food Programme.

3.1.11

The EESC also welcomes the Commission’s proposal to increase humanitarian aid by EUR 300 million in 2016 to meet the essential needs of refugees.

3.1.12

The EESC supports the principle of the mutual recognition of asylum decisions. According to Article 78 of the TFEU, the EU should develop a common policy on international protection, comprising a ‘uniform status … valid throughout the Union’. If such EU-wide status is not granted by an EU agency, the only alternative is the mutual recognition of national decisions.

3.1.13

The EESC fully supports the Commission’s undertaking to submit proposals to reform the Dublin Regulation by March 2016. It also supports the Commission’s commitment to present a new package on legal migration at the same time, including a revised Blue Card Directive.

3.1.14

The protection of EU external borders should be a shared effort where Member States pool physical and intellectual resources.

3.1.15

The EESC fully supports the immediate setting up of hotspots. However, these must be fully staffed and given all the resources required to enable them to function effectively. In places such as Italy and Greece, where thousands of migrants arrive every day, only a significant pooling of financial and physical resources can prevent total chaos.

3.1.16

The EESC shares the UNHCR’s grave concerns about the registration and selection process in place at the hotspots as soon as immigrants arrive at the EU’s borders.

3.2.1

The EU can only reduce migration flows to manageable proportions if it engages meaningfully in resolving the many problems affecting the countries of origin. The long-term goal of achieving stability, peace and prosperity will require an unprecedented effort, not only from Europe but from the entire international community. The EU must seek to strengthen international efforts, particularly through the UN.

3.2.2

It is necessary for the EU to extend its institutional presence in key origin and transit countries by setting up specific migration centres as temporary or permanent processing facilities for asylum applications. More focus and assistance is needed in countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Libya, Lebanon and Turkey.

3.2.3

The EESC believes that one of the principal goals of the Agenda is to launch an EU migration policy which makes legal migration possible, while at the same time stimulating the effective integration of migrants. The EESC is waiting for the first legislative and policy proposals in these areas, and stands ready to support the European Commission in its efforts to develop these proposals.

3.2.4

EESC encourages the Member States to fully respect and actively implement the 1951 Geneva Convention and resist pressure to reduce the level of protection and services granted to refugees.

3.2.5

The EESC supports a common asylum policy based on simplified, common procedures. Such a policy must also be based on a common definition of refugee status and the rights attached to this status in order to avoid refugees shopping around for the ‘best treatment’.

3.2.6

The Country of Origin Information (COI) system needs further development. Asylum applications from citizens originating from the same states and presumably facing a similar situation often have different outcomes. The system in place should be flexible and reliable enough to research and process developments in the countries of origin in real time. Cooperation between the security services of the Member States should continually be improved, because they are an important source of information.

3.2.7

Greater priority should be given to organising legal migration and visa policy, the digitalisation of the process, the recognition of qualifications and obtaining educational mobility.

3.2.8

The EU should be more involved in the management of returns and support for reintegration measures. The pilot project on returning to Pakistan and Bangladesh is of limited relevance to the current emergency situation. The EESC strongly recommends the planning and implementation of similar projects, with proper financing and institutional support.

3.2.9

Strengthening border controls in transit countries, enhancing sea patrols and destroying smugglers’ vessels can help but are not the only sustainable way to tackle the problem. The EU is on the right track when it takes a comprehensive approach that makes better use of its diverse instruments and significant resources.

3.3.1

Civil society plays a vital role in dealing with the migration crisis. Civil society actors can provide essential help in supplying the necessary first responses to migrants as they arrive. However, civil society potentially has an even more important role to play when it comes to the longer term effort required to integrate migrants into society. Civil society can adopt the people-to-people responses that are so crucial at all stages in the reception and settling of refugees.

3.3.2

The EESC praises the solidarity shown by segments of civil society and private individuals who have voluntarily assisted asylum seekers. However, this positive and spontaneous reaction lacks the sufficient scale to enable it to effectively deal with the challenges posed. The EESC calls on the EU Member States to recognise and appreciate the role that civil society plays by stepping up their aid to national NGOs and civil society in order to ensure a more structured and effective response. Member State governments have a special responsibility to identify and link up with the civil societies on their territories, and to step up aid to ensure their capacities are increased.

