19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/1

1.1

The Committee can only give firm support to the Commission's initiative to the degree that this takes into account not only the problems of demand, but also — and primarily — supply-side optimisation, avoiding failures and red tape.

1.2

The Committee is convinced that the promotion of initiatives at local and regional level and the capacity to network them in furtherance of the Lisbon Strategy is essential for combined research and development efforts that are successful in setting up and developing innovative businesses throughout the Union. Above all, however, it is essential to involving economic and social players operating at territorial level in working towards the shared goals of more and better jobs, in a context of overall sustainable and competitive development.

1.3

The Committee reiterates the importance of the knowledge triangle (education, research and innovation), which plays a critical role in promoting growth and jobs. For this reason, it is urgent to step up reforms, promote excellence in higher education and in partnerships between universities, research centres and companies and ensure that all education and training sectors play their full part in nurturing creativity and innovation, especially at regional and local level. This especially applies to those specific regions — Euregios — where neighbours and partners are networked in areas that transcend national borders.

1.4

The Committee thinks that the competitiveness of Europe's regions and their development in economic, social and employment terms must be pursued more pro-actively and with more coordination than at present. This will make it easier to get the best possible tangible results in pursuit of the Lisbon Strategy goals.

1.5

The Committee concurs unreservedly with the Commission's diagnosis of shortcomings in the joint and coordinated use of the Community instruments, but expresses its regret that more than ten years later this crucial issue is still approached in terms of analysis rather than getting to the nub of the problem, which is to develop new simultaneous engineering capacities (1) of various types across both Community and European action.

1.6

The Committee considers that action on the demand side is needed, but is not sufficient in itself. In its view, we must move on from declaring the need for regions to be more focused and achieve:

1.7

In the Committee's view, far-reaching action should be taken on the supply side to ensure a consistent framework that provides easy access to all available instruments. The aim is to overcome legal obstacles and the time-lag between initiating and actually delivering financial support, in order to make Europe's regions more competitive.

1.8

The Committee considers it vital that a European Practical Guide be compiled which furnishes an overview of:

1.9

The Committee also maintains that specific and precise Community action can no longer be postponed if new simultaneous engineering capacities of various types of action are to be achieved and resources are to be maximised and concentrated in the regions.

1.10

As it has stated in a previous opinion (2), the Committee thinks there is an urgent need, therefore, to address the problems of plurality of governance levels and the fragmentation of interventions needed for a competitive relaunch of Europe's regions. In this connection it proposes instigating a new initiative — entitled JASMINE: Joint Assistance Supporting Multiprojects for Innovation Networking in Europe — to tackle the present institutional gaps on both the demand and supply sides and to cut red tape significantly.

1.11

The aim of JASMINE should be to enable the various players involved in a network decision-making process to behave in a more informed and coordinated way within a single coherent regional planning framework.

2.1

The European regions of knowledge are contending with numerous elements of change that constitute both challenges and opportunities and influence their capacity to achieve the goals of the revised Lisbon Strategy.

2.2

These elements of change include:

—   external factors: more intense globalisation, the emergence of areas of the continent with very dynamic growth, much higher energy and raw materials prices, unforeseen scientific and technological developments, the internationalisation of innovation, climate change issues and often unmanaged or unmanageable migratory pressures;

—   internal factors: population ageing, protection of the environment and quality of life, obsolescence of production and services, public sector modernisation, growing interaction between new emerging kinds of knowledge and available human resources, capacity for cultural growth and creativity, and development of common territorial infrastructure, both physical and intangible.

2.3

The Committee has expressed its views on these issues a number of times, both in specific contexts and in the broad context of the evolution of the Lisbon Strategy and Community policies on research and innovation, the environment and education and training.

2.4

In particular, the Committee has emphasised the need to ‘enable the whole EU area to adjust to the challenges of the knowledge-based economy and thus help all regions to take account of the Lisbon objectives’ (3).

2.5

The Committee has further asserted that: ‘The new configuration of competitive models on the global market is imposing major changes. The new integrated platforms and networks must address themes relating to research and innovation, the management of new human resources, promotion and marketing, finance and credit, logistics and market and client service management’ (4).

2.6

The Committee reiterates its conviction that the promotion of initiatives at local level and the capacity to network them in furtherance of the Lisbon Strategy are essential to encourage the setting-up of innovative businesses in a context of sustainable and competitive development. This especially applies to those specific regions — Euregios — where neighbours and partners are networked in areas that transcend national borders. In its opinion on the Green Paper on The European Research Area:

2.7

In its opinion on the Green Paper on The European Research Area: New perspectives, the Committee recommended that ‘the European Research Area should be complemented by a European Knowledge Area designed to create a European knowledge-based society’ and pointed out that ‘[c]oordination [was] also needed from the Commission to create effective leadership and advisory structures and to ensure that work […] [was] well organised’ (5).

2.8

Finally, the Committee has underscored the importance of the knowledge triangle (education, research and innovation), which plays a critical role in promoting growth and jobs. For this reason, it is important to step up reforms, promote excellence in higher education and in partnerships between universities, research centres and companies and ensure that all education and training sectors play their full part in nurturing creativity and innovation, especially at regional and local level.

2.9

The Committee thinks that the competitiveness of Europe's regions and their development in economic, social and employment terms must be pursued more pro-actively and with more coordination: the Commission must try to get beyond the obstacles presented by various legal bases and procedural criteria. The aim must be to make the best use for the taxpayer of various Community budget instruments in order to maximise tangible results in pursuit of the Lisbon Strategy goals. These results should be in areas such as the effectiveness of joint access, coordination, and synergies and synchronisation of available interventions at Community and pan-European level. They should achieve the critical mass needed to generate a multiplier effect.

2.10

According to the renewed Lisbon Agenda's integrated guidelines for growth and jobs, cohesion policy has three strategic priorities (6):

2.11

On the supply side, difficulties in achieving a leverage effect and a coordinated use of funding instruments available for achieving these goals stem from the inherent nature of the instruments themselves, namely:

2.12

On the demand side, regions often:

2.13

Shortcomings must be addressed by making technical assistance and coordination available to all Community programmes from the outset.

2.14

The commendable synergy initiatives in various structural programmes and instruments for the 2007-2013 period would appear to be a prerequisite — albeit not the only one — for getting the best concrete results from them.

2.15

The Committee has expressed its support for Commission initiatives such as JEREMIE and has proposed a JEREMIE Focal Point to act as a coordination and information unit between the various actions, pointing out the lack of ‘a project capable of coordinating and fine-tuning the many loan instruments currently in existence’ (8).

2.16

The Committee fully supports and concurs with Commissioner Hübner's statements on JASPERS, JEREMIE and JESSICA (9), which ‘have created new dynamics and expectations for investment, growth and jobs in the Member States and regions, as well among the social partners across all the regions of the European Union’.

2.17

The Committee maintains that the guidelines adopted by the European Union committee for scientific and technical research (CREST) (10) and published in September 2007 are important in showing the way forward, though they are confined to the interaction between the Framework Programme for research and development and the new Structural Funds.

3.1

The Commission proposal makes clear the possible synergies that already exist in the funding instruments of European research, innovation and cohesion policies. These are available to stakeholders in order to make Europe's regions more competitive, depending on their capacity to absorb them.

3.2

The principal instruments for action spotlighted are the Seventh Framework Programme for research and development, the new Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the new focuses of the Structural and Cohesion Funds.

3.3

The Commission makes it clear that it has worked with a number of advisory coordination groups, which have recommended:

3.4

The Commission calls on the Member States to improve the options for the coordinated development and use of Community instruments and to create systems to inform participating operators of the opportunities available to them. In order to encourage coordinated access to funding, it also undertakes to publish a practical guide by the end of 2007 on the funding opportunities for research institutions, including the arrangements provided by national and regional mechanisms.

4.1

The Committee concurs unreservedly with the Commission's diagnosis of shortcomings in the joint and coordinated use of the Community instruments it mentions; it does not, however, endorse the treatment prescribed, which it thinks is not enough to achieve the goals of the Community policies, above all regarding research, innovation and training.

4.2

The Committee agrees with the Commission (11) that ‘[c]entral to the realisation of the renewed Partnership for Growth and Jobs is the effort to promote the knowledge economy, in particular through research, technological development and innovation’, but believes that this partnership is the joint responsibility of all parties concerned, at Community level no less than at national, regional and local levels.

4.3

The Committee sees a need to go beyond the development of a territorial strategy of technological and innovation research and development and in addition make use of:

4.4

In the Committee's view, far-reaching action should be taken on the supply side to ensure an easily accessible framework for all the instruments available for the competitive development of Europe's regions. This development should be compatible with the aims of a ‘socially responsible region’, involve the social partners, chambers of commerce, academia and organised civil society, and be based on a strategy of European industrial policy (13) that is sustainable in terms of both production and consumption.

4.5

Moreover, while instruments are listed which help boost growth, create more and better jobs and make Europe's regions more competitive through research and innovation, the Committee finds the list incomplete, since it does not mention all the relevant Community intervention instruments and omits the coordination opportunities and requirements of available pan-European and international instruments.

4.6

The Communication omits to mention, or mentions only in passing (14), possibilities of intervention such as:

4.7

Moreover, there is no mention of the pan-European, non-Community, programmes and initiatives that nevertheless promote innovation in the EU, such as:

4.8

The Committee also sees a need, while respecting Article 54(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, for greater clarification of the difficulties and impediments to joint and coordinated use of applicable instruments at national, regional and local level and by individual operators (19), not only with regard to different legal bases, thematic specialisation, geographical area and modes of implementation, but also in terms of substantial, and sometimes fatal, differences, such as:

4.9

The Committee considers it vital that a European Practical Guide be compiled which furnishes an overview of types of Community and pan-European actions available, the various evaluation criteria and whether possible interventions are compatible and complementary.

