17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee has consistently stressed the importance of state-aid control as a key factor in:

1.2

The rules governing state aid are based on the Community's founding texts – the ECSC Treaty and the EEC Treaty. Unlike the ECSC Treaty, which has now expired, the EC Treaty does not lay down an absolute ban on state aid: derogations (1) and some exceptions (2) to the ban are provided for, giving the Commission – and, exceptionally, the Council, too – wide discretionary power to authorise aid as an exception to the general rule.

1.3

Moreover, Articles 87, 88 and 89, which govern this complex matter, are included in Section II of Title VI laying down common rules on competition, taxation and approximation of laws, precisely in order to underscore the fact that the issue of state aid should be viewed in terms of the impact that it can have on the competitive market place.

1.3.1

In this connection, the EESC has already stressed that any new state aid action plan should be compatible with the objectives laid down in Article 2 of the EC Treaty in order to ensure, inter alia, proper functioning of the internal market, implementation of non-discriminatory rules, harmonious, balanced, sustainable development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence, a better quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.

1.4

Indeed, state aid, as the Commission itself states, is: ‘a form of state intervention used to promote a certain economic activity. It implies that certain economic sectors or activities are treated more favourably than others and thus distorts competition because it discriminates between companies that receive assistance and others that do not’ (3).

1.4.1

According to Article 87(1) of the Treaty, state aid includes not just aid granted by public authorities and financed by public funds but also interventions to reduce costs which are normally part of an undertaking's outgoings.

1.5

The March 2005 European Council reiterated the goal of continuing to work towards a reduction in the general level of state aid, while granting derogations for any market failures. This is in line with the recommendations of the 2000 Lisbon Summit and the 2001 Stockholm Summit and meets the need to direct aid towards horizontal objectives of common interest, including cohesion objectives.

1.5.1

Furthermore, in its recent Communication on the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission took up this objective of reducing state aid, redirecting it to address market failures, particularly in sectors with a high growth potential, and stimulating innovation (4).

1.6

The European Parliament, too, has recently expressed its views on state aid (5), stressing that it must be used responsibly, providing value for money, since it:

1.6.1

Moreover, on 12 May 2005, the EP adopted a resolution on Strengthening European competitiveness – the effects of industrial change on policy and the role of SMEs (6), in which it supported the aim of reducing the global volume of aid to enterprises, but pointed to the usefulness of certain types of aid in offsetting shortcomings in the market, such as aid for research and development, for training and for advisory services.

1.6.2

The EP noted the importance of state aid for SMEs in the Member States and called on the Commission to maintain within the Structural Funds all aid instruments for the economic and socio-economic reconversion of regions affected by industrial relocation; it urged better consideration for small and micro-enterprises (7) in these regions and, more generally, in all cohesion policies.

1.6.3

As part of the plan to reform state aid arrangements, the EP proposed that a clear-cut approach be laid down with a view to fostering innovation across all sectors, under the heading of the Lisbon objectives.

1.7

For its part, over the years, the Court of Justice has also expressed its views on state aid on many occasions, creating genuine case law laying down consistent, extremely detailed guidelines, most recently with the judgment on services of general interest and the Altmark judgment of 24 July 2003 (8).

1.8

In its April 2005 Report on the State Aid Scoreboard (9), the Commission paints an encouraging picture of Member States' reactions to the Lisbon Strategy, recording a slight decline in the level of aid in relation to GDP and even more positive responses as regards the redirection of aid in line with the suggestions of the European Councils; nevertheless, there is still a long way to go.

1.8.1

In 2001, the Commission created the state aid register and the state aid scoreboard as a basis for discussion on a strategy for reducing the general level of state aid and redirecting it towards horizontal objectives, and these tools were developed further in 2002. The EESC has already expressed appreciation of the Commission's efforts to achieve greater transparency in the area of state aid, which would seem to be especially important with regard to the Member States which have recently joined the EU.

1.9

The EESC is pleased to note that, in 2003, annual total state aid had fallen by 3,6 % since 1999 and by almost 30 % since 1996; however, it also notes that the figure of EUR 53 billion (10), over 60 % of which is earmarked for the manufacturing and service industries, continues to be high. It also stresses its concern at the potential competition distortions which could be caused by the state-aid disparities between Member States and between the different regions within Member States.

1.9.1

In an earlier opinion (11), the EESC welcomed the ongoing clarification and fine-tuning of the rules by the Commission, with particular regard to the block exemption regulation for employment aid designed to facilitate Member States' job creation initiatives.

1.9.2

The EESC fully agrees with the Commission that state aid rules need to be adjusted with the passage of time to take into account political, economic and legal developments. That is why instruments for assessing state aid are reviewed periodically and therefore often have limited duration (12).

1.10

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposals for general reform in the field (13), based on an integrated approach which takes proper account of ‘market failures’.

1.10.1

It feels that the adoption of a new framework which gears state aid policy to development needs should be subject to a review comprising streamlining and an exhaustive impact assessment.

1.10.2

The review should be based on clear goals, wide-ranging consultation and comprehensive information. In addition to a clear control system, the new framework should provide coherence between policies, concentrated measures and, lastly, greater streamlining, transparency and legal certainty.

1.10.3

The proposed framework should be in line with:

1.10.4

Particular consideration must also be given to the following:

1.11

In the EESC's view, however, the most important thing in defining a common state aid framework is to launch a modern policy which will win the unanimous support of all the Member States, since all the EU economies are subject to transition and restructuring processes as a result of globalisation.

1.12

As competitors and end recipients of state aid, undertakings, along with the public sector, are in a good position to assess the effectiveness of the instruments created. They have a practical contribution to make in monitoring solutions suitable for modern European state aid policy, and can make suggestions for drawing up new guidelines.

1.12.1

Moreover, undertakings are directly exposed both to the legal uncertainties and lengthy approval times of aid systems and to the serious consequences of recovery of aid declared to be unlawful. They are therefore among those who would benefit most from the dissemination of a uniform understanding of Community legislation and the elimination of difficulties and disparities in interpretation and implementation.

2.1

The EESC firmly believes that the Commission's reform proposals could be a valuable melting pot for achieving balanced reconciliation of:

2.2

The EESC fully supports the principle underlying the ‘Less and better-targeted’ state aid reform, which seeks to make undertakings more competitive on domestic and international markets and to create the right conditions to enable the most efficient undertakings to be rewarded.

2.3

The EESC fully endorses the approach outlined by the Commission aimed at simplifying rules in order to give operators greater certainty and alleviate Member States' administrative burdens. Indeed, the EESC firmly believes that uncertainty regarding what constitutes legitimate state aid and what does not is likely to call into question the legitimacy of the Commission's state aid control process.

2.4

The EESC believes that the proposed reform of Community state aid rules should essentially entail:

2.5

State aid policy is an integral part of competition policy and, as such, is among the Community policies, with the greatest bearing on economic trends. The EESC therefore believes that state aid policy should be used more specifically to achieve high-quality development and consistency with the Lisbon objectives so that it can play a driving role in ensuring sound economic and employment development trends.

2.6

Competitiveness is a measure of a market's capacity to create valuable goods and services effectively in a globalised world, raising the standard of living and ensuring a high employment rate. However, it must be admitted that the EU has failed in its attempt to promote the growth of its business and human resources and achieve higher levels of technological research, innovation, training and internationalisation, as called for by the Lisbon Strategy.

3.1

The EESC supports a new general Community state aid framework based on an aid policy which:

3.2

The EESC believes that Community state aid policy has an active role to play in making Europe more attractive to investors and employers, boosting business competitiveness and social cohesion, encouraging research and innovation endeavours, and, lastly, promoting the introduction and dissemination of new skills and the training of human resources.

3.3

The EESC feels that a general block exemption regulation should be introduced to extend and simplify the Community exemption framework for training and employment aids, favouring the aid measures which are most transparent and best target specific objectives, to be identified in close consultation with undertakings and the social partners, which, as beneficiaries of the aid systems, are in the best position to assess the effectiveness of the proposed instruments.

3.4

As regards the regional aid system, the EESC supports the intention in the new 2007-13 programming framework of boosting development in disadvantaged regions (NUTS II ‘statistical effect’ regions, NUTS II ‘economic development’ regions and NUTS III ‘low population density’ regions) and remote islands and mountain areas, overcoming the aid dependency mindset, reducing maximum aid intensities, preventing the aid differential between less developed regions exceeding 10 %, and combating potential waves of relocation due to disproportionate aid differentials (no higher then 20 % for NUTS level III regions) between border regions.

3.4.1

The EESC supports the Commission's approach of varying regional aid intensities for different types of undertakings, but considers that the danger of slowing down smaller undertakings' expansion should be avoided and a single differential of 20 % set for both small and medium-sized undertakings. The proposed limits for aid for large undertakings' investments in regions covered by the new derogations should take into account the new classification of undertakings laid down in the 2003 Commission Recommendation (14).

3.5

As regards small-scale aid, the EESC endorses increasing the ceiling for ‘de minimis’ aid, not least with a view to ensuring more targeted, streamlined Community action.

3.6

The EESC believes that the Commission should focus on state aid which has a significant effect on trade rather than wasting its resources analysing large numbers of cases of predominantly local concern, and that it should clarify the meaning and interpretation of the concept of ‘local concern’.

3.7

The EESC believes that state aid control should be proportionate and effective, and that complex notification procedures should be avoided in cases which are of minor importance for Community competition.

3.8

The EESC firmly supports the proposal on small-scale state aid submitted by the Commission in February 2004, with a view to giving Member States greater flexibility, simpler procedures and sufficient opportunity to introduce aid measures facilitating the achievement of the Lisbon objectives while preserving adequate scope for Commission control.

3.9

Where sectoral aid is concerned, coherence between EU sectoral policies and aid regimes in the transport, energy, information and communication sectors needs to be ensured, along the lines recommended by the Commission for block exemptions. The Lisbon Strategy laid down specific objectives for the culture, audiovisual, film and sport sectors, where there is great potential for innovation, growth and job creation.

3.10

The Community framework for state aid to environmental protection will remain in force until 2007. Here, too, it is important to pursue the Lisbon objectives, facilitating the introduction of the CO2 emissions trading scheme (ETS National Allocation Plans) as part of the Kyoto Protocol objectives.

3.11

Aid to innovation (pursuant to the Green Paper (15)): The EESC believes that the existing framework should be extended to types of aid for innovative activities which are not covered by the current guidelines, and that clear, general compatibility criteria should be defined which leave Member States greater scope for intervention without a notification obligation.

3.11.1

To bring about improvement in this field, the EESC calls upon the Commission to specify more precisely, with the help of Eurostat, which production and service activities can currently be defined as innovative. Some guidance in this sensitive area would be extremely useful.

3.11.2

In this connection, the EESC welcomes the issue on 21 September 2005 of the Communication on state aid and innovation, which provides a Community framework for this key sector and identifies both the most obvious market failures and suitable measures for those cases which could be remedied.

3.12

Clear pre-established criteria need to be devised for gauging which market failures are likely to impede innovation measures and instruments in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. At the same time, however, the Member States and their regions will have to be given sufficient room for manoeuvre to vary interventions so that they are proportionate and effective and can transform pre-competitive research into commercial and market innovation.

3.13

State aid facilitating SME investment in innovative projects needs to encourage businesses to grow in size as well and to encompass, in particular:

3.14

The EESC believes that the new framework should also take into account all the external factors which affect the innovation process, namely:

3.14.1

More generally, it believes that, when reviewing the guidelines on horizontal aid such as aid to research, innovation, the environment and human capital:

3.15

As regards aid to services of general economic interest, it should be stressed that these services are a fundamental element of social and regional cohesion. In accordance with the criteria established by the Altmark judgment (16) and the relevant Commission Decision of 13 July 2005, the concept of a ‘typical undertaking, well run’ therefore needs to be clarified. Legal certainty also needs to be ensured as regards compensation for public service provision, which is a form of state aid compatible with the Treaty.

3.16

The EESC believes that the future legislation should take into account the fact that responsibility for defining services of general economic interest lies with national, regional and local institutions with democratic legitimacy in the field (17).

4.1

The EESC believes that major steps forward can be taken towards a simpler, more transparent Community aid policy, building on the Commission's work to target elements likely to cause substantial distortions of competition.

4.2

Delays in the processing of cases also need to be eliminated, with administrative practices improved and streamlined; Member States need to shoulder their responsibilities too in order to ensure transparency and effectiveness.

4.3

The EESC also calls strongly for codes of practice to be developed with the full involvement of all stakeholders, particularly undertakings, as beneficiaries of aid measures.

5.1

The situation in the wake of enlargement calls for changes to state aid policy to make all regions of the EU equally attractive as new locations and to investors, and to ensure fair competition between neighbouring regions.

5.2

The 10 new Member States currently grant undertakings much higher amounts of state aid – as a percentage of GDP – than the EU-15 Member States, although the situation looks set to even out gradually. During the period 2000-2003, state aid in the new Member States represented on average 1,42 % of GDP compared to an average of 0,4 % in EU-15.

5.3

The Lisbon Strategy provided for aid to be used to achieve horizontal objectives. In 2002,73 % of aid was earmarked for this purpose in EU-15 as opposed to 22 % in the new Member States (18).

5.4

On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that the new Member States have adapted very well to the market economy, although the enlarged EU still needs to take major steps to reduce the overall level of aid and encourage competitiveness, sustainable and cohesive development and the new European knowledge-based economy.

6.1

The EESC believes that better governance of state-aid practices and procedures is necessary. Direct stakeholders need to be more involved, particularly enterprise and civil society, as they are directly exposed both to the legal uncertainties and lengthy turnaround times for Community approval of aid systems and to the serious effects of the recovery of inadmissible or unlawful aid.

6.2

As both beneficiaries of state aid and, at the same time, competitors, businesses are in a prime position to:

6.3

The EESC therefore believes that:

7.1

The EESC believes that a clear picture needs to be painted of the added value of state aid for the European Union's future, in terms of the objectives of the competitive, sustainable and cohesive development of the Member States decided on at Lisbon and reiterated a number of times at various European summits since 2000.

7.1.1

The key sectors identified by the Lisbon Strategy require substantial, targeted financial input which must be fully reflected in Member States' budgetary and structural policies: a pre-established, coherent, compatible framework is needed to which all policies, including Community competition policy, must refer and conform.

7.2

Before a single European market which can compete on equal terms with the other players on the global market can be fully achieved, the EESC believes that substantial modernisation is needed in both the framing and implementation of European economic and, in particular, state aid policy. This is also a pre-requisite for the major infrastructure and major intangible investment necessary for an effective, technologically advanced, competitive market to function properly.

7.3

The Committee believes that general compatibility criteria need to be defined in order to encourage the Member States and regions to implement support policies with the aim of achieving a competitive economy which complies with free trade rules.

7.4

Where the market fails to make European businesses competitive and proves incapable of building up their technological innovation, training and internationalisation capacities, European state aid policy must facilitate rather than hinder policies and schemes to stimulate businesses' growth and increase their ability to attract new investment, expertise and capital to Europe.

8.1

The EESC is in favour of modernisation of European state aid policy based on a new, proactive approach and on a new, general Community framework. In this connection it recommends, in particular:

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/9

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.1

The Lisbon objectives (1) are about Europe's position in global competition, which centres around the race to invest more in research and development; this involves both the traditional industrial nations (e.g. USA, EU and Japan) and the burgeoning new economic powers (e.g. China, India, Brazil, Korea) with their substantially cheaper labour.

1.2

Effective, high-quality research and development that enjoys an adequate level of support is in fact the basic foundation and sine qua non for innovation, competitiveness and prosperity, and thus also for cultural development and the provision of social services; investments in research and development have a high gain factor and boost economic strength accordingly. This is also in line with the 3 % objective laid down in Barcelona (2) in 2002, though the global race makes this a ‘moving target’.

1.3

Community-funded research and development activities create considerable European added value. They open up potentials that plainly go beyond the capacities of individual Member States and have already facilitated European developments of global importance. They have a decisive and stimulating leverage and integration effect on the necessary and more extensive national research programmes of the Member States, which also leads to a pooling of resources. They bring together Europe's research elites, European industry and European decision-makers. They are a catalyst of European integration, cohesion and identity-building. They are the core element of the European Research Area.

1.4

The Commission's proposal to increase expenditure and to devote just under 8 % of the total Community budget to these objectives is a welcome and absolutely necessary first step in the right direction. It is a minimum amount that must be increased still further in the longer term so as not to gamble away – but rather to maintain and strengthen – Europe's position as the cradle of modern science and technology. Without such action, it will not be possible, even in the longer term, to meet the Lisbon objectives.