3.3.3

Furthermore, the EESC recommends that the Commission make efforts to provide Member States with more resources through the partnership agreements concerning structural funds to channel more ESF and ERDF funds towards managing the migration flows and integration effort. NGOs and organisations involved on the ground should be prime recipients of such funds. These should be over and above the funds currently being provided under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.

3.3.4

The EESC draws attention to the European Migration Forum, succeeding the European Integration Forum which was created in 2009 by the EESC and the European Commission. The forum is a platform for dialogue between European institutions and civil society in the areas of immigration, asylum and migrant integration.

4.1

The EESC considers it important and highly relevant to ensure that there is a transparent, predictable and just system of legal migration to the EU. The population of Europe is ageing and growing at only around 0,2 % per annum, which is significantly below the replacement level. It is estimated that Europe will lose some 30 million people of working age by 2050 and unless something is done quickly, the dependency ratios in most EU Member States will continue to increase rapidly, productivity will decline, companies will close down and the costs of maintaining services, particularly for the ageing population, will increase significantly.

4.2

Through collective and organised action based on solidarity, the EU can transform the current situation into an opportunity to reverse the current demographic trend and its socioeconomic effects. Integrating migrants into the labour market leads to economic growth and supports their independence. On the other hand, policies that neglect integration shift the burden of supporting migrants on to public services and could lead to social friction with considerable implications.

4.3

The EESC recognises that integration is strongly dependent on labour market integration. There are however a number of factors associated with the impact of immigration on the labour market which need to be explained. These include the impact of immigrants on the level of wages, the availability of jobs, pressure on the fiscal system (health and education) and the effects of multi-culturalism.

4.4

The Committee has already drawn up an exploratory opinion (1) that was the basis for the preparation of the Zaragoza Ministerial Conference in 2010 (2), which adopted an important Declaration on the labour market integration of migrants and the challenges for European and national authorities and the social partners.

4.5

Studies show that on the whole, migrants contribute more than they take from the economy, that their impact on fiscal systems is minimal and that they help Europe address its demographic deficit and stimulate economic growth. However, the effects of migration do not impact all regions of Europe in the same way and need to be assessed carefully for their impact at the local level. In addition, there is a marked difference between the orderly arrival of migrants as part of the implementation of a policy and a sudden surge of thousands of incoming migrants, which would be difficult to deal with and would strain local, regional and national structures as has happened in recent weeks.

4.6

The integration of migrants in the labour market depends on a number of factors such as the level of unemployment in the host countries, migrants’ skills, their level of skill, pre-entry preparation in terms of language capabilities and formal training and the organisations, structures which are set up in the host countries to facilitate the integration of immigrants, including refugees, in the labour market. It is in these areas that civil society has a crucial role to play.

4.7

However, there are other factors which hamper rapid integration, such as recognition of qualifications, bureaucratic obstacles, lack of transparency, public misperceptions about migrants, exploitation and legal hurdles presented by outdated laws and the non-implementation or slow transposition of EU legislation.

4.8

Trade unions and employers’ associations have a crucial part to play in addressing the challenge of integrating immigrants into the labour market. The EESC recommends that the social partners be fully involved in drafting, developing, implementing and following up on integration policy and related measures at the local, regional, national and European level.

4.9

Government, local and regional authorities and the social partners must work together to achieve a social consensus on the ways and means of integrating migrants into the economy and society, above all to avoid a struggle between different disadvantaged groups.

4.10

Civil society plays a crucial role in helping migrants gain access to education, training and employment, and in challenging discrimination in the education sector, labour market and society as a whole.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/53

Rapporteur:

Cristian PÎRVULESCU

1.1

The refugee crisis in the EU has reached the point at which the founding principles of human rights protection and democracy are being called into question. Despite the difficulties, EESC strongly believes that these principles must be upheld and properly implemented.

1.2

The EESC believes that the sovereigntist tendencies of some governments and the negative perceptions of migration and refugees held by a growing number of citizens can be limited through a broad and necessary effort to uphold core European values and the EU institutional achievements. In these exceptional situations, we need more Europe, more democracy and more solidarity.