4.10

The Committee reiterates the need for coordinated and joint action ‘concerning the links between Community structural policies and the Union's research and innovation policies, as the Committee has urged on several occasions’ and stresses that ‘close coordination of these policies is essential in order to achieve optimum levels of practical synergy and to enable the needs of citizens, businesses and society to be fully met with the overall objective of sustainable, smooth medium- to long-term growth, in keeping with the integrated RTD problem-solving approach and with the key development factor of intangible investment’ (20).

4.11

The Committee stresses the large number of Community policies that, alongside cohesion policy and research policy, help to improve the competitiveness of Europe's regions, and reiterates the need for an integrated and coordinated approach which comprises:

4.12

In this connection, the Committee reiterates its existing views on the need to (23):

4.12.1

The Committee also recommends the integration of Community training programmes.

4.13

The Committee expresses its regret that ten years later this crucial issue is still approached in terms of analysis rather than getting to the nub of the problem, which requires Community intervention to provide new ‘simultaneous engineering capacities of various types of action (technological, demonstrative, innovative, dissemination, educational, financial, etc.) — the aim being to boost employment and production at regional level’ (24).

4.14

The Committee maintains that specific and precise Community action can no longer be postponed if the risk of losses in productivity and employment in Europe's regions is to be averted.

5.1

The EESC advocates a voluntary instrument for simplifying and removing bureaucratic, procedural and conceptual obstacles to the joint use of pan-European, Community, national and regional programmes in line with an accelerated development of the European Research Area (ERA).

5.2

The Committee considers that the current priority is to address problems relating to the plurality of governance levels of the various available interventions to restart the competitiveness of Europe's regions. To this end, it proposes a new initiative — Jasmine: Joint Assistance Supporting Multiprojects for Innovation Networking in Europe — to tackle the present institutional gaps, on both demand and supply sides, in interventions to support innovation and research in the regions.

5.3

Community action should be based on Policy Networking, which could take the following forms:

5.4

The new priorities of regional programmes, focused on innovation, competitiveness and reciprocal learning throughout active life, should make it possible to develop active policies to reinforce and sustain the competitiveness of regions through the funding of regional and interregional foresight exercises, clusters and district networks that provide a strategic vision shared by each region. This can serve as the basis for a technical support action for the best combined use of the most suitable national, Community and pan-European instruments and PPPs.

5.5

Jasmine could serve as a guarantee which would facilitate the acceptance of individual projects by reassuring various funding bodies and programmes that they are a part or stage of a larger project. This could be done on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding or a cooperation agreement between the European Commission and other Community and non-Community bodies, or under the Commission's administrative regulations when different services of the Commission itself are responsible for individual programmes.

5.6

The aim of Jasmine is to facilitate the mobilisation of financial resources covering different managerial responsibilities and different tiers of governance (public or private) to achieve an optimum critical mass of resources — thus increasing the total leverage effect — in order to create a single multi-project framework that fully meets a European region's shared strategic vision of improving its strong points in technology and innovation.

5.7

Jasmine should be based on the experiences of the Lead Market Initiative, the European Technology Platforms and the Joint Technology Initiatives and on the outcomes of ERANET and ERANET PLUS, the Regions for Economic Change and PRO INNO initiatives and JEREMIE, JASPERS and JESSICA (28).

5.8

Jasmine could maximise the innovation and research efforts of the regions and the companies, human resources, universities, research centres and administrations on which they rest — through the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Technology (EIT), for example. It should be remembered, however, that innovation is for the most part a commercial activity that must be able to function in the best possible operational environment, especially regarding the tax burden on research, the treatment and protection of intellectual property and the excellence of education and training structures which will generate more and better jobs.

5.9

Finally, Jasmine could help to make the most of the distinctive advantages of the regions and to promote exchanges on innovation and research.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/9

1.1

Every year, more than 44 000 people are killed and a further 1,7 million injured in road accidents in the 27 Member States. Of these, more than 8 000 of those killed and 300 000 of those injured belong to the most vulnerable category of road users — pedestrians and cyclists (1).

1.2

A framework directive was adopted in 2003 in order to ensure better protection for vulnerable users. It entailed a thorough review of the construction of the front part of vehicles, to be implemented in two phases: the first was applied to vehicles type-approved from 1 October 2005, while the second was to take effect in September 2010, following a feasibility assessment to be carried out before the end of 2004.

1.3

As confirmed in studies from numerous independent experts, the second phase has proved not to be feasible, at least under the conditions laid down: the Commission is therefore now proposing to revise it, including new alternative measures which will however guarantee, or even improve upon, the level of safety contained in the provisions of the existing directive.

1.4

More specifically, the study carried out by the expert engaged by the Commission (2) suggested a number of solutions, which have been taken up in the present proposal, combining active and passive safety measures, in line with the recommendations put forward by CARS 21 (3) and with the proposal for a global technical regulation (GTR) for the protection of pedestrians drawn up by the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva (UN-ECE).

1.5

The EESC also considers that the proposal does not hinder free competition between manufacturers, in that it does not restrict the market offer of vehicle models, but seeks to channel demand towards models with higher safety requirements.

1.6

In the light of the above, the EESC unreservedly supports the Commission's proposal. However, it regrets the almost three-year delay in reviewing the measures that have proved not to be feasible and in drafting new ones, although the delay is probably due in part to the appearance of data and technical solutions that were not available when the current directive was adopted.

1.7

The EESC calls for the delay — which is all the more serious since it concerns the lives and health of Europe's citizens — to be made up through the rapid and full approval of the proposal by the European Parliament and the Council, enabling the second phase to commence within the planned timescale.

1.8

While welcoming the increased efficacy of the technical measures adopted for vehicles, the EESC calls on the European institutions and the Member States to press ahead more decisively with initiatives regarding the other two aspects contributing to road safety: firstly, enhanced infrastructure quality and safety and secondly, training and awareness of all road users. This call must equally be addressed to regional and local authorities, who are increasingly shouldering decisive responsibilities in this sector.

2.1

Every year, some 8 000 pedestrians and cyclists, the most vulnerable road users, are killed and 300 000 injured in road accidents in the 27 Member States.

2.2

As far back as 2001, the Commission obtained a commitment on the part of vehicle manufacturers to develop new means of enhancing the protection of pedestrians and cyclists, both actively (before a collision occurs) and passively (at the time of collision).

2.3

The range of measures suggested at that time by manufacturers included the equipping of all vehicles with antilock brake systems (ABS), a voluntary ban on the sale of rigid bull bars, the fitting of daytime running lights (DRL) — a measure subsequently withdrawn following opposition from some Member States — and lastly, the future introduction of advanced active safety new technology, which was still at the research stage.

2.4

The Council and the European Parliament welcomed the industry's commitment, at the same time calling for this field to be governed, not by a voluntary agreement or a recommendation, but by fully-fledged legislation on the protection of pedestrians in the form of a specific directive.

2.5

This gave rise to ‘framework’ Directive 2003/102/EC (4) relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, followed by Directive 2005/66/EC (5) relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles (elimination of rigid bumpers).

2.6

The framework directive on protecting pedestrians is based on tests and threshold values suggested by the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee, and entails implementation in two phases, both focusing on passive safety. The first phase, which introduced changes in construction and lighter bonnets and bumpers for M1 and N1  (6) vehicles weighing not more than 2 500 kg, came into force for vehicles that were type-approved from 1 October 2005. The second phase, laying down stricter tests and threshold values, is to apply to vehicles that are type-approved from 1 September 2010.

2.7

Serious doubts concerning the feasibility of the tests planned for the second phase were already expressed when the proposal was discussed at the European Parliament: in the final version of the text, the directive stipulated that the Commission should carry out a feasibility assessment of the second phase by 1 July 2004. Specifically, the assessment was to identify ‘alternative measures — either passive or a combination of active and passive measures — which are at least equivalent in terms of actual effectiveness’ (7).

2.8

A series of studies carried out by independent experts, including those engaged by the Commission, showed that it was technically impossible to fulfil the second-phase requirements within the deadline set and using the tests stipulated by the EEVC. In consequence, the new proposal lays down revised passive safety parameters, together with new active safety elements that have been developed by the industry in the meantime, which can meet and even exceed the requirements of Article 5, being ‘at least equivalent in terms of actual effectiveness’.

2.9

Furthermore, the tests now suggested are equal to those contained in the global technical regulation for the protection of pedestrians drawn up by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE). The ensuing possible harmonisation of European legislation with legislation outside Europe would also clearly boost the competitiveness of the European vehicle industry.

3.1

The new proposal, which is now for a regulation rather than a directive, sets out first and foremost to combine the provisions of the directive on frontal protection systems with those of the earlier directive on the protection of pedestrians, which will be amended as necessary in order to ensure that they can be applied. Consequently, if the proposed regulation is adopted, both of these directives will be repealed.

3.2

The tests that vehicles will have to pass in order to be type-approved under the proposed regulation concern:

3.2.1

collision of child or small adult headform with the forward part of the bonnet; collision of adult headform with the rear part of the bonnet and collision of lower and upper legforms with the bumper, with partially revised parameters regarding phase II under the present directive. For the purposes of monitoring rather than type-approval, and with a view to future technological developments, collision tests for the pelvis with the bonnet leading edge and adult headform with the windscreen are also stipulated.

3.2.2

Regarding frontal protection systems (former Directive 2005/66/EC), collision of legform and child or small adult headform with the system are confirmed as type-approval tests. Further tests are proposed for monitoring purposes, together with binding provisions on the construction and installation of these systems.