1.5

On scientific and technological performance hinge not just economic competitiveness and the ‘pull’ that that exerts on investors, scientists and engineers (‘brain-drain’), but also cultural and political standing and influence. The EU must remain a key, sought-after partner in cooperation and must not lose its importance on the world stage as part of the global network.

1.6

The Committee therefore calls on the European Parliament, the European Council and, in particular, Member State heads of state or government to make the urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the Commission available in full and to ensure that these do not become a pawn in – or fall victim to – the negotiations on the EU's future overall budget. This decision will be a crucial touchstone for the capacity of European policy to set the right course for the future.

1.7

The Committee also calls on the heads of state or government and on European industry, including through their national research programmes and industrial research measures, to help ensure that the 3 % target is reached as soon as possible.

1.8

The Committee welcomes the fundamental direction of the two framework programmes proposed by the Commission (FP7 and Euratom FP7), not only for their thematic content and structure, but also, for the most part, for the balance they strike between the objectives and components of the individual programmes.

1.9

The Committee is pleased at the inclusion of the energy, security and space sub-programmes. One of the key priority issues is how to secure the adequate and sustainable supply of reasonably priced energy within the EU, which means finding the right balance between sustainability, environmental protection and competitiveness. The answer lies in sufficient research and development. Security too is a major issue, as the recent heinous terrorist attacks have made only too plain.

1.10

Many of the issues that need to be resolved cut across different remits and a number of different sub-programmes – including the humanities and economic sciences. In such cases, the Committee recommends that steps be taken to ensure overall coordination and the necessary link-ups. That might well have an impact on the current budgetary allocation for the individual sub-programmes. The same is true of the share of the budget earmarked for economic research, which may be too low.

1.11

The Committee welcomes the Commission's intention to simplify administrative procedures and reduce the effort these involve, thus boosting the efficiency of the European research programmes. As they stand, the application and approval procedures involve too much work and are too expensive, causing difficulties for scientific and industrial users. The European research programme must be a worthwhile venture for those taking part in it, including in terms of the risk involved in making the application. This also applies in particular to smaller players, such as SMEs or smaller research groups from universities and research centres.

1.12

A key consideration here is to ensure a sufficient degree of continuity in the application and support arrangements, and in the cooperative structures and organisational parameters (instruments). New instruments such as the joint technology initiatives should be introduced with great care, and, initially, for a trial period only.

1.13

Given the key role of small and medium-sized enterprises for the Lisbon process, the Committee welcomes the Commission's plan to involve SMEs even more closely in research, development and innovation. Accordingly, it recommends increasing the budget earmarked for this area even further where necessary, if the appropriations provided for in the competitiveness and innovation framework programme (2007-2013), which is not discussed here and which has a key support and intermediary role to play, should prove inadequate.

1.14

To win, SMEs set up specifically to develop and market innovative high-tech products above all need enough start capital and venture capital to be able to bridge the first five to ten years of operations successfully.

1.15

The Committee supports the role of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the key range of responsibilities it has in many fields, including the study of future scientific, technological, economic and social trends, and their importance for policy consultations.

1.16

Further, more in-depth comments and recommendations are set out in the more detailed sections 2, 4 and 5 of the opinion below.

2.1

Europe's economic, social and cultural future. Europe's future development and position on the world stage will be determined above all by the competition that exists on the global market, with its changing industrial and economic structures, labour market situation and raw material parameters. In this context, growth, success and economic strength – and the resultant capacity to provide social services and secure cultural development – are critically contingent on available knowledge and thus on investment in research and technological development. Investments in research and development have a high gain factor and boost economic strength accordingly.

2.2

Global competition. On the one hand, Europe is competing with the now-traditional industrial nations such as the USA, Japan and Russia, with, in all R&D sectors, US investments (3) in particular considerably outstripping those of the EU, thus steadily widening that country's existing lead. On the other hand, Europe is also competing with rapidly expanding economies such as China, India, Brazil and Korea.

2.3

The global research race. These last-named countries not only have much cheaper labour than the EU, but they are now also showing a rapid rise in scientific and technical standards and are investing strongly in education, research and development. For the EU, therefore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to safeguard what are, in comparison, its much higher wages and social and environmental standards by widening its scientific and technological lead and delivering superior products and processes as a result. Europe must thus do its utmost to ensure it does not lose this global race for increasing R&D investments that is so crucial for its future.

2.4

Overall standing and attraction – international cooperation. On scientific and technological performance hinge not just economic competitiveness and the ‘pull’ that that exerts on investors, scientists and engineers (brain-drain), but also cultural and political prestige and influence. The EU must remain a key, sought-after partner in cooperation and must not lose its importance on the world stage as part of the global network.

2.5

The Lisbon strategy. The March 2000 Lisbon European Council therefore resolved to make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world (4). Since then, implementation of the Lisbon strategy, and the creation of a strong European Research Area, which forms an integral part of the strategy, is acknowledged as the centrepiece of EU policy. The spring 2002 European Council in Barcelona added quantitative objectives for the support of research activities, with total research expenditure in the EU set to rise to 3 % of GDP by 2010, with two-thirds of funding coming from the private sector (the 3 % objective). The Committee would point out, however, that, in the light of the global investment race, this objective is a ‘moving target’. Those who fail to reach it in time fall even further behind.

2.6

Need for a strong Community framework programme. Community-funded research and development activities not only complement the Member States' research programmes, but also have considerable European added value. They open up potentials that plainly go beyond the capacities of individual Member States and have already facilitated European developments of global importance (5). They have a decisive and stimulating leverage and integration effect on the necessary and more extensive national research programmes of the Member States. They reflect the international nature of science, research and production and the international labour market that that requires.

2.7

A catalyst for European integration and cohesion. Community-funded research and development also brings together Europe's research elites, European industry and European decision-makers. It is a key catalyst of European integration, cohesion and identity-building.

2.8

The Commission's proposals. The Commission document sets out proposals for Community actions relating to programme funding and content which are urgently needed to support research and development activity, thus underpinning the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. Although they have been expanded, they still make up only a relatively small part – now just under 8 % – of the proposed overall EU budget for 2007 to 2013.

2.9

The Commission's proposals are also linked to the proposal to establish a competitiveness and innovation framework programme (2007-2013), which is not discussed here. In particular, this programme could also act an intermediary between the framework programme submitted here and the innovation needed by many SMEs.

2.10

Setting priorities as a test of commitment. Adoption of the proposed measures and sufficiently high priority treatment by the Parliament, Council and particularly – with regard to the financial perspectives – the Member States, is therefore a crucial test of the EU's commitment and the extent to which its policies are credible and able to deliver results. (See also points 4.2 to 4.6).

3.1

The seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), referred to hereafter as the FP7, differs from its predecessor in the following respects:

3.2

By contrast, the seventh framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011), referred to hereafter as the Euratom FP7, is of the same duration as before, although obviously it too covers the EU-25.

3.3

The FP7 Framework Programme will be organised in four specific programmes, corresponding to the four major objectives of European research policy:

3.4

The proposed total of Community financial participation in FP7 is EUR 72,726 million. That amount is to be distributed, in percentage terms, among the activities and actions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 2, as follows:

3.5

The cooperation programme has a proposed overall budget of EUR 44,432 million and is organised into thematic sub-programmes on the basis of priorities. Steps are to be taken to ensure consistency among the sub-programmes, and joint, cross-thematic approaches. The programme covers the following nine research subjects, which are to be approached within the EU in transnational cooperation. The proposed percentage budget allocation is also shown.

3.6

Euratom FP7 is organised in two specific programmes.

3.6.1

One covers two areas:

3.6.2

The other programme covers the activities of the Joint Research Centre in the field of nuclear energy.

3.6.3

A total of EUR 3,092 million is to be earmarked for the implementation of Euratom FP7 for the period from 2007 to 2011. That amount is distributed in percentage terms as follows:

3.7

The Commission document also contains a detailed analysis and explanation of the proposed support instruments and underlying principles. These were already outlined in a previous Communication from the Commission (6), which the Committee has evaluated in depth (7).

4.1

The Commission proposal is a very substantial document, which outlines an extensive research and development programme with its many details, aspects and links to other areas. In view of this, this opinion cannot analyse or comment on all the components and procedures of the programme. Detailed comments are therefore reserved for aspects to which the Committee attaches particular importance. The Committee would draw attention to its earlier recommendations (8) on relevant specific issues, and notes that these still apply to FP7. The Committee will make more detailed statements in its upcoming opinions on the Commission communications on the specific programmes (9) and access rules (10).

4.2

The Committee considers both proposed budgets as minimum amounts that must be increased still further in the longer term so as not to gamble away – but rather to maintain and strengthen – Europe's position as the cradle of modern science and technology. The Committee sees this as a welcome and absolutely necessary first step in bringing the Community at least closer towards to the 3 % objective  (11) set by European heads of state or government at the Barcelona summit.

4.3

Without adequate financial backing, FP7 and Euratom FP7 will not be able to contribute to the Lisbon strategy; there is even a risk that Europe will fall further behind in the global race. R&D are the starting point and engine of innovation for competitive products and technologies. They can trigger a snowball effect that will then impact on economic momentum and jobs.

4.4

Furthermore, the Commission proposal is a clear signal to Member States to follow this example and do everything possible, including in their national research budgets, to attain the 3 % objective.

4.5

Consequently, the Committee views the total funding decided on for the two budgets as a crucial test of European policies, of their credibility and ability to deliver results. It is this funding which will reveal the extent to which Europe has set itself the right priorities and is on the right course to prevent the EU falling behind in the global race and to deliver the promises of the Lisbon objectives.

4.6

Appeal. The Committee thus calls on the European Parliament, the European Council and, in particular, the Member State heads of state or government to ensure that the urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the Commission are actually made available and do not become a pawn in – or fall victim to – the negotiations on the future overall EU budget. Major difficulties would otherwise ensue, the Lisbon strategy objectives would not be met, and the standing and credibility of European policy would be dented.

4.7

The Committee also calls on the Member State heads of state or government and on European industry, including through their more extensive national research programmes and industrial research measures, to make a major effort to ensure that the 3 % target is reached as soon as possible.

4.8

The Committee welcomes the fundamental direction of the two framework programmes proposed by the Commission (FP7 and Euratom FP7), not only for their thematic content and structure, but also, for the most part, for the balance they strike between the objectives and components of the individual programmes.

4.9

The Committee notes with approval that the Commission's proposal has taken on board or attached particular importance to many of its recommendations. In the case of the research themes of the specific cooperation programme, these recommendations relate to its opinions on subjects such as nanotechnology  (12), biotechnology  (13) health research  (14), information technology  (15), energy research  (16) (including fusion energy research (17)), space  (18) and security research  (19). The Committee would reiterate at this point that it considers all these issues to be very important and thus strongly advocates that they be dealt with appropriately. Any gaps or other specific points still identified by the Committee will be addressed at a later stage.

4.10

It is true that in the case of space and security research, the Committee had made a reasoned case for such research to be managed and supported outside FP7. However, it realises that there are also arguments in favour of incorporating this area into FP7; for example, management would be more straightforward, and there would be better synergy and coherence with other sub-programmes. Therefore, it would now advocate initially incorporating these sub-programmes into FP7 on a trial basis and, depending on the results, making the necessary changes after the mid-term review, or in FP8.

4.10.1

Space-based applications at the service of the European society, which falls under the space sub-programme, will, as a typical cross-cutting theme (see section 5), be coordinated with the themes of security, the environment and information technology.

4.10.2

Security research themes, which are, sadly, of particular concern at the moment, such as protection against terrorism and crime, security of infrastructures and utilities, border security, and security and society are cross-cutting issues that should be complemented by research in the humanities and sociology on themes such as conflict and peace and culture, in order to learn more about the background to conflicts and ways of avoiding or preventing them. Particular attention should be paid to combating terrorism and the control of menacing weapons of mass destruction (see also point 6.4.3 below).

4.11

With regard to the ideas programme, the Committee is also pleased to note that its recommendations (20) have been taken up. These dealt largely with the autonomous management of this programme by the European Research Council, which is to be made up of outstanding scientists of international renown. The Committee would reiterate its recommendation to involve high-calibre industrial research scientists in this venture as well. The Committee therefore feels it is all the more imperative that the Parliament and the Council should approve this new type of research support, which should be organised on similar lines to the UK Medical Research Council or the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), for example.

4.11.1

This programme, which seeks to promote excellence in all areas of science and technology, will offer European added value and contribute to the EU's competitiveness in the global context. The Committee would point out in particular that (21) basic research which is free, independent and unhampered, even though subject to certain limits, is the only kind of research which can deliver the key ingredient for future prosperity – new knowledge. Industry also acknowledges the value of basic research and the need to support it (22).

4.11.2

At the same time, this ties in with repeated recommendations by the Committee to give due emphasis to all three essential sides of the innovation triangle – basic research, applied research and development (product and process development), in order to create the best possible conditions for full success, while helping to promote multidisciplinarity, as advocated by the Commission. The Committee would again point out that the dividing lines between the terms basic research, applied research and development have always been fluid and arbitrary, and their importance should not, therefore, be artificially inflated by administrative measures.

4.12

The Committee also welcomes the proposal to beef up actions under the people heading and the associated ‘Marie Curie’ programmes. This programme has so far also proven to be an extremely successful and important means of training and supporting European researchers, and of making the European Research Area more attractive for researchers from all over the world. The Committee reiterates that, as well as creating new knowledge, researchers are also the main agents in the transfer of such knowledge between countries and continents, and also between research establishments and industry, i.e. between research and application.

4.12.1

The objectives of life-long training and career development and pathways and partnerships between industry and universities are particularly interesting aspects of the programme. Whereas the first objective applies to training for young researchers and subsequent professional development (including the professional development of experienced researchers – see also the next point), the second concerns the important task of launching and supporting longer-term cooperation programmes between organisations from academia and industry, in particular SMEs, thus underpinning the innovation triangle outlined above. It is therefore particularly important to promote mobility between the public and private sectors. This should also include mobility in relation to, and partnerships with, for instance, the farming sector or political institutions.

4.12.2

The Committee is also touching here on the key role of universities as research and training bodies. To be able to meet their remit, however, it is essential that universities have the material and tools they need, as well as an appropriate staff budget and organisational structure (see also point 4.15.4). There are major shortcomings on this front – not least in comparison with top universities, for instance in the USA. The Committee is therefore pleased that the Commission is working on a separate communication on this issue, on which the Committee itself will also issue an opinion. At this stage, the Committee would just make clear one key point in relation to FP7: namely that the support instruments must be in keeping with the usual scale of projects conducted by university research groups.

4.13

In addition, the Committee endorses the Commission's efforts to establish a coherent professional profile for European researchers, to develop a stable career structure, and to adapt internal market rules accordingly. The Committee has pointed out in the past (23) that human capital is the most sensitive and valuable resource for research and development and that it supports the Commission's efforts to maintain and develop human resources. The Committee agrees with the Commission that improvements are needed both in relation to researchers' contracts and to the adaptation/portability of all aspects of social security and retirement provision, which are so important for all types of mobility.

4.13.1

Capable young scientists will take their research out of Europe or turn to other activities unless we succeed in offering them an attractive and predictable career path (known in the USA as a tenure track). Mobility among scientists is needed and wanted not only within the EU, but also between the EU and many other countries. This must not, however, lead to a net loss of the most gifted among them (brain-drain). One particular aspect of this, in view of the importance of family cohesion, is the option of ‘dual-career-couples’.

4.13.2

The Committee would refer in that regard to the Commission's recommendation of 11 March 2005 concerning the European Charter for Researchers  (24) and a code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers designed to promote the objectives set out above. The Committee very much endorses the intentions expressed therein and many of the individual proposals. It therefore regrets that in certain respects the proposed rules go too far and thus make it difficult for the provisions – and the fundamentally warranted concern that underpins them – to secure acceptance among the scientific community. In some cases, the wording and recommendations are even misleading, or at the very least unclear or ambiguous (25). This can, among other things, make simplification more difficult (see next point) or result in unsound decisions being taken. The Committee therefore recommends that these key provisions be revised as appropriate when the opportunity arises.

