27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/1

1.

The EESC emphatically confirms its opinions on the Constitutional Treaty of 24 September 2003 (1), 28 October 2004 (2) and 17 May 2006 (3), as well as its resolution of 14 March 2007 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome (4). In all these opinions, the EESC unreservedly declared its support for the Convention method as well as the outcome.

2.

The EESC continues to support the Constitutional Treaty, which differs fundamentally and positively from all the institutional texts hitherto produced by the various Intergovernmental Conferences revising the Treaties of Rome in the following ways: it came about with the participation of national and European parliamentarians in free and public debate; it systematically summarises in one single text the entire political and institutional arrangements as they have evolved since the establishment of the European Communities; it contains the provisions for the necessary institutional and procedural reforms of the European Union's decision-making system, describes the objectives that the EU must pursue, states the values which should form the foundation of its policies, and codifies the fundamental rights that it must respect and protect.

3.

All this has justified calling the Convention's draft a ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’. Owing to numerous misunderstandings, the term ‘constitution’ has, however, met with rejection in some Member States. The EESC is not opposed to the new treaty being given a new name. The substance is more important than the name.

4.

The following reasons, which contribute to the strengthening of the EU's democratic legitimacy, are of decisive importance to the EESC, as the institutional representation of organised civil society, for its continued support for the Constitutional Treaty:

5.

The EESC points out that the Heads of State or Government of all the Member States approved the Constitutional Treaty at a meeting of the European Council and formally signed it at a ceremony in Rome on 29 October 2004. Since then the Constitutional Treaty has also been ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Member States with a population representing a clear majority of the citizens of the European Union. The EESC therefore insists that the Constitutional Treaty must remain the basis for further discussions to solve the present crisis.

6.

The EESC supports the German Presidency in its intention to present a roadmap for future endeavours to solve the crisis on the occasion of the meeting of the European Council on 21 and 22 June 2007, and welcomes the fact that in the Berlin Declaration of 25 March 2007 the European Parliament elections of 2009 were set as a deadline for the entry into force of the new Constitution.

7.

This means that by the end of 2007 an Intergovernmental Conference of short duration must adopt the changes to the existing draft that are necessary in order to forge a new consensus. The mandate for this Intergovernmental Conference will accordingly have to list precisely the few provisions on which discussions can be reopened. The outcome would have to be ratified by all Member States during the course of 2008.

8.

The fresh discussions on the Treaty must preserve the substance of what was decided at the European Convention and afterwards unanimously approved by the Heads of State and Government. These include, first and foremost, the institutional and procedural innovations as well as the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This means: Part I (Objectives, Institutions, Framework of the Union), Part II (The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union) and Part IV (General and Final Provisions) must remain as they are; Part III in essence contains the provisions of the current Treaties which relate to the policies of the European Union which need not necessarily form part of the new Treaty; the institutional and procedural provisions of Part III should, where they go further than existing law, be incorporated into Part I.

9.

The EESC will follow the work of the Intergovernmental Conference in a constructive way. However, it also stresses that, despite the expected short duration of the Intergovernmental Conference and despite its limited mandate, civil society organisations should be given the opportunity for consultative involvement. The EESC is prepared, in cooperation with the Council Presidency, to organise the appropriate information and consultation meetings; here it can draw on its positive experience of cooperation with the Praesidium as well as with the European Parliament during the work of the European Convention.

10.

There is an urgent need for a speedy resolution of the present crisis by the adoption of a treaty that meets the requirements of a Union of 27 Member States. For new challenges make it essential that the European Union reaches agreements on new policies and takes far-reaching decisions, above all with regard to the further development of the European social model, of which services of general interest (SGIs) are a component, and the strengthening of the social dimension of European integration; tackling the negative effects which have been brought about by the globalisation of all economic, social and cultural relations; promoting economic growth and strengthening competitiveness; tackling climate change; ensuring energy supply; dealing with problems relating to immigration; and combating poverty and social exclusion.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/3

1.1

The Committee will continue to monitor the coordinated implementation of the 2004 Directive, the amended proposal for a Directive under consideration, and the relevant supplementing Framework Decisions in order to assess the long-term effectiveness of the fight against counterfeiting and its international repercussions, also outside the Community.

1.2

Although the Committee supports the general approach adopted in the proposed provisions, it nevertheless calls on the Commission to consider the comments made in this opinion, which recommends placing the main emphasis on judicial and customs cooperation and efforts to combat large-scale counterfeiting and counterfeiting by criminal organisations or where the offence involves risk to people's health or safety.

1.3

In particular, the Committee believes that the Directive should cover industrial property rights as a whole, and that, as a result, invention patents, which are the most important area for European industry, should not be excluded.

1.4

The EESC notes that certain legal concepts are unclear, such as ‘on a commercial scale’ or ‘commercial activities’ in relation to the criminal practices referred to in the proposal for a Directive, which conflicts with the basic principles of criminal law that require a clear and precisely defined, objective substantiation of a crime. The EESC also criticises the way in which crimes covered by Article 2 of the proposal are defined, since it believes that only one general framework should be provided for criminal sanctions (imprisonment or financial penalties and fines), so that responsibility for defining the punishments remains exclusively within the national jurisdictions.

2.1

In MEMO/05/437 of 23 November 2005 summarising its Communication of the same date, the Commission welcomed the Court of Justice judgment recognising the competences of the Community to adopt dissuasive and proportionate criminal law measures to ensure the application of TEC provisions on Community policies.

2.2

In its communication, the Commission sets out its interpretation of the judgment of 13 September 2005 by which the Court of Justice annulled a Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law. In the Commission's opinion, the Court held that the Community had sole competence to take the criminal law measures needed to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. The scope of this judgment exceeds by far the field of the environment, taking in the whole range of Community policies and the fundamental freedoms recognised by the Treaty. The insertion of criminal penalties in Community law must be based on a duly justified need and respect the overall consistency of the construction of the criminal law of the Union.

2.3

This broad interpretation of a judgement concerning the environment was not unanimously endorsed by Member States and legal doctrine. Several believe that criminal charges and the corresponding level of criminal penalties are essentially subject to subsidiarity and that their possible harmonisation at EU level should be achieved through judicial cooperation between States, as provided for in the TEU.

2.4

It should be noted that this interpretation is very widely shared by the European Parliament since the areas liable to be covered by Community criminal law measures are no longer exclusively subject to the unanimity of Member States in Council, but to a qualified majority and co-decision procedures involving the European Parliament, whose competences as co-legislator are thus extended (1).

2.5

However, this constitutes a substantial broadening of Community competences, resulting from a court decision, and the risk of divergences of interpretation among the institutions could, inter alia, delay the adoption of legislation entailing criminal law measures, or subsequently restrict their scope through, for instance, further court cases or compromises. In the case of this proposal for a Directive, the question of whether or not to protect invention patents under criminal law remains open since the European Parliament considers that only Community law is affected by the court judgement, whereas the Commission's intention is to include all legislation, be it Community or national, on intellectual property rights.

3.1

The amended proposal for a Directive (COM(2006) 168 final), seeks to establish a harmonised, horizontal criminal-law framework to ensure the enforcement of industrial, literary and artistic property rights and other similar incorporeal rights (grouped under the term ‘intellectual property rights’). It concerns the internal market and was prompted by the clear need for European-level action in this field, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The legal basis for these measures is Article 95 TEC.

3.2

It sets out a general criminal-law framework defining protected intellectual property rights (IPR), infringements of these rights and maximum criminal penalties to ensure the uniform application throughout the internal market of measures to combat the counterfeiting of material goods, services and intellectual and artistic property protected under substantive European and national law as well as the relevant international Conventions including the TRIPS Agreement (2), signed in 1994 under the auspices of the WTO, which sets out the provisions for criminal procedures (3) to be applied in cases of infringement of specific protected rights.

3.3

A Directive adopted in 2004 already provides a framework for safeguarding against reproduction, piracy or counterfeiting for commercial purposes (4). A detailed list of rights protected under Article 2 of this Directive is set out in a Statement by the Commission (5). These rights apply to industrial property (invention patents and supplementary protection certificates, utility certificates, trademarks, designations of origin, designs and models, and plant varieties) and copyright and related rights, as well as the sui generis rights established under Community law to cover integrated circuit topographies and databases. They are exclusive rights, considered by the law as incorporeal property rights. Some of these rights are included in the acquis communautaire, or even covered by specific forms of Community protection (designs and models, trade marks, plant varieties) (6). Others, such as patents, remain entirely subject to national law, pending the European patent so much awaited by all industrial sectors. Thus, the term ‘intellectual property’ actually covers a very heterogeneous field of incorporeal rights with widely differing characteristics and legal statuses.

3.4

Member States are subject to the terms of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires the implementation of appropriate domestic legislation on criminal procedures and penalties for counterfeiting for commercial purposes. However, States are granted some leeway for interpretation. Furthermore, some States have not yet adopted proportionate criminal measures for IPR infringements occurring within their jurisdiction, and this includes EU Member States. The 2004 Directive enables the victims of such infringements to obtain compensation by compelling the Member States to investigate, initiate procedures, confiscate (7) and compensate, with a view to bringing the applicable law into line in the fight against organised crime (8), a context where counterfeiting is rife. However, the Directive only covers civil, commercial and administrative procedures and penalties that consist primarily in obtaining damages for owners of rights who have instituted anti-counterfeiting proceedings. Moreover, some Member States have yet to transpose the Directive.

3.5

The protection of intellectual property rights is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, a solemn declaration adopted in Nice in December 2000. International protection is also provided and safeguarded by Conventions concluded under the auspices of the relevant United Nations specialised agencies (WIPO, UNESCO) or at regional level (Munich Convention (1973) establishing the European Patent Office and the European patent). So far, only the TRIPS Agreement makes provision for minimum criminal penalties. The Commission proposal seeks to achieve a degree of uniformity at EU level by obliging Member States to include criminal penalties in their domestic laws and define offences and a common standard for penalties.

3.6

The amended proposal for a Directive therefore aims to approximate the level of penalties for IPR infringements such as imprisonment, criminal fines and confiscation. It seeks to establish jurisdiction rules to centralise legal proceedings in a single Member State, wherever possible, if the offence concerns several Member States, and to facilitate investigations. It further proposes involving the victims or their legal representatives in the investigations.

3.7

The main amendment vis-à-vis the previous proposals consists in setting the level and nature of penalties applicable to persons convicted of any infringement of intellectual property rights, also defined in the proposal.

3.8

Natural persons convicted of the offences referred to in Article 3 of the Directive will be liable to a maximum sentence of at least four years' imprisonment when they are acting under the aegis of a criminal organisation or when the offence carries a health or safety risk. (Article 2(1)).

3.9

Natural or legal persons convicted of offences under Article 3 of the Directive will be liable to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, including criminal and non criminal fines to a maximum of at least EUR 100 000 (EUR 300 000 for the serious cases referred to in Article 2(1), without prejudice to the application of more serious sentences in the case of risk of death or infirmity).

3.10

Domestic law should provide for the confiscation of crime-related counterfeit goods, property and instrumentalities, at least in serious cases (organised crime, health or safety risks) (Article 3).

3.11

The amended proposal permits Member States to apply more stringent provisions.

3.12

Following the withdrawal of the proposal for a Council Framework Decision accompanying the initial proposal, the Commission intends to apply a horizontal approach to the criminal procedures adopted on 23.12.2005, which are aimed at supporting mutual judicial assistance and aligning the levels of penalties in different countries in order to be able to involve Eurojust (9).

3.13

Member States are responsible for initiating investigations and proceedings, which should not depend solely on a complaint by a victim.

4.1

The Committee notes the growing use of an ambiguous term: intellectual property. The term merges distinct legal concepts and diverse methods of protection and use. Nevertheless, the term has gained currency in European and international law. The nature, duration and scope of each of the relevant incorporeal rights vary considerably. Each has its own specific legal framework, different territorial validity and specific institutions for the registration and protection of patents. Moreover, the interpretation of infringements of these rights may vary from one country to another and is changing rapidly in some cases.

4.2

The analysis of the composition of medicines (without using or publishing the results), or the inverse engineering of software or electronic components for the purpose of interoperability or exercising a legitimate right such as the right to private copying by circumventing a protection tool (generally quite weak) could constitute counterfeiting or illicit copying in several Member States, where the penalties might also be very high, even in the absence of commercial or criminal intent.

4.2.1

The Committee has already argued in favour of Community-level coordination to combat all forms of commercial counterfeiting affecting the European economy and to clamp down on crimes against industrial property rights and copyright (10) that do serious damage to the European economy. Large-scale counterfeiting is often carried out by criminal organisations or organised gangs and may endanger health, safety or life. The latter instances should be treated as aggravating circumstances in determining criminal penalties. The proposal for a Directive should set out the principle of increased penalties in all aggravating circumstances.

4.2.2

As in the case of the 2004 Directive, the Committee approves of the fact that the proposed harmonisation is restricted to infringements committed on a commercial scale and therefore liable to impact substantially on the single market. It would also be useful to define the term ‘commercial’ more clearly, for instance, by relating it to counterfeit goods or services which are intended to be sold in quantities large enough to result in significant financial loss or which are dangerous irrespective of the quantities sold, or in any case where those committing such offences do so with a view to obtaining an unlawful economic gain. The application of criminal penalties presupposes a clear threat to law and order, the intensity and gravity of which might vary. The offence and the penalty must be proportionate to the risk. However, one may question whether the distinctions between ‘infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale’ and ‘serious offences’ are clear and whether the severity of the penalties corresponds to the principle of proportionality inherent to criminal law. Furthermore, private file sharing on the Internet or reproduction (or music remixes), or the representation of material or intellectual works amongst family members or private individuals for educational or experimental purposes are implicitly excluded from the proposed Directive's scope of application. It would be appropriate to spell out this exclusion.

4.2.3

The Committee would emphasise that the incorporeal rights affected by counterfeiting are not absolute rights. Each right has its own specificities and, in principle, grants exclusivity and a temporary monopoly on commercial use, which vary in duration and geographical validity. In other words, it constitutes a temporary protectionist measure (in exchange for the publication of inventions in the case of patents, and intellectual works in the case of copyright). Nevertheless, the licence holders and authorised or bona fide users of products and services or intellectual works also have rights, which are sometimes very extensive in the case of some licences (11). Several domestic systems of law contain inconsistencies and place the rights of producers, distributors and industries before consumers' rights. The intention of incorporating heavy criminal penalties into domestic law would appear to contribute further to this bias in many countries. This leads to a paradox whereby the maximum penalty for a commercial-scale infringement set out in the proposal for a Directive could prove to be equal or lighter than the maximum penalty for a single infringement.

4.2.4

The Committee would like the Commission to initiate, perhaps by conducting an in-depth comparative study following transposition into domestic law, a thorough overhaul of domestic criminal law in the light of Community criminal law, in order to ensure genuine harmonisation throughout the EU. This is particularly important in the case of copyright and related rights, where ever more stringent lawmaking sometimes results in scales of sanctions and penalties that are disproportionate and serve no genuine purpose since the commercial models for the distribution of works are still in full development, with the projected elimination of DRM (protection against copying) in the short-term, and since, in some cases, the tax on support tools largely compensates the right holders for unauthorised copying.

4.3.1

The Committee would like the question of the nature of the offence of inciting acts of counterfeiting of products or services of intellectual property to be better clarified. A criminal offence must include an element of intent on the part of the perpetrator or his accomplices. The TRIPS Agreement refers to ‘wilful trademark counterfeiting’ and the Directive uses the words ‘wilful’, ‘intentional’ and ‘deliberate’. There must also be a material element to the offence, i.e. commission of the offence or, at least, an attempt tantamount to initiation of the offence. These two elements are cumulative; mere intention does not constitute an offence (unless we set up a thought police). In general, incitement to commit a crime can only be established if the inciter supplies the tools (generally illicit) for the specific purpose of committing the crime. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the mere provision of widely used materials or software, or access to the Internet, cannot be equated with complicity or criminal incitement (generally present in only a limited number of criminal law situations, and difficult to prove) if counterfeiters use these means. The concept of complicity should be sufficient in Community law since shared responsibility is regulated in detail by domestic law. Otherwise, this could result in convictions in the absence of intent, which would create great legal uncertainty for many equipment and service providers.

4.3.2

The unlawful reproduction of works, models, procedures or inventions protected by a temporary monopoly constitutes the offence of counterfeiting. It is advisable to stick to this definition, without extending it to include piracy (which generally involves gaining fraudulent access to IT systems in order to gain control of them and steal data or use the bandwidth, generally for illegal ends). Piracy differs from counterfeiting in the strict sense and strict definitions should continue to apply to criminal offences. The unauthorised hacking into IT systems, data or bandwidth theft, and attacks on privacy should unquestionably be subject to appropriate criminal proceedings, but they do not directly constitute counterfeiting. Combating IT piracy should be addressed specifically, even if the terms are applied inaccurately in a number of policy declarations, which tend to use them interchangeably and cause a degree of confusion. IT piracy is used by terrorist organisations and should be the focus of special attention and appropriate international cooperation.

4.3.3

The term ‘organised gangs’ should be added to the terms ‘criminal organisation’ and ‘organised crime’ used in the explanatory memorandum, because the term already exists as an aggravating circumstance in some criminal law systems. Commercial counterfeiting committed by organised gangs or criminal organisations should constitute an aggravating circumstance justifying heavier penalties or fines.

4.3.4

The Commission states that Member States are free to adopt more severe penalties or to penalise other acts. This could be interpreted as encouragement to criminalise non-commercial acts or even extend the definition of criminal counterfeiting to acts that do not, strictly speaking, constitute the reproduction or copying of a product, procedure or intellectual work.

4.3.5

The Committee has reservations about the fact that Community law and certain other systems of national law are effectively equating copying software for circumventing or deactivating DRM systems (12) (copy-protection systems, equipment or software, often ineffective and non-encrypted) with the counterfeiting of DRM systems, whereas what is being defined as ‘counterfeiting’ does not constitute copying or reproducing the original system. Furthermore, DRM systems are not standard. They differ according to their platform or provider, and file formats may be proprietary, which impedes interoperability or is intended to create a captive market by eliminating competition. The creation and use of copying methods to enable consumers or companies holding software licences to exercise their rights (copying for personal use, backup copy for use on different equipment) should not be penalised per se in the absence of criminal intent and active commission of a criminal act on a commercial scale.