3.3

Passive safety measures are supplemented by the installation of an active safety system in order to ensure the level of safety laid down in the two previous directives. These are the brake assist system (BAS), which helps a driver attempting to brake rapidly in an emergency but not applying sufficient pressure. In combination with ABS it ensures maximum braking pressure and optimises the rate of deceleration, significantly reducing the impact velocity with pedestrians.

3.4

Lastly, in view of the increasing number of heavier vehicles (especially SUVs) using the roads, it is now recommended that, following a transitional period, the provisions apply not only to M1 and N1 vehicles weighing up to 2 500 kg, as under the existing legislation, but also heavier ones weighing up to 3 500 kg, which is the upper limit for the two categories concerned.

4.1

Firstly, the EESC welcomes the Commission's decision to merge the two preceding directives in the proposed regulation. This option clarifies and simplifies the relevant legislation, as the EESC previously suggested in its opinion on the proposal for a directive on the use of frontal protection systems (8).

4.2

Similarly, the EESC also endorses the choice of a regulation as the legal instrument, as this ensures specific implementation methods and deadlines in all the Member States — a particularly important aspect for such highly technical legislation.

4.3

On the other hand, the EESC regrets that it has proved impossible to implement the tests put forward by the EEVC for phase II, as their feasibility was not tested within the stipulated deadline (1 July 2004), leading to a delay of more than three years.

4.4

The EESC, however, wishes to express its appreciation of the solution proposed following a lengthy but fruitful process, in which the recommendations put forward by CARS 21 on an integrated approach have been taken on board. This also enables European legislation to be brought into line with non-European laws. It is particularly satisfying that all this has been underpinned by a rigorous impact assessment, the first to have been examined and approved by the Impact Assessment Board recently set up by the European Commission.

4.5

The chosen solution, by implementing active safety measures as well, will — according to the forecasts from the Commission and its experts — cut the number of deaths and serious injuries by 80 % and 44 % respectively compared to the results that would have been achieved with the original phase II (9) (that has turned out to be unachievable), thereby helping to save more than 1 100 lives and reducing the number of people injured by 46 000. Moreover, the new measures entail very low costs and will therefore have a negligible impact on vehicle prices.

4.6

In the light of the above, the EESC strongly recommends that the Commission's proposal should be rapidly and fully approved by the European Parliament and the Council, with no further delay, which would inevitably cause further slippage due to the vehicle industry's lead times (10).

4.7

The EESC hopes that the new provisions will also be rapidly applied to heavier vehicles, including SUVs, present in increasing numbers in urban traffic. To this end, the transitory period mentioned in the proposal should be fixed immediately.

4.8

Lastly, it should be remembered that these protective measures do not, of course, apply to older vehicles which now constitute one of the greatest dangers for vulnerable users. It is also worth pointing out that although ABS — now combined with BAS to great effect — has been widely introduced on a voluntary basis since 2004, will only become compulsory with the new legislation.

4.9

The EESC would lastly point out that in the type of collision in question, injuries fall into two categories: those caused by the primary impact between the pedestrian or cyclist and the front part of the vehicle, and those caused by the secondary impact with the road surface onto which pedestrians are often thrown. It should in any case be pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect to protect pedestrians if the primary impact occurs at speeds above 40 kph.

4.10

The purpose of the above comments is to emphasise once again that a solution to this problem, as in the case of many other road user safety issues, depends on an integrated approach that must include — in addition to technical improvements to vehicles — another two key aspects: road user behaviour and infrastructure. These are both aspects on which the European institutions and the Member States will need to shoulder decisive responsibilities.

4.11

The EESC considers that the European Commission has done, and continues to do, much in this regard, with proposals for legislative and policy initiatives, funds channelled through European framework research programmes, the programme for subsidising road safety and, last but not least, the launch of the European road safety charter.

4.12

In contrast, the other institutions and the Member States, although addressing the problem, do not always give sufficient support to the Commission's initiatives. The Commission's proposal, intended to raise road infrastructure safety standards (11), is a recent example of this. The proposal, considered by the EESC to be necessary in order to reduce the number of road casualties, has been judged by the European Parliament to be over-prescriptive and as a result has, in the name of the subsidiarity principle, been emptied of its most vigorous, binding provisions. In this case too, unless changes are made during the plenary vote — which is unlikely — the Parliament will have handed over all decisions to the Member States.

4.13

Concerning the first aspect mentioned above, i.e. road user behaviour, accidents are frequently caused by driver carelessness, but just as often pedestrians and cyclists act imprudently, in contravention of the basic rules of the road and sometimes of common sense. Education and information in this area should be provided from primary school onward by means of regular publicity campaigns aimed at encouraging proper behaviour by all users. It is equally important to introduce severe penalties for dangerous behaviour by all road users.

4.14

The other essential aspect of road safety concerns infrastructure, first and foremost in cities, where 80 % of pedestrian and cyclist deaths occur. Physical separation of road users wherever possible represents the most effective way of preventing contact between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. From this point of view, work to build protected pedestrian crossings, footbridges, cycle lanes, proper lighting and surfaces, and clear signage, which should as far as possible be the same in the different Member States, would help to reduce the number of accidents, as well as creating a less hostile urban environment for people with disabilities.

4.15

Initiatives of this kind increase safety and improve the quality of life in cities, and should therefore be recalled in all Commission proposals including those, such as the present one, that refer only to the technical aspects of motor vehicles.

M1

=

vehicles for eight passengers + driver, maximum mass not exceeding 3 500 kg.

N1

=

commercial vehicles deriving from M1, maximum mass not exceeding 3 500 kg.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/12

1.1

The rise in demand for mobility, the proportion of private vehicles and the problems created by traffic congestion above all — but not only — in urban areas have helped to make road transport an area of human activity where particular attention is being paid to environmental impact assessment. The Commission's proposal to reduce the emission of atmospheric pollutants from heavy duty vehicles can also be seen in this context.

1.2

The EESC supports the proposal, which it considers appropriate both in terms of its effectiveness and of time frames for application of environmental requirements and industry lead times.

1.3

The EESC shares the Commission's view that the regulation under consideration constitutes a step towards gradual global harmonisation of emission levels.

1.4

The EESC considers the choice of a regulation as the legal instrument to be reasonable and particularly appropriate, as this ensures deadlines and specific implementation methods in all the Member States — a particularly important aspect for such highly technical legislation.

1.5

The EESC fully supports the right of independent operators to have guaranteed access to vehicle repair information. It has misgivings, however, about opting to extend to heavy-duty commercial vehicles the standardised OASIS format, designed for passenger cars, for the reasons outlined below.

1.6

In order to dispel these misgivings, the EESC hopes that the Commission will continue to seek alternative solutions which could have the same presumed advantages as the OASIS system but would be simpler and cheaper for users to apply.

1.7

The EESC would again stress the need for Commission policies on reducing pollutant emissions to encourage the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles with lower nitrogen oxides and particulate emissions, and to ensure that the future regulation also mentions the concept of fuel quality.

1.8

The EESC believes that the reference to compulsory measurement of CO2 emissions is inappropriate for an instrument that should cover only pollutant emissions. The EESC fears that the complexity and specific nature of this issue, which have considerable implications for competitiveness, could give rise to a debate that could slow down the legislative process and delay the regulation's expected results. The EESC therefore suggests that the issue of CO2 be the subject of a separate regulation whenever more reliable data is available.

2.1

Although air quality has improved over the past decade, there remain significant air quality problems throughout the European Union, especially in urban areas and densely populated regions.

2.2

By 2020 the EU will still be a long way from achieving the objectives of the 6th Environment action programme. Among the various forms of pollution, particulate matter is of increasing scientific concern. The proposed Regulation covered in this opinion is aimed at improving air quality, without impairing industrial competitiveness and the free movement of goods.

2.3

The new Euro VI standard, as pointed out by vice-president Verheugen, will also be a step towards global harmonisation in that it sets emission limit values similar to those of the United States of America.

2.4

Both occurring naturally and from human activities — particularly combustion processes — the particles that make up particulate matter (PM) have a complex, varying structure both chemically and in terms of size.

2.5

It should be borne in mind that although it is often associated with the effects of human activities, acute cases of fine particulate pollution can also occur far from densely urbanised areas as a result of natural phenomena, specific weather conditions and local topography. Furthermore, the proportion of the various emission sources can vary significantly from area to area: the European Environment Agency (EEA) reckons that in the EU-15, 26 % of total emissions linked to human activity are attributable to road transport.

2.6

This confirms, once again, that the problem of emissions and pollutants must always be assessed from all angles and as part of an integrated approach.

2.7

From this perspective, the EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission has drawn up its proposal in the context of the Clean air for Europe programme (CAFE (1)), which provided the technical basis for preparing the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution.

2.8

The EESC also welcomes the split-level approach taken by the Commission on this issue. The proposed Regulation will lay down the fundamental provisions, for adoption through the co-decision procedure. The technical specifications implementing the main provisions will be laid down in a second Regulation to be adopted by the Commission with the assistance of the regulatory committee for adaptation to technical progress, under the comitology procedure.

3.1

The Commission set out to identify measures necessary to attaining the desired air quality levels. Euro VI is one important measure for reducing gaseous emissions (such as nitrogen oxides — NOX and hydrocarbons — HC) and particulate matter.

3.2

The Regulation applies to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2, as defined in Annex II of Directive 2007/46/EC, with a reference mass exceeding 2 610 kg and all motor vehicles of categories M3 and N3, as defined in that Annex. It shall not apply, however, if a manufacturer so requests, to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 840 kg that are type-approved under Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (2).