4.14

In this context, the Committee endorses the Commission's declared intention, under the heading of simplification, of streamlining numerous actions and rules for application and decision-making procedures, thereby making them markedly easier for applicants to deal with. Ultimately, the considerable investment of time and money involved in application and approval procedures is one of the main obstacles for scientific and industrial users. This applies in particular to SMEs with their considerable potential for innovation, and to smaller, university-based research groups. More user-friendly procedures would considerably enhance the efficiency of European support for research, besides helping to improve perceptions of ‘Brussels’ among the European public, which, unfortunately, are largely clouded by images of ‘red tape’ and ‘overregulation’. The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendations to this effect and its endorsement of the Marimon Report (26). The European research programme must be a worthwhile venture for those taking part in it, including in terms of the effort and risk involved in making the application.

4.14.1

The Committee is aware that this issue touches on the balance between the requirement for transparency, the rules of the European Court of Auditors and the need for all decision-makers to have sufficient room for manoeuvre. This can and must lead to stakeholders from the Commission or its authorised agencies acting more on their own initiative (although the problem of their personal liability will have to be considered), which in turn will place very exacting demands on their specialist knowledge. The Committee therefore reiterates its recommendation that specific experts with many years' experience are needed here. The Committee would refer to its earlier recommendations on this point (27).

4.14.2

A particularly important facet of securing innovation and ‘going the extra mile’ is the willingness to accept uncertainty and the risk of failure. No attempt to break new scientific and technological ground, no quest to discover the unknown can be planned or organised in such a way that success is guaranteed. Indeed, the reverse is true. Nothing new can be discovered if everything is known in advance. ‘Failure’ must not therefore be seen as such, but rather a useful finding in the trial-and-error process. Opportunity and risk are two sides of the same coin.

4.14.3

It is advisable to set up external agencies only if a clear improvement in administrative procedures can be achieved by doing so and if there is a clear and proven cost advantage to be gained. Any additional or external administrative costs must not, under any circumstances, eat into the budget available for actual research.

4.15

The Committee also particularly welcomes the important sub-programmes included under the capacities programme. These cover the fields of research infrastructures; research for the benefit of SMEs; regions of knowledge; research potential; science in society; and activities of international cooperation.

4.15.1

The important objective of involving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) more closely in research and innovation process and creating suitable conditions and tools for this to happen is of particular interest.

4.15.2

Support from the innovation programme may prove to be another useful means of supporting SMEs  (28), but, here too, procedures must be kept practicable and in due proportion to the resources of SMEs. Depending on the success of this innovation programme, the Committee feels it would be worth considering a further increase in the share of explicit SME support from its current level of 15 %, not least given the requirements of the new Member States. The Committee would reiterate its earlier statements on this issue, namely that, to win, SMEs set up specifically to develop and market innovative high-tech products above all need enough start capital and venture capital to be able to bridge the first five to ten years of operations successfully. Economic research and economic policy can make key contributions here.

4.15.3

Equally important are the objectives of optimising and developing research infrastructures, of developing regional research-driven clusters, and of promoting and unlocking research potential in the EU's convergence and outermost regions. Developing research infrastructures and establishing new infrastructures will promote and stimulate the emergence of regional research-driven clusters. Here too, there is above all a need for adequate venture capital – a crucial factor in success.

4.15.4

The Committee would above all stress the importance of adequate infrastructure measures to get the universities up to speed (see point 4.12.2 above). In this context, the Committee notes that, in a number of places in the EU, successful clusters of high-tech firms have grown up around certain universities and/or research centres, sparking growth and innovation in the neighbouring economic area as well (poles of economic growth). See also point 4.16.2.

4.15.5

There is more on the role of European supercomputer centres as an additional and very important infrastructure measure at a later stage in this opinion (see point 5.8 below).

4.15.6

The Committee also recommends that, subject to its inclusion under the ‘Ideas’ programme as well, the issue of science in society – currently one of the activities under the ‘Capacities’ heading – should be switched (29) to the priority sub-programme‘Socio-economic sciences and the humanities’ which is part of the ‘Cooperation’ programme. In this way, more effective use might be made of the potential synergies between these themes, and the necessary links could also be established. This would also make it clearer that the total budget of these overlapping issues is 3 % of the thematic, priority programmes.

4.15.7

Sound and effective international cooperation in research and training is a key element of global partnership and reflects with the very nature of scientific R&D. International cooperation activities (30), which come under the capacities sub-programme, focus on the key issue of working together (see also point 4.13.1) with applicant countries, countries neighbouring the EU, developing countries and emerging economies. The Committee is pleased that cooperation with economically and technically advanced countries such as the USA or Japan, which is, at the least, equally important, is made possible under the ‘Cooperation’ or ‘People’ sub-programmes, and that, in individual cases, such cooperation has even been placed on an institutional footing through bilateral agreements. The Committee recognises that this cooperation must grow out of actual need in the fields concerned, but it would nonetheless recommend raising the profile of these important facts and giving them greater emphasis.

4.16

Continuity and tools to promote research (forms of support). With regard to both aspects, the Committee strongly reaffirms its recommendations put forward in a previous opinion. In view of the urgent need for greater continuity, the Committee reiterates its point that the retention of instruments which have proved their worth is an important means of achieving this objective, and that there should be scope for flexibility in applicants' choices of instruments. At the same time, however, the assessment procedure must not sanction the choice of a particular instrument (not favoured by the Commission), nor may it give priority to particular instruments. The Committee also sees the extended duration of FP7 as a contribution to greater continuity, provided, however, that it is adequately funded.

4.16.1

Some of the instruments have been re-named or are entirely new. At this point the Committee would reiterate its general recommendations to the effect that, firstly, the Commission should, in the interests of continuity, proceed with great caution in introducing new instruments, or even renaming existing ones, and secondly, during the necessary trials of new instruments, it should make it clear that such instruments may still be in the testing phase.

4.16.2

In addition to the technology platforms mentioned earlier, the joint technology initiatives are also a new instrument of this kind designed to promote the establishment of longer-term public-private partnerships. There are high hopes for these initiatives within industry and not least among SMEs, although the Committee notes that the Commission has yet to produce any clearer proposals on this issue, including how the initiatives differ from technology platforms. Such initiatives could, among other things, also lead to the establishment of cooperative networks between big companies and SMEs, and also with universities and research centres, and, in broad terms, to more private-sector R&D investment (see also point 4.15.4). It is important, therefore, not only to work out clearer conditions and operating arrangements for joint technology initiatives of this kind, but also, after an appropriate period, to check whether the expectations placed in the initiatives have been fulfilled.

4.16.3

When introducing new instruments, the Commission should take care to avoid any recurrence of the mistakes that were made during the launch of the ‘networks of excellence’ (FP6). In that instance, an ineffective information policy led to confusion and differing interpretations among all stakeholders, and even within the Commission itself. The Committee trusts that it will have an opportunity to go into this subject in a subsequent opinion. It welcomes the Commission's proposal to apply Articles 169 and 171 of the EU Treaty to the funding schemes.

5.1

Most of the specific comments relate to the thematic sub-programmes of the cooperation programme which form the core of the framework programme. At this point, the Committee would like to reaffirm its support for the Commission's proposals as a whole, and to recommend their implementation.

5.2

The Committee would first of all consider the key aspect of multidisciplinary, cross-cutting themes, which, by their very nature, require overall coordination or direction, and thus frequently also encompass the socio-economic sciences and humanities sub-programme (see also point 5.8). Care should therefore be taken to ensure that, in spite of the precise structure of the individual programmes – unavoidable for administrative and other reasons – the overall connection between many of the issues to be tackled is recognised, dealt with and turned to good account. The Committee therefore recommends that steps be taken to ensure overall coordination and the necessary link-ups.

5.2.1

This also includes the theme of security research and combating terrorism, discussed in section 4 above.

5.2.2

Demographics is another case in point (31). Research required in this field ranges from identifying demographic facts, causes and trends, to the worryingly low birth rate in many Member States and the impact of still-rising average life expectancy. On this last point, the focus is on the requisite geriatric/medical research and care techniques (32). The social and economic issues involved in the whole complex question are a particularly important consideration here.

5.2.3

Health too is also a cross-cutting issue (see point 5.9), as it is affected by lifestyle. working conditions, environment, diet, vaccinations, and other factors such as addictions.

5.3

Some of the sub-programmes, however, are also, by their very nature, particularly cross-cutting, in that, besides having a direct impact on European industrial performance, they also benefit other sub-programmes, due to thematic links between them. (In this regard, again see point 5.2.)

5.4

This is particularly true of the information and communication technologies (ICT), biotechnology, and nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies sub-programmes. The energy, environment, and transport sub-programmes are also closely interconnected. In view of this, any assessment of the balance between the individual sub-programmes can at best be only qualitative; this reservation should be borne in mind in connection with the following remarks.

5.5

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are indeed of crucial relevance to all aspects of industry, business, the services sector, science and technology, including security and defence. They are a critical element in global competition. Compared to Japan and the USA in particular, Europe has considerable ground to make up, not least in view of the need for supercomputers in many important fields, such as climate, security and materials research and the synthesis of new medicines. This concerns both the establishment of European supercomputer centres – which could be more appropriately covered by the capacities or infrastructure programmes – and independent European development of the requisite hardware and software.

5.5.1

However, it is striking that, as under FP6, by far the largest share of the budget has again been allocated to the ICT sub-programme. Given the importance of other themes, particularly energy or, for instance, health which also have economic implications, it may be asked whether the possibility of a certain shift in emphasis should not be kept open, in the interests of a consistent approach to the sub-programmes. The answer to this question partly depends on the degree to which the ICT programme contributes to other programmes, e.g. security research or space exploration.

5.5.2

With this specific example in mind, the Committee recommends that in general, FP7 should be implemented in such a way as to allow sufficient flexibility in allocating funds between individual sub-programmes or to benefit from the intended coherence, e.g. by means of sub-programmes jointly issuing calls for tenders. The Committee's remarks on ICT also apply to the transport and space sub-programmes (e.g. aeronautics).

5.5.3

Once again, the Committee expresses its satisfaction at the start of construction of the Galileo project which is a prime example of the application of the subsidiarity principle. Besides being of great value in terms of innovation, the technological solutions employed here and especially their application are, in the Committee's view, what makes this project truly multi-disciplinary and cross-functional.

5.6

The Committee reiterates its strong satisfaction at the incorporation of the important energy sub-programme into FP7, in line with a recommendation that it has put forward on several occasions. However, even though energy research is also a very high priority for Euratom FP7, the Committee does feel that even greater emphasis should be placed on this vital and highly topical subject. Energy is the ‘staple food’ of a competitive economy, yet not only is the EU currently dependent on energy imports to an extremely worrying degree, but global resources are also set to run short in the medium term. R&D is the key to solving the energy problem.

5.6.1

The Committee is thus pleased that the development of renewable energy sources has been given such clear emphasis. They play a crucial role in the whole energy/environment equation (global warming). Here the Committee would refer to its numerous opinions (33) which cover the whole range of needs for research into renewables, from geothermal energy, biomass, solar and wind energy to storage technology. Support from FP7 will give renewable energy sources a substantial additional boost, complementing various support measures for commercial launches (e.g. legislation on the sale of electricity to the grid), which are intended to promote the development of commercially viable products. The Committee would also recommend that more detailed studies be conducted into the energy balance of renewable systems as doubts have recently been raised about, for instance, the positive energy efficiency of certain biofuels (34).

5.6.2

However, the Committee would emphasise that the conventional fossil fuels, coal, crude oil and natural gas  (35), will remain the backbone of European and global energy supplies for several decades to come. In view of this, any research and development activities which contribute to more efficient extraction, transportation and use of such fuels, and thus directly or indirectly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are of great economic and environmental significance. Admittedly, the energy sub-programme refers to cutting CO2 (including CO2 separation and storage) and energy efficiency, but it is still important to ensure that the relevant measures are adequately funded. In addition, interconnections with the materials and transport sub-programmes offer potential synergies. The Committee also welcomes the related coal and steel research programme (36).

5.6.3

The Committee therefore recommends that research and development measures give due emphasis not only to renewables but also to energy production technologies using fossil fuels. This is all the more important in view of the fact that over the next two decades many of the existing fossil-fuelled power stations will have to be replaced, and extra new ones (several hundred throughout the EU!) will be needed. It is of vital economic and environmental importance that these stations should use state-of-the-art technology. The high oil price also raises the question as to when coal-based fuel generation technologies will be able to offer an economically competitive alternative.

5.6.4

For further details, the Committee's would refer to its earlier and current opinions on energy research and the energy issue (37).

5.7

Ultimately, one of the most effective means of combating climate change and other undesirable environmental impacts is to improve energy production technologies (38).

5.7.1

The link between the themes of the two sub-programmes should therefore be used to enhance both. While research in the environment sub-programme (including climate change) is designed largely to provide the diagnosis, the main purpose of the energy sub-programme is to provide the therapy.

5.7.2

Even within the environment sub-programme, however, the key links and synergies between analysis/diagnosis (e.g. seabed geology) and potential therapies (e.g. seabed protection) should be identified and turned to good account.

5.8

The socio-economic sciences and the humanities sub-programme, expanded, as recommended in point 4.15.5, to incorporate the science in society programme, should also be seen as a cross-cutting theme. The Committee also reiterates its previous recommendation that there should be a closer link between natural sciences and the humanities (including social sciences), not only between individuals working in these two areas, but between their methods and criteria too (39). Social scientists and researchers in the humanities should also be involved in examining the key issues connected with security research.

5.8.1

In this connection, the Committee also welcomes the emphasis placed on economic analyses to develop best practices for the single market and the Lisbon strategy in the face of global competition and other effects of globalisation. The Committee would also stress the urgent need for analyses of and political discussion (see also the Joint Research Centre programme, point 5.10.1) about the causes of unemployment, the strengths and weaknesses of various economic systems and the causes, implications and possible turning points of demographic trends. Last but not least, the Committee would underscore the need to look in greater depth at the causal link between research, innovation and prosperity.

5.8.2

It is not only the legal sciences that are involved here, but ultimately also the scientific foundations of all EU policies, be they social, legislative, economic (monetary and financial, fiscal, innovation-based, etc.) or security-related. Particularly important, however, are the political, economic and legal issues raised by the further internal development of the EU, including the single market, cohesion, integration and governance.

5.8.3

The Committee would also emphasise the particularly topical issue of the political and cultural identity of the EU and its borders. It is important here to explore the common features of European culture, not only in terms of art, science, architecture, technology and fashion, but also in relation to the history of ideas, the law, value systems, and the way countries are run. The modern idea of the state was born in Europe (and first realised in the USA). This, however, also implies more in-depth consideration of the concept of culture, its facets and obscurities, its hierarchies of values and the misunderstandings to which it may give rise.

5.8.4

Given the diverse range of important issues involved, the budget earmarked for the socio-economic sciences and the humanities sub-programme may, despite the proposed input from the science in society budget, be low. To decide, conclusively, whether that is the case, consideration must also be given to areas of the other sub-programmes – such as energy – that include aspects of the humanities.

5.8.5

Last but not least, the Committee would emphasise all ethical issues, which reflect the interplay of knowledge, research and application, and the balance between risks and opportunities. One key issue, also with regard to the Lisbon strategy, relates to the connections and conflicts between ideological/dogmatic positions, the willingness to take risks, and progress.

5.8.6

This brings us back to the question of science in society, a topic on which the Committee has already drawn up a very substantial opinion (40). In line with the position adopted in this earlier opinion, the Committee also endorses the range of themes proposed by the Commission, which reflect a concern to bring scientific research and knowledge closer to the public, to enhance mutual understanding and to encourage young people in particular to consider a scientific career. A forum is needed to engage citizens and consumers with science and research and in which they can bring their opinions to bear.

5.8.6.1

The Committee feels that measures which enable direct contacts or even hands-on involvement are especially important: good technology museums, special laboratories, work shadowing, etc. However, renewed emphasis in higher educational curricula on effective and dynamic science teaching is what is needed most of all. The particular aim is also to promote interest in and understanding of science and technology. Adequate knowledge is the sine qua non of sound judgement.

5.8.6.2

Scientific knowledge is also an essential part of training the mind and instilling a clear world view.

5.8.6.3

However, it is equally important for researchers themselves to contribute their views and become more closely involved in discussions and decision-making processes concerning this programme.

5.9

One particularly important sub-programme relates to health, a very broad issue that the Committee has already addressed on a number of occasions. This sub-programme covers all R&D work in the fields of diagnostics, therapeutics and the relief and prevention of disease.

5.9.1

Priority should thereby first of all be given to the treatment or prevention of diseases which have – or would have if spread in an uncontrolled epidemic – a particularly high mortality and morbidity rate among children, adults and older people.