4.3.6

The Committee supports the principle of making the initiation of criminal proceedings independent of any civil action or criminal charges brought by the victim. Indeed, where mafia-type criminal organisations are involved, the victim might be reluctant to initiate proceedings to protect his rights. Moreover, commercial counterfeiting, especially when carried out by organised criminal gangs or criminal organisations, not to mention terrorists, affects the economy and social welfare. For this reason, it is the State's responsibility to clamp down on it.

4.3.7

The Committee hopes that effective cooperation between Member States will make it possible to combat international counterfeiting networks effectively, especially those connected with criminal organisations and money laundering activities. In this context, we should bear in mind that many of these networks operate from third countries, and that it is vital to extend action beyond the EU's borders through the resources offered by international law.

4.3.8

At Community level, the Committee believes that joint police investigation teams should work together with customs teams as well as with the victims of counterfeiting and their appointed experts. The EESC welcomes the fact that victims are to be involved in investigations but recommends limiting their role purely to providing information to the public authorities. It would be inappropriate for a company, following an accusation of commercial counterfeiting, to be involved in monitoring activities or confiscating the property of a competitor, who is presumed innocent until proved otherwise in Court. The Committee feels strongly that it is important to resist tendencies towards private justice or interference or intrusion in criminal proceedings by persons holding no public authority.

4.3.9

Finally, the Committee is concerned about the growing tendency for Internet networks to be taken over for commercial purposes and by calls for the extension of criminal law penalties provided under the TRIPS Agreement to this area, as clearly called for in the United States Department of Commerce's 2006 Special 301 and Super 301 Report (13), in application of the WIPO treaties on intellectual property on the Internet, which is a free instrument in the public domain and a common universal good.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/8

1.1

The Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 23-24 March 2006 ask for summary reports by the European Economic and Social Committee in support of the Partnership for Growth and Employment in early 2008.

1.2

Furthermore the European Council proposed specific areas for priority actions for the period 2005-2008:

2.1

Although the Lisbon Strategy has produced positive results, it has not fully delivered so far in particular in the areas of economic and industrial growth and the creation of more and better jobs. In terms of global competition, Europe is facing challenges from traditional and more recent competitors it cannot adequately deal with.

2.2

Europe's businesses face an incomplete single market to operate in, especially regarding harmonisation of tax rules, too slow implementation of directives by Member States, remaining administrative burdens, lack of labour mobility. SMEs, in particular, have difficulties in overcoming these obstacles.

2.3

Other challenges to overcome are the lack of entrepreneurship, the ageing of the population and its effect on entrepreneurship, labour supply and a greater need to focus on transfer of business, access to finance in the start-up and growth phase, access to research results and thus of innovation opportunities.

2.4

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises play a key role in attaining the Lisbon goals. Nevertheless, their necessary contribution has been neglected in the first years of implementation. Especially the involvement of the SME-organisations in the assessment of the progress should be better developed as well as their role in promoting the SME's on all policy levels. At the occasion of the next revision of the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs for the years 2008-2010, the EESC calls for better targeted and streamlined integrated guidelines on SMEs, especially for the chapter on micro-economic reforms. In order to implement them at large in the process, the EESC urges the Council to give the Charter for Small Enterprises a legal basis — as requested by the Parliament — in order to strengthen the base for more action. The following policy lines and actions are deemed crucial in order to develop the business potential of SMEs.

2.4.1

The EESC urges Commission and Council to make every effort to contribute to making the ‘think small first’ principle a guiding principle in all relevant legislation.

2.4.2

The EESC calls for a ‘Year of the Entrepreneur’ in 2009 to emphasise the key role entrepreneurs play for growth and welfare and to stimulate young people and others to consider entrepreneurship as a career.

2.4.3

The EESC calls for endeavours to assure an effective Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, providing efficient support and easy access to SMEs, and a 7th Research and Development Framework Programme and Structural Funds facilitating access to SMEs. The effectiveness and accessibility of these programmes as well as JEREMIE should be closely monitored.

2.4.4

The most valuable asset of a company is its human capital. Adequate support structures, tailor-made training offers and well designed financial incentives should help SMEs to up-grade competences and skills of workers as well as entrepreneurs by further investing in continuous training.

2.4.5

The EESC calls for the Commission to make an analysis of SME involvement in community programmes. If the participation is not deemed sufficient, a minimum percentage should be obligatory.

2.4.6

Public procurement is an important instrument in helping SMEs to develop their activities. SME involvement should be closely monitored, and measures to facilitate their access to P.P. should be developed. Exchange of best practices should be encouraged.

2.4.7

On the level of the Commission a coordinating structure should be created for a real, efficient and effective SME policy in all programmes, actions and legislative measures.

2.4.8

It is necessary to design special actions to promote and use best practices in the SMEs field and regarding the competitivity growth, especially in those regions with a low degree of European development. This type of actions should be implemented through SMEs organisations.

3.1

The Lisbon Strategy is best known, in a reductive manner, as a commitment to make Europe into the world's most dynamic competitive, knowledge-based, economy by the year 2010. In addition to the general outline the Council adopted the Charter of Small Enterprises in June 2000 in Santa Maria da Feira.

3.2

The Committee recalls that from the outset, the Lisbon mandate of 24 March 2000:

3.3

At the Spring European Council in March 2005, the Council proceeded to the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy and decided to relaunch the process by refocusing on growth and employment as Europe's political top priorities. An agreement was reached on the integrated guidelines for growth and jobs (1) which should foster coherence of reform measures and provide a roadmap for the design of national reform programmes.

3.4

In the evolution of the Lisbon Strategy, the search for competitiveness and growth is a critical feature in generating improved economic well being, creating employment, protecting the quality of lifestyles as well as improving them. In turn, better quality of life, social improvements and environmental sustainability may also create growth. Where the Lisbon strategy has not delivered so far is particularly in the areas of economic and industrial growth and the creation of more and better jobs. In terms of global competition, Europe is facing difficulties. Since the take-off of the Lisbon process, the EU has been through a major enlargement from 15 to 25 and then 27 Member States.

3.5

The Committee would firstly note that the Lisbon Strategy has already enabled a number of positive developments including:

3.6

Despite these positive points, the main observation is that Europe, caught between its great industrialised competitors and emerging low production cost economies that are making greater use of new technologies, is facing ever increasing competitive challenges. Several indicators give cause for concern, such as:

3.7

At the same time, the Lisbon Strategy reforms are lagging behind:

3.7.1

At European level, the Member States undertook to complete the single market in several areas (energy, services, public procurement, trans-European networks, adaptation of public services), but balk at implementing the necessary measures within the timeframe.

3.7.1.1

At European level, since the 1990s the Commission has undertaken a wealth of initiatives in order firstly to better understand the needs and functioning of SMEs and secondly to support their development and help to better exploit their potential of job creation. These actions have been reinforced in the past few years with the nomination of the SME envoy, the action plan for entrepreneurship adopted in 2004, and the efforts for a better legislation, better access to finance (EIF and EIB), the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP).

3.7.2

At national level, results vary, with shortcomings concerning mostly:

3.7.3

The new Member States must often overcome additional handicaps due to a development gap, for example in employment, technologies or the environment, although these handicaps are sometimes also offset by renewal measures which are more radical than in the EU-15.

3.8

Reference is made to the report drawn up by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) at the request of the European Council of March 2005, setting out the results of the EESC's consultation of its partners, throughout the Member States and at the European level, on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the role of the social partners and other components of organised civil society (2). Several reports on the Lisbon Strategy and specific aspects of it have been published by the Committee in recent years (3).

4.1.1

The vast majority of enterprises (99,8 %) in Europe are SMEs. The typical European firm is a micro firm (91 %); 7 % are small enterprises. Not only are most enterprises in Europe small, but they also account for a significant amount of European work experience (two thirds of employment in the private sector) and economic activity (57 % of the GNP) (4).

4.1.2

In order to improve the monitoring of the economic performances of SME's the EESC calls on the European Commission for relaunching the activities of the European Observatory for SMEs.

4.1.3

SMEs are the main generators of jobs, representing one of the main sources for the state budget incomes (taxes, VAT, etc.), offering the chance of professional and social achievement for a large part of the population, especially of the most active and innovative segment, which pushes the economy forward. Furthermore they ensure the main component of an economic background favourable to the market economy, characterized by flexibility, innovativity and dynamism, and representing the seeds of the future large companies, especially in the new fields of economy, based on complex technologies.

4.2.1

The emphasis on competitiveness acknowledges the need to achieve sustainable competitiveness in an open and global economy by enhancing our use of new technologies, identifying more effective vocational training, ensuring employees are well qualified and improving productivity. The concept of quality (quality of goods, services, regulation, governance, employment, social relations and the environment) is central to the strategy.

4.2.2

To secure economic stability, Member States should maintain their medium-term budgetary objectives over the economic cycle or take all the necessary corrective measures. Subject to this, Member States should avoid pro-cyclical fiscal policies. Member States posting current account deficits that risk being unsustainable should work towards correcting them by implementing structural reforms to boost external competitiveness and also contribute to their correction via fiscal policies. These measures are a minimum because of the ageing of the European population.

4.2.3

The EESC thinks that only by changing the basic thrust of economic policies and, in particular, macroeconomic policies will it be possible to eliminate within Europe the obstacles which are thwarting a sustained and more far-reaching economic recovery. The EU has to act from within if it is to steer the European economy back on the road to growth and full employment. This will require a balanced macroeconomic policy with the declared aim of: achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, in particular full employment; strengthening competitiveness; and giving real consideration to the obligation to pursue sustainable development, in line with the conclusions of the Gothenburg Summit.

4.2.4

The EESC recalls that the aim of monetary policy should be to strike a balance between price stability, economic growth and employment. It would make sense to urge the ECB to target stability in the wider sense, i.e. not only price stability but also stability in terms of growth, full employment and social cohesion (5). To achieve results it is important to have the national budgets in line with the ECB policies and to respect the Pact for Stability and Growth.

4.2.5

Moreover, the EESC points out the special relevance of business related services as part of SMEs for the success of the Lisbon process and the competitiveness of the EU. Following up the accordant communication of the Commission (6), the EESC underlines the necessity to create a regulatory environment in which the concerned SMEs are able to fulfil the societal demands they are confronted with.

4.2.6

The EESC supports also the wide analysis of necessary support measures in 27 sectors of manufacturing industry in the Commission document on an integrated industrial policy but insists on the real implementation of the policy in coordination with the Member States. (7)

4.3.1

The EESC fully supports the recent proposal of the European Commission to cut the administrative burden for companies by 25 % by 2012 (9). This can lead to an increase in the GDP of the EU of 1,5 %. The EESC urges the Commission to put forward a clear Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment in full in order to avoid failure to deliver (10).

4.3.2

A lighter administrative burden can fuel economic dynamism. Curbing the weight of legal and regulatory obligations requires a global approach from the local, regional and national authorities as well as from the European Union. It is essential that regulations are well designed and proportionate.

4.3.3

The creation of the (Business) Impact Assessment Board, announced by the Commission in its strategic overview on ‘Better Legislation’ (11) and aimed at strengthening the quality and efficiency of impact analyses, gets the support of the EESC. Nevertheless, its scope of action must not be limited to simple coordination, but also take in consideration the quality of work considering SMEs and the analysis of the economic and social consequences of regulatory proposals. New regulations at national and Community level should be screened to assess their impact on SMEs.

4.3.4

The economic, social and environmental impacts of new or revised regulations have to be carefully assessed to identify the potential trade-offs and synergies between different policy objectives. Moreover, existing regulation is screened for simplification potential and its impact on competitiveness is assessed. Special attention should be paid to independent business impact assessments, including a specific target towards small enterprises, of all legislative and regulative proposals from the European Commission. Finally, a common approach to measuring the administrative costs of new and existing legislation is being developed. The ‘think small first’ principle should be the guiding principle when reviewing the existing legislation and conceiving new one. This means that legislation should take into account the particularities of SMEs.

4.3.5

The EESC points out that improvements are especially important for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which usually have only limited resources to deal with the administration imposed by both Community and national legislation.

4.3.6

The necessary steps should be taken to ensure that all Member States implement all directives in time and with a high level of quality, and to convince the national and regional governments and legislators to start their own simplification project targeting regulation, where ‘gold-plating’ has happened by implementing European law.

4.3.7

Most of policy actors at regional, national and European levels do not know enough about the reality in small enterprises and their real needs. Better involvement of representative SME associations (12) at all levels is a precondition to improve the quality of SME policy in Europe. Strengthening associations of small enterprises is also one of the key elements of the European Charter for Small Enterprises (2000). Representative SME associations should be involved as important stakeholders in the decision-making process at all levels.

4.3.8

CESE is strongly supporting the European Charter for Small Enterprises which proved to be a useful tool for monitoring progress and for identifying SMEs problems, as well as for determining member states to act aiming at improving coordination of entrepreneurial policies within the entire Europe. It is important to maintain a sustained rhythm in the process of integrating Charter implementation reports in the annual reports of the Lisbon Agenda. It is imperative to continuously bring it up to date and to complete it in respect of the revised Lisbon strategy and the EU major enlargement process.

4.4.1

Entrepreneurship is a complex phenomenon that comprises elements of a sense of initiative, risk-taking and innovation. Small and new companies generate innovations, fill market niches, create employment and increase competition thereby promoting economic efficiency.

4.4.2

The European Union as a whole is suffering from low early stage entrepreneurial activity. The latest GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) report ranks no European Member State on the top 10 countries (14). On the contrary, eight Member States figure among the 10 lowest levels of participation (15).

4.4.3

Entrepreneurship is important to society as a whole. To promote and raise the awareness of the culture of entrepreneurial thinking as well as an understanding of the importance of entrepreneurship for a country's overall development, the Committee proposes that 2009 be declared European Year of Entrepreneurship. In this context the Committee notes that the mid-term review of several relevant Community programmes will take place in 2010. Positive public attitudes on entrepreneurship need to be established. The Year would also provide an opportunity to consolidate and reinforce existing exchanges of best practice.

4.4.4

Much need exists within the EU for changes in the education and training curricula — in particular in the higher education level — to place more emphasis on advanced entrepreneurship education, the strategic value of information management and ICT and networking. The role of schools and universities is an essential factor in fostering an entrepreneurial mindset among young people. Active participation of company representatives in education, for example, is recommended as well as an involvement from business organisations. Media activities and the image they convey of business are important.

4.4.5

Policies to assist businesses to start up and develop should be intensified including quicker, lower-cost start-ups, measures to improve access to risk capital, more entrepreneurial training programmes, measures to improve access to public networks and utility services and a denser network of support services for small enterprises. Moreover, political decisions in view of reforming tax systems, regulation, market access, rescue and restructuring proceedings as well as inheritance law are needed. A cultural change regarding the attitude on bankruptcy is needed.

4.4.6

The availability of early-stage financing is a crucial issue. In Belgium, initiatives have been taken by the government aiming at bridging the equity gap. An example is the ARkimedes fund that has raised EUR 110 million in the form of shares or bonds, guaranteed by the regional government of Flanders.

4.4.7

Equally essential is providing information and business support services, notably for young entrepreneurs. Mentorship programmes in Flanders (Belgium) have proved their worth.

4.4.8

Fear of failure has a powerful negative impact on potential start-ups. An adequate social framework has to be adopted for self-employed persons. The self-employed should also be given a second chance more easily.

4.5.1

The potential of the Single Market should be unleashed. The European Union should now have the advantages of a market that is bigger than that of the USA or China but

4.5.2

The attractiveness of the European Union as an investment location depends on the size and openness of its markets, its regulatory environment and the quality of its infrastructure. Increased investment will make Europe more productive as labour productivity levels depend on investment in physical and human capital as well as in knowledge and infrastructure.

4.5.3

The ability of European producers to compete and survive in the internal market is key to their competitive strength in world markets. Whilst the internal market for goods is relatively well integrated, services markets remain, legally or de facto, rather fragmented. In order to promote growth and employment and to strengthen competitiveness, the internal market of services has to be fully operational while preserving the European social model. The elimination of tax obstacles to cross-border activities and the removal of remaining impediments to worker mobility would also bring important efficiency gains. Finally, the full integration of financial markets would raise output and employment by allowing more efficient allocation of capital and creating better conditions for business finance.

4.5.4

For SMEs, especially in the service sector, the internal market is still not fully realised. High administrative burdens for cross-border operations and non adapted European standards hinder small enterprises to profit from a larger market.

4.5.5

Standards play a major role in the access to markets. Current standardisation processes do not take sufficiently into account the specificities of craft and SMEs. Small businesses have to be better involved in the elaboration of European and international standards. Despite strong support given by the Commission to structures like NORMAPME (17), further efforts in favour of SMEs are needed, in particular for small series and tailored made production, for lower standards costs, for a more balanced representation in technical committees, for the simplification of certification systems.

4.5.6

There is considerable scope for further improvements in public procurement practices. Such improvements would be reflected in an increase in the share of public procurement publicly advertised. Focus should be put on the possibilities for SMEs to participate in public procurement procedures. The EESC supports the composition by the Commission of a compendium of good practices in this field recorded by EU member states, and by the USA and Japan, which have resulted in the growth of SMEs' access to public procurement.

4.5.7

SMEs in Europe have to face 27 different taxation systems, which cause prohibitive compliance costs and create serious barriers to the internal market. Compliance costs for small companies are much higher than for large enterprises (18). Simplification in favour of SMEs in particular is awaited.

4.6.1

In a context of a globalised and knowledge-based economy, companies have to constantly adapt to change. Successful entrepreneurs need more than ever a solid basis of knowledge and qualifications in order to face increased competition and to be able to win the innovation race. Moreover technological developments require the constant development of new competencies, especially in the field of ICT and acquisition of updated skills for entrepreneurs and workers alike (19).

4.6.2

Since 2000, with the Lisbon Strategy, training objectives and lifelong learning strategies have clearly been reinforced in Europe, but they still need further improvements as stated in the evaluation report 2006 of the ‘Framework of actions for the lifelong development of competencies and qualifications’ agreed by the European social partners (ETUC, BusinessEurope, CEEP, UEAPME) in 2002. In this context, the new Community ‘Integrated action programme in lifelong learning’ should also fully participate in this effort as its official aim is to contribute to the realisation of Lisbon goals namely ‘the development of the European Union as an advanced knowledge society, with sustainable economic development, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’.

4.6.3

As the EESC rightly pointed out (20), ‘the Union's educational programmes are among the very few Community actions addressed directly to its citizens. The new programme should therefore aim to promote democracy based on participation and active citizenship’, and ‘to promote employment and a versatile labour market’. Since it also integrates the main European mobility programmes, namely Leonardo da Vinci for apprentices and young people in initial vocational training and young workers, as well as Erasmus for students, they should be more easily accessible to individual mobility. Learning and working abroad for a certain time not only enriches skills and the know-how of an individual, but also increases the understanding of Europe and European citizenship. Additionally, it helps the individual to be pro-active and more open to take on responsibility for his or her own employability in the working life.