3.3

The new proposed exhaust emission limit values (Euro VI) will see a reduction of 80 % in NOx and 66 % in PM on Euro V levels (required for new type-approvals from 1 October 2008). Authorised emission levels will then be in line with those planned for the same period in the USA. The Regulation also provides for the introduction — once the relevant measuring system has been developed — of a limit on the number of particles that can be emitted.

3.4

The proposed Regulation lays down limits based on current test cycles, but provides for the introduction of world-wide harmonised cycles (WHDC) once it is possible to correlate the emissions measured from current cycles with those measured from harmonised cycles.

3.5

In relation to the current legislation in force, the Regulation prolongs the useful life of the vehicle in accordance with the durability of pollution control devices and in-service conformity.

3.6

To this end, the definitions of useful life for the various categories of vehicle will be extended as follows:

3.7

The proposed Regulation provides for a further implementing Regulation to be issued by the Commission, whose provisions would cover:

3.8

The Regulation also stipulates that independent operators shall have unrestricted and standardised access to on-board diagnostic (OBD) information and vehicle repair and maintenance information (3). Referring to the other more detailed Regulation, it also provides for vehicle on-board diagnostic (OBD) information and vehicle repair and maintenance information to be made available through websites in the standardised format developed by a technical committee of stakeholders (the so-called ‘OASIS format’ (4)).

3.9

Under the Regulation, the Euro VI standard is to apply from:

4.1

Over the last decade, despite a considerable increase in the number of vehicles on the roads, air quality has improved. However, the EU as a whole is still some way off solving the problem of air pollution, especially in urban areas and densely populated regions. The EESC therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal to lay down harmonised rules on the construction of motor vehicles with a view to ensuring the functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing for a high level of environmental protection.

4.2

Euro IV emission limits for trucks and buses are applicable as from 9 November 2006 and Euro V emission limits will apply from 1 October 2008 for new type-approvals. The EESC thus endorses the proposed dates for the application of the new Regulation.

4.3

As the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community, the EESC supports the application of the subsidiarity principle. However, it shares the Commission's view that, rightly mindful of both the need to avoid the emergence of barriers to the single market and of the trans-boundary implications of air pollution, the objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by actions of Member States, but require binding measures agreed at EU level.

4.4

The EESC also endorses the choice of a regulation as the legal instrument, as this ensures specific implementation methods and deadlines in all the Member States — a particularly important aspect for such highly technical legislation.

4.5

The Committee agrees with the points made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the introduction to the proposed Regulation, that ‘achieving EU air quality objectives requires a continuing effort to reduce vehicle emissions. For that reason, industry should be provided with clear information on future emission limit values’ and that ‘setting limit values for nitrogen oxide emissions at an early stage should provide long-term, Europe-wide planning security for vehicle manufacturers’.

4.6

The EESC also concurs with the Commission that in setting emissions standards it is important to take into account the implications for competitiveness of markets and manufacturers, the direct and indirect costs imposed on business and the benefits that accrue in terms of stimulating innovation, improving air quality, reducing health costs and increasing life expectancy.

4.7

The EESC fully supports the right of independent operators to have guaranteed access to vehicle repair information. It has considerable misgivings, however, about opting to extend to heavy-duty commercial vehicles the standardised OASIS format, designed for passenger cars.

4.7.1

Vehicles from very large-scale series production are not covered by the regulation, which applies to commercial vehicles with a reference mass exceeding 2 610 kg. As commercial vehicles are produced in many different versions and varieties, the difficulty and cost of trying to standardise information would outweigh the practical benefits, also bearing in mind the fact that repair firms for heavy-duty commercial vehicles are few in number and specialise to a very high degree in specific makes. Applying the OASIS system to repair firms for heavy-duty commercial vehicles, which are almost all SMEs, would mean imposing on them the considerable financial and organisational burdens of installing and administering the new system. Such burdens would outweigh the benefits envisaged for the user.

4.7.2

In the light of the foregoing, the EESC would therefore propose that the Commission undertake an impact assessment focused on a cost/benefit analysis of the use of OASIS over other possible simpler and cheaper solutions.

4.8

The EESC would again stress the need, previously highlighted in relation to other Commission proposals, to encourage the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles, which can have low nitrogen oxides and particulate emissions. It thus concurs on the need for limit values for hydrocarbons, non-methane hydrocarbons and methane.

4.9

In terms of the test procedure that provides the basis of EC type-approval emissions regulations, the EESC hopes that the Commission adopts world-wide harmonised driving cycles as soon as possible.

4.10

The Regulation also provides for the measurement of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, and therefore deviates somewhat from its stated objective, which is to reduce atmospheric pollutants.

4.10.1

The data used for such measurements would be that obtained from engine tests on dynamometers, which, in reality is not representative of the vehicle as a whole. A vehicle's energy efficiency, as is well known, depends on various aspects, of which the engine is but one important element among others (the transmission, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, auxiliary parts, etc.). The same type of engine can be used in vehicles with very different characteristics and purposes (heavy goods vehicles, construction vehicles, local buses, etc.).

4.10.2

In this context, the Committee would recall that the Commission's intention to include N1 commercial vehicles, set out in its communication on the strategy to reduce CO2 emissions [COM(2007) 19 final], was then abandoned when it came to the proposed Regulation itself [COM(2007) 856 final] — quite rightly, given the specificity of the subject and the inadequacy of the available data.

4.10.3

The EESC also points out that, as regards commercial vehicles, there is strong market demand for reduced fuel consumption (with similarly reduced CO2 emissions), given that fuel represents the highest operating cost in the transport sector. It is therefore competition that drives vehicle manufacturers to provide the most advanced solutions in terms of fuel consumption and, therefore, CO2 emissions.

4.10.4

As regards measuring CO2 emissions, the EESC would make the important point that if the data on fuel consumption and CO2, measured solely via engine tests, were to be used to determine possible incentives or taxes, this could irrationally distort the market.

4.10.5

In the light of the foregoing, the EESC agrees that there is also a need to legislate on CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, as soon as possible, but would prefer that this subject be tackled separately, through the drafting of a specific proposal, partly to avoid the risk that an intense debate could delay passing of the Regulation.

4.11

Given market reluctance to purchase cleaner vehicles because of their invariably higher price, the Committee would favour the possibility of introducing financial incentives to their purchase and feels that Member States should accelerate, through various incentive schemes, the placing on the market of vehicles that satisfy the requirements adopted at EU level.

4.12

The EESC would certainly support the proposal that Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and that those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

4.13

The Committee believes that the dates of implementation proposed by the Commission (1 April 2013 for new type-approvals and 1 October 2014 for new registrations) are appropriate. Indeed, five years of stability between one emissions level and the next is sufficient to allow the industry to obtain the economic return on the investment made to bring to market the new solutions.

4.14

The EESC endorses the Commission's proposal not to apply the new Regulation, if a manufacturer so requests, to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 840 kg that are type-approved under Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. In other words, the EESC supports the fact that for borderline vehicles in terms of tonnage, a certain degree of type-approval flexibility is allowed to enable a more efficient response to the various requests of customers, inter alia in relation to the trade off between fuel consumption, mileage and pollutant emissions.

5.1

The EESC agrees with the proposed emission limits, which are those of scenario A (5) considered by the Commission and favoured by the majority of stakeholders involved in the consultation process.

5.2

However, the Committee feels it must once again raise the issue of the inverse relation between NOx and CO2 emissions. Since reducing emissions of both is an important environmental objective, it is vital to counterbalance NOx limits in such as way as to prevent any knock-on rise in CO2 emissions. In effect, the expected reduction in NOx will result in a 2-3 % increase in CO2.emissions. The Commission, referring to a study carried out in the USA in 2001, maintains that by the time the regulation is implemented the currently anticipated increase will rather have been offset by advances in engine technology. The EESC nevertheless suggests updating this study in order to obtain more reliable data on the effects of the proposed NOx limit on fuel consumption and on consequent CO2 emissions.

5.3

As already stated, the EESC welcomes the parallel split-level approach, which limits the co-decision procedure to the elements of greater political relevance and delegates to comitology the implementing measures and technical details.

5.4

However, it should be noted that many of the measures entrusted to the regulatory committee (OBD, particle numbers, schemes to persuade drivers where a reagent is required, etc.) are highly complex and have huge implications for vehicle technology. The Committee therefore recommends that all these aspects be implemented in a single phase together with the Euro VI limits, and that, just as pertains to this Regulation under review, an adequate lead time is ensured between its entry into force and implementation in order to allow the industry sufficient time to carry out the necessary development.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/17

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/17

1.1

The question of energy supply, the diversification of energy sources and the development of renewable energy sources is fundamental to the future of Europe, the global equilibrium and combating climate change.

1.2

The EESC believes that the European Union provides an appropriate platform for bringing pressure to bear in the worldwide confrontation arising from the race to secure energy resources and tackle climate change, since it is large enough to have a strong political influence in international negotiations.

1.3

It is pleased to note that Title XX on energy has been incorporated into the draft Lisbon Treaty, since this will reinforce the legal basis for the European Union's activities in this area.

1.4

The EESC emphasises the crucial importance of research and development in the field of sustainable energy and a sustainable environment, and of the proper allocation of resources. Good judgement is imperative when studying the promotion of energies and energy-saving and emission-reduction technologies that are not expected to achieve economic balance, in order to avoid wasting public funds subsidising technologies which have no future. Resources for research should be channelled instead towards technologies deemed by the scientific community to have a promising future, such as technology for minimising or capturing greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, clean coal, vehicle propulsion using electricity or other alternative means, fuel cells, solar energy, reclaiming energy from waste, nuclear fusion and nuclear waste disposal.

