21.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/1

1.1

The Council and Commission have adopted a 5-year Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme on strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice.

1.2

The EESC is currently drafting its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice  (1). The opinion states that the Hague Programme ‘has the difficult task of consolidating and promoting the creation of a common area of Freedom, Security and Justice’. This opinion stresses the importance of achieving a ‘fair balance between the three dimensions of freedom, security and justice ... so as not to encroach on the fundamental values (human rights and civil liberties) and democratic principles (rule of law) shared throughout the Union.’ The Committee concluded that this balance has not been achieved as there is a disproportionate amount of legislation focussed on Security.

1.3

The financial framework, for the period 2007-2013, underpinning The Hague Programme consists of the following:

1.3.1

Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (2)

1.3.2

Security and Safeguarding Liberties (3)

1.3.3

Fundamental Rights and Justice (4)

1.4

The EESC believes that the imbalance between the three dimensions of freedom, security and justice is also reflected in the financial perspectives as Security accounts for most of the budget.

1.5

The 5-year Action Plan is closely linked to other plans and proposals in the field of freedom, security and justice, such as the recent EU Drugs Action Plan.

1.6

The EESC plans to respond to The Hague Programme and the three framework programmes as a package in an attempt to influence the final content of the programme.

1.7

The emphasis is on improved intergovernmental cooperation between Member States, and between the latter and the competent agencies and services of the Union involved with internal security. The Commission has the task of monitoring the effectiveness of the various plans, programmes and proposals. This is consistent with the principles of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty.

2.1

The EESC notes the Commission's proposal to establish a Framework programme on ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ is part of a coherent set of proposals which aim to provide an adequate support to the Hague Programme under the financial perspectives 2007.

2.2

The EESC also notes the Commission's focus on simplifying and rationalising existing financial support in the area of freedom, justice and security, with the aim of allowing for greater flexibility in the allocation of priorities and increasing overall transparency.

2.3

The EESC believes it is important that there is consistency across Member States when it comes to the principles of democracy, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and the rule of law. This is especially important as the EU progresses with enlargement as it negotiates with candidate countries.

2.4

The EESC however is concerned that the Commission's proposal is being presented during a period of great uncertainty in the EU. Given that the Constitutional Treaty is to underpin the Hague Programme, there must be consequences arising from the current situation which will need to be addressed.

2.5

In addition the general programme consists of four specific programmes. It is debatable whether any one directorate in the Commission has an overview of all aspects of this particular policy area. The EESC therefore questions whether all the appropriate monitoring, control and evaluation systems are in place to assess the programme effectively.

2.6

The Financial Perspectives for the period 2007-2013 has been agreed but the overall budget (Heading 3A — Freedom, Security and Justice) has been reduced by EUR 524 million from EUR 7 154 million to EUR 6 630 million. The EESC believes that this places uncertainty over the Commission's stated budget of EUR 543 million over this period for the ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ programme and on the distribution of the budget between the three framework programmes that has yet to be finalised. The EESC is therefore uncertain on the final impact on the specific programmes and activities within the overall programme.

2.7

The EESC is not convinced that the Commission's proposal has been sufficiently designed to respect the principles of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty as there does not appear to be sufficient recognition of the areas that are best addressed at the national, regional and/or local level, in cooperation with the relevant social partners.

2.8

The EESC strongly recommends that this proposal is placed on hold until the legal and financial bases are clarified. In the interim the Committee suggests a continuation of the current programme approach to the field of freedom, security and justice until the current situation has been resolved.

3.2.1

The EESC is pleased the Commission acknowledges the tension between guaranteeing the core rights of the individual and the core responsibilities of the Member States within the Union in the area of freedom, security and justice as the debate around these issues is being held at every level from the individual citizen to EU bureaucrat.

3.2.2

In terms of Fundamental Rights the Commission refers to more concerted action against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and suggests greater support to interfaith and multicultural forms of dialogue to fight them.

3.2.3

The EESC commends the Commission on this statement but feels it does not sufficiently reflect the contemporary context of the EU. The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) released a report in March 2005 which stated that Muslims in Europe have faced increased discrimination since the September 11 attacks. To quote its Executive Director Aaron Rhodes, ‘In the aftermath of September 11, Muslim minorities in the EU have experienced growing distrust and hostility. As the fight against terrorism has been stepped up and the perceived threat of religious extremism has become a major focus of public debate, pre-existing patterns of prejudice and discrimination have been reinforced and Muslims have increasingly felt that they are stigmatized because of their beliefs’ (5).

3.2.4

The EESC therefore recommends that islamophobia be added to reinforce the need to address this particular form of racism where culture intersects with religion.

3.2.5

The EESC notes that Combating Violence is the only area that does not have an agency to share synergies with. The EESC therefore recommends the Commission investigates what system should be put in place to ensure that Combating Violence, in all its forms, is not overlooked as a priority.

3.2.6

The EESC also believes that it is a major oversight that the programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice will not be coordinated with the new European Institute for Gender Equality. The Committee therefore recommends that a specific objective should be included to reflect that this will be the case when the Institute opens in 2007.

3.3.1

The European Council meeting in June 2005 specifically welcomed the Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) in the framework of the Drug Strategy (2005-2012). This meeting reflected the focus on the Drugs Action Plan and Fight against Terrorism.

3.3.2

The EESC welcomes this focus but feels there is a risk that violence against children, women and young persons and trafficking for sexual exploitation will be downgraded as this is combined with the fight against drug use and trafficking, especially as the overall budget and allocation of the budget between the programmes has not yet been ratified.

3.3.3

The EESC recommends that a separate objective and budget line be developed for combating violence. This should ensure the appropriate allocation of priorities and will increase transparency.

3.3.4

The Committee welcomes the recognition that the fight against violence isn't just a public health problem but is a recognised part of the protection of fundamental rights as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

3.3.5

The EESC recommends that it is made clear within the specific objective for the overall programme that the fight against violence in all its forms explicitly includes Trafficking of Human Beings for sexual exploitation. This is important because combating trafficking has a cross-border dimension and therefore an EU Strategy and Action Plan in this area is necessary and appropriate.

3.3.6

The definition of target groups (Article 6) with regards to combating violence needs to be more specific especially when making the argument for EU added value, otherwise there is a risk of contravening the principles of subsidiarity.