4.6.4

Moreover, the EESC stressed the ‘particular importance to the possibility of SMEs having access to the programme’ and ‘proposes a special approach for SMEs, simplifying the relevant procedures in order to make their participation in the programmes both feasible and effective’. In a services-driven economy, the most valuable asset of a company is its human capital. In order that enterprises, particularly SMEs, can pursue a strategy for competence development, customised support initiatives should be designed to help them to invest in continuous training such as tailor-made training offers, financial support, tax incentives.

4.6.5

Social dialogue is an important tool to overcome economic and social challenges. One of its main achievements is the improvement of the labour market functioning and the anticipation of change. Furthermore, social dialogue contributes to creating a climate of confidence in companies. It can also provide tailor-made answers for small enterprises as far as it takes into account the specificity and quality of the working environment and of the working relations as well as the particular situation in which craft and small enterprises are working and developing.

4.7.1

The Lisbon Agenda aimed at a 3 % target for R&D as related to the GDP of which two thirds must come from the private sector. Currently it is contributing just 56 %. Unfortunately we have to note that Europe devotes a much lower share of its GDP to R&D than the US and Japan (1,93 % as compared to 2,59 % in the US and 3,15 % in Japan). Furthermore, China is on track to match the research intensity of the EU by 2010. Research and development: in 2002, the private sector spent EUR 100 billion more on research and development in the United States than it did in Europe.

4.7.2

The future European Institute of Technology (EIT), whose aim it is to reach the highest possible of integration of education, research and innovation at the excellence level, should strongly recognise and valorise the SMEs potential. Cooperation between universities and research centres and businesses, in particular small businesses, should be strengthened. Researchers should be encouraged to have contacts with businesses. The importance of promoting technology transfers via technology centres and incubators cannot be underestimated. Measures to sustain innovation support service providers, clusters and networks should also be foreseen in the new State Aid Framework for Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&I). European researchers should be given more opportunities in each of the 27 EU Member Sates. A better promotion and dissemination of research results is imperative in order to improve access to these results for business and the economic impact of it.

4.7.3

Europe should provide a harmonised regulatory environment across the EU favourable to innovation. New initiatives for a European Community Patent are needed to protect innovation and address the needs of European businesses. Such a system should foresee reduced fees for SMEs and a proper patent litigation insurance structure.

4.7.4

The European Commission has recognised in its latest communications the need to expand the definition of innovation to focus on SMEs and take account of non-technical innovation in all economic sectors. This new approach must now be implemented in all policy areas to become of use for small businesses.

4.7.5

It is essential for SMEs to upgrade their existing human capital and to introduce an academic work force into production and innovation. The 7th Framework Programme should give support to SMEs for introducing advanced technological research and production techniques, but also to other forms of innovation important in an SME structure.

4.7.6

The necessary resources at EU level are to come from the CIP programme, the Framework programme on research, the Structural Funds, and the education programmes, to mention the most important. Coordinating policies, including resources, will be a difficult and delicate task, particularly since the available European financial resources are relatively limited in relation to the needs and demands. To ensure the use of financial means from the structural funds to co-finance programmes for innovative SMEs, start-ups and business transfers (i.e. via the European Investment Funds — JEREMIE), appropriate measures must be adopted at Member State level and their effectiveness and accessibility should be closely monitored.

4.7.7

The introduction of advanced new production methods and machines, particularly in SMEs, will require credit on favourable terms. The EIB and the EIF should be involved closely in the work of the sectoral and inter-sectoral planning groups.

4.7.8

SMEs have to be guided more to ICT applications, which can lower their costs, increase their productivity and enhance their competitiveness.

4.8.1

European studies show that about one third of Europe's entrepreneurs, mainly family business owners, will depart within the next 10 years. It is estimated that this will affect some 690 000 enterprises, providing 2.8 million jobs. Transfers should be promoted as valuable alternatives to starting up a business.

4.8.2

In contrast to the past, more and more business transfers take place outside the family, to third parties. Also there is a growing interest in taking over an established firm, rather than starting a business from scratch. Research showed that 96 % of business transfers survive the first five years in comparison with 75 % of start-ups.

4.8.3

So the first challenge is to set up a platform and to facilitate the matching of potential buyers and sellers of businesses. This marketplace should be transparent in order to increase the possibility of making contacts and ensuring the continuity of existing viable enterprises. High quality of services including matchmaking, consultancy and confidentiality are essential. In most of European countries there are governmental or government supported business transfer markets (22). These initiatives should be developed in all EU Member States.

4.9.1

SMEs and especially start-ups, business transfers and innovative companies should get better access to finance to fully realise their potential and create economic growth and more employment in Europe. Risk-sharing models such as mutual and public guarantee schemes have proven to be very effective instruments and must be further promoted both at EU and Member State level.

4.9.2

The availability of capital at a reasonable cost for new business, SMEs and fast-growing enterprises: this requires maintaining interest rates and risk premiums at reasonable levels as well as a rationalisation of government aid schemes.

4.9.3

Consultancy to SMEs by SME organisations should be strengthened and supported. It is also necessary to install financial instruments adapted to the needs and means of small businesses. The EESC invites the Commission and the EIB/EIF to finance innovation in small business in the form of risk capital and guarantee schemes.

4.9.4

Venture capitalists and business angels are important ways of access to finance for SMEs. Stimulating the networking between venture capitalists and business angels on the one hand and (starting) entrepreneurs on the other hand is important to lower the small equity gap.

4.9.5

Guarantee systems prove to be a very effective and resources efficient way to support small business. The Caisse Mutuelle de Garantie de la Mécanique (CMGM) in France has over 45 years' experience in this field. This Caisse offers banks guarantees over the near totality of credits (investment credits, transfer of business, bank warrants, cash credits) that they accord to companies. Companies subscribe to its capital and guarantee fund. This system allows reducing the private warrants asked from the entrepreneurs, makes available larger credits and offers a safety net for the entrepreneur toward its banker. Exchanges of good practices among EU Member States, regarding access to finance and guarantee funds for SMEs, should be encouraged.

4.10.1

The EU must seize the opportunities provided by the opening up of rapidly growing markets in Asia, such as China and India. At the same time, the EU must deal with the resulting new international division of labour, particularly as China begins to specialise more in high value-added goods and as India develops as a global hub for outsourcing. The EESC stresses that a common approach in dealing with third countries is essential so as to improve market access conditions for EU companies.

4.10.2

Even though the single market has been in place for over 14 years, a lot of firms still operate solely in their own country. Language barriers, remaining legislative and regulatory differences, and a lack of knowledge of other markets are the main obstacles. The EESC welcomes the creation of support services close to the entrepreneurs, comparable to the Passport to export in the UK (23). Access to public procurement for SMEs should also be encouraged.

4.10.3

Adequate support systems should be developed to stimulate cross-border activities as well within the European Union and on other markets.

4.10.4

The EESC stresses that a special focus should be given to SMEs in the Commission documents on Trade Policy (Access Strategy, Defence Instruments, Global Europe).

OJ C 24, 31.1.2006, Better Lawmaking, exploratory opinion on the request of the UK Presidency, rapporteur Mr Retureau.

OJ C 24, 31.1.2006, How to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation, own initiative opinion, rapporteur Mr van Iersel.

OJ C 112, 30.4.2004, Opinion on Updating and simplifying the acquis communautaire [COM(2003) 71 final], rapporteur Mr Retureau.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/17

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1.1

Under the heading ‘THE RELAUNCHED LISBON STRATEGY FOR JOBS AND GROWTH’, the European Council, in its Presidency Conclusions of 23-24 March 2006 (point 12), welcomed the initiative taken up by the European Economic and Social Committee to increase ownership of the Lisbon Strategy at Community level. It encouraged the European Economic and Social Committee to continue its work and asked it for a summary report in support of the Partnership for growth and employment in early 2008.

1.2

In the meantime, on 15 February 2007, the Committee adopted a resolution on the implementation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, to be presented to the Spring 2007 European Summit.

1.3

In preparation for the summary report requested by the European Council, four information reports on the following topics will be drawn up:

These information reports will form the key points of the summary report.

1.4

The following text, which was drawn up in cooperation with representatives of the national economic and social councils of some Member States, deals solely with the subject of investment in knowledge and innovation.

2.1

Europe's strength lies in the capabilities and performance of its citizens.

2.2

The free interaction of inventive craftsmanship and entrepreneurial initiative with scientific methods and systems and the technologies and industrial processes that developed out of them was the European recipe for success that brought about the progress that led to the living standard we enjoy today. This went hand in hand with historical socio-political developments, resulting in the free citizen in the modern state with separation of powers, democracy and fundamental rights.

2.3

The development and intensive use of energy-consuming industrial processes, machines and transport systems made a decisive contribution to this. Energy freed people from the burden of the heaviest physical labour, multiplied their productivity, provided heating and lighting, and made previously unimaginable mobility and communication possible. Energy became the food and fuel of modern economies.

2.3.1

In the light of the finite reserves of fossil fuels, the rapidly rising worldwide demand for energy, and the expected impact of energy consumption on climate change, it is unsurprising that securing sustainable and climate-friendly energy supplies is at the top of the political agenda. A key prerequisite to achieving this very difficult objective is a strong, wide-ranging and effective research and development programme for energy.

2.4

However, above and beyond this, there are a great many more problems and tasks that can only be solved by research, development and innovation. These include, for example, combating physical and mental illness, making life and participation in society easier for people with disabilities, the effects of demographic change (including gerontology), protecting the environment, and, more generally, protecting and developing our way of life, our European values system and our social model. All things considered, however, research and development also serve the fundamental aim of bringing about greater and new knowledge. Increased knowledge not only helps us to solve problems, but also broadens our world view, objectifies conflict situations, and enriches our culture.

2.5

Moreover, the European Union faces the challenge of increasing global competition, the challenge being to maintain European jobs, prosperity and social and environmental standards. This is true not just because of the economic power of the USA and Japan, but above all because of the increasingly strong industrial and research performance of countries such as China, India and Brazil, and in view of the significantly lower wages and social and environmental standards in those countries.

2.6

The only way to deal with this is to continue in the future to stay ahead in research, technological development and innovation, rooted in a socio-cultural environment of democracy, the rule of law, political stability, free enterprise, planning security, motivation, the recognition of achievements, and social security.

2.7

Top performances in the scientific and technical field, and their entrepreneurial conversion into a competitive, economic force, are essential preconditions to safeguarding our future (not least with regard to energy and climate issues), preserving and improving our current global position, and developing rather than jeopardising the European social model.

2.8

The basic prerequisite for achieving this goal is a social climate that is open to progress and innovation, in which society fully understands this and all its implications, so that politicians at all levels create the necessary conditions and take decisions that are conducive to such progress, and so that enough business confidence and optimism is built up for the necessary investments to be made in Europe and new jobs to be created. This also includes raising awareness of the fundamental significance of basic research, as this lays the necessary foundations for future innovations. An entrepreneurial spirit that is willing to innovate and take risks is particularly needed, as are political leadership, dependability and a sense of reality.

2.9

In particular, the Barcelona target set for the purpose of implementing the Lisbon strategy must be taken very seriously by all the relevant stakeholders if Europe is not to fall further behind its global competitors in terms of R&D investment. This target states that total R&D expenditure in the EU should be increased such that it reaches around 3 % of GDP by 2010. Two thirds of the required investment is to come from the private sector.

2.10

In December 2006, the Council adopted the Seventh R&D framework programme (FP7) for 2007-2013. The budget for this programme, at around EUR 50 billion, was significantly higher than for the previous one. This is another significant European policy success, which the Committee has substantially supported. However, the Community will still only be providing about 2 % (in other words, only one fiftieth) of the total investment in research and development aimed for by the Barcelona target. As the Committee has repeatedly stressed, this is insufficient to maximise the intended multiplier and integrating effects that EU funding has on Member States' research funding and the willingness of industry to invest.

2.11

Therefore, the Committee reiterates its recommendation that this part of EU funding should, as a first step, be increased by half, i.e. to around 3 % of the total investment aimed for by the Barcelona target, as part of the revision of the EU budget planned for 2008. This is especially relevant in the light of the future European Technology Institute (ETI) and the urgent need for more R&D into climate-friendly sustainable energy supply.

2.12

Equally, however, the willingness of industry, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, to invest in research and development needs to be promoted and made more attractive and profitable through appropriate legal (including laws on liability), administrative, fiscal and financial framework conditions. EU law on state aid also has an important role to play here; it should enable the Member States to provide more effective and less bureaucratic support than in the past for the research and development plans of universities, research organisations and industry, and help them to establish networks. Careful consideration should therefore be given to the question of whether the Community framework for state aid to research, development and innovation really is conducive to these goals.

2.13

Knowledge is based on two equally important and interdependent pillars: education and research. New knowledge must be attained through research and development. The starting point is existing knowledge. This must be consolidated and passed on through education, training and lifelong learning. Both the methods and the content should be assessed as to whether they are conducive to the specified aims. Both these pillars also need significantly increased financial investment and suitable framework conditions.

2.14

Europe's strength lies in the capabilities and performance of its citizens. Doing more to promote and develop these capabilities must therefore be a priority. Accordingly, the Committee calls on the Member States to strengthen and improve their educational establishments and to put in the considerable investment necessary to achieve this. Sound education and training for the masses is just as important as the education of the academic elite. With this in mind, a wide range and sufficient number of sound and appropriate educational establishments, from primary schools to universities, are necessary. Only then will European society as a whole be receptive to education and science.

2.15

In addition, the Committee repeats its recommendation that a common European knowledge area be developed to complement the European Research Area, through closer supranational cooperation in the areas of learning, innovation and research. Any incentives and measures in support of lifelong learning have an important role to play here. Lifelong learning is the key to the knowledge society. Obstacles to the single market that are obstructing the transition to the European knowledge society must be removed as quickly as possible.

2.16

This includes still greater support from Member States for personal mobility, and strengthening relevant, effective EU programmes (Erasmus, Marie Curie). Mobility is conducive to attaining and transferring skills. Free movement of workers, researchers and students across Europe must be guaranteed, and rewarded by means of incentives; it must go hand in hand with decent income, working conditions and support for families. Public bodies across Europe also need to improve access to information in this area.

2.17

As regards the significance and promotion of innovation, the Committee refers not only to its detailed recommendations set out below, but especially to the excellent Aho Report, which it endorses. This particularly concerns the legal and social environment for innovative entrepreneurship and an innovation-friendly market. The Committee also refers to its more detailed opinion on Unlocking and strengthening Europe's potential for research, development and innovation.

2.18

Progress and innovation take place when new knowledge is turned into new and better processes and products (including ongoing improvement of existing ones), new societal models, and the requisite management methods; thus, the key is an innovative entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial initiatives. That said, progress and innovation also depend on new kinds of services, on developing healthcare services, and in general on better solutions to social problems within the economic constraints that exist.

2.19

Thus, innovation means devising and implementing new technologies, processes, organisational methods, business models, educational models etc. that previously had not been, or could not be, considered. It is therefore important that relevant legislation offers sufficient room for manoeuvre to give new ideas that were not previously thought of the chance to be put into practice and not to wither away before they even take root simply because they do not fit into the framework of excessively detailed regulation. Over-restrictive regulation is a brake on innovation. The Committee therefore supports all efforts to simplify regulations and to check them for superfluous, excessively detailed and/or unnecessarily restrictive requirements.

2.20

Innovation means accepting a certain level of risk of failure and indeed of losses; generally speaking, the effectiveness, or indeed the disadvantages or side-effects, of a new approach or idea is only recognised when it has proven itself in practice and in competition with other processes. Even failure provides lessons. Opportunity and risk are two sides of the same coin. As a rule, the expected benefit of an innovation should outweigh the possible risks associated with it. Potential risks to society require a special assessment. Consideration could also be given to whether — at least for small and medium-sized enterprises — a risk fund (for example at the EIB) should be set up to help cover possible losses.

2.21

The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that human capital is the most delicate and most valuable resource for knowledge and innovation. Requisite training bodies that are sufficient in number, resources and quality are therefore key prerequisites for meeting the demand for good scientists, engineers and teachers.

2.22

By virtue of the investment carried out by society on the one hand, and by individual researchers on the other, with a view to acquiring broadly-based and not readily accessible fundamental knowledge and high-level specialised knowledge, society — as represented by politicians — assumes responsibility for making optimal use of this investment. This responsibility must be reflected in a concern to ensure that trained research workers and engineers are able to start families and are provided with appropriate job opportunities and suitable career paths, with attractive options for branching out into other fields, without running the risk of being professionally sidelined or sent down dead ends. If qualified scientists and engineers are unemployed, underpaid or underemployed (inter alia through excessive administration and committee work), this represents a waste of economic investment and serves as a deterrent for the next generation of top-level scientists and engineers, with the result that they opt for non-scientific and non-technological careers or emigrate from Europe.

2.23

This does not rule out the need to involve experienced experts and scientific and technical achievers more than hitherto in relevant decision-making processes and administrative dossiers relating to research policy, entrepreneurial and innovation policy matters. The establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) is a very encouraging first step in this direction. However, sufficient relevant expertise also needs to be attracted to and retained in EU (including the Commission) and Member State bodies that provide funding for research and innovation. Administration alone is not enough.

2.24

Turning research and innovation into industrial products and processes raises a particular set of issues. The Lisbon target of two-thirds of R&D investment coming from industry is not without reason. It is therefore particularly important to enhance the professional image of entrepreneurs and to raise public awareness of their key role in innovation, economic progress and prosperity in general. For this reason, the Committee, as the bridge to organised civil society, has put entrepreneurship with a human face at the centre of its forthcoming work programme. Only through responsible, energetic and imaginative entrepreneurship that is able to develop freely will the Lisbon goals be achieved.

2.25

Many further aspects and details are dealt with in the more comprehensive comments below, and also in the Committee opinions on The road to the European knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy  (1) and Unlocking and strengthening Europe's potential for research, development and innovation  (2) .