1.3

The current refugee crisis, although foreseeable, occurred because of the absence of a common asylum policy, the delay of which was due to the absence of concerted European political action. In this context, the EESC urges the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament to implement Article 67(2) and Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which lay down the conditions for the EU to create a genuine asylum policy.

1.4

The EESC has consistently highlighted the need for solidarity, responsibility and common action as well as the centrality of fundamental rights.

1.5

The EESC welcomes the efforts made by the European Commission to coordinate a common response to the refugee crisis, including the Leaders’ Meeting on refugee flows along the western Balkans route.

1.6

The crisis relocation mechanism is a concrete example of cooperation based on solidarity and responsibility. However, the EESC wishes to have this relocation mechanism and other similar initiatives included as part of a general strategy in order to ensure coherence and efficiency. In particular, there is a need for robust, solidarity-based systems of burden-sharing, especially a permanent, fair and binding system for allocating those seeking protection between all EU countries.

1.7

The European Commission and the other EU institutions must actively support the governments of the Member States so as to provide proper conditions and prospects for integrating the relocated asylum applicants. In this context, it should, inter alia, be clarified that expenditure incurred by the Member States in connection with the reception and integration of asylum-seekers and refugees is not long-term, structural expenditure and should not, therefore, be included in the calculation of structural budget deficits.

2.1

The current refugee crisis represents both an administrative challenge — as the sheer scale of the phenomenon is unprecedented — and a legal one. The EU has reached the point at which the founding principles of human rights protection and democracy are being called into question. The willingness of the Member States to fully implement international treaties has been affected by increased international mobility, as a consequence of economic globalisation. The EESC believes that the sovereigntist tendencies of some governments and the negative perceptions of migration and refugees held by a growing number of citizens can be limited through a broad and necessary effort to uphold European core values and the EU institutional achievements. In these exceptional situations, we need more Europe, more democracy and more solidarity.

2.2

The European asylum system is under significant pressure, stemming from multiple crises. Some of these originate from the international politics of the 2000s, while others are perverse effects of the economic and financial crisis. The most recent ones, the ‘Arab spring’, political instability in Libya and the civil war in Syria, have directly led to the considerable increase in the number of refugees.

2.3

The 47 Member States of the Council of Europe are bound to apply the human rights provisions ensuring that, on the basis of Article 3 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, all human beings are protected. In contrast, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees only grants protection for a specific category of individuals, as defined in Article 1, and this protection can be more easily lost. However, the Convention considers individuals in need of international protection to be entitled to a set of rights. In some Member States, for example in Romania, constitutional provisions give primacy to international treaties over national legislation. Article 18 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which became binding pursuant to Article 6 of the TFEU, sets out the right of people in need of international protection.

2.4

The Dublin system has disproportionately placed the burden of processing asylum applications on a number of ‘frontline’ states (Malta, Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Spain and recently, Hungary). Under these conditions it has become increasingly difficult for some Member States to observe in practice the principles of non-refoulement and the principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the directives stemming from it. Despite the difficulties, EESC strongly believes that these principles must be upheld and properly implemented.

2.5

Article 67(2) and Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lay down the conditions for the EU to build a genuine asylum policy. In the light of these articles, the focus is not on drafting minimal rules, but rather on creating a common system which includes uniform procedures. The current refugee crisis, although foreseeable, occurred because of the absence of a common asylum policy, the delay of which was due to the absence of concerted European political action. In this context, the EESC urges the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament to implement these articles.

2.6

The EESC welcomes the efforts made by the European Commission to coordinate a common response to the refugee crisis, including the Leaders’ Meeting on refugee flows along the Western Balkans Route. The meeting brought together Heads of State and Government, both EU and non-EU, in an effort to better coordinate action in the region in three key areas: providing shelter, managing the migration flows together and border management (3).

2.7

The EESC hopes that the crisis relocation mechanism will help the EU move, on the basis of a consensus, towards a system that is robust and flexible enough to meet the challenges of migration in its different forms.

2.8

The EESC has consistently highlighted the need for solidarity, responsibility and common action as well as the centrality of fundamental rights. It has also insisted that serious efforts must be made to facilitate the integration of migrants and refugees.