3.3.7

The EESC believes that it is important that border control officials are included as a target group, as they are important in the fight to disrupt the distribution channels used to smuggle in people and drugs.

3.3.8

The EESC is unhappy that the combating violence against women, young people and children, appears to be left largely to the NGOs supported through the Daphne programme. The Committee feels that there should be clearer ownership by the Member States of these issues with all their legislative and budgetary resources, without this impacting on the resources of NGOs. Cooperation between NGOs, EU and Member State authorities continues to be vital to see the eradication of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. The EESC would like to see Member States and NGO agencies working together to raise public awareness and exchange best practice.

3.4.1

The EESC welcomes the ambition of ‘promoting a fundamental rights culture among all the peoples of Europe’, which is aimed at supporting the Charter of Fundamental Rights and informing all citizens about their rights, including those arising from European Union citizenship.

3.4.2

The EESC welcomes the recognition of the special role for civil society players in connection with fundamental rights and their promotion. It also sees the promotion of civil society in the new EU Member States as a priority. Against this background, the EESC reaffirms its readiness to play an active part in this field.

3.5.1

The EESC supports and encourages judicial cooperation in areas that EU Member States have agreed priorities, for example, the fight against terrorism. It therefore urges the Commission to continue its solidarity and harmonisation drive with a view to the establishment of a European area of justice, notwithstanding the degree of incompatibility between Member States' legal systems.

3.5.2

Although for example in civil matters, understandings and delimitations of concepts such as negligence, as well as both duty and breach of care, good faith, contractual fault or responsibility vary across Member States, this should not be viewed as a reason for not continuing steps to approximate legislations, on condition that such approximation is compatible with the principles of solidarity and proportionality. The Commission has been accomplishing this very successfully, and the Committee has always expressly supported it.

3.5.3

Also the role of Member States' respective judiciaries can be quite different as some operate under a federal framework with a codified constitution whereas others do not. The EESC encourages the Commission to continue its efforts to strengthen existing civil law mechanisms and create new ones, with a view to harmonisation, for both crossborder and domestic disputes.

3.5.4

Although the above matters are problematic this does not stop the criminal justice agencies in Member States from the imperative to cooperate very closely in the struggle to combat serious crime such as drug trafficking, the trafficking of human beings for sexual exploitation, and the trafficking of human beings for labour exploitation.

3.5.5

There are many good examples of cooperative working currently taking place between investigators, prosecutors and members of the judiciary. The EESC encourages resources being placed with these agencies to further this joint work.

21.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/5

1.1

In recent years climate change has become one of the most critical issues for the future of the planet. A huge number of studies have been carried out on climate change, which have clearly demonstrated above all an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are causing global warming. Changes in the composition of the atmosphere brought about by human activity are accelerating. International researchers agree that climate change is taking place, although there are different opinions as to how quickly. An assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001) states incontrovertibly that the process of atmospheric change will continue over this century, accelerating global climate change.

1.2

The EU and its Member States have been particularly active in pursuing objectives that would slow atmospheric warming. The Union has made many policy changes in different areas in order to achieve better results. The EU is at the forefront of international efforts to combat climate change, which is one of the greatest environmental, social and economic threats, and one that can have far-reaching and global consequences. The EU should step up its climate protection efforts and also seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors in the light of its commitments to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. This opinion attempts to provide important input into strengthening EU efforts in relation to climate change and its effects on forestry, agriculture and fisheries. It must be noted that to date research has contributed significantly to improving knowledge on the impact of climate change on forestry; however less scientific information is available on the impact on agriculture and a lesser amount still on the fisheries sector.

1.3

The international community has tried on the basis of several agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, to influence various policies so as to contain greenhouse gas emissions. However, implementing these agreements has been very difficult because not even all the major signatories, such as the United States, have committed themselves to the widely accepted objectives.

1.4

Atmospheric warming has many effects, both direct and indirect, in different areas and sectors. Assessing all these effects is a particularly demanding task for research. A massive research effort is under way in different parts of the world. Numerous scenarios have been created for climate change. The effects on human and natural systems have been estimated on the basis of available knowledge. The effects will be either negative or positive, depending on the area concerned and the changes in conditions. The international community and the EU have focused in the first instance on reducing greenhouse gas emissions so as to slow the advance of climate change. Climate change is not just a matter for environmental policy, but also has major economic, social and cultural implications for the whole of mankind, and of course also for the development of the European Union.

1.5

As well as curbing climate change, the EU and other countries and regions should do much more to improve the ability of people and economies to adapt to the changes taking place. This is particularly important since even if climate change could be prevented in the long run, the changes that are already imminent will require major adjustment measures in different sectors of society, both at national and international level. Climate change will also have a significant impact on global economic trends and growth. The EU has presented its own assessments of economic and energy consumption trends.

1.6

Adapting to climate change is a major challenge for sustainable development in most economic sectors in the European Union. Climate change necessitates adjustments in at least the following areas: industry, energy, transport, construction, health, tourism, insurance, land use, biodiversity, use of nature for recreation, water resources, fishing, forestry, agricultural, livestock and food production, as well as hunting and reindeer-husbandry. A climate change adaptation strategy must therefore be drawn up in the EU and the Member States. In this own-initiative opinion the European Economic and Social Committee wishes to present further ideas for developing the adaptation strategy in the EU, notably in relation to the primary industries of agriculture, forestry and fishing.

1.7

The threat of natural catastrophes such as floods, gales and hailstorms, which will increase in number as a result of the anticipated climate changes, will have equally negative consequences for the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors.

2.1

In view of the anticipated effects of global warming, there is every reason to expect that they will be felt particularly heavily in agriculture and forestry and to some extent also in the fisheries industry. Given the modest contribution these sectors have made to greenhouse gas emission, their role has been of marginal importance to date in the drafting and implementation of European climate change policies. According to IPCC research, climate change is unavoidable; it is therefore vital to look at these sectors from the perspective of the necessary adaptive changes.

2.2

The European agricultural, forestry and fishing models should be based on sustainable production of renewable raw materials and products for consumers and industry. The EU has invested heavily in the quality of food and other products and in safeguarding quality. Maintaining the targets and results achieved will require new measures to adapt to climate change.