3.1

Development of science and technology. Europe is the cradle of ever-evolving modern science and research. If the Greek/Egyptian cultural area is taken into consideration, along with the cross-fertilisation with the Indian-Arabic (3) cultural area that has taken place from time to time, then it can be said to be the cradle of science generally. Despite various ups and downs over time and some interruptions caused by war, science and research were linked right across Europe, irrespective of national borders. Their methods and way of thinking were decisive in paving the way to our contemporary European society, its values, its way of life and its standard of living; they were a defining characteristic of the European cultural area (4). The recipe for success of the resulting achievements was the free interaction of inventive craftsmanship and entrepreneurial initiative with scientific methods and systems and the technologies and industrial processes that developed out of that.

3.2

Development of society. The key social developments that led to free citizens in the modern state with separation of powers, democracy, fundamental rights and social welfare legislation went almost hand in hand with scientific and technological progress.

3.3

Development of living conditions. As a consequence of these parallel processes, the living conditions of people in the countries and regions involved have changed and improved as never before in human history. In the last 135 years, the average life expectancy of the population (5) has more than doubled (6). In the last 50 years, agricultural yield in terms of surface area has almost trebled. In the successful industrialised countries, the talk is now of obesity rather than malnutrition, of information overload rather than a lack of information, and of an ageing population rather than child mortality. The capabilities and achievements of modern, mobile industrial society that have come about through research, science and innovation touch every area of human development and quality of life.

3.4

Use of energy. The development and intensive use of energy-consuming industrial processes, machines and transport systems made a significant contribution to the progress that has been made. Energy freed people from the burden of the heaviest physical labour, multiplied their productivity, provided heat and light, and made previously unimaginable mobility, communication and cultural development possible. Energy became the food and fuel of modern economies.

3.5

The climate issue and energy supply. However, this significant development brings with it new problems and challenges. Global warming, its possible consequences, and strategies for reducing it are the subject of far-reaching political decisions (7) and a large number of studies (8), some of which have controversial conclusions. The Stern Review (9), entitled The Economics of Climate Change and published at the end of October 2006, has established that reducing global warming caused by greenhouse gases will cost around 1 % of GDP, which in particular includes further R&D activities that are necessary for this purpose. However, even leaving aside the problem of climate change, the issue of safe, sustainable energy supply for Europe (and indeed the world) is one of the central political challenges which significantly increased research and development will play a very important role in resolving (10).

3.6

Further problems and challenges  (11) However, climate change and energy supply are not the only problem. Further examples of important areas of research on which the Committee has made detailed recommendations in earlier opinions such as that on the Seventh R&D framework programme (12) and that on its Specific Programmes (13) include combating physical and mental illness, making life easier for disabled or otherwise disadvantaged people with the aim of improving their professional development and participation in the knowledge society; the effects of demographic change (plus gerontology); a better understanding of complex economic, social and cultural issues, how they are related, and their impact on each other; protecting the environment; and, more generally, protecting and developing our way of life, our European values system and our social model.

3.7

Global competition. Moreover, the European Union faces the very serious challenge of increasing global competition. A particular challenge for the EU is to maintain European jobs, prosperity and social and environmental standards. This is true not just because of the economic power of the USA and Japan, but more particularly because of the significant and increasingly strong industrial and research performance of countries such as China (which wants to overtake the United States as the most technologically advanced country in the world by 2050 (14)), India and Brazil, and of the significantly lower wages and social and environmental standards in those countries. It is precisely against this background of global competition and of the global race for increased investment in research and development, including global competition for the best scientists and engineers, that the European Union needs to optimise its policies in this area. Thus, we are talking primarily about global competition, not that within Europe.

3.8

Staying ahead in research, development and innovation. Europe's competitive position can thus only be maintained if it continues in the future to maintain its lead in research, technological development and constant innovation, rooted in a socio-cultural environment of democracy, the rule of law, political stability and dependability, free enterprise, planning security, motivation and the recognition of achievements. The European Research Area must be strengthened and expanded. Whilst this is now generally recognised in political statements of intent, the reality in terms of action and specific priority-setting (e.g. research budgets) and the relevant regulatory frameworks (e.g. collective agreements (15) and tax laws (16)) shows up significant and regrettable deficiencies, both at Community level and in most of the Member States. Just how dramatic this state of affairs is should not be underestimated, even if some Member States show an encouraging trend towards catching up (17).

3.9

Top performances in the scientific and technical field. Top performances in the scientific and technical field, and their entrepreneurial conversion into innovations and a competitive, economic force, are essential preconditions to safeguarding our future, for example with regard to energy and climate issues, preserving and improving our current global position, and developing rather than jeopardising the European social model. All things considered, however, research and development also serve the fundamental aim of bringing about greater and new knowledge. However, increased knowledge not only helps us to solve problems, but also broadens our world view, objectifies conflict situations, and enriches our culture.

3.10

Reviving tradition. Europe must now, therefore, become aware that it was once the leading area for research and innovation and aim to revive that tradition. Europe's strength lies in the capabilities and performance of its citizens. More must therefore be done to promote and develop these capabilities than has hitherto been the case. However, this also means investing significantly more in research and development, increasing their efficiency, strengthening the willingness and ability of industry, commerce and government to innovate, promoting and recognising effort, and reducing any obstacles that stand in the way.

3.11

Increasing investment. In particular, this means that the EU and the Member States must invest significantly more in research and development, in general education that reflects this, and in educating the required scientists and engineers (of both sexes). Above all, however, it means that the willingness of industry, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, to invest in research and development needs to be promoted and made more attractive and profitable through appropriate legal, administrative, fiscal (18) and financial framework conditions.

3.12

A social climate that favours progress. The most important prerequisite for achieving this goal is a social climate that is open to progress, innovation and entrepreneurship, in which society fully understands this and all its implications, so that politicians at all levels create the necessary conditions and take decisions that are conducive to such progress, but also so that jobs are created and enough confidence and optimism is built up in industry for the necessary investments to be made. This includes ensuring that the public is made more familiar with the achievements and significance of science and technology and the pioneering work of entrepreneurs than is currently the case. This also means recognising that basic research (19), in particular, lays the necessary foundations for future knowledge and innovations.

3.13

Recognising achievements. The decisive impact of these achievements on our current way of life, the conditions in which they came about, and the scientific, technological, entrepreneurial and cultural achievements associated with them, must be recognised by society, taught in schools and accorded the significance they deserve.

3.14

Further prerequisites. However, progress and continuous innovation do not depend exclusively on science and technology, but also on the motivation, the skills and the willingness to work of all those involved, as well as on innovative business models, the right management methods, and on a legal framework that is conducive to all of the above.

3.15

Acceptance of risk. If promoting new approaches to research, innovative technologies, business practices and business models is to be a success, one must accept that success involves a certain amount of risk, including the risk of losses. Generally speaking, the advantages and effectiveness, or indeed the disadvantages, risks and side-effects of a new approach are only recognised with it has proven itself in practice and in competition with other processes. Even failure provides lessons. Opportunity and risk are two sides of the same coin. As a rule, the expected benefit of an innovation should outweigh the possible risks associated with it. Potential risks to society require a special assessment. Consideration could also be given to whether — at least for small and medium-sized enterprises — a risk fund (for example at the EIB) should be set up to help cover possible losses.

4.1

Knowledge base. Knowledge is based on two equally important pillars: education and research. New knowledge can only be attained through research and development. For this to happen, existing knowledge is required as a starting point: this must be consolidated and passed on through education, training and lifelong learning. The aims of this are as follows:

4.1.1

Basic knowledge. The first aim is to ensure that every citizen has a sound basic knowledge of science, technology and the economy, how they work and their significant basic principles, as part of his or her education. This is essential if, for example, citizens are to be able to make judgements about the often complicated interrelations that need to be understood in order to arrive at an informed political opinion. Accordingly, the curricula and available teaching time at all levels of education should be oriented towards gradually introducing children and young people to a scientific, technical and economic way of thinking and to the store of knowledge (20) that exists, by using concrete examples and clear and stimulating explanations and teaching materials. They should also raise awareness of the significance of science, technological development, innovative socio-economic arrangements and the knowledge society in general to their future and life opportunities. If this is to happen, significantly more emphasis needs to be placed on this part of the curriculum. The Committee welcomes and supports the recommendations of the Rocard report, which addresses this concern (21).

4.1.2

Incentives for choosing a profession. At the same time, those who show talent for science and technology should be encouraged to pursue a — notoriously tough — course of study in this area and, with this in mind, be given a solid basis of knowledge with which to start a career in this field. This, too, means that school curricula, especially in grammar schools, should provide extensive, high-quality teaching.

4.1.3

Regaining lost ground in terms of breadth and depth. Thus, there is significant ground to be made up in terms of teaching in science and technology. Of course, this does not change the fact that all talents across the spectrum need to be nurtured, including the social sciences, economics, the humanities and the arts. Sound education and training for the masses — which also means that pupils need to be willing to work and self-disciplined — is just as important as the education of the academic elite. High-quality educational establishments, from primary schools to universities, are the fundamental prerequisite for society as a whole to be receptive to education and science.

4.1.4

The European Knowledge Area. The Committee repeats its recommendation that a common European knowledge area be developed to complement the European Research Area, through closer supranational cooperation in the areas of learning, innovation and research. Obstacles to the single market that are obstructing the transition to the European knowledge society must therefore be removed as quickly as possible. On this subject, the Committee refers to its opinion on The road to the European knowledge-based society — the contribution of organised civil society to the Lisbon Strategy  (22).

4.1.5

Lifelong learning and mobility. Incentives and measures in support of lifelong learning have an important role to play here. Lifelong learning is the key to the knowledge society. This includes still greater support from Member States for personal mobility, and strengthening the relevant, effective EU programmes (Erasmus, Marie Curie). Mobility networks Europe and is conducive to attaining and transferring knowledge. Free movement of workers, researchers and students must be guaranteed and go hand in hand with decent income, working conditions and support for families. Public bodies across Europe also need to improve access to information in this area.

4.2

Standard of skills training. This also means that scientific and technological training in universities and technical colleges must, at the very least, match the highest international standards. The most important capital for research and innovation are highly qualified and motivated scientists and engineers of both sexes who maintain and develop their skills through lifelong learning throughout their careers and a sufficient number of whom are capable of taking on leading roles and carrying out pioneering work in the most difficult areas.

4.3

Opportunities for all. In the future, progress and success will, more than ever, be the result of structured team work involving division of labour where all those involved have the best possible opportunities to develop and take initiatives in accordance with their talents, skills and creativity. This also means that there needs to be sufficient interchangeability of school systems so that people of all abilities, including, for example, late developers, are given the opportunity of the best possible education. It is also essential to have high-quality training institutions for the whole spectrum of specialists that is and will be needed for the wide range of tasks in technology, science and business.

4.4

Networking. Especially for the purposes of vocational training, even closer networking of the training, research and industrial application pillars is needed. There is a clear link here to the subject of lifelong learning and mobility (see point 4.1.5). There is also a need for better cross-border networking of universities and higher education colleges. With this in mind, the Committee welcomes the plans for the European Technology Institute (ETI) (23), which is aimed at further developing the innovation capacity of the EU and its Member States by connecting training, research and innovation activities at the highest level. However, above and beyond education and training, this also applies to all the pre-competitive research and development (24) of industrial firms, such as the joint development of improved engine technology in the car industry.

5.1

Investment is a matter for all stakeholders. The EU, the Member States and the private sector must do their best — i.e. considerably more than they do now — to provide the necessary investment for education, research and development.

5.2

Barcelona target. The Barcelona target set for the purpose of implementing the Lisbon strategy must be taken very seriously and strenuously pursued by all the relevant stakeholders if Europe is not to fall further behind its global competitors in terms of R&D investment. This target states that total R&D expenditure in the EU should be increased such that it reaches around 3 % of GDP by 2010. Two thirds of the required investment is to come from the private sector.

5.3

Multiplier effect of the Seventh R&D framework programme. In December 2006, the Council adopted the Seventh R&D framework programme (FP7) for 2007-2013. The budget for this programme, at around EUR 50 billion, was significantly higher than for the previous one. This is another very significant European policy success, which the Committee has substantially supported. However, the total budget for this is about EUR 50 billion, which means that the Community will still only be providing about 2 % (in other words, only one fiftieth) of the total investment in research and development aimed for by the Barcelona target. However, as the Committee has repeatedly stressed, this is insufficient to maximise the multiplier and integrating effects that EU funding has on Member States' research funding and much-needed industry investment, and thus bring about the considerable increase that is needed to reach the Barcelona target.

5.4

Reiterated recommendation. Therefore, not least in view of the planned establishment of the European Technology Institute (ETI) and the urgent need for more R&D work into climate-friendly, sustainable energy supply, the Committee reiterates its recommendation (25) that this part of EU funding should, as a first step, be increased by half, i.e. to around 3 % of the total investment aimed for by the Barcelona target, as part of the revision of the EU budget planned for 2008. This would be a particularly effective step by the EU towards reaching the increasingly important Lisbon and Barcelona goals more quickly than can be expected at present, and towards solving the above-mentioned problems more effectively and more quickly.

5.4.1

Competition with China. The equivalent research efforts being made by China, for example, are increasing rapidly, and Europe must make every effort so as not to lose markets in globally important and essential technologies to international competitors. However, it is not politically credible to demand that the private sector provide the necessary investment when the EU and the Member States have not provided their share of funding for the Barcelona target which they themselves set.

5.4.2

Core funding by Member States. At the very least, the Member States should ensure that their universities and research institutes have sufficient core funding to be able to receive the expected level of co-financing from the Seventh R&D framework programme.

5.5

EU framework for state aid. EU law on state aid should therefore be framed in such a way as to encourage the Member States and enable them to provide greater, more effective and less bureaucratic support than in the past, for the research and development plans of universities, research organisations and industry, and help them establish networks between them. Careful consideration should therefore be given to whether the Community framework for state aid to research and development and innovation  (26) really is conducive to these goals.

5.6

Member States' budget rules. Individual Member States' budget rules should allow for a more flexible drawing/flow of funds for R&D measures. These should be adapted to the cycle of each project. For instance, it should be possible to transfer allocated funds to the following calendar or budgetary year.

5.7

Development of scientific infrastructure. The EESC has also recommended on several occasions (27) that a much greater part of the resources of the EU's Structural Funds be used for the development of scientific infrastructure. The use of funding from the European Investment Bank for this purpose could also be highly beneficial.

5.8

Potential of SMEs. It is also important to further strengthen the potential of SMEs, and especially of start-up companies, for innovation and, more generally, to provide stronger incentives for industry to invest in this area. The Committee also refers to its recommendations (28) on the EU multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to the support for the knowledge-based economy that is especially important in this context. The fact that 98 % of all firms in the EU are SMEs makes it particularly clear how important it is to strengthen the capacity for innovation of this category of enterprise. The Committee therefore welcomes the fact that EUR 1,3 billion are set aside for R&D by and on behalf of SMEs within FP7. Existing regulations that make life difficult for SMEs should be reviewed and, where possible, red tape should be cut; the authorities could also, through business angels, provide help with access to funding opportunities. Europe can also draw inspiration from the funding policies of other countries in this area.

6.1

Reference to other and previous reports. On this subject, the Committee refers first of all to the two recently-published Commission Communications (29) on innovation and to the excellent Aho report (30). It also refers to its own opinion (31) on Unlocking and strengthening Europe's potential for research, development and innovation, which in many places overlaps with this document, but also goes into much more detail on several of the issues dealt with herein.

6.2

Innovation is more. Reaffirming and complementary to the above-mentioned reports, the Committee also reiterates that progress and innovation do not depend exclusively on science and technology, but also on applying such knowledge through new and better products and processes, innovative business models, and the right management methods; thus, an innovative entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial initiatives are also key. Progress and innovation also depend on new kinds of services, on developing healthcare services, and in general on better solutions to social problems — an example of this is the concept of ‘flexicurity’, which the Committee has discussed (32).

6.3

Innovation — a step into uncharted territory. Thus, innovation means devising and implementing new technologies, processes, organisational methods, business models, educational models etc. that had not previously been considered. Therefore, their effectiveness can usually only be proven once it has stood the test of real competition.

6.4

Flexible regulatory frameworks. At the same time, regulations are drawn up on the basis of existing knowledge. It is therefore very important that such regulations offer sufficient room for manoeuvre — i.e. enough plurality and variability — to give new ideas that were not previously thought of the chance to be put into practice and not to be suffocated at birth or allowed to wither away slowly simply because they do not fit into the framework of existing regulation. When drafting legislation, it is therefore important to ensure that fundamental issues are dealt with and regulated, but that excessively detailed regulations are avoided. Overregulation and excessively restrictive rules, however well-intentioned they may be, stifle and hinder innovation. The Committee therefore supports all efforts to simplify regulations and to check them for superfluous and/or unnecessarily restrictive requirements. This also serves the purpose of releasing experts (see below) from unnecessary red tape. Moreover, the mistakes of individuals should not lead to the overregulation of everyone.

6.5

Freedom of research. Once again: Innovation requires sufficient entrepreneurial freedom. Scientific freedom — inter alia freedom from restrictive (33) or indeed ideological requirements — is a fundamental prerequisite for creative research and new discoveries and inventions, without prejudice to a) the limits placed by legislative answers to ethical problems and b) the proper use of allocated funds.

6.6

Reiteration of CESE 1566/2006. Reference is made to further important observations in the opinion (34) referred to under point 5.1. The statements contained therein are strongly supported. Points 4.7 to 4.11 of that opinion make recommendation on the following topics, which are relevant to this opinion: Moving from enhancing our knowledge of nature to the creation of innovatory products, processes and services. Mobility between academia and industry. Publicly accessible information systems. Clusters. Start-ups. Basic research. The innovative product. Public procurement. Intellectual property and necessary Community patent. Period of grace prior to publication which does not infringe novelty status. The language problem. Particular situation of the new Member States.

6.6.1

Protection of intellectual property — European Community patent. The particular emphasis is thereby again placed on securing adequate protection for intellectual property (35): it must be worthwhile for businesses to invest in research, development and innovation, and the financial, legal and administrative outlay required to secure and retain property rights must not adversely impact Europe's economic strength vis-à-vis global competitors. This also shows the urgent need for a Community patent (with a grace period enshrined in it).

7.1

Most valuable resource. First of all, the Committee refers to its specific opinion (36) on this subject and once again reaffirms and underscores the statements contained therein. As it had already done on earlier occasions, the EESC pointed out in the abovementioned opinion that human capital is the most delicate and most valuable resource for knowledge and innovation. The most important task is therefore to motivate talented young people to embark upon a scientific or technical education and to provide them with the best possible such education.