1.5

It also highlights the importance of energy efficiency of equipment and buildings.

1.6

It believes that a genuine purchasing policy should be introduced at European level in order to cope with the pressure exerted by producers who are often highly organised, and recommends that policies and positions on energy be coordinated at EU level within international bodies such as the WTO, UN, NATO and OECD.

1.7

It stresses the importance of diversifying supply sources and recommends that a constructive attitude tempered with caution be adopted as regards partnerships with Russia and the Caucasian and Central Asian republics.

1.8

It insists that it would be appropriate to examine the possibility of reviving nuclear energy programmes in countries where there is a consensus on this point and stepping up research into the reprocessing of waste material. It also encourages the development of research into nuclear fusion under Euratom's Seventh Framework Programme for Research and ITER.

1.9

It believes that there is a need for greater cooperation and coordination in energy policy and in representation and action in international bodies, that the neighbourhood policy should be taken further as regards energy and that thought must be given to introducing a common energy policy in due course, possibly based on its own institutions. It believes that the surge in commercial interest in renewable energy throughout the EU reflects people's interest in this field. This situation coincides with the new common energy policy laid down in the draft Treaty of Lisbon and could be the strategic opportunity for it to be accepted and developed.

2.1.1

The International Energy Agency anticipates a 55 % increase in global energy demand by 2030.

2.1.2

The European Union is largely dependent for solid fossil fuels, petroleum products and natural gas and this dependency is set to increase in coming years. The EU is 80 % dependent for fossil fuels, and its energy imports are expected to rise from 50 % to 70 % by 2030.

2.1.3

Exhaustion of known oil reserves is to be expected from 2050, while other resources which are not currently exploited will become economically exploitable in the future owing to growing demand and technical progress.

2.1.4

The transition to other forms of energy is inevitable but will be difficult. The world has, however, already experienced similar changes before, particularly in the 19th century when fossil fuels from biomass (primarily wood) gave way to coal, then oil. However, our methods of harnessing renewable energy are not yet sufficient to cause a shift comparable to that experienced in the 19th century.

2.1.5

The difficulties are due to a number of factors: energy density, the land surface needed to produce biofuels (at the expense of other, mainly agricultural, activities), the intermittent and unpredictable nature of the inputs (wind, solar energy, tides) which requires thorough planning for storage capacities and the geographical distribution of renewable energy sources. As regards nuclear energy, even if we were to launch a very ambitious policy of rehabilitating old and building new power plants, the global nuclear industry would still not be able to satisfy demand.

2.1.6

Europe is characterised by major energy dependency. It currently imports 50 % of its energy requirements and this dependency is set to reach 70 % by 2030. Europe would thus be 90 % dependent for oil and 70 % dependent for gas!

2.1.7

In March 2006, the European Council produced a disturbing report, which highlighted:

This disturbing report has inspired the proposals set out in the new energy package which is to some extent a response to the challenges which must be met.

2.1.8

European leaders must therefore deal with two problems: dwindling traditional primary resources and the problematic geographical situation of those resources, most of which are in politically unstable countries which could use their resources to bring pressure to bear on dependent countries, as has already occurred.

2.2.1

Every Member State of the European Union is affected, but evidence suggests that fragmented individual action is a handicap when confronting producers who are often organised.

2.2.2

It is therefore in the Member States' interests to act together and use the European Union as a lever to frame a common energy policy based on and with the objective of better management of consumption and diversification of the sources of supply.

2.2.3

The European Union has both the appropriate scale and institutional instruments. It is capable of developing trans-national policies, coordinating national policies, bringing about greater consistency at European level as regards energy and finally, developing an energy policy in respect of third countries.

2.2.4

Finally, let us add that after the rejection of the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and in line with the Treaty of Lisbon, a European energy policy might be a uniting factor and provide proof of the practical usefulness of the European Union.

2.3.1

The European Union currently has no powers in the field of energy. Conferring such a power on the Union is one of the major innovations of the draft Lisbon Treaty.

2.3.2

It is true that when the European Economic Community was set up, Euratom and the ECSC dealt with many of the energy issues of the day.

2.3.3

Does this mean however that the European Union has abstained from any action in the field of energy?

2.3.4

Certainly not: under Article 308 of the EC Treaty it has developed a real energy policy, while under Article 154 it has developed a policy on trans-European energy networks (see Decision No 1364/2006/EC). Finally, internal market and competition rules have of course been applied to the energy market (Directive 2003/55/EC on the opening-up of the market in gas, Directive 2003/54/EC on electricity, Directive 90/377/EEC amended by Directive 93/87/ECC on the transparency of gas and electricity prices). The initial effects of this opening-up of the markets and the end of public monopolies have occasionally given rise to concerns regarding energy prices, but in fact, the price rises which have been noted are primarily the result of the rising global demand for limited and sometimes dwindling resources.

2.3.5

To this should be added Commission documents which are not strictly speaking legislative proposals but rather ‘soft law’: the Green Paper on a European strategy for the security of energy supply (28 November 2000), the Communication on Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply (26 June 2002), the Green Paper on Energy efficiency or doing more with less (22 June 2005), the action plan for the period 2007-2012 (19 October 2006) and the Communication on the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (6 October 2006).

2.3.6

Therefore, the European Union has examined energy-related issues in considerable depth but its action has rested on a rather uncertain legal basis, i.e. Article 308 EC, the ‘flexibility clause’, which states that: ‘If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures’. It has also approached the issue indirectly, through the use of internal market, competition and environment rules. The process was, at least in appearance, more technical and legal than political.

2.3.7

This is precisely why, in view of the pre-eminence of energy in the day-to-day life of Europe's people and in the economic activity and stability of the world, the draft Lisbon Treaty includes Article 176 on energy, which defines the Union's objectives in the field of energy ‘with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment’ and ‘in a spirit of solidarity between Member States’.

2.3.8

As stated in the future treaty, the European energy policy will aim to:

2.3.9

This policy will fall under shared competence where the rule should be qualified majority, except for taxation which will still require unanimity. However, the second subparagraph of Article 176 A(2) stipulates that ‘a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply’ is not affected by the measures taken to achieve the objectives identified by the first paragraph of this new article.

2.3.10

The European Union will therefore have competence, the primary, crucial instrument for taking stronger and more concrete action. Will this instrument be enough or must we take further institutional action? But even before designing this instrument, we must frame policies which can evolve under the combined influence of external constraints and the development of services and technology.

3.1

European energy policies have so far been subject to economic demands and/or the demands of sustainable development: the determination to liberalise the energy market by means of directives and the policy on network industries, the policy to support energy efficiency, the policy to promote and develop renewable energy, combating CO2 emissions, etc.

3.2

In a way, since the European Union does not have powers in the field of energy, it has approached the issue rather indirectly, using internal market, competition and environment rules. Its action was, at least in appearance, more technical and legal than political.

3.3

This has not prevented it from being highly active in enacting legislation and setting out guidelines for the energy sector. The Union has in fact recently (19 September 2007) issued a series of legislative proposals amending the current texts (amendment to the Regulation on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity, the Regulation establishing an Agency for the Coordination of Energy Regulators, amendment to the Regulation on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in natural gas, amendment to the directives on common rules for the internal market in gas and electricity).

3.4

If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified as it stands, the Union will be able to deal with this major area of policy with greater clarity and directness. However, legal competence does not in itself remove all the political, economic and social difficulties. It is well known that there is considerable disparity between national policy choices, particularly as regards nuclear energy. Since the informal European summit held at Hampton Court, the European Council has mapped out the foundations for a genuine European energy policy, reflected in the new energy package prepared by DG Energy and DG Environment.

3.5

As we have seen, the European Union wanted at first to use market mechanisms, with the aim of setting up a competitive market which would supposedly be more efficient and thus, thanks to the trans-European energy networks, achieve an interconnected market.

3.6

It also wanted to promote energy efficiency, particularly in the most energy-intensive sectors: heating and air conditioning of buildings, manufacturing and transport.

3.7

The ambitious target of the action plan for the period 2007-2012 (October 2006) is to save 20 % of the annual consumption of energy by 2020, that is to say a saving of approximately 1,5 % of energy intensity each year until 2020.

3.8

The Union has also placed great emphasis on the need to develop renewable energy. The Union's target in this respect is also very ambitious: 20 % of total energy consumption by 2020, plus a proposed mandatory minimum objective of 10 % for biofuels (Renewable Energy Road Map of 10 January 2007).

3.9

However, these sources have so far had many disadvantages compared to fossil fuels: lower energy density, land usage (photovoltaic fields, for example), intermittency of production and of course the cost of the technologies concerned. So although the relative cost disadvantages are steadily diminishing this means that the move towards these technologies is likely to be gradual and lengthy unless given significantly more political and financial support, and that all new energy sources require in-depth impact assessments (see OECD Observer, December 2006, No 258/259: ‘21st century energy: Some sobering thoughts’ by Vaclav Smil).

3.10

In the case of energy for transport, the Commission has focused on the promotion of biofuels and on fuel cells and hydrogen. The scale of expansion envisaged for biofuels however raises certain problems. Fuel cells are highly efficient energy converters which can significantly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants. However, these technologies are unlikely to become commercially viable in the near future.

3.11

Therefore, in line with the seventh framework programme for research and a joint technical initiative to set up public-private partnerships, the Commission has issued a draft regulation setting up the fuel cells and hydrogen joint undertaking (COM(2007) 571 final). This proposal is intended to launch a programme of research, technological development and demonstration in the field of fuel cells and hydrogen.