2.3

Climate change affects food production, access to water and health in the EU and throughout the world. In the northern regions of the EU atmospheric warming will cause crop yields to rise, while in the south harvests will shrink because of increasing aridity. The speed and forms of climate change will vary across EU countries and regions, but for now, at least, there is a clear warming trend. Both drinking and irrigation water are becoming more difficult to obtain in southern regions.

2.4

Extreme weather phenomena — storms, floods, droughts and prolonged heatwaves — will increase. Global warming increases the risk of insect- and water-borne diseases spreading. Climate change also affects the incidence of these problems in different countries and regions.

2.4.1

The focus of food production in the European Union will shift further north in the longer term. It is assumed that climate change will widen the prosperity gap between developed and developing countries, which will also have an impact on food production and markets. It is quite conceivable that climate change will lead to food shortages and conflicts over access to food in some regions. It is important to take account of the fact that climate change can lead to serious disruptions in access to water resources.

2.4.2

The EU will be better able to cope because of its good infrastructure and the agricultural policy goal of maintaining production across the Union. In this changing situation it is essential that the EU should be able to maintain adequate instruments and resources to develop and safeguard its own food production.

2.5

The EU has not framed a clear adaptation strategy under its agricultural policy that would respond to the already inevitable consequences of climate change. Some Member States have drawn up or are drawing up national strategies for adapting to climate change. European agriculture is basically quite well placed to respond to climate change, as for instance the adaptive capacity of crops is generally good.

2.5.1

It is possible by developing new plant varieties to meet the demands of climate change within a few years. The diversity of genetic resources can be tapped to facilitate adaptation. Businesses should increase funding for developing new technologies, in both plant and livestock production. An adequate risk management system should be developed to reduce damage caused by weather variations and plant and animal diseases.

2.5.2

It is also necessary to step up research in the agricultural sector to develop new varieties that are more adaptable to new ecological conditions (adaptation) or which do not require such large inputs of, for example, nitrogenous fertilisers (emissions control). University courses and research relating to climate change should be strengthened and broadened, in both basic research and research on climate change adaptation.

2.5.3

However, the key issue is to preserve the overall fertility of the EU's agricultural land. Detrimental changes taking place in the soil can be mitigated by developing new farming practices. One critical question for agriculture will be the substance of future water policy, especially in those regions where water shortages are becoming an increasing problem.

2.6

The effects of climate change on global food markets require further study, since market changes also impact on the EU's own production targets.

2.7

The European Union has introduced several environmental policy measures affecting agriculture, with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The EU has also tried to direct agriculture towards production of bioenergy crops, which would have a positive impact on environmental and climate policy. The EU should develop new environmental measures in agriculture aimed at making more efficient use of fertilisers and preventing as far as possible production of methane by cattle or promoting its recovery. Thus changes in EU agricultural and environmental policy will influence the future level of emissions.

2.8

In this new situation cultivated land should be used more than it is at present for non-food production. Use of biofuels is still very low in most EU countries. Production must be increased substantially if the target level set by the EU for use of biofuels is to be reached. The EU should change certain rules restricting the production of energy crops, such as the hectare ceiling for aid and use of set-aside land for non-food production. Bioenergy can be justified on grounds of employment, diversification of energy production and its positive effects on climate change.

2.8.1

The EU should allow agriculture to play its full role as a producer of biofuels, so that the EU can come closer to achieving the objectives of the Biofuels Directive. The EU should reconsider the possibility of adapting certain CAP rules and reappraise the content of the WTO's Blair House agreement, which limits the production of oilseeds intended for non-food production and grown on set-aside land. The EU should remove this constraint as production aid is no longer granted for oilseed production.

2.8.2

Adapting to climate change necessitates coordinated cooperation along the whole food production chain, at both international and EU level. The process of adaptation is also a big challenge for consumers, for whom an effective information and publicity effort should be mounted. The EU and the Member States should organise a coordinated training, information and publicity campaign to increase the general public's basic understanding of complex climate change processes.

3.1

EU fisheries policy has focused mainly on managing fish stocks and controlling markets. Concern about changes in water quality obviously also affects fishing. EU fisheries policy has not made any specific allowance for climate change effects. But EU climate change guidelines note that over the long term climate change will have an impact on the fishing industry across Europe and in certain regions. The EU believes that it can adjust and adapt to future changes. According to present knowledge, a climate-induced increase in water temperature will probably not produce major changes in large seas. In contrast, the impact will be more significant in smaller water bodies such as ponds, rivers and lakes. It is likely that fish stocks will change significantly as a result of, among other things, changes in the food supplies of fish. Various new fish stocks may enter the warmer waters and others may disappear.

3.2

The changes may be greater in the inland and coastal waters of the northern EU countries. It seems that quality cold-water fish may become endangered. There will clearly be a decrease especially in economically valuable fish such as salmon in the EU's northern regions, and an increase in less economically valuable coarse fish. The ability of different fish species to adapt also varies widely. Obviously the rate of climate change and how it affects water bodies are of key importance. The general trend of climate change means rising water temperatures, and there is already scientific evidence of this in, for example, the polar regions and the bogs of Siberia. On the other hand, the marine ecosystem responds relatively flexibly to climate change effects. The situation is a lot more problematic in the case of rivers and lakes, but here only scant research is currently available on climate change adaptation.

3.3

Aquaculture opportunities may improve as a result of climate change. The volume of water will grow in the future, increasing the total area of coastal waters and making it possible to expand aquaculture. The rise in the temperature of the EU's northern waters will also increase fish food stocks. At the same time, the higher water temperature may increase the risk of disease and quality impairment. Changes in water temperature will have not only economic consequences but also natural consequences, above all by limiting biodiversity.

3.4

The sustainable development of fish stocks should be based on knowledge and research. It has often been very difficult to manage and implement EU fisheries policy. The sector has faced considerable challenges and pressure, such as profitability and dioxin problems, and regulation of fishing. The adaptive capacity of the fisheries sector could also be improved by reducing harmful human activities that cause eutrophication and lower water quality. Fishing is an area in which there is a great need for climate change studies. Water ecosystem processes are very complex, which presents a considerable challenge for research. The EU could provide additional funding for such work and step up its multilateral international research activities and cooperation.