2.9

The crisis relocation mechanism is a concrete example of cooperation based on solidarity and responsibility. However, the EESC wishes to have this mechanism and other similar initiatives included as part of a general strategy in order to ensure coherence and efficiency. In particular, there is a need for robust, solidarity-based systems of burden-sharing, especially a permanent, fair and binding system for allocating those seeking protection between all EU countries. The European Commission’s ‘European Agenda on Migration’ is a positive step in this direction.

3.1

Any Member State that does not take part in the mechanism should explain its reasons. If the motivation is primarily financial or due to lack of preparation for receiving the asylum applicants, provision should be made for some advance financial support.

3.2

EU support for the civil society organisations dealing with the refugee crisis and the integration of migrants is still insufficient. Bureaucratic rules and procedures hamper their capacity to act effectively on the ground.

3.3

To determine that a crisis exists, the EC would look at whether the situation is such that a Member State with a ‘well prepared asylum system’ is still unable to handle the situation. How is this defined? What are the criteria for describing an asylum system as ‘well prepared’? The proposal gives some criteria the EC might consider, however they are flexible and are described as ‘inter alia’.

3.4

The proposal is not specific enough as regards matching the preferences of the beneficiary Member State, the Member State of relocation and the applicants. It is not clear how it will work in practice.

3.5

It is recommended that relevant information and counselling be available to the applicants, provided by the authorities in beneficiary Member States and the liaison officers of the Member State of relocation.

3.6

It is not clear how the Member State of relocation is encouraged to properly receive and integrate the relocated applicants. The state of infrastructure, the availability of services, e.g. medical or educational, and financial allocations will influence the willingness of the applicants to be relocated to a specific country. The European Commission and the other EU institutions must actively support the governments of the Member States so as to provide the proper conditions and prospects for integrating the relocated applicants.

3.7

The proposal needs to be more specific in this respect and outline a procedure for evaluating and encouraging the development of asylum infrastructure and services in all Member States.

3.8

The system must to some extent accommodate the preferences of asylum seekers for specific Member States of relocation. The preferences must be linked to clear and demonstrable prospects for successful integration (resident family members, knowledge of language, and previous links to the country such as studies or business).

3.9

‘Cultural ties’ are mentioned as a factor to be taken into account when relocating a person to a Member State. The EESC considers that this criterion should not be used to justify the rejection of asylum seekers on the basis of their religion.

3.10

The proposal fails to specify how the scheme will work for countries like Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which have clear accession prospects and are experiencing a significant influx of migrants and asylum seekers.

24.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/57

Rapporteur:

Antonello PEZZINI

1.1

The Committee is convinced that sustainable reindustrialisation with competitive growth that creates new and better jobs is crucial to Europe, and that in this respect the EU’s CO2 trading system should constitute a key European policy instrument for combating climate change and for moving towards a carbon-free world economy.

1.2

The Committee considers that, as an instrument for reducing the EU’s energy emissions, the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) should provide a carbon price signal while also boosting sustainable investment in new low-carbon technologies.

1.3

In the EESC’s view the carbon market needs to be made more stable, flexible and open to all the main global partners, as part of a detailed and coordinated framework, so as to achieve the objective of a competitive and sustainable industrial manufacturing system.

1.4

The Committee would argue that the Commission must comply strictly with the mandate set out by the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework agreed by the European Council on 23 and 24 October 2014, in particular regarding its clear indications on the carbon leakage provisions to be developed as part of the EU ETS reform.

1.5

In the Committee’s view, proper transition mechanisms must be put in place so as to protect the competitiveness of European industry and offset the risks of investment flight and of exposing European industry to unfair competition from countries with no comparable climate regulations.

1.6

The EESC recommends the establishment of a proper framework of rules, particularly regarding free allocation levels, carbon leakage admissibility, the review of benchmarking parameters and compensation for costs passed on to electricity prices, so as to secure 100 % free allocation and full compensation for indirect costs in all Member States for the 10 % most efficient plants in sectors exposed to a high risk of carbon leakage.

1.7

The EESC recommends the following as key aspects of the reform:

1.8

Lastly, the Committee calls for maximum consistency, full synergy, minimum overlap between requirements, and the elimination of excessive red tape in the new rules revising the EU ETS and the parallel and accompanying rules with which they interact.