5.9.2

The steady increase in average life expectancy is the result not only of successful medical progress but also of the ever-better, ever-healthier food supply. A corollary of that, however, is also the increased incidence of lifestyle-related illnesses (caused, for instance, by obesity (41) or smoking) and of job- and age-related illnesses and ailments. The importance of this latter issue has been highlighted many times above (42). It is an issue that not only touches on medical and human aspects, but, in terms of fitness for work and care costs, also has an economic dimension. The same is also true for the entire issue of how the health system is organised and financed, and the application of medical advances. Research into disabilities is a similar case in point. Research of this kind seeks to raise the quality of life of people with disabilities and possibly to get them into work.

5.9.3

However, disability issues and health issues are not one and the same; disabilities should therefore be recognised across all relevant sectors of the programme.

5.9.4

The Committee would also highlight the international dimension of health. This involves working together with countries strongly committed to successful research, and also covers health-related development aid. This makes cooperation with the World Heath Organisation (WHO) particularly important.

5.9.5

The global dispersal of new pathogens is another international issue in which cooperation with the WHO is also very important.

5.9.6

Moreover, international cooperation provides an opportunity to conduct in-depth clinical studies not only of the population at large, but also in relation to specific age groups: children, adults and older people.

5.9.7

The substantial health-related R&D work that has been done, including in the private sector (the pharmaceuticals industry and appliance manufacturers) is a good example of the application of Article 169 in partnerships between the private sector and research funded by the public sector (including the Member States).

5.10

Joint Research Centre (non-nuclear actions)

5.10.1

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) provides scientific and technical support for EU policymaking in areas such as sustainable development; climate change; food; energy; transport; chemicals; alternative methods to animal testing; research policy; information technologies; reference methods and materials; biotechnology risks, hazards and socio-economic impacts; as well as in the field of econometric modelling and analysis techniques. A further task is to develop scientific and technological reference data in various fields of environmental and food monitoring. This also provides valuable input into the framing of Community legislation.

5.10.2

The Committee also feels that the Community has an additional task in helping coordinate national metrological and standardisation institutions while, at the same time, taking part in their programmes. With the single market and European integration as a whole in mind, consideration should be given to establishing a European Bureau of Standards, with the involvement of the appropriate national institutions, relevant industries and the JRC. The diversity that has existed to date would provide an opportunity to adopt ‘parallel’ practices, to compare different approaches, and to forge ahead with new developments within a dependably resourced, properly coordinated environment.

5.10.3

The Committee is pleased to note that JRC activities are integrated into the international scientific community. However, it also considers such integration to be particularly important in the field of socio-economic sciences and the humanities mentioned in point 5.8.

6.1

Controlled fusion. The Committee reiterates the view expressed in its recent opinion (43) on fusion energy that, in the long term, the peaceful use of fusion energy has the potential to play a very important part in resolving energy supply problems in a sustainable, environmentally sound and competitive way. Like nuclear fission, fusion does not generate any greenhouse gases, but it also has other important advantages.

6.1.1

The Committee congratulates the Commission and other stakeholders on the success of negotiations, recommended by the Committee, as a result of which the major international ITER project has been brought to Europe. ITER  (44) represents a decisive step towards a future demonstration reactor, DEMO. However, this also entails a contractual obligation to finance ITER and the preparatory and accompanying programmes this requires, as well as the preparatory programmes for DEMO.

6.1.2

With this in mind, the Committee calls on the Member States to make a substantial contribution of their own to the European fusion programme and provide appropriate backing for the laboratories associated with the programme. The Committee acknowledges that the fusion programme has reached a stage at which implementation requires a substantial and increased investment, which it feels is necessary and warranted in view of the potential of this energy source and the seriousness of the energy problem.

6.1.3

For further details, the Committee would refer to its recent opinion on this issue (45) in which it highlights the DEMO preparatory work (development of materials and blankets, the idea behind the system, etc.) and studies on improved confinement concepts.

6.2

Nuclear fission and radiation protection. Nuclear energy is the most important source of carbon-free base-load electricity presently available. However, there are still concerns about operating risks and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee would refer to its opinions on nuclear energy (46) (nuclear fission) and on the nuclear package (47). In the latter opinion, it expressed its support for ‘the Commission's intention to vigorously promote research relating to safety of nuclear installations and disposal of radioactive waste in the future and to coordinate such research across the Community’. It endorses the measures proposed by the Commission, which are consistent with this intention.

6.2.1

Reactor systems. This involves research to underpin the continued safe operation of existing reactor systems (including fuel cycle facilities), and to assess the potential and safety aspects of future reactor systems.

6.2.1.1

The Committee sets great store by actions in the latter area, which should lead to the development of innovative reactor systems. The history of technology shows that the greatest potential for progress lies in new-generation systems and innovation building on existing systems and concepts. In view of the importance of nuclear power for energy policy, measures should be taken to unlock existing potential in terms of enhanced safety, reduced radioactive (especially long-life) waste, making resources go further, and tapping additional resources.

6.2.2

Radiation protection. The objective here is to consolidate the scientific basis for protection of the general public from ionising radiation arising from radioactivity or other sources in medicine, research and industry (including the production of nuclear energy). One particularly important issue that could be investigated is the effects of very low doses of radiation, a subject that is difficult to access statistically and which still arouses controversy as a result.

6.2.3

There have also been particularly important developments in the technical monitoring and supervision of all non-proliferation measures for nuclear weapons material and technology.

6.3

For the development of the nuclear fusion power station and the safe operation and ongoing development of nuclear fission reactors, it is a matter of some urgency to educate a new generation of highly skilled experts and train them using appropriate test facilities. That can only succeed if nuclear technology in Europe is again given higher priority, thereby stimulating the interest of the upcoming generation of scientists. Here too, it is essential, as in the past, to forge close links between research and training.

6.3.1

For further details, the Committee would refer to its recent opinions on this subject (48).

6.4.1

The Committee is pleased to note that the Joint Research Centre supports policymaking in the nuclear field, including the implementation and monitoring of existing policies and responding to new demands.

6.4.2

The Committee feels that it is right to focus ‘nuclear’ JRC activities on the key issues of waste management, nuclear safety and security, as these are the specific subjects of public concern that need reliable solutions. The Committee trusts that activities in this field will also be networked and coordinated with those of the Member States.

6.4.3

The Committee also feels it is an important task to (further) develop procedures to secure even more effective monitoring of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons material and technologies (see also point 4.10.2).

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/22

1.1

Many growth, employment and innovation indicators suggest that the European Union has been falling behind in global competition over the past few years and is continuing to do so. Bringing down unemployment, creating new jobs and promoting the economic growth required for that purpose on a sustainable basis is becoming the EU's biggest economic and social challenge.

1.2

Businesses have a vital role to play in meeting these challenges. 98 % of businesses in Europe are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). They provide 55 % of private-sector jobs. In terms of production processes, products and services SMEs have considerable innovative potential.

1.3

Many businesses take advantage of the benefits of the European single market. Often, however, because of remaining restrictions, limited staff and financial capacity and lack of information, they are unable to make full use of the single market's potential. That can be remedied by the consistent implementation of the Lisbon strategy, completion of the single market and further market opening, better regulation, and support programmes that generate European added value.

1.4

Modern administrations and efficient public services can also do much to promote competitiveness and innovation in Europe. Cross-border twinning between authorities at all levels can improve the administrative cooperation that is becoming increasingly necessary, facilitate exchanges of experience and exploit examples of best practice for the benefit of all.

2.1

The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), which is set to run from 2007 to 2013, is intended to help implement the refocused Lisbon strategy and the Community strategy for sustainable development.

2.2

The CIP marks the continuation of a range of existing Community support programmes in various policy areas and presents them as a package with a coherent legal basis. The Commission is proposing a ‘financial reference amount’ of EUR 4. 212,6 million.

2.3

The CIP is open to all EU Member States, EU candidate countries, countries of the European Economic Area (EEA) and countries of the western Balkans. Other non-EU countries may also take part if this is provided for in bilateral agreements.

2.4

The CIP is designed to foster competitiveness of enterprises, and particularly SMEs; to promote innovation and make it market-viable; to accelerate the development of the information society; and to promote energy efficiency and the use of new and renewable energy sources.

2.5

Underpinned by Articles 156, 157(3) and 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the proposal seeks to establish a significant and coherent legal basis for specific Community support programmes and relevant parts of other Community programmes in fields critical to boosting European productivity, innovation and sustainable growth, while at the same time addressing complementary environmental concerns. The CIP is made up of three specific sub-programmes.

2.6

The purpose of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation programme is to create a framework for entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness. It targets businesses in all economic sectors, whether hi-tech or traditional. The aim is to improve access to finance for SME start-ups and growth. Other key elements include cooperation between businesses, the fostering of innovation and the promotion of environmental technologies. The budgetary allocation for this programme is EUR 2,631 million.

2.7

The ICT policy support programme is designed to promote the adoption of information and communication technologies in businesses, administrations and public-sector services. The proposed measures flesh out and support the new EU initiative i2010, which in the years ahead is set to provide the framework for the establishment of a single European information area and the strengthening of the internal market in information products and services. The budgetary allocation for this programme is EUR 801.6 million.

2.8

The Intelligent Energy — Europe programme seeks to support sustainable development as it relates to energy; to improve security of supply and energy efficiency; to reduce dependence on energy imports; and to increase renewable energy's share of gross inland consumption to 12 %. Priorities include projects to promote and disseminate sustainable energy technologies; improved administrative structures and closer networking; and action to raise overall awareness of the need for sustainable energy use. The Intelligent Energy Executive Agency set up by the Commission is to remain in place. The budgetary allocation for this programme is EUR 780 million.

2.9

The CIP will operate on the basis of annual work programmes. The Commission intends to ensure implementation of these programmes. Management committees are to provide back-up for the measures at Member State level and ensure the coherence of national activities.

3.1

The CIP proposal is wide-ranging and covers a broad spectrum of policies and programmes. The comments here relate only to those aspects which the Committee considers to be of particular importance or where it would like to see additional considerations borne in mind.

3.2

The Committee welcomes the CIP as an important step towards establishing synergies to promote business competitiveness and innovation and to foster sustainable development. The proposed measures and tools can play a key part in strengthening social cohesion, promoting sustainable economic development and achieving the Lisbon strategy's growth and employment objectives. This is why the Commission also highlights the CIP as an important element of Community policy in its proposed action plan to revitalise the Lisbon strategy at Community level (COM(2005) 330).

3.3

The 2004 Kok report refers to the key factors determining the competitiveness of the European economy. The report rightly recommended that measures be taken to develop the knowledge society further, complete the single market, improve the business climate, modernise the labour market (not least through strategies for lifelong leaning and active ageing) and promote environmental sustainability. The Committee feels that the onus is on the Member States in particular to do everything they can to boost businesses competitiveness by establishing the requisite conditions, and considers the EU support programmes an important and effective adjunct in this connection. In addition to the CIP, the framework research programme, the lifelong learning strategy and the Structural Funds are of particular importance.

3.4

Businesses boost their innovative capacity not only by exploiting technological progress. Innovation is also furthered by making the entrepreneurial spirit a more established fixture in each country's society and culture and expanding managerial knowledge, as well as by responsible business management and the pursuit of cross-border activities. When setting goals for the CIP, it would be a mistake to interpret innovation too narrowly, thereby squandering opportunities for more growth, employment and social cohesion. Businesses are key players in the process of innovation, and the social partners should be involved appropriately in implementing that process.

3.5

Innovation is born in people's minds. A high level of education and training is essential if there is to be a sustained increase in innovative capacity in the European Union. It is a duty equally incumbent on employers, workers, governments, universities, schools and all other stakeholders to raise the innovative potential of our societies still further. Cross-border projects are a good way to build on national efforts to promote the knowledge society. The Committee is pleased that the EU is targeting education and training, not least through Community schemes such as Socrates (education in general), Tempus (university studies) and Leonardo da Vinci (vocational training). The integrated action programme for education, training and lifelong learning, which is set to run from 2007 to 2013, can also play a key part in boosting businesses' innovative capacity and making the CIP a success.

3.6

The Committee welcomes the Commission's intention to boost businesses' innovative capacity and competitiveness through better regulation and a systematic review of existing legislation to check for disproportionate burdens. It is particularly important that any new rules be subject to an effective impact assessment. When conducting this impact assessment, the Commission should work closely with the Competitiveness Council and the European Parliament.

3.7

The Committee shares the Commission's view that horizontal and coordinating EU measures can generate major added value. It will be particularly important to provide businesses with information that is as practical as possible and to give them easy access to CIP actions and tools.

3.8

The Committee backs the Commission's aim of using the CIP to promote traditional and not only hi-tech sectors. Such traditional sectors in particular have the potential to play an even greater role in boosting employment and strengthening social cohesion if they are given the opportunity to become more competitive and innovative. There is also considerable innovative potential in the services and logistics sectors.

3.9

The Committee would ask the Commission not to be too restrictive in identifying the framework programme's target groups, so as to secure maximum added value across as many different regions and sectors as possible. Cooperatives, consortia, mutuals, innovative start-ups and microenterprises can also help boost competitiveness and innovative capacity within the EU. Cooperatives, for instance, make it possible to utilise size-related advantages which have a favourable impact on market access (including participation in larger invitations to tender), market position, the development of management potential, further training and research capacity. A key condition for access to CIP projects should be the extent to which the target groups develop feasible ideas that help boost competitiveness and innovation and warrant support. Foundations, associations and chambers of industry and commerce play a key role as intermediaries with regard to the framework programme.

3.10

Given the budgetary constraints in the Member States and at European level, CIP funding is limited. The Committee expects the programme to be given adequate funding under the next financial perspective, on which a decision is still pending. At the same time, it is essential to focus available funding as efficiently as possible on the target groups and in a way that is best suited to achieving the desired outcome. The Commission should examine the extent to which funding currently earmarked for managing the programme can be used for projects.

3.11

The Committee welcomes the Commission's intention to evaluate the experience it has gained with the existing programmes, to correct any shortcomings and, when implementing the CIP, to draw on examples of best practice. Benchmarking and monitoring that is readily understandable to all stakeholders will help make the CIP a success. Any findings that could help make the CIP as effective as possible should be incorporated into the annual planning of work at an early stage. The Commission and the players involved in implementing the programmes should take a critical look at the mid-term review to see if any changes need to be made, with due regard to the experiences of businesses and the other target groups. However, the certainty with which all project stakeholders must be able to plan ahead should not be undermined at any time.

3.12

The Committee feels it of the utmost importance that Member States take on board the concept of ‘additionality’. Member States are urged to maintain their national support at the planned levels irrespective of financial contributions from the EU. As the Committee see it, Member States are committed the agreed objective of devoting 3 % of GDP to research and development. CIP implementation must not result in any slackening of Member States' efforts to achieve this objective.

3.13

The Commission is right to point to the need for close links between the CIP's tools and measures and other EU programmes and initiatives. Links with the 7th Framework Research Programme, the lifelong learning strategy and structural policy programmes are of particular importance. The Commission should take steps to ensure that all the directorates-general involved pursue coherent objectives. Transparency must be guaranteed for the activities and decisions of all the stakeholder bodies. Horizontal synergies and vertical synergies between the EU and the Member States and between business, science and the public authorities will only be fully attainable if the substantive and organisational priorities of these programmes are well coordinated.

4.1

When implementing the CIP, the target groups must have ready access to the proposed programmes. This was not always fully guaranteed in the past. Funding must be allocated efficiently and on the basis of practical need, with as few bureaucratic hurdles as possible (inter alia as regards reporting and documentation).

4.2

The Commission should administer the CIP in an efficient and user-friendly way by adopting a coherent approach. All players involved in implementing the CIP rely both on long-term certainty to plan ahead and on transparency. It would be helpful to use an external agency to handle the administrative side of the programmes if administrative procedures could be considerably simplified and costs cut as a result.

4.3

The Commission's SME observatory should play an even more active back-up role with regard to the CIP's implementation. This could further improve the exchange of knowledge and experience between the Member States, between businesses, and between industry, science and the public authorities. The SME observatory reports should be examined with a view to their practicability and relevance to the target groups. It would be helpful to define the observatory's remit in such a way that the input from all target groups (as defined in point 3.9) is clearly brought to bear.

4.4.1

For SMEs and innovative micro-enterprises, access to capital remains very limited — despite the fact that this problem has been well known for many years. Action is needed on this front without delay. The financial instruments proposed under this programme are of crucial importance for the success of European enterprise policy. The Committee trusts that they will be able to do much to move things forward and generate leverage.