4.1

The EU's forest resources are growing steadily. Only half of the annual increment is cut while new afforestation programmes are creating additional forest reserves. The carbon stored in forests and in wood is the most important carbon sink after oceans. At the same time, wood-based products function as a substitute for products made with non-renewable resources. European forestry policy falls within the competence of Member States. EU legislation and international agreements have an increasing impact on European forestry policy. The Ministerial Conference on the protection of forests in Europe (MCFPE) has established criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry which serve as a key reference point for the sustainable use of forest resources. The EU should support this process within the framework of sustainable development, whilst nevertheless respecting the subsidiarity principle.

4.2

Well-managed forests provide the basis for opportunities to adapt to climate change. EU forests are for the most part managed on an ongoing basis and are thus able to sustain high production levels and retain their vitality. The long time horizons in forestry, with rotation periods of between 15 and 150 years, mean that any adaptation measures should begin as soon as possible. Particular attention should be paid, at the present point in time, to restocking methods, including the selection of tree species. As climatic conditions are likely to change markedly in a relatively short time period, Europe's forests will become more vulnerable to insect damage. The EU should foster improved cooperation between national forest management authorities and stakeholders to prepare for major threats from biotic organisms such as insects and fungi.

4.3

There is a wide variety of forest types in the EU. European forests can be divided according to geographical location into the Boreal, Atlantic, Continental, Mediterranean, Alpine and Macronesian forest zones. The biotic differences between these zones are enormous. When devising a climate change adaptation strategy for primary industries, the strategy for forestry should be drawn up at national or regional level. Forests play an important role as a significant stabilising factor in Europe's natural ecosystem and their maintenance will have a decisive impact on the stability of the continent's natural and semi-natural ecosystems.

4.4

Climate change has already increased and is expected to further increase the number of natural catastrophes. In the case of forests this means more forest fires, storm damage and widespread insect damage. In order to be able to cope with such crisis situations, the EU should take steps to quickly mobilise support, and adequate material and financial assistance should be ensured through, for example, the EU Solidarity Fund or similar instruments.

4.5

In view of the high vulnerability to biotic pollution, the EU should maintain its strict policy with regard to inspection of imported roundwood and wood-based products from outside the EU. This is an effective way of protecting European forests from harmful alien species, such as certain insects and fungus species. Import checks must not lead to the setting up of unwarranted barriers to international trade.

4.6

Forest fires are already a considerable problem, particularly in the southern parts of the EU. Since climate change is expected to exacerbate the situation, it is essential that the EU build on its existing work in the area of preventing and containing forest fires and developing European risk management plans.

4.7

Thanks to sustainable forest management, the EU's forest potential is growing steadily. Wood is a renewable natural resource and promoting its use in society as a building material and a source of energy is the most effective way of locking up carbon dioxide in trees and wood-based products, which function both as carbon sinks and a substitute for materials based on non-renewable resources. In many countries, increasing the use of wood offers one of the few opportunities to create new jobs, especially in the countryside. This applies particularly to the generation of wood-based energy, which is highly labour-intensive and is often produced by local entrepreneurs using simple heating equipment.

4.8

Forest management is based on a complex biological system, the study of which takes a long time, in part because of the long lead times involved. Infrastructure and logistics systems of various kinds are one of the keystones of economically viable forestry. Climate change is expected to lead to drought in the south and wetter ground conditions in northern regions, implying the need to develop forest machines which can perform effectively without having a major impact on the soil surface, for example when the machines are being operated, and to invest in basic biological research. In order to be able to maintain the European forestry model and adapt to changed climatic conditions, the EU should ensure adequate funding for research and development in this sector. The Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform, which has been established as part of the preparations for the Seventh Framework Programme for research, should be noted. Collaboration between research bodies across Europe and worldwide should be facilitated.

4.9

Economically viable forestry is a sine qua non for ensuring that private and public forests in Europe are properly maintained and kept healthy. The EU should recognise the forest sector as an independent sector in all legislation and always assess the consequences from this standpoint so that rules which run counter to this view are not laid down unintentionally.

4.10

Original tree species are better able to adapt to local climatic changes, inter alia, because of their genetic composition. Preference should therefore be given to native tree species whilst at the same time attempting to introduce certain species in more northerly locations in Europe. In addition, mixed forests should be recommended where this is possible.

4.11

Climate change will in all likelihood further widen the economic disparities between the industrial and developing countries. The EU should support efforts to establish a globally binding forest convention incorporating adaptation strategies which could help to steer development in many developing countries. Capacity building and governance are needed to safeguard important forest resources around the world. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under the Kyoto protocol is an incentive for EU actors to contribute to afforestation in third world countries and a means of increasing EU efforts with regard to the carbon dioxide quota system in developing countries.

4.12

Climate change has a major impact across the EU and on different communities. Educational, training and informational measures and public debate should be stepped up substantially by the Community so as to enable citizens to gain an in-depth understanding of how significantly climate change impacts on the future of EU forests.

4.13

Climate change may also entail positive consequences for forestry, at least in the short run. This applies particularly to the northern parts of Europe where there is already a modern, highly-developed independent forest sector. The effects of climate change should be taken into account in forestry development measures across the EU.

4.14

The production of cork and non-wood based products such as berries, mushrooms, and environmental services should be given careful consideration in the analysis of future changes. In addition to cork, management of game reserves is an important part of today's modern forestry and sustainable development.

4.15

The EU's 1998 Forest Strategy and the action plan currently under preparation by the Commission should take account of climate change and propose the measures that need to be taken, to help further the mobilisation of wood resources. The Commission communication and European Council conclusions have identified adaptation of forestry to climate change as a key objective. It is essential that in this process effective and close cooperation should be maintained between the various Commission DGs, the Member States and stakeholders.

4.16

The EU must try to ensure that a degree of flexibility is incorporated into international agreements and forestry programmes so that, for example, in emergencies areas of woodland can be felled when the health of trees deteriorates and they would be seriously damaged by insects. This would allow the rapid re-afforestation of the afflicted areas with the most appropriate tree species.

5.1

The EESC considers climate change to be the biggest challenge facing the European Union and the entire planet over the coming years and decades. The EU must significantly step up efforts to combat climate change and begin drawing up adaptation strategies in a consistent way for various policy areas. Future presidency countries must devote increasing attention to extending climate change policy to include also adaptation measures.

5.2

The EESC believes that rural industries, agriculture, forestry and fisheries have made only small contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, as a result of which these sectors have been overlooked in EU climate change policy. According to research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is unavoidable and it is therefore important that the EU also prepare the ground for adaptation measures in these sectors.