7.2

Quality of training bodies (See chapter 4). The number, resources and quality of the requisite training bodies are therefore key prerequisites for meeting the demand for good scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. It is therefore essential to establish and maintain — working in liaison with research and teaching bodies (37) — an adequate number of properly equipped, top-quality attractive universities and, above all, institutes of technology, possessing excellent teaching staff. These universities and institutes of technology must be able to stand up to competition with the best universities in the USA or other non-European states. They must consequently also be sufficiently attractive to draw the best students from non-European countries.

7.3

Society's responsibility. By virtue of the investment carried out by society on the one hand, and by individual researchers on the other, with a view to acquiring the desired broadly-based and not readily accessible fundamental knowledge and high-level specialised knowledge, society — as represented by politicians — assumes responsibility for making optimal use of this investment. This responsibility must be reflected in a concern to ensure that trained research workers are provided with appropriate job and professional development opportunities and suitable career paths, with attractive options for branching out into other fields, without running the risk of being professionally sidelined or sent down dead ends. If qualified scientists and engineers are unemployed, underemployed or underpaid, this represents a waste of economic investment and deters the next generation of top-level scientists and engineers, with the result that they decide against scientific or technological careers or emigrate from Europe. Excessive bureaucracy (see point 7.7) is also a form of underemployment.

7.4

Developing talent. People, including all employees in firms, universities and research institutes, must be provided with the best possible opportunities — in the light of their talents, capabilities and levels of creativity — to develop their gifts and display initiative. We also need to bring about a social climate that makes it possible to start a family and is conducive to and promotes their creativity. At the same time, this also means that the young people who benefit from this training and support, for their part, are driven by a sense of duty and by commitment to make every effort to make the best possible use of the talents and the skills they have learned. These are important issues of social policy, family policy, the academic discipline of business management, and management culture in general. This latter has now recognised the impact of a sensible work-life balance on creativity and productivity (38).

7.5

Identifying and assessing high achievers  (39). Outstanding skills and achievements cannot properly be assessed by quantitative indicators, which are in any case subject to abuse. For example, a problem is posed by those scientific authors who like to quote each other in their publications, thus forming quotation cartels and gaining advantage in assessments based on quantitative indicators. As evaluation criteria, neither the number of publications nor that of quotations, patents or other key figures are sufficient or stand up to scrutiny; quality, novelty value and significance are more important. Moreover, it has sometimes been the case that the most groundbreaking discoveries or inventions were recognised, acknowledged, used or quoted only after a certain delay. Therefore, in order to assess personalities and achievements, with all their characteristics and facets, we need the wealth of experience and personal judgement (though even then misjudgements cannot be totally avoided) of the key representatives of the relevant area of expertise in which the achievements have been made or are expected.

7.6

Involvement in decision-making processes. It is also necessary to involve experienced experts and scientific and technical achievers more than hitherto in relevant decision-making processes and administrative dossiers relating to research policy, entrepreneurial and innovation policy matters. The establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) is a very encouraging first step in this direction, which the Committee has strongly supported (40). However, sufficient relevant expertise also needs to be attracted to, and retained for, the administration of EU (i.e. the Commission in particular) and Member State bodies that provide funding for research and innovation. In particular, this should involve successful young engineers and researchers. Support for research and innovation needs to go beyond mere administration.

7.7

Freedom from the burden of too many non-core tasks. Research, development and inventing are activities that require a lot of time in terms of mental effort and laboratory work, as are consolidating and passing on knowledge. These activities need time for undisturbed concentration and reflection. Since 2000, the Committee has repeatedly pointed out (41) that the ever increasing and excessive amount of committee work, application and approval procedures, report writing, bureaucracy in general, etc. now takes up the greater part of many experts' time. It thus takes them away from what they should really be doing and is detrimental to the ability to innovate and the effectiveness of the very people who are outstanding in their field. This undesirable state of affairs is now increasingly being criticised in the media, too (42). The Committee welcomes the Commission's stated intention to address this issue and to join with the Member States in seeking ways to relieve this burden. The call for experts to be involved in decision-making processes relating to research policy does not contradict the need to unburden them from bureaucracy; it may even help achieve this end. A specific goal should be to harmonise and consolidate the numerous application, reporting and monitoring procedures for the various grant-awarding bodies, partner institutions, networks, and monitoring and approval bodies. This would also bring benefits in terms of significantly greater transparency.

7.8

Brain drain and mobility. There are good reasons (see also point 4.1.5) for engineers and scientists needing professional mobility and flexibility. However, this should not be at the expense of personal and family life or of social security (43). Moreover, it must not lead to net emigration of the best people from Europe. Therefore, working conditions within Europe must be sufficiently attractive to prevent this and, at the very least, to lead to an overall balance in the mobility of highly-qualified achievers. At the same time, some Member States are concerned that a one-way brain drain could take place within the European Union. Therefore, as the Committee has repeatedly recommended (see also point 5.7), a significantly larger proportion of the EU's Structural Funds should be used for developing scientific infrastructure so as to create attractive research locations in all Member States that will then attract people back to their home countries and, at the same time, be able to partner within networks.

7.9

Professional image of entrepreneurs. Turning research and development into industrial products and processes raises a particular set of issues. The Lisbon target of two-thirds of research funding coming from industry is not without reason. It is therefore particularly important to enhance the professional image of entrepreneurs and to raise public awareness of their key role in innovation, economic progress and prosperity in general. For this reason, the Committee, as the bridge to organised civil society, has put entrepreneurship with a human face at the centre of its forthcoming work programme. Only through responsible and energetic entrepreneurship that is able to develop freely will the Lisbon goals be achieved.

For example:

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/27

1.1

The EESC takes note of the Green Paper but has doubts that the approach put forward can lead to a high and uniform level of consumer protection across the EU. Ensuring such protection through a simplified, consistent and enforced consumer acquis has been a repeated theme of EESC opinions on consumer safeguards but there are indications in this review process that this may be difficult to achieve. The review of the acquis is therefore a real attempt to implement the ‘Better lawmaking’ initiative. The foundations and objectives for this should be clear and agreed, in advance, by the parties involved.

1.2

Genuine democratic legitimisation of the revised consumer acquis is necessary together with a clear legal and conceptual basis.

1.3

The EESC would particularly welcome the application of the principles of the acquis to the rapidly growing and poorly regulated digital environment.

1.4

Consumer policy is considered by the EESC not only as an integral part of the EU internal market strategy but also as an important and affirming element of citizenship. The EESC supports implementation of the better regulation principles in consumer legislation. Any proposals for harmonised rules in this field should be backed by a proper impact assessment, and pursue simplification and clarification of existing rules.

1.5

Better enforcement measures and strengthening or introducing clear and simple processes for achieving redress should be emphasised as a priority.

1.6

The Committee encourages the Commission to take account of its Opinion of April 2006 on The legal framework for consumer policy  (1) which proposed making it possible to adopt consumer policy measures in their own right and not only as a by-product of the establishment of the internal market.

1.7

Harmonisation of consumer legislation across the EU must take, as a guiding principle, the adoption of the best and highest level of consumer protection to be found in the Member States. Any ‘horizontal instrument’ should be based on the highest standards while necessary ‘vertical integration’ would concentrate on clarifying technical issues. A horizontal instrument could however contain fully harmonised rules in specific fields, such as the right of withdrawal and the definition of consumer as well as abusive clauses, delivery or consumers' right of redress, whereas minimum harmonisation would apply elsewhere. It is to be hoped that this would be a preferred approach, both by the Commission and all Member States.

2.1

The Commission adopted their long-awaited Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis (consumer rights legislation) at the beginning of February 2007. This concluded what they term the ‘diagnostic phase’ of the Review. They are seeking views on options to simplify, modernise and harmonise the existing Community legislation on consumer protection. It is argued that by analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the existing legislation and making appropriate revisions both consumers and business can benefit. The Commission also considers the Review to be an opportunity to obtain consistency across Member States and generally improve EU consumer protection legislation, some of which dates back 20 years, particularly by identifying where regulatory differences exist and if they produce internal market barriers to consumers and business — while respecting the principle of subsidiarity. This Opinion, therefore, concentrates on how the underlying themes of the Consumer Acquis are being perceived and presented. As yet only options for changes have been put forward.

2.2

Consumer spending represents 58 % of EU GDP but is still largely fragmented into 27 national markets. The internal market could be the largest in the world and the Commission has described its strategy as awakening ‘a sleeping giant, the retail side of the Single Market’ (2). The Commission currently defines its consumer policy as ‘ensuring a common high level of protection for all EU consumers, wherever they live, travel to or buy from in the EU, from risk and threats to their safety and economic interests and increasing consumers' capacity to promote their own interests’  (3).

2.3

The objective of ensuring the consistent application of a common framework for consumer rights in the EU is widely supported. Such a framework would provide clear and equitable rights and protection for all consumers whilst simultaneously creating a level playing field for the providers of goods and services. The Green Paper on Consumer Rights explicitly recognises that progress towards such an objective has been slow, inconsistent and obstructed by a wide range of varying national priorities and exceptions. The welcome inclusion of new Member States has further complicated a common understanding of consumer protection. This Review of the Consumer Acquis presents the Commission's view of a process which could lead to greater clarity, consistency and application of existing Directives. But many consumer organisations argue that it also introduces questions about the direction of consumer policy as a whole.

2.4

The Directives that are included within this Review cover a wide range of consumer contract law issues including doorstep selling, timeshare, package travel, distance-selling, sale of goods and unfair contract terms. However, not all Directives dealing with consumer protection are considered in the Review as some are considered too recent to be included, or fall within areas being considered elsewhere by the Commission. The Timeshare Directive has been highlighted in the Green Paper as requiring urgent revision and a revised Directive is expected shortly. A significant new area which is singled-out as requiring inclusion in the principles of the acquis is the digital ‘environment’ which presents the global challenges of e-commerce.

2.5

The Commission has reviewed the Directives through:

2.6

The well-established terminology used by those engaged on consumer protection issues has the potential to create confusion, hence an early explanation of some of the key concepts is included here. ‘Minimum harmonisation’ is where a Directive imposes a set of minimum requirements to be enforced by the Member State. This leaves open the possibility that stricter requirements than those specified in the Directive can be imposed by the Member State. ‘Maximum (or’ Full‘) harmonisation’ means that Member States must apply the rules in the Directive and may not go further (‘floor and ceiling harmonisation’). Thus many consumer organisations have come to regard full harmonisation as synonymous with a minimum level of consumer protection and minimum harmonisation as offering the possibility of a much greater level of protection.

2.7

The publication of the Green Paper marks the end of the Commission's exploratory phase of the Review. The Commission asked for views on the Green Paper by 15 May 2007. The Commission is now analysing the consultation responses, will produce a summary of views and decide whether there is a need for a legislative instrument, though this will take some months. Any such proposal will be accompanied by an impact assessment. ‘At the end of the exercise it should, ideally, be possible to say to EU consumers “wherever you are in the EU or wherever you buy from it makes no difference: your essential rights are the same”’  (4).

3.1

The Green Paper sets out to provide a context in which views from interested parties can be collected on the policy options for the Consumer Acquis and some other specific issues. It defines the main issues as:

3.2

Based on earlier work the Commission then outlines two positive strategies for revision of the Consumer Acquis.

3.3

A third strategy, that of ‘no legislative action’, is briefly mentioned, though it is pointed out that existing problems would not be resolved and inconsistencies between Member States may be increased.

3.4

The Green Paper then deals with the possible scope of a Horizontal Instrument. Three options are suggested.

3.5

The next topic of the Green Paper will, for many, be seen as the pivotal issue in the revision of the Consumer Acquis — the degree of harmonisation. At present, Member States can provide for higher levels of consumer protection than is allowed for by the directives. This is known as ‘minimum harmonisation’. The focus and priority of consumer protection issues varies considerably between Member States, sometimes with the result of confusing consumers and deterring businesses from cross-border marketing. Two possible options are presented for consideration.

—

The general legislative approach.

—

The scope of a horizontal instrument.

—

The degree of harmonisation.

4.1

Over many years the EESC has supported, through its work and Opinions, the primary objective of the EU's consumer policy — that a high, uniform and consistent level of protection is available to all. The Committee also supports the secondary objective of enabling consumers to be informed and to make an informed choice in a barrier-free marketplace. The structure of the Green Paper makes it inevitable that the underlying tensions in fully achieving these two objectives are brought to the surface.

4.2

It is already clear that continuing with the Consumer Acquis in its present form should not be regarded as a long-terms option. Variation in law between Member States, inconsistency in definition, the considerable discrepancy in the way existing consumer legislation is applied and enforced and lack of clarity in — or even the existence of — complaints and redress procedures all have some effect in creating barriers to the single market.

4.3

It is also apparent that the Commission see the Review as an opportunity to look at some aspects of consumer policy hitherto regarded as fundamental and explore whether they are consistent with a vibrant single market, particularly one which is competitive in terms of globalisation. In this respect, there are similarities with other reviews being stimulated as a result of implementing the Lisbon Agenda. A high, uniform level of consumer protection is seen by some as an integral part of the European social model and a shift in emphasis to ‘redefine EU Consumer policy so it most effectively contributes to two central EU goals — creating economic growth and employment as well as reconnecting Europe to its citizens’ might be regarded as challenging this concept (6).

4.4

Although the task will be difficult, the EESC welcomes the Review of the Consumer Acquis and supports the Commission in its stated aims of reducing internal market barriers whilst maintaining a high level of consumer protection. The Committee considers, however, that such efforts should not be confined solely to the eight directives currently under consideration; they should instead cover, in the future, at least the 22 directives set out on the list drawn up by the Commission in May 2003.

4.5

The EESC wishes to participate in this debate actively with the aim of strengthening the internal market for the benefit of all stakeholders — consumers, professionals, companies and citizens.

5.1

Complex issues of policy, principle and law are raised in the Green Paper. Member States have themselves developed a corpus of consumer law which, though often consistent between countries in its broad principles, varies in detail and application. The systematic and extended consultation process annexed to the document reflects this complexity. This detailed framework solicits responses from the many hundreds of organisational stakeholders who wish to make their views known. In this Opinion, however, the EESC confines its comments to the underlying major policy issues, because it considers that each directive to be reviewed should be commented on separately, as in its Opinion on the directive on distance contracts [Opinion INT/334 on the Commission Communication COM(2006) 514 final, of 21 September 2006].

5.2

The main priority should be in making good the deficits in the existing Directives and co-ordinating them with each other.

5.3

‘Minimum harmonisation’ combined with a positive approach by Member States to adopt consistently higher standards on consumer protection is likely to form the basis for the major part of the consumer acquis for the foreseeable future. For various (and varying) social and economic reasons Member States will either wish to retain the level of consumer protection they already enjoy or move in a measured way, at a pace of their own choosing, towards a different level of protection. This position respects and is much easier to reconcile with the principle of subsidiarity. Nevertheless, it also recognises the view that various categories of consumers throughout the EU are disadvantaged in their current level of protection or capacity to seek redress and action is needed at both EU and Member State level.

5.3.1

This does not mean that, in a case-by-case examination, in very specific areas in which completion of the internal market is the prime concern, the possibility of maximum harmonisation should not be considered, provided that a higher level of consumer protection is ensured, possibly through regulation.

5.4

The stated aim of putting the consumer in the driving seat — in terms of knowledge of consumer rights, their capacity to take action against suppliers and obtain redress — should not be seen as an alternative to clear and proactively enforced protection through a combination of EU and national law. Information is a very different thing from protection. Indeed, the balance of power in most market transactions normally lies with the supplier and the majority of consumer law is designed to maintain the rights of the purchaser.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/31

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/31

1.1

Energy has become a central political issue with strong links to the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs.

1.2

More and better jobs are at the heart of the Lisbon strategy. When market conditions change, some jobs are lost in the energy sector. At the same time new energy solutions can be strong drivers for creating high quality jobs. Education and training are key facilitators.

1.2.1

In addition to employment, also other aspects of the social dimension of energy are central in the Lisbon context. This includes, in particular, a high quality public service at affordable prices. Civil society, including the social partners, need to be actively involved in energy policy development.

1.3

The EESC together with national Economic and Social Councils present the following recommendations on energy policy in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy, ‘Energy Policy for a Knowledge Society’:

1.4

In order to achieve the urgent transformation of the energy sector which is needed, the pace of innovation needs to be accelerated. The Committee urges that particular attention be given to:

2.1

The EESC in collaboration with national Economic and Social Councils is to produce ‘a summary report’ in early 2008 on the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs priorities. This Opinion on energy policy forms part of this Summary Report. It has been produced in collaboration with national Economic and Social Councils, with active contributions in particular from the French, Italian and Maltese Councils.

2.2

This Opinion has bearing on Section B — microeconomic reforms to raise Europe's growth potential of the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs 2005-2008. In particular it relates to guidelines 8 on strengthening competitiveness, 12 on R&D, 13 on innovation and ICT and 14 on sustainable use of resources (1).

2.3

The European Council in the conclusions of its meeting in Brussels on 23-24 March 2006 welcomed ‘the initiatives taken up by the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee to increase ownership (of the relaunched Lisbon strategy for jobs and growth) at Community level. It encourages the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to continue their work and asks for summary reports in support of the Partnership for growth and employment in early 2008’ (Point 12 of the Presidency conclusions).

2.4

The European Council notes that ‘the background in Europe is characterised by intensified competition from abroad, an ageing population, higher energy prices and the need to safeguard energy security’ (Point 7 of the Presidency conclusions). It further ‘confirms that the Integrated Guidelines 2005-2008 for jobs and growth remain valid. Within that framework it agrees on specific areas for priority actions concerning investment in knowledge and innovation, business potential, especially of SMEs, and employment of priority categories; as well as the definition of an Energy Policy for Europe’ (Point 16).

2.5

On the issue of energy the European Council notes that Europe is facing a number of challenges in the energy field: the ongoing difficult situation on the oil and gas markets, the increasing import dependency and limited diversification achieved so far, high and volatile energy prices, growing global energy demand, security risks affecting producing and transit countries as well as transport routes, the growing threats of climate change, slow progress in energy efficiency and the use of renewables, the need for increased transparency on energy markets and further integration and interconnection of national energy markets with the energy market liberalisation nearing completion (July 2007), the limited coordination between energy players while large investments are required in energy infrastructure (Point 43).

2.6

In response to these challenges and on the basis of the Commission Green Paper ‘A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy’ the European Council called for an Energy Policy for Europe, aiming at effective Community policy, coherence between Member States and consistency between actions in different policy areas and fulfilling in a balanced way the three objectives of security of supply, competitiveness and environmental sustainability (Point 44).