3.12

In order to promote the development of hydrogen powered vehicles, the Commission has also issued a draft regulation on type-approval of these vehicles (COM(2007) 593 final) to ensure that standards do not vary from one Member State to another, which could only hinder the spread of this technology.

4.1

The demand for fossil fuels will continue to be both strong and critical. Consequently, discussion cannot overlook this unavoidable fact and care must be taken to remain realistic as regards renewable energy.

4.2

In this respect, the EU Member States must implement a concerted policy as regards countries which produce fossil fuels in the ‘spirit of solidarity’ urged by the Lisbon Treaty. A purchasing policy would also be extremely useful but is primarily a matter for multinational companies in the oil sector.

4.3

The oil market is officially organised by OPEC. Under these conditions, the 27 Member States would clearly have greater weight as a group than if they operated individually, particularly since they are among the most highly developed of the industrialised countries and are therefore major energy consumers. It must not be forgotten that the EU represents an integrated market of almost half a billion consumers.

4.4

A purchasing bloc of this nature would have strong political influence when dealing with the cartel of oil producers; the situation regarding gas is different as there are no cartels in the gas industry.

4.5

Diversification is an imperative for security of supply. In this respect, relations with Russia, a major European nation, are at least as important as those with OPEC. Similarly, thought should be given to establishing a supply policy with the Caucasian and Central Asian republics.

4.6

In the case of fossil fuels, efforts should be directed towards establishing alternative sectors, particularly coal-based. ‘Clean coal’ research is making considerable progress, and will need to be accelerated if a new expansion of coal use is not to exacerbate global warming. A major European R&D plan in this field should be developed, particularly since Europe still has large coal reserves and this resource is conspicuously cheaper than oil on the world market. However, methods of mining coal continue to be a highly sensitive issue; the difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions in mines are well known. Working conditions and health and safety at work in this sector must therefore be considered with particular care.

4.7

Used tyres could also be used as a renewable resource provided that the emissions resulting from combustion are captured efficiently. Electricity plants powered by tyres have been operational in a number of countries for some decades.

4.8

Progress is being made as regards the technology for storing CO2 but this is still costly, difficult and involves the risks of leakage, for example in the event of fissures in the rock or earthquakes, and pollution of the water table. EESC opinions currently being drawn up will deal with these issues in detail.

4.9

In addition to fossil fuels, there is a local resource which is abundantly — too abundantly — available: waste. Billions of tonnes are produced in the EU. Recycling and reuse of waste materials are usually regarded as the best way of disposing of waste since they reduce demand for virgin materials of all kinds and avoid the production of greenhouse gases associated with most forms of waste disposal. But where this is not possible, using waste as a source of energy should certainly be considered. Research and development should also be encouraged in this field so as to improve energy efficiency while cutting greenhouse gas and other polluting emissions as far as possible.

4.10

Legislation and case law should be developed on this point, since energy recovery from waste is not recognised in its own right. The revised proposal for a framework directive on waste, under discussion at the European Parliament, is an encouraging sign.

4.11

Finally, the issue of nuclear energy will inevitably be considered. It will be difficult to achieve the target of a 20 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 without considering a revival of the programmes for new generation nuclear power stations for the Member States who have decided to use this energy. The others should improve their policies on renewables.

4.12

We are obviously well aware of the challenges of safety, security and waste management connected to the development of this industry. But can we really do without it?

4.13

The choice of energy sources gives rise to controversy, but none can approach the level of acrimony existing between the for and against camps on nuclear energy. There is in fact a real nuclear divide in Europe, making it most advisable to leave any decision to the Member States alone on whether or not to use this energy source.

4.14

Europe has an effective tool in Euratom, which must be put to use to maintain its technical edge, ensure its competitiveness, reduce its energy dependency and step up its efforts and international cooperation for security, safety and non-proliferation. Thought could also be given to drawing up new guidelines for Euratom.

4.15

One of the major challenges is fusion research. Euratom's seventh framework programme for research has a budget of EUR 2,75 billion, of which nearly two thirds are earmarked for research on fusion energy. This priority must be encouraged and maintained because if this technology could be mastered, it would contribute greatly to facilitating the management of waste by considerably reducing its lifespan. The launch of ITER throughout the EU is promising.

4.16

As regards vehicle propulsion, the EU should look into hybrid vehicles, solar energy, fuel cells and compressed air propulsion. Research and development is progressing in this field as well, and a French engineer has developed a very economical vehicle which can reach speeds of up to 150 km/h using compressed air propulsion, with production set to begin in the next few months. The well-known Indian company, Tata, has bought the rights for India.

4.17

In this context, the EESC reaffirms its earlier recommendations on the European Union's energy resources, which paved the way for and back up the points made in this opinion.

5.1

Identifying policies and selecting priorities are key elements, but the political and legal instruments to implement them are still needed. In this respect, will the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, if it is ratified, be sufficient or must we go further?

5.2

Proclaiming the need for a spirit of solidarity between Member States in the energy sector is certainly an excellent thing and the identification of four strands for this policy is an innovation which can only be welcomed, even if these strands are not very innovative.

5.3

But we cannot help but think that the gravity of global energy challenges deserves more.

5.4

The Lisbon Treaty may well have been overly cautious, even if a common energy policy supported by a specific institutional framework along the lines of the ECSC and Euratom is not yet possible.

5.5

In the global race for energy, the competitors are continental in scale. The Community framework gives greater weight, but the creation of a specific authority responsible for energy ‘diplomacy’, purchasing policy, and drawing up and funding R&D framework programmes would probably make Europe a major player in the great global energy game, which is impossible for the Member States individually.

5.6

The current situation is characterised by strongly diverging national approaches, no doubt due to the fact that after the first oil crisis in 1973, everyone was keen to guarantee the security of their own energy supply. There are many examples of uncoordinated efforts and different approaches.

5.7

So as to avoid any disharmony which would cause Europe to lose its pre-eminence, a major European energy policy is needed, closely integrated with the leading position it is endeavouring to establish on climate change policy in international negotiations. This should be based on meticulous coordination within international bodies such as the WTO, UN, NATO and the OECD as soon as energy matters are brought to the table. It should be accompanied by the coordination of energy policies and in particular the introduction of a strong purchasing policy, and a truly committed rather than merely pragmatic network interconnection policy. Finally, when appropriate, this policy of coordination, consultation and common projects could be based on specific institutions to help Europe respond to the energy challenge. Will we have the courage to do so?

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/23

—

‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/54/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity’

—

‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/55/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas’

—

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the cooperation of energy regulators’

—

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity’

—

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in natural gas’

1.1.1

The EESC takes a positive view, overall, of the reasons that have prompted the Commission to present the third package on energy — a complex and difficult issue legally and economically, which has polarised opinion and reaction.

1.1.2

The EESC believes that the current situation in the energy sector cannot be drawn out any longer. Having launched the process of integration and deregulation, we are now in mid-stream and must decide what direction to take. The deregulation of the energy market has stalled, entailing high transition costs, which could be greater than the benefits derived. These costs result from the lack of a harmonised EU regulatory framework and, in some cases, of a genuine willingness to liberalise and clear demarcation of responsibilities among the various players. This lack of regulatory certainty may lead to low levels of investment and competition in the sector. This has created a fragmented EU market, driven in some cases by former monopoly-holders. It is therefore necessary to strongly reaffirm the need for the deregulation process to press ahead vigorously.

1.1.3.1

The cornerstone of this strategy is achieving the single European energy market. The EU needs to devise a common strategy to allow it to act promptly, unequivocally and with greater bargaining power at international level. There is a crucial need for cooperation between Member States, regulators and TSOs. Structural changes aimed at integrating system operation and system development at regional level need to be carried out. The individual Member States must pool their experience, knowledge and rules in order to act together and propose (impose) their own supply cost policy, and maximise competitiveness so as to secure fairer prices, while preventing financial speculation. There needs to be more unity among the Member States and they must comply with jointly agreed rules, in the interests of users/consumers, implementing previously agreed Community legislation at national level.

1.1.4.1

The EESC believes that fair competition, properly regulated (the Commission's current proposal does not provide this), would facilitate increased alternative energy sources and investment in energy infrastructure. This would lead in turn to companies (such as SMEs, for example) increasing their productivity so as to obtain fair prices, while fostering transparency and reducing the risk of other companies having a dominant position.

1.1.4.2

One of the key aims of the third package is to encourage the investment that is needed in energy infrastructures and to coordinate the infrastructures at EU level. On this front the Commission's proposed measures are a step in the right direction. However, it must be ensured that they permit the necessary investment in production and instil confidence in investors. With respect to developing networks, the measures must provide for adequate planning that takes all stakeholders into consideration, and these plans must be implemented at the appropriate level within the deadlines set. EU-level controls on this investment will also be needed (by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators). In the face of a fairly inelastic market, with companies operating in oligopoly conditions and certain States reluctant to delegate supply powers, operators and users lose confidence, leading to a liquidity freeze; these conditions should be removed.

1.1.5.1

Restructuring processes resulting from the effects of the third package should be supported by an employment policy, with full involvement of the trade unions and companies, by means of instruments such as corporate social restructuring and social shock absorbers at national and EU levels. It is comforting to note that in countries that have implemented ownership unbundling in transmission networks, there have been no adverse effects on employment.

1.1.5.2

Although the protection of vulnerable consumers will remain a strictly national matter, it is crucial that the Commission recognise the importance of such measures at international level. The Commission must also monitor their implementation to ensure that such measures are in line with the pre-requisites of an open competitive market. The concept of energy poverty should be established at EU level (minimum applied rate) and the public service and general interest obligations laid down in the current directives should be pursued.