5.3

The EESC feels it is essential that the Union substantially increase research resources for analysing climate change and adaptation policies and for the implementation of security programmes. This applies particularly to industries based on natural resources.

5.4

The EESC requests that all of the EU's cultivable fields be kept fit for production. From this perspective, the EU must step up efforts to improve food security and security of supply. The uncertainties of climate change for these primary industries must be specifically taken into consideration when planning future EU policy on agricultural support and production, trade policy and energy policy.

5.5

The EESC calls for the EU to use international forums to highlight the adverse effects of climate change from the point of view of fighting world famine, which has obvious implications particularly for developing countries in equatorial regions.

5.6

The EESC believes that, in addition to combating climate change, there is a need for the EU and all Member States to begin the preparation of sectoral adaptation strategies. Such strategies have already been drawn up in some Member States. The Union can contribute to this work by bringing the benefit of good coordination and the support of international agreements, which would also help to intensify efforts to this end at global level.

5.7

The EESC considers it important to study the knock-on effects of climate change on rural industries. Climate change also has major implications for other sectors (industry, energy, transport, tourism, health), with indirect effects on the development and adaptation needs of rural industries.

5.8

The capacity of the EU and Member States to assess the implications of climate change for fisheries is fairly poor. Efforts in this area are crucially linked to the future development of water resource management. Fisheries policy will also have to assess the adjustments the sector needs to make to adapt to changes in water resources and fisheries conditions.

5.9

The EESC believes that the production and use of wood resources should be increased and that the role of forests in containing climate change should be taken seriously. The EESC feels that it is important to increase afforestation, both within the EU and globally. This should also be the key focus of EU development policy.

5.10

The EESC suggests that the Commission propose the launch of a wide-ranging information and education campaign within the EU and at international level, with a view also to raising awareness among civil society players and political decision-makers. This could help to speed up the preparation and introduction of adaptation strategies.

21.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/10

1.1

The current system of taxation on alcohol and alcoholic beverages is not working in accordance with what consumers have a right to expect from the internal market but the Member States (MS) have not agreed to harmonise the excise rates applied to these products beyond the current agreement on minimum rates. Excise is the term used by trade experts to denote the tax payable in the country of consumption.

1.2

The frequency of reports on the current system by the Commission should be made more realistic by requiring them no more frequently than every 5 years.

1.3

The current system regularly raises problems over the place of certain products in the currently agreed structures to which there is no simple answer; this can lead to each MS finding its own solution. Problems also persist over the correct coding in the Common Nomenclature. There are two major categories of trade in these products to be taken into consideration: trade between professionals and purchasing by private individuals, which can take the form of either direct or mail-order purchases, each of which raises separate issues.

1.4

Problems from the point of view of health are the result of the abuse of alcohol by individuals, not the form in which the alcohol is consumed.

1.5

Higher excise duties do not tackle the alcohol abuse problems that exist with individuals. There is no conclusive evidence that high rates of excise duty reduce the problems of abuse over the longer term. Consequently, other measures based essentially on education and prevention, must be employed in order to tackle these problems and improve public health.

1.6

It is recommended that the Commission considers dividing alcoholic beverages into two basic categories, with the implementation of a standard basis for all alcoholic beverages included in these two categories as described at paragraphs 7.3 to 7.10 below, where all alcoholic drinks are taxed according to their their type, taking into account their means of production, effects on health and alcohol content. A separate approach should however be adopted for wine and other fermented drinks (beer, cider and perry).

1.7

It is recognised that such a change could not be implemented quickly and would have to be introduced over a considerable period of time.

2.1

The Commission has presented a report (1) on the operation of the EU wide system of minimum rates of taxation for alcohol and alcoholic beverages. It considers the way in which the current system works with respect to the functioning of the Internal Market. It concludes that more convergence between the rates of excise applied in the Member States could reduce fraud and distortions to competition.

2.2

However, it notes that Member States have widely different views on appropriate levels for the minimum rates (2) and, given that this is a subject that requires unanimity for change, wishes to launch a wide debate on the subject considering all appropriate aspects of the matter. The provisions of the structures directive (3) are also in need of further consideration and are included in this debate. This is the Committee's contribution.

3.1

The Commission's report provides a most useful analysis of the situation and gives many facts to show that change is needed if the Internal Market is to be more effective for the benefit of European consumers, clearer for those who are involved in the alcoholic drinks industry, less distorting to competition and instrumental in reducing the current problems over fraud and smuggling.

3.2

It also gives data showing how important the revenues that MS derive from excise duties on alcoholic drinks are (4) and the extent to which they diverge (5).

3.3

Each MS has its own tax policies and they currently show no sign of wanting to harmonise them. This accounts for the failure of the Commission, despite its efforts, to report on the implementation of the current system at the intervals required in the original directive. The frequency of reporting should be made more realistic, possibly setting it at once every 5 years.

3.4

When MS set such policies they take into account past experience, public health, relevant research and the different cultures and lifestyles of their populations. The taxation area is one where changes can only be made by unanimity and so any significant changes that may be agreed would have to take effect over time.

3.5

It is worth recalling that the excise taxes (6) in question are on beverages containing alcohol, but are applied at different rates depending on the category of alcohol concerned.

4.1

Tax induced distortions of competition (7) and diversions of trade are not in accord with the principles of the internal market looked at in isolation; both are still features of the alcoholic beverages market in the EU.

4.2

On the other hand, the internal market does allow the consumer to benefit from the possibility of making cross border purchases of alcohol. This Committee supported the recent proposal to increase and rationalise these benefits by allowing, in particular, distance purchasing of alcohol, which is positive from the point of view of free movement of goods.

4.3

However, most MS are having to accept the need to use more resources to fight the smuggling and fraud that have resulted primarily from the different excise (and VAT) rates applied. This criminal activity is a serious problem for the EU, most often directly affecting those MS that have chosen to tax alcohol the most highly.

4.4

The effect of enlargement (if any in this area) is not yet clear. Since the same directives apply, and since several ‘enlargement’ MS have had to increase the excise rates that they applied before accession, there should not be very different results in these countries.