2.7

The European Council underlined that, to achieve this consistency both in internal and external EU policies, energy policy has to satisfy the demands of many policy areas. As part of a growth strategy and through open and competitive markets, it prompts investment, technological development, domestic and foreign trade. It is strongly linked with environment policy and is closely connected with employment, regional policy and particularly transport policy. In addition foreign and development policy aspects are gaining increasing importance to promote the energy policy objectives with other countries (Point 45).

2.8

The Energy Policy for Europe (EPE) should be based on shared perspectives on long term supply and demand and an objective, transparent assessment of the advantages and drawbacks of all energy sources and contribute in a balanced way to its three main objectives: (Point 46 + 47).

2.9

In fulfilling these main objectives the EPE should:

2.10

The Commission is to present a Strategic Energy Review on a regular basis, starting in 2007. On 10 January 2007 the Commission published its first Review and a communication to the European Council and the European Parliament ‘An Energy Policy for Europe’ — the ‘energy package’.

2.11

The point of departure of the Commission for a European energy policy is threefold: combating climate change, promoting jobs and growth, and limiting the EU's external vulnerability to gas and oil imports.

2.12

The Commission presents as the core energy objective for Europe that the EU should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % by 2020. The EU target needs to be seen in the context of the need for international action of industrial nations on climate change. When such a commitment exists, the EU will need to do more. The aim should therefore be to increase the target to a 30 % reduction by 2020 and 60-80 % by 2050.

2.13

The concern is not only about climate change, it is also about Europe's security of energy supply, economy and the wellbeing of its citizens. The Commission sees that achieving the objective also can limit the EU's growing exposure to increased volatility and prices for oil and gas, bring about a more competitive EU energy market, and stimulate technology and jobs.

2.14

In energy specific terms, meeting this overall greenhouse gas target will require the EU to reduce the amount of CO2 from its energy use by at least 20 %, and probably more, within the next 13 years. It will mean the EU taking global leadership in catalysing a new industrial revolution.

2.15

To achieve this objective, the Commission also proposes to focus on a number of energy related measures: improving energy efficiency; raising the share of renewable energy in the energy mix, as well as new measures to ensure that the benefits of the internal energy market reach everyone; reinforcing solidarity among Member States, with a more long term vision for energy technology development, a renewed focus on nuclear safety and security, and determined efforts for the EU to ‘speak with one voice’ with its international partners, including energy producers, energy importers and developing countries.

2.16

The Review includes a ten-point energy Action Plan with a timetable of measures. A first package of concrete measures is presented with the Action Plan. This includes:

2.17

The Energy Efficiency Action Plan which the Commission adopted on 19 October 2006 also forms part of the Action Plan. The Commission's Communication ‘Limiting Climate Change to 2° — Policy Options for the EU and the world for 2020 and beyond’ and the Strategic Review complement and reinforce each other.

2.18

The European Council endorsed fully the Commission's proposals at its Spring Summit on 8-9 March 2007. The Commission proceeds to draft detailed legislative and other relevant proposals in line with the Summit conclusions. A second Strategic Energy Review in two years' time will report on progress as Heads of State and Government have committed themselves to regularly discuss energy matters.

2.19

The EESC prepared during its mandate 2002-2006 several Opinions on energy policy issues, in particular on the features and role of different energy sources and technologies. At its Plenary session in September 2006 the EESC finally adopted an Exploratory Opinion, based largely on these previous Opinions, on ‘The energy supply of the EU: a strategy for an optimal energy mix’ (2). This Opinion covered many of the issues brought up be the European Council in March 2006. The main conclusions of the Opinion were:

2.20

The EESC found that Europe needs to set a strategic goal of a diversified energy mix, meeting optimally economic, security of supply and climate policy objectives. All energy sources and technologies have, in relation to these objectives, benefits and drawbacks, which have to be taken into account in an open and balanced way.

2.21

Increased use of renewable energy sources has a potential that needs to be tapped. But even when the target for 2020 of 20 % renewables would be met, it was not seen likely that renewables can substitute fully the traditional energy sources in the foreseeable future.

2.22

All options have to be kept open. The scenarios for EU-25 referred to in the Opinion clearly support this conclusion. Even a scenario based on assumptions of the strongest developments of energy efficiency and increase of renewables did not render any energy technology obsolete without negative impacts on either environment or economy.

2.23

The present mix should be developed by political strategies towards less external dependence and more non-emitting sources available in Europe, bearing in mind that market actors make decisions on investments in various technologies.

2.24

The EESC recommended developing a strategy for an optimal energy mix. In this context it is important to clarify the roles of the EU, Member States, independent authorities and market actors.

The strategy for an optimal energy mix was proposed to consist of the following elements:

3.1

Energy is a necessity in a modern society. To meet our needs of food, heating in cold climate, lighting, transport, commodities and consumer goods as well as — increasingly nowadays — telecommunications and information processing — we need a secured supply of energy. But the way in which we fulfil these needs can and has to be changed. In face of the present challenges, in particular that of climate change, we need a paradigm change as a matter of urgency towards a highly efficient, low carbon energy economy.

3.2

Energy has a strong link to the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. To achieve the Lisbon goals we need sufficient energy at affordable and competitive prices. At the same time new energy solutions can, in particular if they are successful on global markets, be strong drivers for European competitiveness and creation of high quality jobs.

3.3

The general objectives of energy policy — competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability are and remain valid. The serious challenge of climate change requires curbing the growth of energy demand by much better energy efficiency and strongly increased shares of renewable and other low carbon energy technologies, like potentially in the future carbon capture and storage. Security of energy supply is also served by better energy efficiency as well as by diversification of sources and a unified EU voice in external relations. Competitiveness needs to be enhanced by an open market with well functioning and fair competition, including access to networks, while guaranteeing high quality public service.

3.4

Creating more and better jobs is central to the Lisbon strategy. As competition in the markets in general require better productivity, also enterprises in the energy market need to be more efficient. When jobs are lost in the energy sector workers concerned need to be duly supported. At the same time jobs in energy using sectors may be prevailed and increased. In particular, the thrust towards better energy efficiency and renewable energy and other developing technologies will create numerous, mainly high quality jobs.

3.4.1

The social dimension of energy policy needs due attention in the Lisbon framework. It covers the questions of employment and jobs as well as the availability of energy for everyone at affordable prices, i.e. high quality public service. Civil society, including the social partners, need to be actively involved in energy policy development.

3.5

The EESC has presented its detailed views on the above mentioned key energy policy issues in recent Opinions and will in due course produce Opinions on the legislative and other detailed proposals to be presented by the Commission based on the European Council's conclusions concerning the Energy Package.

3.6

In order to avoid duplicated work and to offer optimal added value to the energy debate, the EESC focuses in this Opinion on the relationship between energy policy and the underpinning vision of the Lisbon strategy of Europe as a knowledge society. In this Opinion we comment on the issues contained in the Energy package in relation to innovations.

3.7

Politically set targets and measures set the framework, but technology and other innovation, including change in behaviour, are key to real progress. This is true for better energy efficiency, both in conversion and use. Innovation can play an important role in reducing dependence on external energy sources by enabling diversification of the energy mix. Innovation is definitely needed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases by development and use of renewable energy sources, clean coal and other fossil fuels as well as safe nuclear power.

3.8

Innovation means renewal in a broad sense. It is about developing and taking new ideas into wide use, turning them into economic value. It covers technological innovation as well as new management and other organisational solutions. It takes place in industry, but also in services and the public sector. Research is often the source innovation, but certainly not always. Here the Committee would also refer to its Opinion on Research needs for a safe and sustainable energy supply (3).

3.8.1

Energy technologies, like more efficient combustion, windmills, solar collectors, or future fuel cells, hydrogen technology and fusion, are in the centre of attention. Equally important are flanking technologies, like materials development or meteorology, providing for efficient optimisation by better forecasts.

3.8.2

For more efficient energy use the range of relevant technologies is almost limitless; better insulation, less consuming electrical appliances, lighter materials, better industrial product and process planning, more efficient machinery. In this context the role energy intensive industries are important — if they don't provide for demand by investments and expertise, innovation in large parts of energy efficient technology for industry will stifle in EU.

3.8.3

Information and communication technologies offer a big potential. Applied in production, conversion and distribution of energy ITC can, as in any processes, provide for more efficiency and higher productivity. The same is true for safe and secure operations, including in particular of transmission networks. ITC-technologies help users and consumers master their energy use. One example with multiple benefits could be cutting peak loads by facilitating users' immediate reactions to price signals. In a wider context, use of ITC-technologies could substitute transport needs by, for instance, teleworking and conferencing.

3.8.4

We also need new ways — innovations — in operation and management of energy and energy related systems. The goal here is to ensure high quality services to an affordable price. Examples are management of safe operation of production and transmission systems and maintenance as well as operating the market (exchanges), peak management and daylight adjustment. And last but not least — efficient logistics can add much to both energy demand and better fuel management.

3.8.5

Innovation in behaviour is also needed. The consumer is the key player — a more intelligent energy use is up to each one of us, and this requires new ideas and more knowledge. There is a big challenge of better awareness and adequate consumer information to guide choices. Regional and urban planning as well as architectural solutions and building requirements can do much to support citizens' choices vis-à-vis energy; to this end, official information campaigns urging efficiency energy use and savings should be promoted.

3.9

There is a need to come up with radically new solutions to problems, and change is needed urgently. Radical change takes time, and therefore it is important to start and allocate resources immediately. Meanwhile, existing best technologies should be taken broadly into use, for example to decrease energy use in households.

3.10

In order to lead innovation and investments in a cost-effective direction, the cost efficiency of upstream technologies should be quantitatively evaluated. One important example is the cost of different technologies for avoiding 1 ton of CO2 — for instance windmills are much costlier than isolation of houses.

3.11

The creation and uptake of innovations require certain conditions and some specific political measures, both at local, regional, national and EU levels. As EU has the ambition to become world leader in energy efficiency and low carbon technologies, it is of crucial importance to scrutinise energy policies and other relevant framework conditions against this goal.

3.12

The first prerequisite for successful innovation is a skilled and well motivated labour force, supported by a high class system of education. Development of new technologies requires sufficient R&D as well as risk financing in the development and business start up stages of SMEs. Healthy and open competition forces enterprises to innovate. Market access, including globally, is necessary. In the case of renewable energy network access may be crucial to successful innovation. The regulatory framework has to be designed to enhance innovation, for instance by rewarding innovators specifically (example: the ETS does not reward those who have taken early action to decrease emissions). Overregulation stifles innovation.

3.12.1

Investments are needed to take new technologies into use. Companies need to be profitable in order to be able to invest. This is the case also for investments in better energy efficiency, even if the pay back period may be short. The energy business has been very profitable during the last few years, but still investments are low. It is known that planning and authorisation requirements and permits slow down and even hinder investments. To decrease the risks of investment the regulatory framework needs to be predictable and stable. As investments in energy infrastructure often have long pay back periods, the possibility to use some forms of long term contracts would be beneficial.

3.12.2

For a company to invest in development or use of new technology, it needs to be able to get return on the investment from sufficiently big markets. In most cases national markets are not big enough for this — increasingly access to global markets is a prerequisite for making the investment. Likewise important is global demand and a level playing field. Unilateral EU measures do not create demand elsewhere, although it may happen over time. For instance, a price on CO2 can be an important incentive, but it would need to be global.

3.12.3

EU's strong position on the global markets in energy efficient and renewable energy technologies should be further developed and strengthened. EU's ambitions to be a frontrunner in climate policies by setting ambitious targets as well as in energy efficiency and renewable energy use can support this goal. This does, however, not work automatically. Targets and their deadlines need to be carefully set, so that there are realistic possibilities to meet them, otherwise the result may only be extra costs and possibly loss of jobs. For instance, relevant technologies need to be in the development pipeline close enough to be ready in time for target deadlines. Also investment cycles in different sectors need to be taken into account.

3.12.4

The EU seems to put emphasis on interference in the market as a means to enhance innovation, which may not be sufficiently effective. The US and some other countries rely more on public financing of R&D. Europe needs to increase public as well as private financing of energy R&D. Technology co-operation with the other big players should be developed, and their policies and measures should be systematically monitored. We also need much more cooperation between Member States and national and EU efforts need to be better coordinated, without eliminating competition. Closer cooperation between public research and enterprises needs to be fostered, both in planning and executing research agendas, in order to assure that research efforts lead to innovation. The proposed EIT could play a role here.

3.13

To actively support innovation, a combination of instruments is usually needed. Different phases of development and different market situations require different measures in order for them to be effective. In relation to measures needed to turn them into successful innovations on the market, technologies can be grouped into, for instance, three categories:

3.14

A broad choice in measures and instruments are available at EU, national and regional levels. The choice of measures for given objectives has to be made with great care in order to render results cost-effectively. The speed of action should be critically evaluated in order to avoid waste of resources and unintended implications. Measures that clearly serve both direct and indirect goals — no regrets-measures — should be implemented as soon as possible. More complicated, often new kinds of measures, like ways to set a market price for CO2, should first be carefully studied. To avoid complication, unexpected side effects and sub-optimal solutions multiple measures for one objective should be avoided. When choosing measures to be used, it is also important to take into account the efficient functioning of the internal market — this has so far not always been the case.

3.14.1

Funding of R&D: Here the Committee would refer in particular to its Opinion on Investment in Knowledge and Innovation (Lisbon Strategy) INT/325. The EU, as a whole, lags clearly behind the US and some other major competitors. The 7th Framework Programme for R&D allocates altogether some EUR 4 billion over seven years to energy (except the construction of ITER), while the US Energy Bill proposes in the Federal budget $4.4 billion for 2007 only, and increasing later. In addition to increasing public money to energy R&D, there should also be incentives for allocating more private funding to energy R&D, while fostering cooperation between EU-countries.

3.14.2

Education and training: In addition to efforts to upgrade the quality of education and training in Europe, energy needs to be made attractive as a career choice with positive perspectives for young people. As technologies change ever faster, lifelong learning is essential.

3.14.3

Public awareness: It is a big challenge to change the behaviour of each and every one of us towards smarter energy use. Schools and campaigns have their role to play. The education of our ‘citizens of the future’ on this topic could begin at primary school, since children are very receptive at this age to questions about the future of the planet and are eager to act. In professional spheres and companies, energy auditing based on, for instance, voluntary agreements have given good results.

3.14.4

Price mechanisms, taxation: Price signals can, if well designed, effectively support innovation by directing users' choices. As an instrument to decrease energy use in general, higher prices are not very effective — it is well known that price elasticity in energy is generally weak.

3.14.5

Subsidies: Well designed subsidies can effectively direct choices. In the early part of learning curves subsidies are often needed to counteract otherwise too high risks. In order not to distort competition, they can be used only in the framework of existing EU rules that is to address market failures. Subsidies need to be limited in time and gradually phased out. To boost energy efficiency, appropriate incentives need to be developed to help overcome the initial, up-front extra cost of energy efficient appliances with often short pay-back periods.

3.14.6

Politically set targets and obligations: These give a signal of a desired direction of development. As important for investment decisions are the actual political instruments implemented in order to reach the targets. When setting targets it has to be kept in mind that usually some parts of the economy gain while other loose, and overly ambitious targets may cause more harm than benefit. Presently there seems to be a tendency to set overall and in addition subtargets related to the same goal, for example targets on reducing CO2 emissions and, in order to reach those, targets on increasing the use of renewable energy. This may lead to suboptimal solutions in reaching the overall goal. Both targets and especially chosen instruments need thorough impact assessments, like agreements with industry in Germany and Finland.

3.14.7

Emissions trading, green/white certificates: These are effective instruments, leading to the set targets if correctly designed. The costs are, however, difficult to estimate on beforehand and may vary very much. The larger the market and the number of market players for trading rights or certificates, the better. If applied to enterprises competing on a global market, the system would need to be global in order not to distort competition.

3.14.8

Regulation or binding norms: Carefully planned regulation may enhance innovation. In particular, regulation can be an effective way to get rid of outdated technologies. It can also stimulate innovation to impose energy efficiency in products by setting ambitious medium targets for raising efficiency standards. The risk of stifling innovation is, however, always present. In any case, it must be assured that regulation does not create market barriers.

3.14.9

Voluntary standards, voluntary agreements, certification: These are innovation-friendly policy instruments. They may not always lead to meeting their exact targets or objectives, but they facilitate big steps forward in innovation, practically without risk of negative side-effects.

3.14.10

Public procurement: Procurement can play a big role in enhancing energy innovation. Methods for this purpose should be developed and spread widely. Normally ‘greener’ procurement requires the use of life cycle analysis, and for this and other new methods the authorities often need further education. The EU rules for public procurement, which have to be respected, provide for ‘greening’ of procurement, by requiring state of the art solutions.

3.14.11

In order to achieve the urgent transformation of the energy sector which is needed, the pace of innovation needs to be accelerated. The Committee urges that particular attention be given to:

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/39

—

‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the Community rail system’ (Codified version)

—

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency’

—

‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community's railways’

1.1

The proposals:

appear to be in line with the intention to facilitate access for operators to the European rail system.

They:

1.2

The EESC supports the objective of simplifying the procedure for placing stock in service.

1.3

The EESC believes that this simplification will increase the use of the European rail system by shifting demand away from other transport modes, while also helping to improve the environment and using the energy sources advocated in the EU's energy plans.

1.4

The EESC calls for the process of extending application of European interoperability standards and dividing certification checks between national and Community bodies not to give rise to safety risks.

1.5

In particular, the EESC recommends that the boundaries between the remits of the different bodies introduced by the new system be carefully managed.

1.6

The EESC believes that, for wagons and passenger carriages placed in service after the Directive has entered into force, a single authorisation for placing in service issued by one EU Member State should suffice. The new Regulation on the European Agency will enable railway operators, infrastructure managers and wagon keepers, and, most importantly, national certification bodies, to:

1.7

The EESC notes that, with the action planned, the Agency will become the system authority for the setting-up of the European rail system (comprising the HS (High Speed) network, trans-European transport corridors and, in the future, the whole of the remaining national networks), thanks to coordination and extension of the ERTMS (European Railway Traffic Management System) system, with publication of the cross-referencing system for national rules and the provision of technical support to national certification bodies.

1.8

The gradual development of the European Agency's role in guiding and monitoring the rail interoperability process and technological developments will have to be mirrored by some change in the roles of national certification bodies.

1.9

The EESC asks the Commission to consider the case for establishing a European register of safety problems regarding rail traffic, jointly agreed by the Member States, to provide basic data for setting joint parameters.

1.10

The hoped-for result is the creation of a European market in rolling stock, rolling-stock and system-maintenance activities and human resources for the management of transport services.