1.1.6.1

A new energy policy strategy must therefore be conducive to promoting genuine competition between companies, in order to increase choice for users. The transmission networks must be accessible to all who want to use them. For the big energy-consuming companies, a European contract needs to be established for purchasing energy at standard prices (comparable prices or law of one price), eliminating State aid (which distorts competition). Consumers should also have their EU-established rights recognised and have the freedom to choose the supplier they want at the lowest possible price.

1.1.7

The EESC also considers that the Commission's proposal must be aimed to preventing inadvertent combined action to deep the status quo of the big monopolistic companies, focused to maintain their advantageous position, and by the trade unions, aimed to preserve employments

1.2.1.1

To speed progress towards a single energy market, the Commission must amend the proposals of the third energy package to gain the power to act independently at international level, particularly regarding energy sources. To this end, the proposals on regional cooperation, set out in the package, must be viewed as a stepping stone on the way to achieving the ultimate goal of a single energy market. In addition, Member States should endeavour to integrate their electricity markets and system operators should operate in several Member States. The EESC believes that the third package's proposal on regional cooperation among network operators must by no means be considered a temporary substitute or alternative to the single market. It is crucial to have regional cooperation, based on ownership unbundling, among network operators that are effectively separate from production/sale. The recent regional initiatives promoted by the European regulators' group ERGEG should also be used to check the consistency of the regulation and of market rules.

1.2.2.1

The EESC maintains that the Commission should favour ownership unbundling, which is undoubtedly preferable to the independent system operator option in terms of encouraging investment. This would improve transparency and operator confidence, would increase the system's security and would allow to monitor monopolies, preventing discriminatory conduct, and optimising the use and maintenance of the networks.

1.2.2.2

Further consideration and analysis will be needed on the strategic implications of network ownership and on the need to guarantee independence in this regard inter alia in relation to possible third-country interests and including the choice relating to network ownership (public or private). The Commission's proposal on implementing ownership unbundling does not require the privatisation of transmission networks that are currently publicly owned.

1.2.2.3

There are not sufficient differences between the electricity and gas sectors (consider the examples of the USA, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, the UK, Spain and Sweden) to warrant different treatment in terms of ownership unbundling. Ownership unbundling of production/sale and transmission is needed in both sectors. The discriminatory conduct that may derive from an insufficient degree of vertical separation is the same. Companies selling gas should not be interested in who transports the gas, they should only be concerned to deal with reliable and financially sound companies which will be able to sell their gas.

—

play an independent regulatory role;

—

monitor the activities of ENTSO and, together with ENTSO and the Standing Market Panel, assist the European Commission in drawing up a list of necessary rules to draft and approve technical and market guidelines and codes;

—

establish criteria and approve technical and market codes;

—

establish tariff-setting procedures and set tariffs for the compensation procedure for costs incurred by network operators in cross-border electricity transmission;

—

draft guidelines on grid development principles and approve the 10-year investment plan proposed by ENTSO;

—

present recommendations and opinions to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

—

consult market operators;

—

coordinate the work of the national authorities; and

—

promote transparency, including in the appointment procedures for its steering group.

1.2.4.1

The national regulators play a key role in promoting competition and ensuring proper implementation of the directives at national level, particularly regarding compliance with the rules on the impartial use of the infrastructure. Their powers should therefore be harmonised and their independence of national and energy companies increased to enable them to monitor and prevent abuses of dominant positions. A more independent regulator will create confidence in the market and be able to cooperate more actively with ACER.

1.2.5.1

The EESC advocates a more effective coordination of national network operators to implement investment and optimise the infrastructure management needed to develop an integrated European grid. The agency should have a greater role than is envisaged, to propose, draw up, monitor and approve the codes, in order to ensure that the public interest is given due consideration. ENTSO's role should not exceed its skills and competences. Accordingly, ACER, should have the responsibility to draft guidelines and codes.

1.2.6.1

The EESC believes that the EU should anticipate future developments in network use, through an investment programme aimed at creating a system of public and/or private EU-regulated European networks, accessible to all, both for transmission and energy use. To this end, it must be ensured that procedures for managing interconnections are really transparent, based on market systems, and thus maximise trade. Investment should be made where it brings socio-economic benefits from a regional perspective. All market stakeholders should be duly involved in the decision-making process concerning the development of codes and the 10-year investment plan.

1.2.7.1

The EESC maintains that, on the basis of current or forthcoming provisions, consumers should be represented on the board of the agency. The same applies to all other interested parties (workers, trade unions, companies) which, as well as being on the board, could also be represented on a special oversight body, so that there is maximum agreement on and involvement in new legislation, from its inception rather than in the final phases of its drafting.

2.1

About ten years ago the Commission took the first steps (very belatedly) towards a European regulatory framework for a single market in electricity and gas. The Committee thus had the opportunity to express its views, occasionally at odds with those of the Commission, on an issue that over the years has become ever more important and controversial.

2.2

With the adoption of the third package of legislative proposals on the electricity and gas market, the Commission is seeking to complete the process, in an international context that has changed profoundly and is a source of new problems for all. Not all Member States are in agreement on the proposals and this in turn delay the adoption and application of the new proposals and jeopardises the completion of the European single market in energy.

2.3

The EESC's task is one of great responsibility: drafting an opinion on one of the most central (and controversial) issues of recent years — an issue on which hangs not only the single market in energy, but the fate of European companies in the sector, of Europe's consumers, and of non-EU companies.

2.4

The EESC takes a positive view of the impact assessment (q.v.) carried out by the Commission, which offers some good pointers on the efficacy of liberalisation and ‘fair’ competition.

3.1

To ensure that consumers be really free to choose their supplier from a wide range of possibilities and to enjoy the ‘benefits’ which that choice ‘should’ bring. The need to ensure these optimum conditions for users must be a common goal for third countries' companies operating in the EU.

3.2

To unbundle production and transmission from ownership and operation of the electricity and gas transmission networks. Moreover, a second option is described — that of ‘Independent System Operator’ — which allows vertically integrated companies to retain ownership of networks only if their fixed capital is managed by an independent body or another undertaking; this should encourage investments in infrastructure.

3.3

To provide effective measures against the market fragmentation along national borders, existing vertical integration and high market concentration which has in practice prevented genuine competition and the establishment of a single energy market.

3.4

To simplify cross-border trade, setting up an Agency with the task of coordinating national regulatory authorities and providing a level playing field for European companies operating in the sector; this should ensure that a genuine European network is set up to guarantee security and supply diversification. National authorities should become really more independent.

3.5

To encourage cooperation on the basis of new rules to be established by European network operators and ensure greater cooperation between the various domestic markets where supply is under threat.

3.6

To increase transparency by streamlining market rules and keeping consumers informed, so as to ‘increase’ user confidence in the intrinsic value of the free market (but has there really consistently been confidence thus far?).

3.7

Next year, to give consumers energy users' rights enshrined in a special (binding) ‘Charter’ including information on suppliers, the various market options, cutting red tape, fuel poverty etc (1).

4.1

Effective (legal and operational) unbundling in all the Member States of the electricity and gas supply and transmission system by creating not vertically integrated systems. This is a key element in resolving possible conflicts of interest and in:

4.2

The creation of an Independent System Operator (ISO) represents a solution when dealing with vertical integrated companies with reluctance to embark upon an effective ownership separation. This operator may allow companies to retain ownership of the network, but does not allow them to run it. Independence can only be achieved within an effective regulatory system.

4.2.1

The independence of the network operator holds for both public and private companies, as does the ownership unbundling of the transmission network and production systems.

4.2.2

The main goal is for companies operating in the electricity and gas production and supply sector in all EU countries to operate completely separately.

4.2.3

The proposed directive provides for temporary derogations from ownership unbundling rules if companies invest in energy infrastructure.

4.3

The separation of supply and production from system operators is envisaged not just at national level, but throughout the EU. No energy production company is allowed to manage or own a transmission system in another Member State. Each operator entering and becoming a part of the system must demonstrate its independence from supply and production activities.

4.4

Ownership unbundling must lead to a properly functioning market and network, ultimately resulting in correct electricity and gas price setting, possibly followed by a price reduction, with obvious benefits for consumers and investors in the sector.

4.5

The Independent System Operator will function properly and the separation of ownership of the production and supply system be effective only in presence of the independent and operational regulatory authority. Regulatory authorities must be legally discrete and functionally independent from any other public or private entity and must act independently of any market interests. They must have full powers and be able to cooperate with one another across Member States in order to:

The external agencies (the CESR, Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators) have a consultative role to play with the Commission on the implementation of the rules set out.

5.1

Consolidation of internal markets, with common rules and approaches, is a core element in the development of the European energy market and in bringing about the cross-border exchanges needed. Current provisions (such as the technical rules, or grid codes, that electricity companies must operate under) need to be harmonised between the various countries. Thus far this does not appear to have been carried out with the help of ERGEG. This harmonisation can only be implemented by a separate, independent body, which the Treaty requires to be established as an Agency.

5.2

The Agency's main tasks should be to:

5.3

The organisational structure will follow the typical model for Community agencies, with particular care given to guaranteeing the independence of regulatory functions. To this end, a Board of Regulators could be set up, in addition to the Administrative Board appointed by the director of the Agency, which would be responsible for all questions of regulation, as well as a Board of Appeal which would handle appeals against decisions taken by the Agency. The Agency may comprise at most 40 to 50 people and cost at most between EUR 6 and 7 million per annum, covered by Community grants.

5.4

The Commission has the role of guardian of the treaties and ‘inspector of the inspector’. The Agency has decision-making powers and discretion only on specific technical questions. The Commission may decide to intervene to further cooperation or the correct operation of the market either in the light of information from the Agency or on its own initiative.