5.1

The only step that MS would agree to take towards approximation in 1992 was to set ‘minimum rates’ for each category of alcoholic drinks. These rates were set at the following rates:

5.2

Any MS may set an excise rate above the agreed minimum rate at any time. Thus failure to raise the existing minimum rates is not crucial from the point of view of raising revenue. Some MS have been forced to raise excise duty on alcohol whilst others have lowered it (9), providing closer approximation and reducing the incentive for cross border purchases (legal) and fraud and alcohol smuggling in the single market (illegal). The proposal merely brings the excise rates closer to the minimum rates rather than achieving genuine harmonisation, as each Member State will continue to set its own base rate.

6.1

Five MS (10) at present acknowledge that they take public health into account in setting their tax policies. But a recent Economic and Financial Affairs Council considering the subject of this opinion (11) noted that the great majority of MS do not consider that health and social questions should play a major role in fixing of excise tax rates (12).

6.2

Alcohol is a part of a normal lifestyle for the majority of EU adult consumers. Of these the great majority are responsible in their alcohol consumption habits. A certain amount of alcohol consumption can bring health benefits for some groups. However, the problems from excessive consumption of alcohol can be, and often are, serious. The problems affect their own health, but also cause serious social problems and can have adverse economic effects. Of particular concern is the abuse by some younger consumers (13). There is also a need for more education in the dietary aspects of alcohol (14). It is abuse that needs to be tackled, rather than moderate consumption, and, in general, the need for comprehensive education in nutrition.

6.3

The question in this context is whether higher tax rates (and hence higher prices, since the tax component of many alcoholic drinks exceeds the product price) can provide a solution to abuse.

6.4

The evidence on which any answer to this question can be based is not clear. Price rises can have an effect on overall consumption but there is no reliable evidence that any such reduction in consumption includes those who abuse alcohol. There is evidence that where a particular form of alcoholic beverage is taxed exceptionally highly relative to other products its consumption is reduced as the consumer turns to other (less highly taxed and therefore cheaper) products. We conclude that high prices are not of themselves a solution to alcohol abuse.

6.5

Conversely it is not easy to establish whether the sudden impact of significant reduction in taxation is likely to have an unwelcome effect on consumption in other than the short term; the indications are that significant reductions should be phased in over time.

6.6

Abuse is best tackled by education, information and training programmes primarily aimed at those who do abuse alcohol. The Commission should take this into account in proposing their public health policies (15).

7.1

Faced with the realities of the current situation we conclude that the present system, which has evolved over time, is unsatisfactory in the context of the single market. While the internal market is working very well in many areas, in the alcoholic drinks area diversions of trade and tax induced distortions of competition persist. Further, despite increasing efforts by MS illegality, in the form of fraud and smuggling, shows no sign of being brought to significantly lower levels.

7.2

The Committee agrees that greater convergence would contribute to reducing fraud and distortions to competition. Further, while they have agreed to increase the existing minimum rates in line with inflation they have not been able to agree on the other problem areas (see footnote 3 above). However, there is no good reason why the Commission should not propose to MS changes in the existing structures and excise system.

7.3

Recognising the current considerable variations within the EU of both direct and indirect taxation, it is unrealistic to expect the sudden introduction of a radical new system; but it is time to suggest a new system that could be introduced gradually over a long period of time.

7.4

The necessary start point is to recognise that the product should be taxed according to its classification as a fermented or distilled beverage. Fermented drinks are natural beverages, produced agriculturally and for consumption, made exclusively by fermenting grapes, grains, fleshy fruits or berries. Distilled drinks or spirits refer to all those beverages which have been distilled, or those which have been mixed with other distilled drinks or other liquids, or any alcoholic drinks whose production is not subject to specific regulations.

7.5

In particular the consequences on the CMO (16) for wine would need very careful consideration; the EU wine industry is already facing substantial challenges (such as falling consumption in many MS and greater market penetration by imported wine). Other categories of alcoholic drinks have similar difficulties.

7.5.1

Further to the previous point, it should be pointed out that wine represents a significant supplementary activity for farmers. Many winegrowers produce wine for their own family consumption, independently of their production for cooperatives or wholesalers, selling any surplus to a small number of private local individuals. Article 10 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC already allows MS to exempt from excise duty wine produced by a private individual for personal consumption (by self, family or guests, but not where a sale is involved) (17). Similarly in article 29 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC MS are permitted to exempt small wine producers (18) from the requirements relating to movements and monitoring of their products. If MS do not allow these permitted exemptions they could represent an additional economic burden for a wine-producing sector which is already affected by competition from newly-emerging third countries. Wine would then have a fair case to be excluded from the ensuing rationale.

7.6

We therefore recommend that a minimum rate should be set by the Commission for all alcoholic beverages in each category; i.e. a minimum rate for fermented beverages and a minimum rate for distilled beverages. In addition, we propose taxing the alcohol content of each particular beverage within each category; for example, the same quantity of product would pay four times as much at 40 %abv (19) compared with the same quantity of product at 10 %abv.

7.7

Fermented beverages have one particular problem that other categories of alcoholic drink do not have. The alcohol content of any fermented beverage can (and does) change according to various factors that affect the raw material and means of production. It will therefore be necessary to establish a somewhat more flexible approach to fermented beverages, by placing them in bands according to their strength, to avoid unduly complicating the work of producers and traders.

7.8

Such a system would enable Member States to retain the possibility of setting a zero rate for wine or other fermented beverages, and to extend this option to the entire fermented beverage category.

7.9

This would result in a genuine simplification of alcohol taxation, though it would not decrease the scope for fraud while MS continue to set widely different rates for alcohol taxation.

7.10

Under this system there would be no need to try to fit the increasing number of new products into a structure not suited to them; they would simply be charged based entirely on their alcohol content (abv).

7.11

Further, the excise system would be more robust and have no significant distortions and Common Nomenclature (CN) problems would be resolved.

7.12

Alcohol and health, as stated above, is a matter of concern; but under such a system of all alcohol being taxed on a standard basis, the tax burden would be heaviest on those who consumed the most alcoholic beverages depending on whether these are exclusively fermented or distilled. This would help understanding that concerning health what matters primarily are drinking patterns, bearing in mind the benefits of moderate consumption as compared to the dangers of abusive consumption.

21.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/16

1.1

The Committee is very surprised and concerned by the submission of such a legislative proposal: its provisions are disproportionate and infringe fundamental rights.

1.2

The proposal's approach to fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy, is inappropriate and could clash on certain aspects.