1.11

This will be a unique opportunity for European rolling stock manufacturers, particularly if the technical decisions on TSIs safeguard the possibility of keeping enough manufacturers to ensure a competitive European market for rolling stock (and maintenance thereof).

1.12

The EESC is concerned that, in the case of rolling stock placed in service before the Directive enters into force and not bearing an ‘EC’ declaration of verification, implementing the railway safety directive should not create more red tape for railway operators.

1.13

The EESC believes that the creation of national certification bodies in ESS countries should be provided for.

1.14

Analysis of derogations from TSIs should specifically include assessment, as regards the cost-effectiveness of a project, of the impact of Community co-financing on the economic viability of the project.

1.15

The EESC believes that an analysis of derogations should be carried out not for each individual TSI but for the system of TSIs as a whole.

1.16

The EESC recommends that the current language rules be applied when the Agency publishes TSIs.

It believes that the Agency's assessments and opinions should be requested for all construction or renewal measures, even where these are not funded by the European Community, in order to point both national and Community measures towards the European safety system.

1.17

The possibility of requesting opinions from the European Agency, even where they might conflict with the evaluations of national certification bodies, should be extended to all stakeholders. In particular, Community rail undertakings and the sector's trade union organisations should be granted this possibility.

2.1.1

The gradual establishment of a European railway area without frontiers demands technical regulations to govern safety- and management-related aspects and system access procedures.

2.1.2

Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991, Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995, and European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/14/EC of 26 February 2001, on the development of the Community's railways, all provide for the gradual opening-up of rights of access to the Community infrastructure for any Community railway undertakings holding a licence issued by a Member State and wishing to supply freight transport services, within a new frame of reference.

2.1.3

The dual objectives of safety and interoperability generate technical tasks that must be managed by a specialised body. It was for this purpose that the European Railway Agency for safety and interoperability was set up.

2.1.4

The Agency's main areas of activity are:

2.1.5

National procedures for the approval of locomotives are currently viewed as one of the main barriers to the establishment of new railway undertakings in the freight transport sector and as a major obstacle to the interoperability of the European railway system.

2.1.6

As no Member State can decide autonomously that its own operating authorisation should be valid in other Member States, a Community initiative is necessary to harmonise and simplify national procedures and to enable more systematic recourse to the principle of mutual recognition.

2.1.7

Furthermore, as part of the legislative simplification programme, the Commission intends to consolidate and merge the railway interoperability directives, with a view to establishing a single set of rules for the European rail system.

2.1.8

These initiatives will make rail transport more competitive by cutting costs for the railway sector.

2.2.1

The Agency is to facilitate the certification procedure for existing rolling stock by providing a reference document cross-referencing the national rules.

2.2.2

The Agency is to assess the interoperability aspect of industry requests for Community financing for infrastructure and rolling stock projects.

2.2.3

The Agency is to assess the relationship between wagon keepers and railway undertakings (formerly the RIV (Agreement between railway undertakings for the exchange and use of wagons) agreement), in the field of maintenance in particular, and make recommendations to the Commission regarding regulations.

2.2.4

The Agency is to make recommendations on common criteria for defining professional skills and assessing staff for management and maintenance activities.

2.2.5

The Agency is to take on the role of authority for the ERTMS project.

2.3.1

This proposal is designed to simplify and modernise the European legislative framework. It is in this context that the consolidation and merger of the directives on railway interoperability are proposed.

2.3.2

With its ten years' experience of implementing the interoperability directives, the Commission is also proposing several improvements to the technical part of the regulatory framework.

2.4.1

The amendment of Article 14 of the railway safety directive specifies which part of an authorisation must be mutually recognised and which is strictly linked to the compatibility of the vehicle in question with the infrastructure concerned.

2.4.2

The amendment to the legislation means that:

3.1.1

The nature of the railway system is such that all the elements play a part in the system's safety.

3.1.2

While the Agency's scope is expanding from the interoperable system to the safety system, in time its responsibility will also extend to all elements of the system.

3.1.3

It appears that at the end of the process there will be a single Community system and a single Railway Agency.

3.1.4

The regulatory comparison phase should be viewed as one of the necessary steps in this direction.

3.1.5

The varying impact that decisions on TSIs and new certification procedures will have on the various Member States, the infrastructure managers, the railway companies and the wagon keepers and final customers should be assessed.

3.1.6

The need to protect the economic balance of the various national networks and market operators must not be overlooked, particularly in the harmonisation phase for technical standards and certification procedures.

3.1.7

The Agency should be given responsibility for directing technological choices for a network open to interoperability, now and in the future, not only through financial incentives.

3.1.8

It should be borne in mind that, according to the provisions of the draft interoperability directive, the Agency's responsibilities will eventually expand to include the entire Community rail network.

3.2.1

The draft directive simplifies the TSIs for HS and traditional systems when they are comparable.

3.2.2

The draft directive extends the scope of the TSIs beyond the HS network and the TEN (Trans European Network) corridors to cover all national networks, with certain exceptions.

3.2.3

This marks a crossroads in the European railway system technological development policy with a view to establishing a single European network. The resulting economic and strategic impact is greater than suggested in the explanatory memorandum.

3.2.4

Responsibility for decisions on the type of TSIs to apply to new projects and major renovations to the existing infrastructure will fall largely on the Community's shoulders.

3.2.5

Community decisions on the definition and development of the TSIs, in relation to the current situation in each Member State, will have a major economic impact on the planning of technological and infrastructural investment in the various countries.

3.2.6

It would appear that an economic assessment of the impact of the new TSIs is necessary for each Member State, to underpin the assessment of whether adoption is appropriate.

3.2.7

This evaluation should be carried out differently for TSIs with an impact on public investment in the Member States and for TSIs with an impact on investments by railway undertakings and private operators.

3.2.8

Extending the scope of the TSIs to the entire European rail network, with exceptions, also implies a new system of relationships between the European Railway Agency and certification bodies in the individual Member States.

3.2.9

These bodies will most likely concentrate their efforts on certification activities for undertakings and operators rather than on managing the development of technological standards.

3.2.10

The amendment of the safety directive is one of a number of technical modifications aimed at facilitating the circulation of interoperable rolling stock.

3.2.11

Meanwhile, the newly defined concept of a wagon ‘keeper’ is introduced.

3.2.12

The organisation of the rolling stock certification process is such that the same stock will be assessed by different bodies depending on the various technical aspects.

3.2.13

The aspects included in the TSIs will be certified by one of the national certification bodies.

3.2.14

The additional national aspects will be checked by the national certification body for the network concerned. The national certification body will take note of Community certifications, check specific national certifications and issue the safety document. It has the power to reject the certification request and therefore remains responsible for the consistency of all the certified elements.

3.2.15

The European Railway Agency acts as an independent appeal body at the end of the certification request process.

3.2.16

The Committee has no other comments besides those general remarks already made above (under the Interoperability and Agency sections).

4.1.1

Article 8a: The Agency is on the one hand to create and update a reference document cross-referencing national rules for each parameter (paragraph 2) and, on the other, to provide only technical opinions on:

The Agency's work would be more effective if these opinions were binding and could be requested by stakeholders as well: infrastructure managers, railway companies, wagon keepers.

4.1.2

Article 15: The Agency's responsibilities should be extended to all renewal, upgrading or construction projects concerning parts of infrastructure subject to current or future TSIs.

4.1.3

Article 16a: Assessment criteria need to be given to the Agency for choosing between ‘voluntary or mandatory’ systems of certification, based on:

Any implications of the certification system for railway companies which are wagon keepers must be highlighted.

4.1.4

Article 18: It must be stressed that, when drawing up registration application forms, the Agency should endeavour to keep specifications which are not included in the common sections to a minimum.

4.1.5

Article 21b: The Agency's powers seem to be commensurate with its goals. The subsidiarity principle is not upheld.

4.2.1

Article 1: Where extension of TSIs to the European Economic Area is provided for, this must be mirrored by provision for recognition of national certification bodies.

4.2.2

Article 6: The freedom granted to the Agency as regards the language rules for publishing the technical annexes of TSIs is not conducive to easy, shared access to Community legislation on interoperability.

4.2.3

Article 7: The concept of derogation seems very broad, particularly as regards financial considerations, as there is no requirement to take into account the impact of Community financing on an economic viability study. It would be better to apply the derogation system to the entire set of TSIs relating to the project in question than to apply derogations to individual TSIs.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/44

1.1

The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal for a directive on the inland transport of dangerous goods, whose strategic aim is to harmonise EU legislation on the inland transport of dangerous goods. It should lead to an improvement in safety in the inland transport of dangerous goods.

1.2

The proposal revises four existing directives and four Commission decisions on the transport of dangerous goods, merging them into one legislative act, and also extends the scope of the EU's provisions to include transport by inland waterways (alongside road and rail transport).

1.3

The Committee shares the Commission's opinion that one cannot conceive of ensuring the best possible safety conditions for the inland transport of dangerous goods unless all types of inland transport (road, rail and inland waterway) are covered by common, EU wide legislation.

1.4

The Committee agrees with the Commission's view that the harmonisation of the binding legislation on the inland transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, which will not require any fundamental changes to the current regulations, and which will also extend the scope of EU legislation to cover inland waterways, will greatly simplify both the legislation and administrative procedures for both government authorities and private business.

1.5

The incorporation of all land transport modes into one legal act and the inclusion of references to international agreements and treaties on the inland transport of dangerous goods in the directive's appendices only (which would not be included as part of the directive, as is currently the case) will mean a significant reduction in the volume of the EU's acquis.

1.6

The Committee believes that the legal form proposed for the new provisions, the directive, represents a good solution. Considering, however, the wide scope of the exemptions and derogations outlined for the Member States, the Committee calls on all Member States to cooperate as closely as possible with the Commission on this issue, to ensure that the harmonisation of legislation becomes a reality.

1.7

The Committee wishes to emphasise that, given the detailed nature of the provisions on the technical conditions for the transport of dangerous goods and indeed of the categories of goods themselves outlined in the proposal, it can only comment on issues of a more general nature.

1.8

The Committee welcomes the information from the Commission that the opinions of the Member States and stakeholders, such as industry associations representing businesses active in the transport of dangerous goods, had a significant impact on the contents of the proposal, and that all efforts were made to reach a common position during the consultation process.

1.9

The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Commission will continue to be supported by a special regulatory committee on the transport of dangerous goods, which will help during comitology procedures.

1.10

The Committee also notes with satisfaction that the participation of industry associations at the meetings of the regulatory committee allowed them to put across their views regularly during the proposal drafting process. Equally, the Committee notes that consultations were also held with EFTA states and that the European Parliament was kept up to date with all developments.

1.11

The Committee values the fact that consultations were also held with the Central Commission for Inland Shipping on the Rhine, especially given that the transport of dangerous goods on this river accounts for some 80 % of the transport of such goods in Europe.

1.12

The Committee also notes the Commission's information that external consultants conducted an evaluation of the above area of policy in the years 2004-05: Evaluation of the EU policy on the transport of dangerous goods since 1994 and that their evaluation confirmed the validity of the proposal as well as the fact that public consultations revealed that the overwhelming majority of respondents were in favour of the policy proposed by the Commission.

1.13

The Committee believes that, since the translation and publication of the technical appendices is to be carried out at Member State level, it would be highly desirable for the Commission to financially support the translation process in the Member States.

1.14

Further to the above, the Commission is convinced that it is right to back the proposal in question, which was drawn up by highly qualified specialists in the inland transport of dangerous goods from a variety of Member States.

1.15

The Committee would, nonetheless, wish to draw attention to a number of issues which, in its opinion, still need to be reworked or clarified: there is no definition of the concept of dangerous goods under the Directive; Member States are granted the right to enforce bans on the transport of dangerous goods on their territory for non-safety reasons only; there is a lack of any information in Appendices III.2 and III.3.

The Committee's comments on these issues were presented in the section on Specific Comments.

2.1

The inland transport of dangerous goods (chemicals, cleaning products, petrol, explosives, handheld weapon cartridges, aerosols, radioactive materials, pesticides etc) carries with it a substantial risk of accidents occurring. This applies to all modes of transport; road, rail and inland waterways. It poses a danger to the life and health of not only those persons directly involved in the transport of such goods, but also to many residents of both urban and rural areas.

2.2

Action has already been taken in the past to ensure that the transport of such goods takes place under the best possible conditions. Today, the international transport of dangerous goods is regulated by a series of international treaties and agreements, which are based on UN recommendations. In order to ensure the safe transport of dangerous goods and the free and multimodal flow of international transport services, the UN has drawn up and revised a document entitled Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Provisions.

2.3

The regulation of the transport of dangerous goods is an important issue not only due to the specific nature of the goods themselves, but also because of the large volume of goods concerned. Total transport of dangerous goods in the EU already stands at 110 billion tonne-kilometres per annum, which represents approximately 8 % of all goods transportation in the EU. Of this figure, road transport accounts for 58 %, rail transport 25 %, with inland waterways making up 17 %. A growing trend is discernible, with the exception of rail transport.

2.4

In Europe, the provisions of the international agreements were implemented in the inland transport sector via the following three instruments:

2.5

EU legislation on the inland transport of dangerous goods, however, covers only transport by road and rail. The existing legislation already guarantees high levels of safety in respect of these two modes of transport, along with the free provision of transport services and the free movement of transport modes across EU territory. The EU legislation in this area includes the following four items:

2.6

However, there are no regulations governing the transport of dangerous goods by inland waterway. Whilst it is true that two systems of regulations are in place for regulating transport on the Rhine and the Danube (ADN-R and ADN-D), they have a regional scope only. What is more, there are also national regulations which regulate domestic transport in the Member States. The lack of any legislation in this field is, among other things, due to the non-signing of the ADN. The Commission's 1997 proposal for a directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on the transport of dangerous goods by vessels on inland waterways was not adopted and was withdrawn in 2004.

2.7

However, the agreement on transport by inland waterway is currently at the ratification stage and is expected to come into effect by 2009 at the latest. Taking this into account, the Committee agrees with the Commission's assertion that it makes sense to introduce transport by inland waterway into EU legislation, if only for the sake of harmonisation. Equally, this represents an opportunity to update and standardise the existing legislation. In addition, one must not allow the development of two separate legal systems: one for international transport, the other for domestic transport. Yet another reason for revising the legislation is that the existing EU legislation on the transport of dangerous goods is already quite complex. The legislative acts for certain modes of transport contain a number of inconsistencies whilst other regulations are or will soon be obsolete. For example, two directives may currently be considered to be redundant following the incorporation of their provisions into ADR, RID and ADN. A technical problem also exists regarding the current structure of the existing directives; according to the treaties, full translations must be made of the extensive technical appendices once every two years, whenever an international agreement or treaty is amended. This has proven to be a highly difficult and expensive process.

2.8

According to the information presented by the Commission, if nothing is done regarding this matter, then the above problems will not only not disappear, but may actually get even worse. The current complex provisions will, in all probability, become yet more complicated as a result of the amendments made to the international treaties and agreement; obsolete regulations will be maintained, which will not only confuse users but will also increase the risk of violation of the binding regulations. Instead of becoming more user-friendly, EU regulations could actually become completely inaccessible. With increasing use of multimodal concepts, different rules for different transport modes will exacerbate the daily problems encountered in multimodal operations and increase costs unnecessarily. In inland waterway transport, different rules for international and national operations will hamper the development of this mode, which otherwise would be the preferable mode in many cases, as is borne out by the statistical data available.

2.9

This is the reason behind the proposal to adopt a new directive, which will revise the existing four directives and four Commission decisions on the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail by merging them into a single legislative act (all three transport modes will be covered by one legal act only) and broadening the scope of EU regulations to include transport by inland waterway as well.

2.10

The new directive will revoke existing Directives 94/55/EC and 96/49/EC, as amended, on the transport of dangerous goods, Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC on safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway, and Commission Decisions 2005/263/EC and 2005/180/EC, as amended, on national derogations from Directives 94/55/EC and 96/49/EC. It is worth adding at this point that the provisions of Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC are currently included in the appendices to Directives 94/55/EC and 96/49/EC, as a result of which the former have become redundant with regard to transport by road and by rail.

2.11

The proposal introduces the existing international transport regulations into EU legislation and extends the scope of application of international regulations to domestic transport. The proposal will therefore lead to a substantial simplification in EU legislation on the transport of dangerous goods even though this will also involve an expansion in the scope of the legislation.

2.12

The aim of the proposal is to shift the responsibility for the necessary translation and publication of the technical appendices to the directives from the EU, i.e. from the Commission, to the Member States. One of the main reasons for this is that the translations done at EU level have not always been of the highest quality, compelling Member States to do their own translations or to correct them. These appendices are revised every two years. Accordingly, the Commission should financially support translations completed at Member State level. The Commission, however, believes that the savings made by the EU in translation costs outweigh the importance of providing financial support to the Member States.

2.13

The proposal should create a system whereby references to international treaties and agreements on the transport of dangerous goods would be included in the appendices to the directive only, and not in the directive itself, as is currently the case. This is expected to lead to a reduction of as many as 2 000 pages in the size of the EU acquis on the subject.

2.14

This simplification in EU legislation should make it easier to transpose this legislation into national law. The harmonisation of regulations on the transport of dangerous goods would simplify and make the work of the law enforcement authorities, including the judiciary, more effective.

2.15

The simplification and harmonisation of the regulations would make administrative procedures easier for all those involved in the transport of dangerous goods, from forwarder to customer.

2.16

The harmonisation of the regulations would also simplify the documentation required for haulage and for vehicles, the training of those involved as well as the work of the safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods.

2.17

The proposal forms part of the Commission's programme for the gradual revision and simplification of the EU acquis and of its legislative and work programme.

3.1

Firstly: in the proposal entitled Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods the section on definitions provides detailed definitions of individual words or terms (e.g. ADR, RID, AND, vehicle, wagon, vessel) explaining their meaning for the purposes of the directive. However, no information is provided as to what we should understand by the concept of ‘dangerous goods’. Doubtless, this is no simple matter given the number of dangerous goods that already exist and the advances in technology, which continually add new items to the list of such goods. The Committee nonetheless believes that information should be provided on what should be understood by the term ‘dangerous goods’ in the context of this directive.

3.2

Secondly: the draft directive gives Member States the right to regulate or introduce bans on the transport of dangerous goods across their territory for reasons other than transport safety only. Whilst the Committee understands the reasons for which the Member States were granted the right to regulate or ban the transport of dangerous goods, it fails to comprehend the reasoning behind according the right to act ‘for reasons other than safety only’. The Committee believes that, in the context of this proposal, whose aim is to increase the safety of dangerous goods, the proposed wording means that Member States would not be able to ban the transport of dangerous goods on their territory for safety reasons, which would seem to be rather illogical. Moreover, the Committee is unclear about how it would be possible to ensure the coordination of such bans applying to cross-border transport should the Member States introduce different bans.