4.4.2

The Committee advocates allocating resources to appropriate financial intermediaries in order to reduce financing costs (including staffing and administrative costs) and to lower financing risks. The High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF), the SME Guarantee Facility (SMEG) and the Capacity Building Scheme (CBS) are designed to help make it easier for businesses to finance loans and access risk capital. Providing loans to innovation-driven SMEs and micro-enterprises, especially in their start-up and growth phase, will boost their growth and employment potential. Small and micro loans should also be made available for appropriate projects.

4.4.3

The Committee thinks that building up and expanding cross-border activities should also be considered as an integral part of European policy and a key SME strategy to boost competitiveness and innovation. All the actions and tools provided for in the programme should serve this objective. On this front, the Commission should provide businesses with active support through ‘cooperation exchanges’, practical information and other appropriate measures.

4.4.4

The complexity of European aid arrangements and the legal framework involved makes it essential to provide businesses and other target groups with tailor-made information and advice. The best means of achieving that is through a European-wide network of information channels working successfully together. In this way, it is possible to heighten awareness still further among the public and among businesses of the added value of European programmes and projects. This also ties in, among other things, with the new EU communication strategy.

4.4.5

The Committee is keen that the planned invitation to tender for network partners to provide support services for businesses and innovation should be subject to transparent rules and be open to all regional and sectoral organisations, which, by virtue of their structure and the services they offer, can respond directly to business concerns. The Commission is advised to give individual consideration to the credentials of existing Euro Info Centres (EIC), the Innovation Relay Centres (IRC) and the Business Innovation Centres (BIC).

4.5.1

The Committee welcomes the line taken by this programme. This sector is a driving force behind the increased productivity that is necessary in all economic fields. The proposed measures may be expected to generate considerable European added value.

4.5.2

Promoting the European information society will help foster sustainable economic development, boost European social integration and improve people's quality of life. When implementing this programme, it is particularly important to ensure that all companies have access, including those in traditional sectors.

4.5.3

Targeted projects, consolidated measures and the establishment and expansion of cross-border networks and clusters can boost technology transfer and the application of innovative, market-based ICT solutions. The Committee is pleased that joint technical specifications and action plans are to be drawn up to facilitate public procurement in this sector.

4.5.4

In terms of structure and planning, the ICT policy support programme should be coordinated very closely with the initiative i2010 — A European Information Society for growth and employment (COM (2005) 229). The Committee is working on a separate opinion on the i2010 initiative.

4.6.1

The Committee welcomes the scope of the proposed programme. Energy efficiency, the promotion of renewables and the diversification of energy supply are vital for sustainable economic development and environmental protection in Europe. The programme should help harness the energy sector's full innovative potential, not least in the fields of systems engineering and energy conversion.

4.6.2

Market-oriented technologies and competitive products will be crucial in determining whether the programme is able to achieve its objectives. The Committee is therefore pleased at the support to be given to projects that make it easier to convert innovation into marketable products. However, such activities can only be useful early on in the innovation process. Basically, the only way to develop the best technologies and competitive products or services is through l competition.

4.6.3

The Committee welcomes the Commission's plan to promote the sustainable use of energy resources and to disseminate information to that end. These activities should be aimed not only at specialist groups but also at the wider public. The ongoing Sustainable energy for Europe campaign has an important contribution to make in this regard. It is designed to spread examples of best practice and further raise public awareness of the need to use energy efficiently and protect the environment. The Committee trusts that this campaign and the Intelligent Energy-Europe programme usefully complement each other.

5.1

The Committee would encourage the Commission to set out the aims and structure of the CIP even more clearly. A good example is the list of planned implementing measures in CIP Article 6. The individual programmes and tools could be presented in a similarly systematic fashion, thereby making the CIP more readily understandable for the target groups. Civil society organisations should also be involved in this process.

5.2

The Committee expects that consolidating a range of programmes and individual measures will produce added value. That will only succeed through optimum coordination, consistency between the individual measures taken, and coordination with other relevant EU schemes. The onus here is on the Commission and the managing authorities in particular.

5.3

The Committee is pleased that the CIP is based on the EU's key economic, social, environmental and energy policy objectives. In implementing the CIP, it will be important to structure the annual work programmes in a practical way that is of clear relevance to the target groups, not least innovative businesses. That can only be achieved through the appropriate involvement of the target groups even at the planning stage.

5.4

For the purposes of improved implementation and policy continuity, the Committee calls on the Commission to clarify the links between the CIP and other related existing and future initiatives, notably the 2000 European Charter for Small Enterprises, the 2003 Entrepreneurship in Europe Action Plan and the Communication that has been announced on SME policy for the years ahead. This would be of great value to business representatives and policy makers at national, regional and local level.

5.5

The Committee will be closely monitoring CIP implementation. It reserves the right to submit fresh recommendations in the light of experience gained or as part of the mid-term review.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/27

1.1

The Schengen Convention, which is designed to permit the free movement of people and goods, was signed in 1990 and became operational in 1995. The Schengen Convention stipulates which authorities have access to the Schengen Information System (SIS) and the purposes for which such data may be used. This first text of the Convention did not allow vehicle registration authorities to access the SIS.

1.2

On 21 August 2003, the Commission submitted a Proposal for a Regulation amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement as regards access to the Schengen Information System (SIS) by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles (1). The aim was to allow access to SIS data on stolen vehicles and trailers, stolen blank official documents and issued identity papers (passports, identity cards, driving licences) for the purposes of checking whether vehicles presented for a second registration have been stolen, misappropriated or lost and also whether persons applying for a registration certificate are using stolen identity or vehicle registration documents to this end.

1.3

The European Economic and Social Committee issued its opinion on the proposal on 25 February 2004 (2). The EESC agreed with the Commission that access to the SIS should be broadened to include national authorities responsible for issuing and checking vehicle registration certificates. The EESC was also pleased that the proposal, taking into account the fact that various Member States have private services responsible for vehicle registration, suggested that these private services might obtain the information necessary to carry out their work properly, indirectly through one of the public authorities with access to the SIS, provided that data protection was guaranteed.

1.4

Subsequently, and after enlargement, it became clear that the development of a second generation of SIS (i.e. SIS II) was essential so that the new Member States could connect to the system and the Schengen area could be extended to the territory of these Member States.

1.5

Given that the SIS II needs an appropriate legal framework and the different policy areas involved, the European Commission had to table three proposals: the first one relates to the free movement of persons, the second to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters while the third one complements the other two proposals and aims at providing vehicle registration authorities with access to the SIS II.

1.6

The EESC is now being consulted on this third proposal, which represents a necessary follow- up to the previous, above-mentioned Regulation (3), which was recently adopted by the Council on 6 July 2005.

2.1

The Commission's new proposal is intended to ensure consistency with the new legal instruments for the establishment, operation and use of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II). The Commission states that the main objective of the current proposal is the same as that tabled in August 2003, i.e. to reinforce cooperation between Member States, based on an effective exchange of information to combat fraud and illegal trade in stolen vehicles. The Commission further notes that the purpose is to guarantee that the services responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles shall have access to the same SIS data under the new legal framework for SIS II as they have had since June 2005, when the 2003 proposed Regulation entered into force.

2.2

The issue is still important since some 1,3 million vehicles are currently stolen each year in the European Union and approximately 500.000 vehicles disappear for good (4). Vehicle crimes are also related to other crimes such as trafficking, smuggling and terrorism (car bombing).

2.3

The EESC reiterates its agreement with the Commission that access to the SIS II should be broadened to include national authorities responsible for issuing and checking the above-mentioned documents (see point 1.2). In addition, private services responsible for vehicle registration should obtain information indirectly through one of the public authorities with access to the SIS II, provided that data protection is guaranteed. It is especially important to secure mechanisms for restricting access to other information in the system, which is reserved for the authorities specified in Article 101 of the Schengen Convention.

2.4

The general comments and other comments that the EESC set out in the opinion of 25 February 2004 should still be considered. Some comments can be restated. For instance, the EESC thinks that the proposal would enhance security and speed up justice procedures. It will also act as an incentive to the Member States to allow more free movement of vehicles within the Union. However, it is important that the proposal be compatible with Member States' domestic rules and regulations. It is also important to give access to Member States which are not signatories to the Schengen Convention and to increase cooperation with Interpol and Europol in order to combat traffic in stolen or misappropriated vehicles outside countries which have access to the SIS II. The EESC also points out the importance of compiling, processing and publishing statistical data on this type of crime in order to enhance the approach to tackling it.

3.1

The Commission proposal is well in line with the Council Decision of 22 December 2004 on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications (2004/919/EC) (5). The Decision states that ‘cooperation between law enforcement authorities and vehicle registration authorities is of particular importance, as is the provision of information to the relevant parties’. Article 7 of the Decision states that the national vehicle registration authorities shall be informed by the law enforcement authorities whether a vehicle, that is in the process of being registered, is known as having been stolen and that access to databases to that end shall take place with due respect to provisions of Community law. The EESC is pleased that the thoughts set out in the Council Decision are now incorporated in the Commission proposal.

3.2

Although the Commission proposal only concerns access by the registration authorities to certain information within the SIS II, the EESC would underline the need for greater cooperation in order to combat vehicle crimes. As stated in Article 4 of the Council Decision ‘the Member States shall take necessary steps to organise periodic consultations, as appropriate, among national competent authorities, in accordance with national law and may involve representatives of the private sectors (such as holders of private registers of missing vehicles, insurers and the car trade) in such consultations with a view to coordination of information and mutual alignment of activities in this area’. The EESC thinks that the Commission must take such ideas into consideration in future work to combat vehicle crimes.

3.3

As an example of these ideas, the EESC would mention Interpol's earlier project Stop Register Stolen Cars (StoreSto Car, later called Vehicle Identification, Research and Analysis, VIRA 17). The aim of this project was to bring together all information on cars in one database, information provided by the vehicle identification number (VIN) if the car was reported stolen, registered, exported or imported, manufactured or scrapped. Such a database forms a basis for cooperation between law enforcement authorities, registration authorities, custom authorities, car manufactures and insurance business.

3.4

As regards the present proposal, the EESC also wishes to point out that there are generally few possibilities to examine a vehicle physically in order to establish its identity and find out whether it has been reported stolen. In many countries the registration of a vehicle is combined with an inspection. Thus when a vehicle is being registered an opportunity arises to check whether it has been stolen. It is therefore important to provide the registration authorities with this means of detecting stolen, misappropriated or lost vehicles.

3.5

As was noted in point 3.2 above, there is a need for greater cooperation in order to combat vehicle crimes. Another opportunity to examine a vehicle physically arises when the vehicle is exported or imported. The EESC recommends that the customs authorities should check in the same SIS II data as the registration authorities, both when a vehicle is imported or exported.

3.6

When checking a vehicle to determine whether it has been reported stolen or not, it must also be possible to establish the identity of the vehicle. The identity of a vehicle is often established by its vehicle identification number (VIN). It is not unusual that a stolen vehicle's identity has been falsified or cloned. The EESC points out that it is important in the future to increase the possibilities of identifying a vehicle. Proposals such as electronic vehicle identification (EVI) or better spare parts marking must be closely examined and evaluated.

3.7

Finally, the EESC suggests a further step to be done in the nearest future in order to extend the scope of this regulation. As a matter of fact the present Commission proposal, aiming at checking whether vehicles have been stolen, misappropriated or lost should be combined with the possibility to repatriate vehicles. This possibility varies considerably between the Member States and depends on the countries' different bona fide provisions. In some countries it is possible to obtain ownership of a stolen vehicle when the vehicle has been received in good faith, while in others it is not. In addition, the possibilities of repatriating vehicles which have been found to be stolen must be explored and evaluated in the future.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/29

1.1

Finland has requested an extension of the existing restriction on beer imports by travellers from countries other than Member States beyond 1 January 2006. This request is aimed at addressing fiscal, economic, social health and public order problems.

1.2

The proposed amendment authorises Finland to extend the restriction until 31 December 2006. The maximum limit of six litres will however be increased to sixteen which is the actual limit currently being applied by Finland.

1.3

The EESC supports the amendment.

2.1

In 2000 Finland was granted a derogation until 31 December 2005 to limit personal imports of beer by individuals from countries other than Member States to a maximum of six litres. In particular, Finland has a border with Russia where alcohol is much cheaper so that if the normal monetary limits applied individuals could import c. 200 litres of beer.

2.2

Because of the large price difference the impact of unrestricted imports on Finnish retailers, government tax revenue and social and health problems would be severe.

2.3

Finland has however already made significant tax reductions in 2004 and has also applied a higher maximum of sixteen litres rather than six. Thus Finland has therefore been seeking to move towards a long-term solution.

3.1

The Committee notes the steps already taken by Finland to address the problem and believes therefore that it is appropriate to grant a further extension of the derogation until 31 December 2006.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/30

1.1

Interest in the subject of security has increased enormously since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (New York), November 2003 (Istanbul), 11 March 2004 (Madrid), 7 July 2005 (London) and other attacks elsewhere. Preventive and operational measures have been taken everywhere to protect people, means of transport and goods as much and as effectively as possible. Security has become a hot policy-making issue.

1.2

In this context, the term ‘security’ is understood to mean measures to prevent both terrorist attacks and ordinary crime, and especially theft.

1.3

The Committee has been playing its part. Several opinions have been adopted, including the exploratory opinion of 24 October 2002 (1) (rapporteur: Ms Bredima-Savopoulou), which was particularly valuable as it dealt comprehensively with security in shipping and civil aviation.

1.4

On 23 December 2003 the European Commission published a Consultation Paper on Freight Transport Security, in which it sought the views of interested parties with regard to the subject of security. Furthermore, in a Communication to the Council (2), the Commission proposed a framework programme in the field of security, and on 12 August 2005 a work programme on combating terrorism was published in the Official Journal (3). A number of points from these publications have been of value in drawing up this exploratory opinion.

1.5

This exploratory opinion seeks above all to bring clarity to the role and responsibility of the various actors, both nationally and internationally, in the security field relating to:

1.6

This opinion is focussed solely on the security of modes of transport and not on transport safety. A complicating factor is that there is no linguistic distinction in several European Union countries between the two concepts.

1.7

With regard to the security of the infrastructure used by the inland modes of transport, a distinction is to be made between the TEN corridors, including nodes and the national infrastructure, although it is not always immediately clear where subsidiarity in the inland modes of transport begins and where it ends.

It must be realised, as far as security measures in the inland modes of transport are concerned, that there is a considerable degree of interdependence between all modes of transport in the logistics chain, and not only inland modes. This requires a great deal of coordination when adopting security measures. An intermodal approach to security is in any case also necessary to prevent distortion of competition between the different modes, although we should realise that security costs can differ sharply from one mode of transport to another.

Issues arising in connection with increased security measures will also be looked at in detail. These include questions such as:

In view of the wide-ranging nature of this subject, it is advisable to bring some order to bear and to indicate how this exploratory opinion has been structured. In chapter 2, the General section, the broader issues of security are dealt with. It covers subjects such as the division of responsibilities and competences respectively of the European Union, the national governments, the modes of transport themselves, the passengers and management of the companies. In addition, the legislative aspect is discussed in this chapter. Chapter 3, the section which deals with specific issues, begins with an outline of initiatives taken at different levels to improve security. Closer attention is then paid to the security of modes of transport themselves. Chapter 4 examines the cost of security and the question of who should meet this cost. The role of the insurance companies is also discussed in this context. Chapter 5 presents a summary and draws the final conclusions.

2.1.1

Ensuring the security of persons and goods in all modes of transport is now high on the agenda of politicians, policy makers and the business community. The term security means measures against both terrorism and ordinary crime. Nevertheless, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that no adequate coordinated approach yet exists. And this is indeed urgently needed because in a chain the weakest link determines the strength of the whole.

2.1.2

The complexity of the subject matter makes it difficult to define easily and unambiguously. The issue of subsidiarity is fully relevant to the security of modes of transport. It concerns both the demarcation of competences between the European Union and the national governments as regards the measures to be taken and their financing. But it also concerns the responsibilities and competences of the modes of transport themselves: those of passengers, employees and management.

2.2.1

Since 11 September 2001, there has been some improvement in the security of air and maritime transport. The European Council introduced measures partly on the basis of the EESC report of 24 October 2002 which covered in particular security proposals in the aviation and maritime transport sectors. Most noteworthy are the following: EU Regulation 2320/2002 on civil aviation security, EU Regulation EC 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security and draft Directive COM(2004) 76 on enhancing port security. All these measures make provision for EU inspections. These involve quality checks in these sectors. These rules for shipping were also laid down in a Directive adopted on 10 May 2005.