1.3

It runs the risk of undermining the confidence of users of electronic communications and discouraging them from using ICTs. This loss of consumer confidence could hinder the future development of the information society in the long term and thus jeopardise the Lisbon Strategy.

1.4

The Committee doubts that the proposal fully complies with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, due to the absence of reasons for concluding that a Community objective can be better achieved at Community level.

1.5

The additional costs incurred by operators from the storage and transmission of the data referred to in the proposal should be considered as a charge that ought to be borne by the providers simply as a part of being on the market, rather than by the public purse and thus all citizens.

1.6

For all the above reasons, the Commission should substantially revise this proposal. As a whole it does not, in the Committee's opinion, comply with either fundamental rights or the rules of access, use and exchange of data.

2.1.1

There are currently various Community provisions on the obligations of service providers. The data in question here are those referred to in Article 1, in conjunction with Article 2a of Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 (1). This directive deals with the general obligations of Member States and is aimed at ensuring protection of the privacy of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

2.1.2

In addition, Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 (2) specifically addresses the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. The Committee issued an opinion (3) on the proposal at the time.

2.1.3

The principle underpinning the two directives is that stored data should be deleted once their retention can no longer be justified. Directive 2002/58/EC ensures that providers of publicly available electronic communications services take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of their services; the Member States must ensure the confidentiality of electronic communications, and in particular prohibit listening, tapping and storage by persons other than the users, with the exception of providers for billing purposes, and then only for as long as needed. Traffic and location data may only be processed when they are made anonymous or with the consent of the users.

2.1.4

Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC enables Member States to retain data in exceptional cases, where it is deemed necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the prosecution of criminal offences. Member States were unable to agree on a time limit for such retention in the negotiations on the Directive on data protection in electronic communications and had to abandon attempts to fix a limit.

2.1.5

On 25 March 2004, the European Council considered the possibility of establishing rules on the retention of data generated by providers of electronic communications services. In response, four Member States (France, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) presented a draft initiative with a view to adoption of a Council Framework Decision on the retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or data on public communications networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism.

2.1.6

This proposal was rejected by the European Parliament, which harboured doubts over its legal basis, the proportionality of the measures and the possible contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (4).

2.2.1

The Commission has submitted a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the basis of Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

2.2.2

This is a regulatory instrument designed to harmonise the legislation of the Member States. In order to prevent, investigate, detect and prosecute certain crimes (especially terrorism and organised crime), it establishes the obligations of providers of electronic communications services regarding the storage and processing of data (Article 1(1)).

2.2.3

The proposal applies to the traffic and location data of legal and private persons who send or receive these communications. However, it does not apply to the content of these communications (Article 1(2)).

2.2.4

To this end, the proposal requires the Member States to adopt measures to ensure that operators of these services retain the data in question and send them only to the national authorities responsible for preventing and combating crime, in accordance with the objectives of the proposal (Article 3).

2.2.5

Furthermore, the proposal specifies the categories of data to be retained. Data needed to identify the source and destination of the communication, the time and duration of the communication, the type of communication, the location of users, etc. (Article 4 and Annex).

2.2.6

It also states that data are to be retained for a period of one year for fixed or mobile telephone communications, and six months for Internet communications (Article 7).

2.2.7

It also establishes the operator's duty to transmit the data retained, at the request of the competent national authorities (Article 8), and the Member States' duty to provide the European Commission annually with certain statistical data regarding this (Article 9).

2.2.8

Finally, it establishes the national authorities' duty to reimburse communications operators for all additional costs incurred from the storage and transmission of the data in question (Article 10).

2.3.1

The Committee is very surprised and concerned by the submission of such a legislative proposal: its provisions seem disproportionate and infringe fundamental rights.

2.3.2

In its proposal, the Commission turns current national public security measures into ‘measures having equivalent effect’ (obstacles to the internal telecommunications market) that should be removed in accordance with Article 14 of the EC Treaty.

2.3.3

This proposal will have far-reaching implications for the protection of all users of electronic communications services. It runs the risk of undermining consumer confidence and discouraging them from using both ICTs in general and, more specifically, new electronic services. This loss of consumer confidence could hinder the future development of the information society in the long term and thus jeopardise the Lisbon Strategy.

2.3.4

It is difficult to understand the proposal's approach to fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy. The Commission uses two different parameters of legality and applies its own particular test, after which it concludes that the proposal does not infringe fundamental rights.

2.3.5

Firstly, it uses Article 15.1(1) which, although it appears in Directive 2002/58/EC, reproduces, almost word for word, provisions from the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights (Article 4 and 12) and of the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 9, 10 and 11). These provisions have been subject to much exhaustive interpretation by the competent bodies and authorities; it is therefore unacceptable that the Commission claims to give ex novo interpretations of the issue.

2.3.6

Secondly, this test of legality is dependent on various provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a regulatory instrument which, although supported by the broadest possible European consensus, is still not in force and cannot be invoked in law as a guarantee of justice.

2.3.7

Incomprehensibly, this already flimsy test is revealed to be further flawed by the fact that the Commission only takes into consideration Articles 7 (respect for private and family life) and 8 (protection of personal data) of the Charter, ignoring other rules, such as Articles 36 (access to services of general interest), 38 (consumer protection), 47 (the right an effective remedy) or 48 (presumption of innocence).

2.3.8

The Commission should think and act more meticulously and scrupulously with regard to fundamental rights, to avoid a future declaration of the unconstitutionality (5) of the proposed rules by the Member States' constitutional courts.

2.3.9

With regard to the principle of subsidiarity, it is surprising that the Commission explains that to date neither the Council nor the Parliament have been able to agree on a solution to the problems in question and hence calls for supranational action in the field of the internal market as a way of proceeding with its regulation.

2.3.10

This form of reasoning would be logical if security problems were comparable to others that affect the functioning of the internal market (for example, those to do with trade, tax or labour), if there were final deadlines for the adoption of rules (established in the Treaties or in secondary legislation), or finally, if it were possible and necessary to create a uniform legal area in this matter.

2.3.11

However, security of the State is not provided for in Community law, in contrast to the concepts of public order and security set out in the Treaties to justify, if applicable, the adoption of exceptional security measures by Member States.

2.3.12

There is no clear basis in the Treaties for action, nor any deadline that necessitates immediate of their action. Finally, the security threats facing Member States cannot be subsumed in a harmonisation instrument that aims to take an identical (for want of a common) approach to different situations.