1.9

The EESC considers that a framework for trading international credits should be set up: these credits should have a part to play in achieving the broader aims of reducing emissions in Europe, with the support of multilateral and bilateral international agreements.

1.10

The Committee considers it important to draw up an own-initiative opinion on this subject once the Paris Conference in late 2015 has concluded.

2.1

The EU Emissions Trading System came into operation on 1 January 2005, and is one of the EU’s most important climate policy instruments, in the light of the opportunities it provides to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

2.2

Since it was set up, the EU ETS has sought to provide a reference point for carbon, with the aim of enabling emissions to be reduced in all sectors of the European economy that are responsible for approximately half of the EU’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

2.3

The EESC has always considered the EU ETS to be a key instrument in EU climate and energy policy for reducing the EU’s industrial emissions, and has called for its genuine reform with a view to achieving the EU’s climate objectives for 2030 while safeguarding the Union’s industrial competitiveness and avoiding investment leakage.

2.4

The European Council of 21 March 2014 called for measures to compensate in full for the direct and indirect costs arising from EU climate policies for sectors exposed to global competition, until such time as an international climate agreement succeeds in establishing a level global playing field.

2.4.1

The EESC would nevertheless reiterate the observations made by the European Court of Auditors, according to which there are ‘significant weaknesses’ in the implementation of the EU ETS, and would make a number of recommendations with a view to improving the integrity and implementation of the system, while boldly asserting the notion of industrial efficiency to ensure that the EU economy is fully competitive.

2.5

On 23 and 24 October 2014, the European Council laid down the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. It also adopted conclusions, and in particular endorsed a number of important targets:

2.5.1

The EU’s target of reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 %, formally adopted at the Environment Council meeting of 6 March 2015, represents the basis for the EU’s contribution to the negotiations on a new global agreement on climate change.

2.5.2

All these aspects of the framework will be reviewed from time to time by the Council, which will continue to provide strategic guidelines for both sectors covered by the ETS and those not, and for interconnections and energy efficiency.

2.5.3

Instruments and measures must take a comprehensive and technologically neutral approach to promoting lower emissions and energy efficiency.

2.6

On 13 May 2015 agreement was reached between the Council and the European Parliament on reform of the EU ETS, with a decision on a market stability reserve (MSR):

2.7

As part of the Energy Union strategy and with a view to the Paris climate conference, the Commission has proposed a package of measures intended, inter alia, to revise the EU Emissions Trading System in accordance with the indications laid down by the Council, retaining the reindustrialisation of the European economy and the international competitiveness of those industrial sectors most exposed to the risk of relocation of production, as priorities.

2.8

The measures to revise the EU ETS touch upon many other EU policies apart from energy.

2.9

The EESC commissioned a study on the impact of measures financed by EU environmental protection instruments (2), which emphasised the importance of the effective utilisation of revenue from market based instruments to achieve environmental improvements in line with the promotion of the green economy, as well as revenue generated by the EU ETS, which represent a particularly significant opportunity to fund such improvements and to move industry and employment towards a carbon-free economy.

3.1

The Commission initiative modifying EU ETS directive 2003/87/EC sets out by means of a series of interlinked proposals to increase the annual reduction level for allowable emissions, so that the quantity of allowances released each year across the European Economic Area (EEA) declines by a linear factor of over 2,2 %, from 2021 onwards, to achieve a reduction of 43 % in 2030 compared to the 2005 level.

3.2

The proposal contains several funding mechanisms to support economic actors who must combat carbon leakage and meet the major challenges posed by the innovation and investment needed to modernise their plants and to achieve energy efficiency to help reduce emissions.

4.1

Emissions trading systems are expanding across the world outside the EU, with national and sub-national systems already operating in various countries.

4.2

In the US, President Obama has announced the rules for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which will lay down individual standards for each state to reduce carbon emissions from power stations — mainly coal and gas burning — by 2030.

4.2.1

A ‘cap-and-trade’ programme was launched in California in 2012. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is in force in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

4.3

Australia has an emissions trading system that will be linked to the European one by 2018, under a 2012 agreement with the European Commission.