3.3

Thirdly: Points III.2 and III.3 of Appendix III (Inland transport) do not contain any information on any planned additional transitory provisions or additional national regulations. Accordingly, the Committee asks for more information as to whether it is indeed the case that no such provisions are planned or whether they are simply in the process of being drawn up.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/47

1.1

GALILEO is the flagship programme of European space policy. The project's scope and strategic nature have led the European Space Agency (ESA) to work jointly with the European Union. Thus, a culture of intergovernmental and Community cooperation should ensure the success of this venture. In the same spirit of cooperation, the project should be implemented as a public-private partnership.

1.2

The first test satellite, precursor of future satellites that will ultimately form a constellation of 30, was launched into orbit towards the end of 2005. The development of this project is therefore on course, but has not been without its difficulties and delays.

1.3

GALILEO will be a global navigation satellite system, which will provide a set of positioning, navigation and timing services.

1.4

GALILEO, with its 30 satellites and its ground stations, will make it possible to provide information on their geographical positions to users in several economic sectors including transport (locating vehicles, ships, aircraft, guidance systems, travel information searches, etc.), justice, police and customs (border control), public works (topography, geodesy and geographical information systems), leisure (maritime and mountain navigation), social services (e.g. assistance to people with disabilities and the elderly), government security and safety services, and finally, through emergency beacon location services, rescue at sea or in remote parts of the world.

1.5

The market in products and services derived from navigation applications has been forecast to reach EUR 400 billion by 2025.

1.6

Disagreement among the partners with regard to the business model for GALILEO and governance of the industrial consortium is so profound that concession negotiations have now stalled. The delays accumulated so far and the absence of any sign of progress on the concession negotiation is a risk for the delivery of the project itself.

1.7

Faced with these difficulties, the Transport Council of March had asked the European Commission to take stock of progress in negotiations on the concession contract and look into alternative solutions. Faced with this deadlock, the Commission, in its Communication entitled ‘Galileo at a cross-road’, asked the Council and the European Parliament to take note of the failure of the current concession negotiation and to conclude that it should be ended. However, at the same time, it also asked them to reaffirm their commitment to the continuation of the Galileo programme. The Commission put forward an alternative scenario whereby the development and deployment phases would be supported and financed by the public sector and the concession contract would only concern the operational phase. The European Space Agency would be the procurement agent and design authority on behalf of the European Union.

2.1

The Commission document provides (a) a swift overview of the system in place and its foreseeable development and (b) an assessment of the possible innovatory applications. In so doing, it recalls the five proposed types of services (the open access service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service, and a government service with restricted access: the public regulated service). The Green Paper does not address the applications covered by the latter service — it is up to the Member States to decide whether they wish to use it or not. For this reason, the Commission will approach each Member State directly on this subject and will then compile and summarise the answers.

2.2

The Commission lists the following sectors as affected by, and potentially interested in, the system.

2.3

The length of this list of possible applications highlights the scope and broad range of potential applications.

2.4

As usual, the Green Paper concludes with a list of questions to stakeholders. It is not for the EESC to provide specific answers to these questions, but rather to stress those which it considers particularly important, and raise questions that should have been asked but were not.

2.5

The Commission is analysing the feedback on the Green Paper received from interested parties. Feedback is quite scant and sometimes too general to draw conclusions. As a result, the Commission intends to complete the process by undertaking further in-depth consultations with a view to publishing an action plan in October 2007. To date, no major economic sector has shown any real interest in the paid services. This is a good illustration of the difficulties involved in competing against a service that is available to the public free of charge, even if the latter is not guaranteed. This therefore raises the question of the economic and financial equilibrium of the European system, a civilian service that does not benefit from the same level of public backing (in this case from the military) as the American GPS.

3.1

Question 2 (1) on the protection of privacy is a matter of particular importance, to which the EESC has already given special attention by calling for the stringent protection of the right to privacy. This raises the question of striking a balance between the right to privacy and the possibilities offered by this technology. It should however be emphasised that the satellite positioning and navigation systems enable users to establish their position, but this position is only known to themselves and is not available to third parties unless the user decides to pass on the information, for instance via a form of mobile telecommunication like GSM. Since they are one-way systems, the operator of a navigation system — be it GPS, GALILEO, or the Russian system GLONASS — does not know who the users are and has no way of finding out who is using the navigation signals, let alone their geographical position. As a result, the issue of protecting the right to privacy has to be studied on the basis of the individual applications offered to users. Many of these services require the user's geographical position to be instantly re-sent to a server, which will then be able to provide the information requested by the latter (e.g. information about road traffic).

3.2

Question 5 (2) on international cooperation raises a number of issues. The European Union has signed cooperation agreements with China, Israel, South Korea, Morocco and Ukraine, and other agreements are being considered with India, Brazil, Argentina and Australia. Although these cooperation agreements are clearly desirable to strengthen GALILEO's international scope, mainly in connection with such issues as standardisation, the opening of markets, certification, frequencies and intellectual property rights, we should nevertheless exercise caution because the main motive of some partners is the acquisition of knowledge and European know-how in order to gain time in developing their own technologies, which would then compete against GALILEO. It has now become abundantly clear that this was China's primary intention when it signed a cooperation agreement on GALILEO with the EU in 2003. Furthermore, it is surprising to note that neither Norway nor Switzerland have as yet concluded an agreement with the EU covering their cooperation in the GALILEO programme, despite the fact that they are financing its development/validation phase through their participation in the European Space Agency. As a result, their potential access to GALILEO's public regulated service has yet to be determined.

3.3

In any event, and in general, the cooperation undertaken did not involve the public regulated service. Moreover, negotiations for international cooperation have slowed down because the main priority is the effective implementation of the European satellite navigation project, a phenomenon that is symptomatic of the difficulties encountered.

3.4

Questions 6 and 7 (3) on standards and certification raise the problem of certification for the equipment and the system itself and onboard navigation terminals. This is a particularly sensitive issue for aviation and rail transport, two sectors where safety and signalling equipment are subject to rigorous internationally recognised certification procedures. The certification of the GALILEO system itself only makes sense in the context of a specific sector of application, e.g. civil aviation, which lays down applicable rules and procedures for certification. The certification of terminals and equipment on board mobile machinery using the GALILEO services involves more than just the positioning terminal. It also involves all the other equipment that uses the position information and finally delivers the information gathered to the pilot or captain. The usual certification procedures for that specific application therefore apply. Thus, the issue has to be dealt with separately for each specific application.

3.5

Another aspect of the matter, liability, is barely touched upon, whereas it is of considerable importance. Its exceptional complexity has to be acknowledged. The relatively straightforward issues of contractual liability must be considered, but so must those relating to extra-contractual liability, which are far more difficult to deal with. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the degree of liability may vary depending on whether it concerns the open access service, the commercial service or the public regulated service. The European Commission is considering a system similar to the one applied in civil aviation, i.e. a fixed amount to be covered by insurance and the rest by the public authorities. In this case, the key question would be to establish the threshold at which the liability of the authorities would be triggered. The threshold currently being considered is high — approximately a billion euros.

3.6

To what extent does the signal provider guarantee performance? This question is of acute importance in the aviation, rail and even maritime sectors.

3.7

If, for instance, a bad quality signal results in a plane crash or shipwreck, possibly causing an oil spill: who would be liable and to what extent? A distinction would have to be drawn here between contractual liability and extra-contractual liability.

3.8

Would the GALILEO operator be wholly liable or would liability be shared with States? And if so, which States: the launching State, the European Union, or the States participating in the GALILEO project? These issues must be addressed and settled in order to ensure that GALILEO's commercial applications can be developed in a satisfactory and reliable legal framework.

3.9

There are precedents, e.g. Ariane. The risk of damage to third parties caused by launches is carried by Arianespace for up to EUR 100 million. Anything in excess of this amount is covered by the French State. There are similar risk sharing arrangements between commercial operators and States in the civil aviation sector, which might perhaps be applied to GALILEO. Nevertheless, the sensitive issue remains the need to agree where to draw the dividing line: what is the appropriate share of liability to be borne by the public authorities and the operator, especially for new services?

3.10

A system based on the latter, if applied to the GALILEO programme, would obviously involve clearly specifying which public authority would be in a position to share liability with the GALILEO operator.

3.11

Question 9 (4) on intellectual property is important. Even if public institutions finance initial research, it is important that intellectual property rights to the applications should belong to the companies, especially the SMEs, that develop and implement them.

3.12

The military uses of GALILEO also have to be considered. Unlike GPS, a military system made available for civilian purposes on a discretionary basis, GALILEO is a civilian system. As is the case with the GPS civilian signal, there is nothing to prevent the armed forces of any country from using GALILEO's open access service for a military purpose, even though the public regulated service, which is specifically regulated by the EU Member States, offers more advantages than other GALILEO services in that it is more powerful in terms of scrambling and independence (different bands and frequencies are used).

3.13

Without entering into a discussion of the various military uses of GALILEO's public regulated service, which lie well outside the scope of this opinion and are not dealt with in the Green Paper, the fact remains that GALILEO's financial equilibrium partly depends on this service. This point will undoubtedly continue to be discussed in the new configuration for the GALILEO programme proposed by the Commission. Moreover, in its Communication, the Commission states that ‘whilst maintaining the system as a civil system significant revenues could also come from military users’.

4.1

The Green Paper on satellite navigation applications provides an overview of many of the sectors for which satellite navigation would indeed be relevant. It needs to be completed in a number of very important areas such as intellectual property rights in processes that could open the way to new fields of application, and certification and liability arrangements.

4.2

The matter of government or even military use of GALILEO by EU Member States, which is handled through direct dialogue between the Commission and the Member States, and among the Member States themselves within the GALILEO security board, is very important insofar as it has a significant impact on GALILEO's financial model. It seems clear that this matter needs to be re-examined, particularly since the public sector contribution looks set to increase substantially as a result of the failure of the first public-private partnership scenario.

4.3

It is extremely useful and interesting to consider satellite navigation applications. However, it is also necessary to be sure that the constellation is completed. The Commission's new proposals are the GALILEO programme's last chance. The EESC is well aware of the financial effort they require of Member States. However, at a time when the EU is dealing with its citizens' scepticism, and a certain ‘disenchantment’ revealed by debates on the draft Constitutional Treaty, the impact of abandoning the GALILEO programme would be disastrous in Europe and abroad. Its failure would show the world that the European Union was unable to rally round an ambitious scientific, technical and business project. It is essential to complete the GALILEO programme in order to demonstrate the European Union's ability to bounce back and successfully complete major forward thinking projects.

4.4

The truth is that, for these reasons, the GALILEO project is going through a difficult period. The EESC cannot but note that if this EU flagship project fails, it would seriously undermine people's confidence in European integration. Every effort must be made to ensure that this does not happen.

27.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/51

1.1

In 2004 the EESC suggested in its Opinion ‘The issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation’ that ‘efforts should be made to provide information on the real issues of the nuclear industry: security of supply, elimination of CO2 emissions, competitive prices and safety and management of spent fuel, so that organised civil society can carry out a critical analysis of the debates on these issues’. The new Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC) provides such information. The EESC broadly agrees with the analysis and description presented in the Commission communication. Most of the essential aspects concerning nuclear power are taken up and, in our view, correctly described. The Committee in addition points to some aspects of nuclear power to be taken into account.

1.2

Nuclear energy, with its share of 31 % of electricity and 15 % of the total primary energy consumption in the EU in 2004, plays a crucial role in the energy market. Nuclear also meets fully the objectives of EU energy policy. The cost of nuclear power is today clearly competitive. The external dependence is small and sources of fuel are diversified and secure, which meets the requirements of security of supply. Nuclear power is currently the largest source of essentially carbon dioxide free energy in Europe.

1.3

Following the European Council's decision on greenhouse gas emission targets for 2020 and beyond, it is evident that all additional low carbon power generation capacity, be it renewables, nuclear or potentially clean coal, should substitute CO2-emitting capacity and thereby add to total low-carbon electricity. In practical terms, if at least the present share of nuclear power is not maintained until totally new clean energy solutions may be available, climate and other energy policy goals are not to be met.

1.4

The EESC underlines the persistently important role of the EU to develop further the most advanced framework for nuclear energy in those Member States that choose nuclear power, in conformity with the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation as required by the Euratom Treaty.

1.5

The most important tasks is a solution to the question of radioactive waste, and especially final disposal of spent nuclear fuel, to which technology exists but political decisions are lacking. The EESC also agrees with the Commission on the other issues that still require attention at the EU level: Nuclear safety and radiological protection, which have a very good record in Europe, as well as secured long-term funding of decommissioning.

1.6

The EESC points attention to some additional aspects of nuclear power that have not been covered by the draft PINC. These are the threat of terrorism and in some power plants the issue of sufficient availability of cooling water.

1.7

For Member States which wish to persevere with nuclear power a concern could be the lack of attractiveness of the sector as an employer and research topic. The EESC agrees with the Commission's view that expertise in radiological protection and nuclear technology is fundamental for the EU, and therefore education, training and research in these areas need attention.

1.8

Finally, the EESC underlines each Member States right to choose its own energy mix, including the use of nuclear as is mentioned in the PINC.

2.1

According to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, the European Commission shall ‘periodically publish illustrative programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their attainment. The Commission shall obtain the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on such programmes before their publication’. Since 1958 four such illustrative programmes and one update have been published, last in 1997.

2.2

The present draft Nuclear illustrative Programme (PINC) was published by the Commission in the context of the energy and climate package, An Energy Policy for Europe, on 10 January 2007. The final version will be prepared and published as soon as the Commission has received the Opinion of the EESC.

2.3

The other parts of the package cover firstly a proposal for climate change targets of 30 % reductions of greenhouse gases for the developed countries by 2020 from the 1990 level or in any case 20 % for EU alone. The package further deals with the internal market of gas and electricity, interconnections in the electricity and gas networks, proposals to promote sustainable power generation from fossil fuels; a roadmap to promote renewables including a 20 % binding target by 2020 for the share of renewables in the EU's overall energy mix and energy savings with a 20 % efficiency increase target by 2020 and a future European Energy Strategic Technology Plan. The European Council on 9 March 2007 supported the targets and the main policy contents of the package.

2.4

The EESC has prepared Opinions on each PINC, as the Treaty requires. The Committee has also touched upon nuclear power in several of its other Opinions, recently in particular the own-initiative Opinion on the role of nuclear power in 2004, stating in the conclusions that ‘the EESC considers that nuclear power should be one of the elements of a diversified, balanced, economic and sustainable energy policy for the EU. In view of the issues which it raises, staking everything on nuclear is not an option which should be considered; on the other hand, the EESC considers that a partial or total abandonment of nuclear power would compromise the EU's chances of respecting its commitments on the climate issue’.

3.1

The Commission's document reviews the investments in nuclear energy for the past ten years, describes the economics of nuclear power generation, its impacts on the energy mix as well as its conditions for social acceptance. The content is, in some more detail, as follows.

3.2

It is for each Member State to decide whether or not to rely on nuclear power for the generation of electricity. Decisions to expand nuclear energy have recently been taken in Finland and in France. In the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Romania a debate has been re-launched on their nuclear energy policy. Germany, Spain and Belgium are — despite a continuing debate — continuing their nuclear phase-out policies for the time being. 12 of the 27 EU Member States do not produce nuclear energy.

3.3

With 152 reactors spread over the EU 27, nuclear power contributes 30 % of Europe's electricity today — however, if the planned phase-out policy within some EU Member States continues, this share will be significantly reduced. To meet the expected energy demand and to reduce European dependency on imports, decisions could be made on new investments or on the life extension of some plants.

3.4

According to the Commission reinforcing nuclear power generation could represent one option for reducing CO2 emissions and play a major role in addressing global climate change. Nuclear power is essentially carbon emissions-free and forms part of the Commission's carbon reduction scenario including the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. This could also feature as an important consideration when discussing future emissions trading schemes.

3.5

The most crucial factor affecting the prospect of growth of nuclear power is its underlying economics as a nuclear plant involves an up front investment ranging from EUR 2 to EUR 3.5 billion. Nuclear energy generation incurs higher construction costs in comparison to fossil fuels, yet operating costs are significantly lower following the initial investments. In detail the Commission is stating:

3.5.1

‘The economic risks of a nuclear power plant are linked to the major capital investment at the beginning and require quasi-faultless operation during the first 15 to 20 years of its 40-60 year lifetime to pay back the initial investment. In addition, decommissioning and waste management mean that financial assets must be made available for 50 to 100 years after the shutdown of the reactor.’

3.5.2

‘In EU-27 (1) a total of 152 nuclear reactors are in operation in 15 Member States. The average age of nuclear power plants (NPPs) is approaching 25 years (2). In France, which has the largest fleet (59) of nuclear reactors accounting for nearly 80 % of its electricity generation, and Lithuania, with only one NPP yet accounting for 70 %, the average age is around 20 years. The UK fleet of 23 NPPs has an average age approaching 30 years, while in Germany the average age of their fleet of 17 operational NPPs is 25 years.’

3.5.3

‘Nuclear power has traditionally shown a combination of higher construction and lower operating costs than fossil-fuel-based energy production, which exhibits lower capital costs but higher and potentially fluctuating fuel and, hence, operating costs.’

3.6

Nuclear power generation is largely immune to changes in the cost of raw material supplies, as a modest amount of uranium, which comes largely from stable regions of the world, can keep a reactor running for decades. Reasonably assured and recoverable known uranium resources at competitive prices can sustain the requirements of the nuclear industry for at least the next 85 years at current levels of consumption. Therefore, in most industrialised countries new nuclear power plants offer an economic way to generate base-load electricity.

3.7

The nuclear industry has made considerable investments since 1997. The Commission recognises the importance of maintaining a technological lead in the field of nuclear power and supports the further development of the most advanced framework for nuclear energy, including non-proliferation, waste management and decommissioning. Since the establishment of the Euratom Treaty, nuclear safety and the radiological protection of the public have been one of the main concerns of the European Community and are issues that have gained further importance in view of the past and the present enlargement.

3.8

At EU level, the role should be to develop further the most advanced framework for nuclear energy in those Member States that choose nuclear power, in conformity with the highest standards of safety, security and non-proliferation as required by the Euratom Treaty. This should include nuclear waste management and decommissioning.