2.3.13

With regard to the principle of proportionality, any rule restricting fundamental rights requires by law the participation, by means of a law, of national parliaments, as well as legislative guarantees of (ex ante or ex post) judicial control. It is difficult to imagine how the disappearance of a few ‘invisible barriers’ that obstruct the provision of electronic services communications throughout the internal market can bring about a succession of changes to national laws that guarantee fundamental rights, as well as the national systems that safeguard them.

2.3.14

Therefore, the Committee doubts that the proposal complies with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, due to the absence of reasons for concluding that a Community objective can be better achieved at Community level.

2.3.15

Furthermore, it is surprising that the Commission proposal only refers to the needs and legitimate rights of communications operators, completely overlooking those of consumers and forgetting that the Community is expected to contribute ‘to the strengthening of consumer protection’(Article 3t, TEC), ‘ensure a high level of consumer protection’ and ‘contribute to protecting the…economic interests of consumers’ (Article 153, TEC).

2.4.1

The proposal is based on Article 95(1) of the TEC. In this context, the Committee recommends taking into consideration the possible impact on the pillar of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, particularly in the case of non-Community operators of electronic communications, where the states of origin require specific agreements with Member States to establish reciprocal conditions for provision of services for reasons of national security.

2.4.2

In its draft directive, specifically Article 1, the Commission seems to overlook the fact that, although data within its area of application is apparently ‘neutral’ (the identity of the source and destination of communications, duration of communications, location, frequency, etc.), this information constitutes an invasion of privacy and in many cases can also encroach on other rights such as professional secrecy or the right to legal assistance.

2.4.3

Under the current approach to European public order, established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Member States' constitutional traditions, the right to privacy is defined not only passively but also, albeit with less force, actively.

2.4.4

That is to say, individuals, EU citizens or not, have the right to know who is intercepting their communications, why and how often, as well as the right to access any database, public or private, where this type of information is kept (6).

2.4.5

The proposal affects fundamental rights, specifically Article 8 of the ECHR, and can have a considerable impact on civil liberties and fundamental rights. Therefore the Committee believes that, as with any exception to the general rule, its content should be limited to laying down provisions that affect these rights as little as possible.

2.4.6

The categories of data to be retained, enumerated in Article 4 and in the Annex, constitute an initial list that can be revised using the comitology procedure. However, the Committee considers it inappropriate that, as this concerns a fundamental right, the Parliament would not be involved in any extension of the categories of data to be retained. This is a methodology much more appropriate to neutral technical standards than the rules on the retention of data that are addressed in the proposal.

2.4.7

The amount of data to be retained seems excessive if the aim is simply to find information useful to an investigation; therefore the quantity of data to be retained should be limited and commensurate with what is required to achieve the proposal's aim. Access to the data must not be possible without judicial authorisation. Hence, the aim set out in the proposal of preventing certain criminal activities is difficult to understand, although the retention of traffic data may be useful to an investigation and to other aims set out in the proposal.

2.4.8

The period of retention is too long, since the Commission does not justify the need to retain data for this length of time. The Committee believes that a standard six months would be a reasonable amount of time, with appropriate security and confidentiality measures.

2.4.9

The directive does not lay down rules that prevent possible access to retained data by the providers and other interested parties; therefore it must be stipulated that this data may only be accessed in specific cases and under judicial supervision. Regrettably, the proposal does not explain how retained data would be protected during the required time periods.

2.4.10

The proposal's reference to data being transmitted to the ‘competent national authorities’ is excessively general and it should be expressly stated that the retained data may only be sent to authorities that can guarantee the quality, confidentiality and security of the data obtained. The Committee believes that there are certain concepts in the proposal, such as the above, that merit some definition to avoid different interpretations.

2.4.11

It is surprising that Article 10 of the proposal provides for so-called ‘additional costs’ incurred by operators in fulfilling the duties of storing and transmitting data, and that, according to the Commission, they should be reimbursed from public funds because, as stated in Recital 13 of the proposal, ‘the benefits in terms of public security impact on society in general’.

2.4.12

The Committee completely disagrees with the Commission on this point and believes that this statement is, to say the least, inaccurate. Each Member State is free to establish the amount and formula of compensation for these costs, in line with their own criteria, circumstances and security needs, although as recognised by the Commission (Recital 5), many Member States have not even established any such legislation.

2.4.13

The Commission's criterion raises the following questions:

2.4.14

Therefore, and assuming that the proposal for a Directive is successful, these costs should be considered as a charge that is to be borne by the providers, not by the public purse and thus all citizens, simply as part of being able to operate in the market. The Committee believes that this proposal to reimburse additional costs is inappropriate and should be removed.

2.4.15

For all the above reasons, the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties and of their core principles as stated in Articles 6(1) (7) and 6(2) (8) of the TEU, should substantially revise this proposal. As a whole it does not, in the Committee's opinion, respect either fundamental rights or the rules of access, use and exchange of data.

21.3.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/22

1.1

At the end of October 2003 the Commission presented a recast proposal for Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 (COM(2003)808) on the establishment of a European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

The legal basis was Article 308 of the Treaty.

1.2

After discussions at the Council it was decided to change the legal basis of the proposal to Article 152, which implies use of the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament. At the same time, on the basis of the discussions at the Council, minor changes were made to the proposed Regulation, which were presented at the end of August 2005.

2.1

The EESC issued an opinion on the first proposal in October 2004 (1). The standpoints taken then form the basis for the present opinion, in particular the view that civil society organisations that deal with drug issues should be involved in the work of the EMCDDA.

2.2

The EESC welcomes the changed legal basis for the proposal. Proper consultation with the European Parliament is natural here, not least in order to guarantee public transparency in the EMCDDA. Under the new proposal (2), the Parliament is given an enhanced role, including the right to designate two independent experts with specialist knowledge in the field of drugs as members of the Centre's management board. The Committee strongly recommends that the two independent experts should be from NGOs with expertise in the field of drugs.

2.3

The EESC also draws attention to the draft inter-institutional agreement on the operating framework for European regulatory agencies, which states that the agencies must be organised in such a way as to guarantee the participation of interested parties and a high level of transparency (3). Among other things, it calls for representatives of interested parties to be designated as members of the management board. In addition, reference is made to the White Paper on European governance.