2.3.1

The situation in the EU differs considerably from country to country with regard to inland modes of transport. In major cities such as Madrid and London, but also in Paris, security measures have been taken on public transport partly because of the terrorist attacks. Other cities and countries have not yet reached this stage, but even there the recent attacks have created an awareness of the importance of security measures (4).

2.3.2

The question which arises in the first instance is who is authorised to adopt security measures which cover more than one inland mode of transport? Is it the responsibility of the European Union or of the national governments? And, if the latter is the case, what is the role of the EU in this?

2.3.3

The Committee takes the view that ‘security’ is the shared responsibility of the Member States and the European Union, but that the Member States themselves are responsible for ensuring that security measures are taken by the various inland modes of transport. For this they need to create a framework of minimum standards for the inland modes of transport i.e. this should not be left to their own discretion. The national governments should set up a specialist body to coordinate the measures to be adopted by the inland modes of transport and local authorities. The authority would also ensure implementation.

2.3.4

In the Committee's opinion, the role of the European Union is above all to coordinate measures at international level. At the same time, the Union should urge the Member States to adopt a unified approach. Intensive cooperation between the national governments and the European Union is necessary in view of the cross-border nature of the transport of persons and goods and the need to coordinate national security measures.

2.3.5

The national governments should realise that a great deal of work remains to be done concerning the inland modes of transport. A sense of urgency must be created. The national governments should urge the modes to consider and adopt security measures. A first step in this direction would be for minimum security standards to be set at a European level for the inland modes of transport. The individual modes of transport need to realise that without security measures they are extremely vulnerable.

2.3.6

Furthermore, it must be realised that cooperation is necessary. For example, there must be coordination of measures between train, underground and bus companies. Information campaigns targeted at passengers and employees on how to act in the event of emergency should be coordinated.

2.3.7

With regard to goods transport, close attention will have to be paid to vulnerable intersections such as terminals and marshalling yards. Cooperation will be needed between national and local government, the individual transport branches and the managers of transfer installations and terminals.

2.4.1

The safeguarding of the physical infrastructure is, in the Committee's view, a matter for national, regional or local government.

2.4.2

The specialist body mentioned in point 2.3.3 should act as the coordinating body. This would prevent fragmentation at national level as well as promote the policy internationally and would facilitate coordination at EU level.

2.4.3

The Committee has noted with satisfaction that, in addition to the EU's coordinating role, a sum of EUR 3,5 million has been made available at Community level, under the 6th Framework Programme, for security measures in the passenger and goods transport sectors as well as in the energy sector.

2.4.4

Since modes of transport are an abstract concept which can only operate with the support of the people who use the mode (passengers, customers) as well as those who work there (employees), action specifically targeted at these groups is indispensable. This should be expressed above all in a continuous publicity campaign aimed at passengers and customers. The attitude of transport users should be transformed from one of passivity to a more alert and conscious one. The employees of a mode of transport are of crucial importance for the development and application of security measures. In order to fulfil their role properly, the Committee considers it to be of great importance that the employees are offered special training geared to their role in security.

2.4.5

The role of management is to integrate security concepts into the company ethos and culture. Furthermore, management must give employees an opportunity to undertake special training in this field. Management training should include crisis management.

2.5.1

The question arises of the extent to which security measures in inland modes of transport should be laid down in a more informal way, such as in the form of a certificate or quality mark, or alternatively in a more mandatory way, for example by legislation. In the Committee's judgement, the subject is far too important to tackle in an informal manner.

2.5.2

The Committee considers that in any event national minimum standards for security measures should be laid down, with a recommendation to go further than the minimum. It should also be made compulsory to exchange information about security measures adopted or planned. At international level, countries should be obliged to harmonise measures and to forward information to the international coordinating bodies.

3.1

Before looking at any security measures that have been or ought to be taken in the individual inland modes of transport, it is first advisable to have an overview of measures which have been taken at an international level by the coordinating organisations.

3.1.1

International Maritime Organisation (IMO)

The IMO is mentioned here because a number of measures have already been taken in maritime transport which could serve as a model for the inland modes of transport.

The amendments came into force on 1 January 2004.

3.1.2

International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)

Since 1971 binding international agreements have been made in the civil aviation sector in order to combat crime and terrorism. As a result of a number of aircraft hijackings at the end of the 1960s, the ICAO decided to draw up a basic agreement regulating civil aviation. Thus it was laid down in Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention that all passengers on civil commercial flights should be systematically screened. This measure has been in force since 1972 and it is difficult to imagine now that things were once otherwise. Following the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 Annex 17 was radically overhauled. New specifications were made mandatory, for instance with regard to the reinforcement and locking of cockpit doors as well as air freight transport. In addition, training and quality requirements for security checks were tightened.

3.1.3

European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)

At European level too a policy on air transport security was developed within the framework of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC). This was, of course, based on international standards such as those laid down by the ICAO. This resulted in a European security handbook, Document 30, which contains security regulations which, although regarded as authoritative, are unfortunately not binding because of the ECAC's statute. That is why on 14 September 2001, three days after 9/11, the European Council decided that the EU should take on responsibility for aviation security. This decision resulted in Regulation 2320/2002, establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security. The Regulation entered into force on 19 January 2003. At the same Council of Ministers of 14 September it was also decided that the Commission would be empowered to carry out direct quality checks in the Member States.

3.1.4

International Labour Organisation (ILO)

This concerns the revision of the Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention. The purpose of the revised Convention is to improve the security of seafarers' identification so that passengers and crew are better protected and the safety of ships increased. At the same time seafarers' freedom of movement is not restricted, so that they may freely go ashore. The revised Convention is focused in particular on guidelines for the composition and issue of identity documents for seafarers. The ILO and the Convention are mentioned here as a model for inland modes of transport.

3.1.5

World Customs Organisation (WCO)

This information on the World Customs Organisation could be of benefit to the inland modes of transport. The important thing is to focus on aspects of relevance to the inland modes.

3.1.6

International Standards Organisation (ISO)

In 2003 this organisation adopted guidelines with specifications for the mechanical sealing of freight containers.

In addition, the organisation has developed a standard for the use of radio-frequency identification tags fitted in freight containers; it has also developed a joint communication protocol for digital sealing.

3.1.7

The European Union (EU)

3.1.8

The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

The Working Party on Customs Questions affecting Transport (WP30) and the Administrative Committee of TIR (Transports Internationaux Routiers) reached an agreement in February 2003 to gradually computerise TIR procedures, which are at present still paper-based. With a TIR carnet, goods can be transported to countries outside the EU with minimum delay at borders, as the carnet is an internationally recognised customs document.

This concerns the security of goods transported by road. The Committee recommends a study of the extent to which measures of this kind are applicable to other modes.

3.1.9

Measures taken by the USA

It goes without saying that, after the attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States took the lead in enacting security measures. Thus, a Bioterrorism Act came into force in 2002. This requires certain information relating to the import of food products to be submitted prior to arrival in the United States. In addition, food producers and storage facilities must be registered with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and they have to appoint a local representative in the USA.

3.1.10

In order to maintain the readability of this exploratory opinion, a number of measures are noted here without going into further details.

When taking measures in Europe, it is of course recommended that the experience acquired in the USA be studied and taken into account. The following should be mentioned here:

3.2

3.3

The majority of initiatives noted in the above paragraphs are concerned with security measures for the transport of goods in general and for container transport in particular. In the Committee's opinion, a number of these measures could also be applicable to passenger transport.

3.4

The security measures in the individual transport sectors are rather diverse. As already noted, maritime transport/ports and air transport are the modes which are furthest advanced in the implementation of measures. This was excellently illustrated in the Committee's Opinion of 24 October 2002 (5) (rapporteur: Ms Bredima-Savopoulou). These modes of transport will not therefore be further examined separately in this exploratory opinion.

3.5

One point meriting attention is the position of vulnerable inland terminals and transfer points. Pipelines can in this context also be mentioned as a separate mode of transport. The owners of the terminal operations indeed devote a great deal of energy to securing their sites. However, the Committee has the impression that it is not sufficiently understood that it is precisely the transfer points that are vulnerable and that cooperation is much needed with the modes that use the transfer facilities.

3.6

In the Committee's view, there is also an insufficient sense of urgency concerning the dangers connected with the transport and transfer via pipelines. The Committee points out that this awareness needs to be fostered as a matter of urgency and that the competent authorities should adopt security measures for both staff and infrastructure.

3.7

Traditionally, the railways have always attached high importance to the safety of employees, passengers and equipment alike. It is to be hoped that this will also apply to security. Extra attention will have to be devoted to sensitive locations such as stations and marshalling yards. The International Union of Railways (UIC) should come up with some recommendations for the necessary international coordination.

The national railway companies should produce information material in order to inform passengers and staff what to do in the event of an emergency. This ought to become a standard part of staff training.

3.8

The inland waterways sector makes use of ports to load and to unload. The ISPS (International Ship & Port Facility Security) Code thus also applies to inland waterway transport. In the Committee's view, a strict application of the Code would not lead to disruption of the logistics chain. It is the responsibility of the ports, shipping companies and inspection services to ensure that the ISPS Code is complied with. The Committee believes that security should form an integral part of the training of inland waterway workers.

3.9

Following the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London there is a general awareness of the vulnerability of public transport. Measures have been taken in the form of surveillance and checks in order to drastically increase the security level and thus the sense of security of passengers and staff.

3.10

The road transport and haulage sector is extremely vulnerable in view of the great number of coach and road haulage companies: we are dealing with several hundred thousand companies which are extremely mobile. This sector has been plagued by crime for many years. Theft of vehicles, loaded or unloaded, is an every day occurrence, frequently with psychological consequences for the drivers. The IRU (International Road Transport Union) is doing all it can to persuade governments and market players to adopt security measures. One example is the call to increase the number of secure parking areas. In view of the high-risk nature of the sector the International Road Transport Union has, as indicated in point 3.2, drawn up Security Guidelines. These contain a number of recommendations for managers, drivers and consignors. In addition, a framework has been drawn up for voluntary cooperation with the customs authorities.

3.11

The basic principles underlying these Security Guidelines mentioned in point 3.10 are:

Generally speaking, before taking measures, it is essential that the target group be aware of the need for security measures. No measures should be taken as long as the target group is not fully informed. The Committee therefore urges that this information be distributed in good time.

3.12

As far as own-account transport is concerned, the Committee recommends that, irrespective of the mode of transport to be used, the person responsible within the company should adopt appropriate security measures for staff, means of transport and infrastructure.

3.13

The Committee finds that there is an increasing awareness on the part of governments and the inland modes of transport that security measures must be incorporated into daily working practices. However, consistency is still a long way off. Of the individual modes of transport, a great deal has been done in particular in maritime and air transport because of their global nature. The public transport sector has become more alert, but in the goods transport sector initiatives have for the most part remained limited to measures within the branch itself. Measures that involve the whole logistics chain have not yet been taken, whilst vulnerability lies precisely at the interchanges between one mode and another. The Committee advises governments to set up a coordinating body at national level to cover the whole chain.

4.1

It is obvious to everyone that, under the impact of increased crime and terrorism, measures must be taken to protect passengers, staff, means of transport and cargoes. It is less clear, however, who should meet the cost of the security measures. And clearly the cost of security is high. Thus, it is estimated that the security cost of transporting one container overseas is between 30 and 40 US dollars.

4.2

In order to gain a clear understanding of who should be responsible for costs, it is necessary to consider what types of cost we are talking about. Costs can be categorised as follows:

In addition, there is the cost of measures preceding or following an exceptional event such as a terrorist attack. A separate solution will have to be found for the allocation of these costs. In the Committee's view, the government should meet these costs in the first instance.

4.3

Regarding the question as to who or which body should be considered primarily responsible for the cost, it seems logical in the case of the first two categories to opt for the national or local and regional authorities, whilst for categories c and d the private sector could be involved to a greater extent.

4.4

From the economic point of view, the cost should ultimately be met by the activity from which the costs arise, so that it is incorporated into the price (a public transport ticket or tariff for goods transport). After all, the prices of goods and services should as far as possible cover the marginal social costs, including the security costs. The measures to be taken could, however, sometimes be of such great public interest that the costs involved should be met by the whole community.

4.5

If this distinction is taken into consideration, it means that ultimately the cost of security is borne by the consumer, who pays for them in the form of a higher price for the end product. However, in the case of government financing security measures which are in the public interest, the cost will be met by the taxpayer.

4.6

The role of the insurance companies is, in the Committee's view, a secondary one. For providing that policies do not exclude terrorist acts, any payments will always be passed on to the insured in the form of higher premiums. There is an obvious causal connection between the degree of security and the level of premium to be paid. As security measures are enhanced, the premium should fall correspondingly.

4.7

The role of the European Union can, from the point of view of its duties and competences, only be a coordinating and supervisory one. Financial resources can, at the most, be made available for publicity campaigns and information. Thus, for example, EUR 3,5 million has been set aside for security in the 6th Framework Programme.

5.1

The Committee notes that, as a result of the terrorist attacks of recent years, there has been an enormous increase at all levels in the attention paid to security.

5.2

The required agreements, laid down under international rules, have been reached in the maritime and air transport sectors in particular. Implementation is via EU inspections.

5.3

In the inland modes of transport, the Committee considers that the necessary work remains to be done, partly because of the high degree of interdependence between the modes and the vulnerable intermodal storage and transfer points. A coordinated approach is urgently needed, because the weakest link determines the strength of the whole chain.

5.4

The Committee points out that no distinction is made in several European Union languages between the terms ‘security’ and ‘safety’. It notes that this leads to confusion and recommends that unambiguous terminology be used.

5.5

In the Committee's judgement, the responsibility for adopting security measures lies with the Member States. They should create a framework of minimum standards for the modes of transport. To coordinate the measures to be taken, the governments should set up a special body to ensure implementation.

5.6

In the Committee's view, the role of the European Union lies in coordinating measures at Community and international level, while that of national and local government lies more in actually taking measures, monitoring implementation, providing information and promoting awareness of terrorism and crime at all levels. The national and local governments should also promote cooperation between the modes of transport and, in the Committee's view, the protection of physical infrastructure should be part of their responsibilities.

5.7

The users of the modes of transport play a vital role in security. Passengers and customers must be encouraged by publicity campaigns to be more active and alert; employees in the inland mode of transport should receive special training geared to their role in the security of the mode. In the Committee's opinion, the role of company management lies in making security concepts an integral part of the company ethos and culture, allowing employees to undertake training courses in this field and ensuring that management training includes crisis management.

5.8

The Committee finds that the position in the various inland modes of transport remains diverse. There is an increasing awareness on the part of governments and modes of transport that security measures should be incorporated into daily working practices. Consistency is still a long way off, however. The situation in the public transport sector in this respect is better than in the goods sector. Initiatives in the latter sector are still chiefly limited to the sector itself. The Committee therefore advises governments to establish one coordinating organisation to cover the whole chain.

5.9

In the case of own-account transport, the Committee believes that, irrespective of the mode used, the person responsible within the company should adopt the necessary security measures for employees, means of transport and infrastructure.

5.10

In the Committee's opinion, the cost of security should be reflected in the price of the end product, so that the consumer pays for it directly or, if the measures are taken by government, ultimately the public through taxes.

5.11

In the view of the Committee, the role of the insurance companies is a secondary one. Any payments will ultimately be passed on to the insured in the form of higher premiums. As security measures reach a higher level, the premiums to be paid should fall. The level of the premiums will have to be closely monitored to ensure that they reflect market risks.

5.12

The financing role of the European Union will focus mainly on research, information and awareness-raising campaigns.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/38

1.1

The European Commission has called on the EESC to issue an opinion on the proposed Council Regulation establishing the framework for financial measures necessary for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) with funding of EUR 2,583 million, which comes in addition to the proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Fisheries Fund (1) (EFF), with a budget of EUR 4,963 million.

1.2

One of the aims of the CFP is to make financial intervention more effective. The proposal for a Regulation aims to help improve the conditions for implementing financial interventions in particular areas by setting specific objectives for each of them.

1.3

The Committee wishes to express its deep concern over the lack of any decision regarding the approval of the budget for 2007-2013. It believes that the European Union is facing a very serious situation, which will require great political effort if it is to be resolved. The financing of the CFP cannot be undertaken if the budgets for this Regulation and the EFF Regulation are not maintained. The Committee urges the Council to adopt political decisions that do not affect CFP financing, but that ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources in a manner that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. The EESC also regrets that, to date, the Council has not adopted any decision regarding the proposal for a Regulation on the European Fisheries Fund.

1.4

The proposed Regulation sets out four areas of action in which Community financial measures will be applied:

1.5

The Committee considers that this proposal for a Regulation is necessary and approves of the areas of application that it covers.

2.1.1

The financial measures that will be applied to control and enforcement of the CFP will serve to improve the control of fishing activities undertaken by Member States, and evaluation and control activities carried out by the Commission services. The following expenditure by Member States shall be eligible for financing measures: spending on new control technologies, training programmes, pilot inspection and observer schemes, audits and information seminars.

2.1.2

Financing will be provided for Commission expenditure relating to administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre, spending on inspections by the Commission, and expenditure generated by the Community Fisheries Control Agency.

2.1.3

The Committee agrees with the proposed control and enforcement measures.

2.2.1

The proposal for a Regulation's second area of application covers financial aid to Member States with a view to drawing up multi-annual aggregated and science based datasets incorporating biological, technical, environmental and economic information, with the objective of assessing the state of the resources, the level of fishing, the impact fisheries have on resources and the marine eco-system, and the performance of the fishing industry, within and outside Community waters.

2.2.2

To obtain this information, Member States will collect basic data, while additional data will be gathered by the Commission.

2.2.3

Bearing in mind that fisheries management depends on the availability of data concerning the biological state of fish stocks and the impact of fishing fleet activity, the EESC approves the proposed financial measures in the areas of basic data collection by Member States. It also supports the financing of additional data collection, by the Commission, as such data make it possible to optimise and standardise the collection of basic data from Member States. Nonetheless, the Committee believes that, in order to improve fisheries management, financing should also be provided, via the Member States, for expenditure incurred by the EU fishing sector in order to conduct the required studies to assess the environmental effects of fishing activities and the socio-economic situation in the sector.

2.2.4

The reform of the CFP has resulted in new demands for scientific advice, in particular concerning the adoption of an ecosystem approach and the management of mixed fisheries. The Committee therefore believes that the expenses eligible for Community financial measures in the field of scientific advice are appropriate.

2.2.5

However, in line with its opinion on the European Fisheries Fund (2), the Committee reiterates that financial aid should also cover scientific advice to the fishing sector. Economic effort in this field is essential if the CFP rules are to be complied with properly.

2.3.1

In this third area of application, the financial measures are geared towards involving stakeholders in all the phases of the CFP, and keeping them informed of the objectives of the CFP and related measures. This financial aid will be channelled via the EU Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Advisory Councils, and through information and training seminars organised by the European Commission.

2.3.2

The Committee supports these measures and believes that, with regard to the Regional Advisory Councils, as suggested in point 5.3 of the Legislative Financial Statement appended to the proposal for a Resolution, the Commission should consider the possibility of extending the financing period for the operating costs of these Regional Advisory Councils.

2.4.1

In the area of international relations, the financial measures will cover expenditure arising from the fisheries agreements (including fisheries partnership agreements), and from the European Community's involvement in international organisations. The EESC believes that, within the specific objectives pertaining to international relations, it is essential to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources in third-country and international waters, and to maintain employment in fishing-dependent regions.

2.4.2

The Committee deems it essential for all Community policies that the European Union participate in all international organisations relating to fisheries or the law of the sea, given that the future of international fisheries resources depends on the responsible management of international organisations. It therefore approves the Community financial measures set down in the area of international relations.

2.4.3

The EESC believes that the financial measures in this area should also cover the attendance of fisheries sector representatives at meetings of international organisations, at the request of the Member States or the Commission.

2.5.1

The Committee supports the Community financial measures for expenditure arising from the preparation, follow-up, monitoring, audit and evaluation required in order to meet the objectives of this Regulation.

3.1

The Regulation establishes the rates of co-financing with Member States for the financial measures applicable to expenditure in each of the areas of application. The EESC has no objection to the proposed rates.

3.2

The Regulation prohibits the accumulation of Community support, stipulating that actions financed under this Regulation shall not receive assistance from other Community financial instruments. The Committee believes that the financial instruments for other Community policies, such as development, research, external trade and the environment, should also contribute to the actions in the field of international relations set out in this Regulation. In the Communication from the Commission on an Integrated framework for fisheries partnership agreements with third countries, the European Commission clearly indicates that the objective of the European Union is to contribute to sustainable fisheries via the CFP and the objectives of other European policies such as development, research, trade and the environment.

3.3

Lastly, the Regulation sets out the financing procedures in each area of application. It describes how and when Member States should apply to the Commission for Community financial measures, and details the Commission's decision on these applications, setting the total amount, the rate of the financial contribution to the Member state, and any conditions applicable to this contribution. The Regulation also provides for the protection of Community financial interests by means of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and other illegal activities, along with inspections, controls and audits on the financial aid granted; the Committee therefore considers that the financing and control system set down in the Regulation is adequate.

4.1

The EESC approves the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea, and calls on the Commission to take the following observations into account:

4.2

The Committee believes that there is a need for the present proposal for a Regulation establishing the framework for financial interventions for the implementation of the CFP and the Law of the Sea, in addition to the proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Fisheries Fund.

4.3

The Committee deeply regrets that, at the time of writing, no decision has been taken to adopt the budgets for 2007-2013, which is the period of application for the financial measures covered in this opinion, and that the Council has not adopted a decision on the proposal for a Regulation on the European Fisheries Fund.

4.4

The EESC calls on the Commission to ensure that any variation in the budget, in the context of the financial perspectives, does not have a proportional effect on the CFP budget, as it would otherwise be impossible to achieve the objectives defined for the reform of the CFP.

4.5

The proposed areas of application are a necessity and are sufficient, since the Regulation provides Member States and the Commission with the means for more efficient financial implementation of the CFP.

4.6

Of the areas of application specified by the Regulation, the EESC would like to draw the Commission's attention to the particular importance of improving scientific advice. The sustainable development of fisheries resources and, consequently, the success of the CFP depends on detailed, truthful, current scientific knowledge about the status of different fish species. An immense effort is being made by EU, Member States' and fishing authorities, along with the fisheries sector, making it essential for the European Union to have the best scientific advice on its own resources and those of international waters.

4.7

To this end, in order to improve scientific advice, the Committee believes that financing should also be provided, via the Member States, for expenditure incurred by the EU fishing sector in order to conduct studies to assess the environmental effects of fishing activities and the socio-economic situation in the sector.. It therefore believes that the financial aid should also cover scientific advice to the fisheries sector.

4.8

The Committee agrees with the proposed financial measures in the area of CFP governance, which will help to involve stakeholders in all the phases of the CFP and to keep them informed of the progress made towards its objectives.

4.9

The EESC believes that the financing period for the operating costs of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) should be extended.

4.10

The Committee considers that it is particularly important for the European Union to participate in the international organisations relating to fisheries or the law of the sea, and therefore approves the financial assistance proposed for these areas and for fisheries agreements, including fisheries cooperation agreements with third countries, as these are essential in order to help conserve and sustainably exploit fisheries resources in third-country and international waters, and to maintain employment in fishing-dependent regions.

4.11

The EESC believes that the financial measures in the area of international relations should also cover the attendance of fisheries sector representatives at meetings of international organisations, at the request of the Member States or the Commission.

4.12

Lastly, the Committee considers that the financial instruments for other Community policies, such as development, research, external trade and the environment, should also contribute to the initiatives in the field of international relations for the CFP.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/41

1.1

Disasters are occurring with increasing frequency within the borders of the EU and throughout the world; some are caused by natural phenomena such as floods, earthquakes, fires, droughts, hurricanes etc., while others are due to terrorist acts which spread terror among innocent people. Human action could be said to be the cause of any of these, to some extent, although the degrees of intentionality cannot be compared. The EU has pledged to implement preventive action in response to climate change, not just through the commitments made in the Kyoto Protocol, but also through a number of provisions relating to measures for preserving land, water and air. This undertaking is geared towards prevention; it could help to maintain and regenerate our land, seas and atmosphere, and to encourage action to be taken on a worldwide scale. Meanwhile, the response to terrorist activity (1) has resulted in many police and justice-related coordination instruments, which have made it possible to improve cooperation relations between Member States.

1.2

Nevertheless, the EU has had to set up a Community system for providing assistance in the event of a disaster of any type occurring within its borders. This system is the Community Civil Protection Mechanism, which supports and facilitates the mobilisation of vital civil protection assistance for the immediate needs of disaster-stricken areas, even those outside the Community. The aim of the Communication is to improve the Civil Protection Mechanism, which was set up in 2001 (2), and to enhance the Civil Protection Action Programme (3) with a Proposal for a Regulation by the Council establishing a rapid response and preparedness instrument for disasters (4).

1.3

Here, it would be useful to define the term ‘civil protection’, which is often confused with the concept of humanitarian aid. In this sense, the Commission makes a clear distinction between the two terms, although they share the same purpose: ‘to save lives and alleviate the effects of a disaster during the first days’. The Commission sets out the differences between the two concepts: firstly, civil protection assistance can address the environmental consequences of disasters, not just those affecting the population; secondly, it is provided through resources and teams from Member States rather than humanitarian bodies and NGOs; thirdly, it can be delivered both inside and outside the EU, although the procedures for action in non-EU countries are different (5).

1.4

The specific role of the Mechanism is to act within the EU, and always at the request of the Member State in which the disaster occurred. However, it is worth noting that the Mechanism also operates on an international scale in coordination with other international organisations such as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), with which it has established various operational procedures, and also working with the Red Cross and NGOs which operate on the ground.

1.5

The EU's stance towards the disasters that have occurred (and which, sadly, seem to have no end) led the General Affairs and External Relations Council, at its extraordinary meeting of 7 January 2005, to propose the improvement of the Community Mechanism and the development of a rapid response capability. A few days later, on 13 January, the European Parliament issued a Resolution on the recent tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean, calling for human, material and training measures to be set up and made available in the event of a disaster.

1.6

The framework that currently regulates action in the field of civil protection consists of the two instruments mentioned previously: the Community Civil Protection Mechanism and the Civil Protection Action Programme. The Communication focuses on the former, particularly the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) which is based at the European Commission and operates around the clock. It has a database on the civil protection services in each Member State, incorporating data from the military database.

2.1

Improving the Community Civil Protection Mechanism: The latest reports have highlighted the need to improve the Civil Protection Mechanism, and the need for greater coordination between Member States and with the other bodies involved. The Communication proposes four areas for improving the system:

2.1.1

Reinforcing preparedness by training teams and carrying out preparatory exercises. To achieve this, firstly, current capability must be assessed; secondly, a plan must be drawn up setting out a series of rapidly deployable modules; lastly, training courses and joint exercises must be carried out to enhance interoperability and develop a common intervention culture.

2.1.2

Analysis and assessment of needs by means of a warning system using the resources of the MIC and collating all information enabling it to act in cooperation with other bodies, particularly the UN. Improving the assessment of needs at the site of a disaster makes it possible to determine needs in each case, so that the intervention can be more effective. It is proposed that the staff of the MIC be increased, and its assessment methods and standards revised.

2.1.3

Enhanced coordination is one of the most extensive improvements. This involves more effectively coordinating Member States' contributions in order to achieve coordinated European assistance, as well as greater complementarity and coordination with the UN and other bodies involved in humanitarian aid, and with military counterparts. This coordination should strengthen the operational planning capacity on site, including the various Commission departments.

2.1.4

Improved assistance to citizens As the tsunami disaster showed, the protection of European citizens is achieved through cooperation between civil protection and the consular authorities of the countries involved. Cooperation must be strengthened between the countries affected by a disaster and Member States.

2.2

The improvement measures proposed by the Commission should be accompanied by an increase in the resources available for civil protection. The Council has therefore called for proposals in order to develop current resources. The EU Action Plan of 31 January 2005 highlighted the most important areas for action.

2.2.1

Firstly, it proposes pooling civil protection resources so that when national resources and capabilities are not sufficient to meet needs, steps can be taken at European level in order to improve the efficiency of action taken.

2.2.2

Strengthening the analytical capacity of the MIC can pave the way for a more pro-active approach, particularly when it comes to informing non-EU countries. It is therefore necessary for there to be a fluid relationship that enables available resources to be deployed flexibly, at the request of the affected country.

2.2.3

Standby modules fulfil an important role when it comes to intervening in large-scale disasters or when requested by other Member States or non-EU countries. It is therefore important to implement the system proposed in the Communication, so that each country can rely on key modules that are on permanent standby for interventions within or outside the EU.

2.2.4

Reinforcing the logistical basis and sufficient resources to enable the MIC to act swiftly and efficiently. The costs of hiring equipment for interventions will benefit from some European funds (6), although when it comes to interventions outside the EU, synergies with the UN need to be explored.

2.2.5

Lastly, international coordination is one of the key factors for a rapid response to disasters. The Community Mechanism has access to capabilities which, when coordinated with those of other bodies, result in a better response. United Nations bodies and humanitarian aid organisations should both be taken into consideration.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the proposal to improve the Community Civil Protection Mechanism, given the need to strengthen and enhance all available resources so that action can be taken in the event of a disaster within or outside the EU. Experience acquired over the years has shown that many operational aspects of Community civil protection could be improved; the Committee therefore believes that certain preliminary observations should be made in order to optimise the efficiency of the measures proposed to improve the Community Mechanism.

3.2

Firstly, the EU's response capability must be enhanced, based on the national civil protection systems, in various areas:

3.2.1.1

The CECIS (7) system should be enhanced, moving to a satellite-based system with video, voice and data capability, which is secure and linked up via the MIC (8) to specific knowledge centres providing data, experts and models (e.g. foreseeable consequences) that will be useful in the circumstances of specific emergencies. Some basic examples include the European Space Agency and the Joint Research Centre for current maps of non-EU countries and damage assessment, or maps updated after a disaster (e.g. earthquakes or floods) which could disable an infrastructure network for routing aid. The network would be based on contact points for each Member State, which could help respond to the emergency.

3.2.1.2

The information flow between the EU's assistance units and the MIC should be constant, secure and tamper-proof:

3.2.1.3

The most obvious response would be to use satellite communications. Indeed, experience has shown this method to be:

3.2.1.4

However, this method also has a limited data transmission capacity and, in some cases, can become saturated due to other requirements or users (e.g. the media). It is therefore necessary to ensure that there are dedicated — i.e. permanent — satellite wavelengths, enabling satisfactory communication between the affected area(s) and the MIC, and between the different intervention areas.

3.2.1.5

As regards coverage, it might seem that a specific geographical area would suffice (EU and neighbouring areas); however, in reality, coverage should be worldwide. The case of the recent tsunami clearly showed the former solution to be unsatisfactory, as coverage was not only required for communication with the MIC, but also for communication between areas of operation as distant from each other as the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia.

3.2.1.6

In order to ensure that communication is effective, the EU must therefore a have a satellite transmission system that is dedicated (i.e. exclusive), secure (tamper-proof), reliable and global in scale. This system must be able to support videoconferencing, data- (fax, mail and high-definition images) and voice-based communications.

3.2.1.7

The Joint Research Centre, the European Space Agency and the Commission (DG Information Society) have sufficient capability to meet the needs expressed by the Management Committee for the Action Programme and the Mechanism, which is accountable to the Directorate-General responsible for civil protection (DG Environment).

3.2.2.1

Interventions by assistance teams:

3.2.2.2

Support to Member States in the event of an emergency:

3.2.3.1

The Mechanism's current structures are based on EU-wide provision of various intervention teams, assessment resources and equipment. While this is an improvement on the vacuum that had existed before, it is still not fully satisfactory.

3.2.3.2

Due to the geographical expansion of the EU and the variety of risks facing the area, it might be worth considering setting up regional support structures as part of the Mechanism; these would have various teams and resources already in place which would therefore be more quickly deployable and better suited to the specific nature of regional risks within the EU.

3.2.3.3

These resources could be seasonal (e.g. aircraft to fight forest fires) or permanent.

3.2.3.4

Another potential improvement would involve sharing out the task of gathering resources among neighbouring countries; the resources could then be made available to all the countries in that region. In this way, the EU could promote the acquisition of resources shared between countries of medium size or facing a common risk (floods in a particular basin, earthquakes, etc.).

3.2.4.1

Although the MIC is a 24-hour system, it currently lacks sufficient human and technical resources, like those available to emergency centres in most Member States. The Commission should pledge to change this.

3.2.4.2

However, the Commission's current approach is restricted to obtaining resources determined in accordance with the emergency. It is worth considering whether this approach is as ambitious as the situation requires.

3.2.4.3

There is no questioning the fact that the MIC, by definition, is not a decision or emergency coordination centre. However, when helping to make decisions or implement assistance, improvisation must be avoided, and there must be a set procedure for action which varies according to the circumstances of the emergency. Action in response to a flood will differ from that taken in response to a landslide, earthquake or volcanic eruption. Resources are also different.

3.2.4.4

Therefore, in addition to having access to reliable data in the event of an emergency, the MIC must have predefined assistance plans, so that the Commission can plan contact with specialised bodies within and outside the EU. These plans should be defined according to the type of emergency, severity, country, etc. and should seek to provide effective and rapid responses. Naturally, the modules that can be mobilised in each country should be included.

3.2.4.5

The question is whether the MIC, in addition to its role as monitoring centre, could also coordinate national bodies, specialised humanitarian aid organisations and, in particular, the volunteers that come forward to help after any disaster. Coordination is a necessary task that should be carried out by those organisations that have the information and specific resources at their disposal.

3.2.5.1

Unquestionably, the intervention teams preselected by the Member States know how to act in an emergency. The current training programme is achieving good results in terms of joint action capabilities. The number of courses should be increased, and attempts should be made to run them in languages other than English, since, for example, action could be taken in countries with cultural links to other languages such as French or Spanish.

3.2.5.2

The intervention teams should be made aware of the advance assistance plans, once defined, and these should therefore be included in the training schemes.

3.2.5.3

It would also be worth considering the use of new distance learning techniques for these courses.

4.1

While there is no doubt that this is a positive proposal, there is room for improvement, given that the Mechanism is essentially for use within the EU, and is therefore currently an instrument (if not the instrument) for EU inter-regional solidarity.

4.2

Consequently, the EU should spare no effort to provide the swiftest and most effective response to emergencies in all their forms. This calls for predefined procedures or assistance plans which should be tested by means of drills, and updated on the basis of experience gained from these drills or from actual interventions.

4.3

The plans must include communications, up-to-date maps and suitable resources to achieve satisfactory coordination. These resources should be owned by the EU. European intervention plans must set an international standard which will boost the image and influence of the EU on an international scale.

4.4

Furthermore, EU assessment teams and coordinators must be able to have their say about the recovery of the affected area and potential subsequent action plans.

4.5

The EESC believes that all the activities carried out by the Community Mechanism should receive sufficient funding to ensure the availability of both technical staff and resources, in order to improve European interventions and visibility, particularly for disasters occurring outside the EU. In particular, transport is needed to permit rapid action to minimise the consequences of disasters.

4.6

In the event of intervention in non-EU countries, interventions by the Mechanism must be considered an integral part of EU foreign policy, and must be given the importance that they deserve, as a sign of the EU's solidarity with countries experiencing tragic events.

5.1

The EESC endorses the content of the Communication on Improving the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. However, it believes that certain specific aspects could be improved, and points out that certain of its observations result from an assessment by the representatives of organised civil society at this Committee.

5.2

As a starting point, and given the need for mandatory compliance with the proposed measures, a suitable legal framework is required. The EESC considers that the Regulation (9) is the right instrument to play a mandatory, harmonising role in all EU Member States.

5.3

Another aspect that merits attention is the funding earmarked for the Mechanism, which should be sufficient to cover more staff and the purchase of resources. Furthermore, although the Communication does not specify the financial aid granted to Member States, the new proposal for the Solidarity Fund (10) should cover and take account of all natural disasters, including drought.

5.4

As regards the improvements to the Mechanism proposed by the EESC and mentioned in this Opinion, the following merit particular attention:

5.5

The EESC, as representative of civil society, wishes to make public its support for those volunteers who work unpaid and often full-time in the field of disaster relief. This is not only a form of practical solidarity but an essential contribution to dealing actively with the damage to persons and property occurring in areas affected by disasters.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/46

1.1

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) first envisaged using joint enterprises as a structural policy instrument in Regulation 3944/90, defining them as ‘a company incorporated under private law comprising one or more Community shipowners and one or more partners from a third country with which the Community maintains relations, associated under a joint enterprise agreement set up for the purpose of exploiting and, where appropriate, using the fishery resources of waters falling within the sovereignty and/or jurisdiction of such third country, primary consideration being given to the supply of the Community market’ (1). During the 1990s, the CFP evolved significantly, and the term ‘Blue Europe’ became widely used. This has become topical once again, in a context of broader debate on the establishment of a Common Maritime Policy.

1.2

As the CFP evolved, the abovementioned concept of joint enterprises was not reviewed: they were defined exclusively as an alternative fisheries structural policy instrument to the scrapping or final export of vessels, as illustrated by the relevant articles in the Regulations mentioned in point 2.1.2. of this opinion. Therefore, the applicable legislation focused only on financial control.

1.3

However, joint enterprises are more than just a structural policy instrument: they are a means to achieve a series of objectives that are clearly set out in the various EU texts and rules, from market supply to cooperation policy, employment and regional development policies, promotion of responsible fishing, EU intervention in the various regional fishery organisations (RFOs) and, more generally, the presence of capital and skilled workers from Member States in sustainable investment projects in various countries and markets.

1.4

Clearly, with the reform of the CFP, the idea of joint enterprises as a structural policy instrument has become a thing of the past. However, it is also clear that, currently, this reform has resulted in the quasi-total absence of legislation specific to joint enterprises within the context of the EU's own, political powers.

1.5

Moreover, in the opinions requested of it by the Commission, the Committee has always stressed the need to bring joint enterprises in the fisheries sector into line with the new Common Fisheries Policy: this was emphasised in the EESC's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the CFP reform (2), and reiterated in its opinion on the European Fisheries Fund (3) with regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation on the Fund (4). The Commissioner for Fisheries was publicly informed of this need during his visit to the EESC's NAT Section on 16 June 2005, and he agreed to take the issue into consideration.

1.6

This opinion aims to further develop the position of the European Economic and Social Committee, putting forward arguments in favour of a new approach to the role of joint enterprises and, therefore, the rules governing them, based on official documents and the facts contained in them.

1.7

It is likely that, if the proposed new approach is adopted, efforts will need to be made to ensure that these enterprises are fully accepted, as they constitute a unique feature of international trade and provide the EU with a specific line of action in international relations.

2.1.1

Joint enterprises were incorporated into Community Law under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, as a means to reduce the fishing capacity of the Community fleet and supply the Community market, taking account of the scarcity of resources in Community waters and the ban preventing access to the exclusive economic zones of third countries. The approach was fourfold, aiming to eliminate over-capacity, guarantee supply, partially maintain employment and realise political and trade agreements with third countries (5). In order to implement these measures, Commission Regulation No 1956/1991 was adopted (6).

2.1.2

With the adoption of Council Regulations (EEC) 2080/93 (7) and 3699/93 (8), the financing of joint enterprises was integrated into the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, Member States were responsible for selecting, managing and monitoring projects, as well as paying subsidies. These were initially equal to those payable for scrapping or export, and eventually came to represent 80 % of the premium available for scrapping the vessel. A Community shipowner could therefore legitimately consider that the difference in subsidy between the scrapping premium and the premium for export to joint enterprises is due to the maintenance of a favourable relationship between the EU and the new joint enterprise receiving the vessel(s) from the shipowner. These principles were maintained by Council Regulation 2468/98 of 3 November 1998 (9) repealing Regulation 3699/93, and Council Regulation 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 (10), although it is worth noting that the latter simplified the concept of the joint enterprise, defining it as ‘a commercial enterprise with one or more partners who are nationals of the third country in which the vessel is registered’ (11).

2.2.1

The Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy (12) acknowledged the excess capacity of the Community fleet, along with the globalisation of the fisheries sector and the legitimate aspiration of many developing countries to expand their own fishing industries. These three points, paired with the high capital injection that fisheries investments require (fleets, ports, refrigeration, plants, etc.), also acknowledged by the Green Paper, should have led to a specific discussion on the importance of joint enterprises in the fisheries sector, with a broader scope than that reflected in the official documents (13) at the time.

2.2.1.1

Joint enterprises are a means for the EU to participate and invest in the development of the fishing sector in developing countries, leading to the formation or growth of a fully-fledged economic sector. Supplying these enterprises with fishing vessels is not only beneficial to fishing activity per se, but also boosts other sectors such as ports, services (repairs, engineering, provisioning, consignment, transhipment, loading and unloading, crew services, travel, etc.), effective maintaining of the refrigeration chain (required by EU food safety rules, through investment in costly refrigeration equipment), compliance with health regulations in the food sector and, lastly, the establishment of processing industries.

2.2.1.1.1

As well as maintaining high-quality European jobs among the senior and middle-ranking crew of many vessels, joint enterprises make it possible to create many jobs on the vessels and in the service companies that grow up around them. Such employment could provide local fishermen with decent (as regards working conditions and income) job opportunities, their only other option being a traditional job in a small-scale and often inefficient fishing sector, which can be damaging for local resources due to the scarcity or lack of systems for monitoring, conservation, marketing, etc.

2.2.1.2

The creation of local wealth and the export of catches (whether locally processed or not) make it possible, in turn, to create international value chains in which the benefits are more fairly distributed; the gross domestic product and per capita income generated by the sector in the beneficiary country can be increased exponentially, gradually creating an industrialised fishing sector where there used only to be a coastal fishing sector with inadequate health standards and an unsound commercial base.

2.2.1.3

Joint enterprises have been required to prioritise the supply of European markets: this guarantees the existence and maintenance of investments in the fishing sector made by shipowners and industrial partners, Member States and the EU itself (through subsidies), and makes it possible to supply a Community market that is in deficit, as fish consumption is increasing as a result of recommendations by scientific and public bodies encouraging Europeans to eat a healthy and varied diet. Furthermore, this supply must strictly obey EU food laws.

2.2.1.4

The activity of joint enterprises in fishing-dependent areas of the EU enables employment levels to be maintained in the sector, by keeping companies' central, technical and commercial offices operational in Europe; the supporting industry also generates jobs, both directly, when large vessels return to their home port in Europe for their four-yearly repairs, and indirectly, as chains of know-how are created with the local service industries mentioned above.

2.2.1.5

Joint enterprises enable the EU to obtain effective data for monitoring and tracking catches in third-country and international waters, by maintaining legal ties with fishing enterprises in their areas of origin. This enables the EU to exercise effective leadership within the competent Regional Fisheries Organisations created or governed under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the competent UN body in the field (14). This is because, for the purpose of financial control by the Commission, the Member States and the Court of Auditors, joint enterprises must submit half-yearly data on their catches to the Member States.

2.2.1.6

Joint enterprises also allow EU fishing interests to be maintained in international waters and fishing grounds, with standards guaranteed by EU regulatory requirements for responsible fishing, conservation and management of resources, safety on board vessels, monitoring, food chain safety, etc. This would prevent or minimise the harmful effects of foreign fishing fleets which do not promote the development of the third country's fisheries or industry, do not guarantee the standards governing fishing catches for the EU market, and do not enable resources to be monitored responsibly.

2.2.1.7

Lastly, joint enterprises enable the EU to make an effective, lasting contribution to the development of local fishing industries in countries with which fisheries agreements have been reached and where there are joint enterprises or national companies controlled by European shipowners. The fishing industry has generated profits both in third countries and in the EU overall, by enabling the continuous supply of marine products.

2.2.2

None of the above points was mentioned — not even indirectly — in point 3.9 of the abovementioned Green Paper on the International dimension of the CFP (15) or in point 5.8 on External relations (16). Joint enterprises in the fisheries sector are not mentioned at all as a valid means of implementing the principles of the fisheries policy proposed by the Green Paper, despite having been endorsed until 2002 by the extensive Community rules in the field, as amply illustrated in this opinion.

2.2.3

The quasi-total disappearance of joint enterprises from the new CFP is illustrated by the fact that the last report requested by the Commission and containing exhaustive data on the issue dates back to 2001 and does not specify vessels assigned to joint enterprises (17). Prior to this, there had been another specific report, the Study on joint enterprises in the context of structural aids in the fisheries sector, dated 16 June 2000. These studies indicate that there are currently 300 joint enterprises accounting for over 600 vessels in all. These enterprises have remained outside the framework of Community fisheries rules, in a legal vacuum. They simply become foreign companies in which EU partners are involved, with a commitment to prioritise EU supply and to transmit information regularly; their only protection is that provided by bilateral treaties for the mutual protection of investments between the source Member State and the beneficiary third country.

2.3.1

During the work which led to the definitive draft of the abovementioned Green Paper, two regulations were approved: Council Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 of 21 June 1999 on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (18) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (19). These Regulations maintained the validity, within the FIFG, of joint enterprises in the fisheries sector until the end of their term, i.e. 31 December 2006.

2.3.2

However, since 31 December 2004, joint enterprises have been practically eliminated from the EU's fisheries structural policy, by dint of Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (20). Joint enterprises continue to fall under EU law inasmuch as they must fulfil the rules that are applicable when they are established, but they lack a specific medium- and long-term regulatory framework.

2.3.3

The justification for removing aid to joint enterprises in the fisheries sector and doing away with almost all legislative references to them is found in recital 5 of the abovementioned regulation, whereby the FIFG is required to concentrate on reducing capacity by scrapping vessels. The reduction of fishing capacity is only one of the many Community policy objectives for which joint enterprises have proved useful and could continue to be so, as explained below.

3.1

Need to maintain a specific policy for joint enterprises in the fisheries sector in the context of the CFP

3.1.1

Although they have been removed from current legislation, joint enterprises in the fisheries sector play an economic role that is particularly appropriate in a globalised economy, allowing for savings to be made on costs (which are usually lower in the destination country than the Member State), and promoting technology transfer, the creation and distribution of added value, access to resources and market supply.

3.1.2

Furthermore, joint enterprises make it possible to partially maintain sea- and land-based employment in fishing-dependent areas of the EU; they also help generate new, more skilled jobs in the third countries in which they operate, including the training and up-skilling of workers in the destination country.

3.1.3

Joint enterprises were incorporated into Community law within the fisheries structural policy in 1990 (i.e. fifteen years ago), and have proven to be a useful instrument throughout this period. The unnecessary removal of these enterprises from the new CFP sponsored by the Commission and from the legislation in force since 1 January 2005, will lead to the loss of Community support for a valid instrument of economic cooperation between the EU and third — often developing — countries, and could constitute a breach of the principle of trust that should govern relations between European operators and the EU institutions.

3.1.4

Joint enterprises could and should be considered as a specific aspect of multilateral or bilateral cooperation treaties with third countries; concrete rules should be laid down that take their particular features into consideration, from the point of view of both fishing per se and the promotion and protection of European external investments, customs, labour, tax, etc.

3.1.5

Although joint enterprises could, under the current legislation, fall within the scope of ‘partnership agreements’, no significant practical results have hitherto been observed. There is therefore a need for a regulation that coordinates the disparate responsibilities within the Commission (Directorates-General for Development, Cooperation and Fisheries), and clarifies how employers and other stakeholders should act within the framework of such agreements or other instruments, so that these practical results can be achieved.

4.1

The Committee recommends that, as part of the work underway to revise the Common Fisheries Policy and in line with the Council's conclusions of 19 July 2004 (21), joint enterprises, which are no longer a tool for the structural regulation of fleet capacities and an alternative to scrapping vessels, should be defined as a means to supply markets and take integrated sectoral action, which is available to the EU in the framework of its own powers and under its global and regional agreements and bilateral treaties, so as to implement EU fisheries policies properly, in line with the principles of the FAO and the WTO, taking due care to ensure that there is no increase in fishing capacity that could lead to overfishing.

4.2

The Committee believes that:

4.2.1

The Commission should carry out a detailed, up-to-date assessment of the current situation and potential of joint enterprises in the fisheries sector, and should disclose its conclusions to the other EU institutions and the sectors concerned.

4.2.2

Current Community law should include rules and mechanisms that will give legal security to joint enterprises within a specific stable, long-term framework for action, in the context of bilateral or multilateral agreements with non-EU countries, taking into account the particular nature of the activity and its benefits in terms of management of fisheries resources, market supply, job creation in fishing-dependent areas, creation of added value, cooperation and international trade.

17.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/50

1.1

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1208/81 of 28 April 1981 determining the Community scale for the classification of carcases of adult bovine animals (1). The new Regulation will supersede the various acts incorporated in it (2); this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bringing them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2.1

The Committee regards it as very useful to have all the texts integrated into one Regulation. In the context of a People's Europe, the Committee, like the Commission, attaches great importance to simplifying and clarifying Community law so as to make it clearer and more accessible to ordinary citizens, thus giving them new opportunities and the chance to make use of the specific rights it gives them.

2.2

It has been ensured that this compilation of provisions contains no changes of substance and serves only the purpose of presenting Community law in a clear and transparent way. The Committee expresses its total support for this objective and, in the light of these guarantees, welcomes the proposal.