5.5

Efficient cooperation between transmission system operators is vital to achieve a true integration of the market. The only cooperation at present is voluntary and has failed to produce satisfactory results, especially when network incidents and black-outs have occurred. Integration of system operation at regional level would help to:

5.6

The structures of cooperation between transmission system operators must be fully recognised at European level. Existing structures such as GTE and ETSO can be used or new central, permanent structures set up in terms of both organisation and practical instruments for network planning and management.

6.1

The main problem with networks, especially electricity networks, is not only that of liberalisation but that of enabling public and companies to use them. Thought could be given, for example, to European networks that are public or regulated by the Union and accessible to all.

6.2

The Commission should promote investment into the creation of a completely innovative transmission system that would enable the use of electricity at European level, using an intelligent interactive network. Similar to the internet, this network would harness smart meter technology and allow energy to flow in both directions.

6.3

This would greatly encourage investment and would lead to the creation of new jobs and make the old slogan ‘power to the people’ a reality: exchanging energy to meet everybody's needs with networks open to all, and the same rules applied throughout the countries of the Union without exception (as is already the case with the internet).

6.4

These are the reasons why one could move towards a complete separation of the electricity transmission system and to a choice between separation and ‘independent system operator’ for gas networks.

6.5

It will be difficult to meet the goals pursued by the Commission (reinforcing national authorities, boosting cooperation between transport operators (ISO, TSO), increasing market transparency, and so on) without overcoming narrow national mindsets, not only where networks are concerned, but also in terms of supply, investment and so on. Though this will not be enough to keep prices down, these are the only measures that can ensure better quality of service.

6.6

The concentration of oil reserves in just a few areas of the world (61,8 % in the Middle East, 11,7 % in Europe and Russia, 9,4 % in Africa, 8,5 % in South America, 5,1 % in North America and 3,5 % in the Far East (F. Profumo, Politecnico di Torino) should prompt the Commission to exercise a common policy that has to be more incisive towards these areas and in international organisations where agreements are drawn up and decisions taken. Otherwise, pure and simple liberalisation could become a trap for the unwary that is not enough to hold down prices, which are frequently pushed up as a result of monopolies that dictate conditions even to the politic body.

6.7

The EU must pursue regulated competition and transparency to make the economic system more competitive and transparent. The victories over Microsoft and Volkswagen are an encouraging precedent for competition, though not sufficient in themselves. At the same time, more effective measures should also be devised to mitigate the impact and consequences on employment, as well as measures and investment to make the economic system more dynamic and to create opportunities for workers and young people and hence reduce the need for ‘protection’. Indeed, the reason why the most recent figures on Europe's economic growth are not encouraging (see the Commission's Communication) is not just the strength of the euro, but also the poor competitiveness of companies and the ‘protection’ many of them enjoy. The dismantling of monopolies undertaken in the wake of the Single European Act absolutely has to succeed, as any failure would ride roughshod over the interests of ordinary consumers because of the resultant market dislocation and the possible need once again to pump in public money to secure network survival, as has happened in the case of the British railway system.

6.8

The debate on this package must not be confined to the auditoria of institutions or to insiders. The Commission and the EESC must take the issue to the outside world and that argument must involve the public as consumers, workers and businesses, to prevent decisions being influenced solely by the big energy companies, which are often monopolies. (For example, a blog on the matter could be set up for the public, there should be open hearings in most of the Member States and in some European cities and the results brought together in a major public conference at Community level.) Moreover, the Commission's monitoring of the European regulatory agencies should also have a democratic dimension and should be corroborated by European Parliament checks.

7.1

Separation of ownership of the various activities in the chain — of supply and production from network operation — through ownership unbundling. These measures are a prerequisite for reducing barriers to market entry. The aim is to prevent integrated companies, carrying out several activities in the chain, being able to ‘transfer’ some of the costs of the liberalised activities to regulated activities and thus enjoy an undue competitive advantage over those carrying out solely the activities subject to competition. The Member States' adoption of the directives on the natural gas and electricity markets has not been uniform, in some cases enabling vertically integrated transmission network operation companies and production and supply companies to be formed.

7.2

Enhancing the powers of national energy regulators, which ensure both unbiased network operation and unbiased licensed infrastructure operation in general. This is essential for liberalisation (transmission, transmission and measuring in the energy sector; transport, transmission, measuring, storage and regasification, in the gas sector).

7.3

Key role of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, overseeing the activities of independent national bodies. Setting up a supranational regulatory body with authority to oversee the activities of the individual countries involved would lead to clearly-defined cooperation on regulation, reducing the disparities between the prospects of the EU as a whole and the prospects of individual countries, to facilitate solutions geared towards an integrated energy market.

7.4

Establishment of transmission system operators that are independent of the production system, cooperating together to deal efficiently with transmission issues. Transmission system operators from vertically integrated companies tend to favour associated companies, leaving new competitors severely under-informed. Investment within highly integrated companies is often distorted as the dominant company has no interest in improving the network as this would mainly benefit competitors. Formal, substantial separation of transmission operators would provide the same network access guarantees for all transmission undertakings, enabling the technological improvements to be made which are necessary to ensure more efficient running and, ultimately, lower prices for users.

7.5

Creating greater transparency and facilitating market access to increase the liquidity of the electricity and gas markets. There is a lack of information regarding reliability and timeliness on the market (between parties involved in the chain). The information imbalance between the incumbent companies and their competitors is marked. Greater transparency would minimise entry risks for new market players and also reduce barriers, boosting confidence in wholesale markets and therefore in price signals. In any case, a certain uniformity/correspondence of information needs to be ensured, so that, without ever neglecting the importance of corporate strategic/business confidentiality, there is no room for inconsistent interpretations which jeopardise genuine market transparency.

7.6

Guaranteeing access to information for all market operators with a view to instilling trust and enabling the market to develop properly. Many operators have little confidence in the price formation mechanism. Gas import contracts are concluded on the basis of price indexes derived from a basket of oil-derived products, and so prices rigorously follow oil market trends. This relationship is reflected in wholesale prices, which are not formed via the market supply and demand mechanism, to the detriment of security of supply. As regards long-term import contracts, there are no clear trends towards price formation mechanisms based on market dynamics.

7.7

Establishing particularly detailed requirements to ensure transparency in electricity and gas production. Accurate short-term forecasts of supply and demand must be provided. These requirements should be met by the electricity producers; to this end, more power must be given to national regulators.

7.8

Introducing derivatives markets. Derivatives not only represent an effective means of price risk management but they are also a natural instrument for developing the electricity and gas markets. Although the electricity markets have been negotiating derivatives contracts directly or indirectly, with the result that some steps have already been taken towards uniformity, work still remains to be done. Clear disparities are present in the European natural gas market. Indeed, while a relatively high degree of liberalisation can be observed in some markets (e.g. United Kingdom), in other countries there is not even a cash market for natural gas (e.g. Italy).

7.9

Regulating storage fields to ensure that all storage that is available to third parties is offered to the market in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner that prevents capacity-hoarding.

7.10

Unambiguous criteria in the public domain establishing when and how third party access applies to storage capacity that is offered to the market.

7.11

Establishing transparent, detailed rules on access to LNG terminals that will allow identification of exempted infrastructure. Proper rules need to be established for implementation of the ‘open season’ procedure. This procedure, providing for a mechanism for reserving capacity before it is built, may not be sufficient to guarantee greater access for operators since, as part of the procedure itself, priority allocation of transport capacity on the national transport grid, has in any case, to be given to the gas pipeline or LNG Terminal builder company which is the holder of the exemption. Moreover, the procedure for allocating the remaining 20 % of capacity could be a barrier to development of competition on the supply market, as it favours those trying to saturate this 20 % with long-term contracts to the detriment of both spot markets and flexibility of supply.

7.12

Identifying downstream bilateral long-term supply agreements that comply with EU competition law. The degree of competition on retail markets is very limited. The cumulative effect of long-term contracts, open-ended contracts, contracts with tacit renewal clauses and long termination periods could be a substantial barrier to competition. Contractual obligations binding industrial end-users and producers (incumbent companies) in the long term differ from country to country. However, there is growing demand for more competitive supply, from companies other than the incumbent companies; a pan-European supply is lacking and needs to be looked at seriously. The current level of competition (few suppliers) is particularly unsatisfactory in a number of Member States where concentration is high (Austria, Belgium). The constraints on how gas can be supplied to consumers, together with suppliers' restrictive practices at delivery points, raise numerous concerns as regards competition.

7.13

Urging the electricity and gas retail markets to complete the deregulation process. Only with a genuine retail market can Europeans benefit from competition. This means introducing simplified market access rules so that small producers and distributors can participate, encouraging market liquidity and making prices more competitive. Securing liquidity is essential to boost operators' confidence in price formation in both electricity marketplaces and gas hubs, in that, particularly where the latter are concerned, it makes it possible to break free of ties with products.

7.14

The key role played by deregulated electricity and gas markets in increasing public and business awareness of intelligent energy consumption would allow cost savings and monitoring. That involves educating the public about energy sources currently available and alternative sources of energy development (renewable energy) to make them understand the vital importance of this commodity given the current shortage. Offering end users contracts which can be customised according to consumption patterns is essential in terms of both energy and the costs saving.

7.15

As responsible end users, the public will also have to be informed of whether regulatory institutions observe or abuse the rules, so that they can enforce their rights, not least through consumer protection associations.

7.16

Ensuring that demand is met even at peak times. In the case of electricity, problems arise in terms of generation capacity and of transmission network size, the capability of the network to transport the energy; in the case of gas, sufficient import and storage capacity needs to be in place. In any case, it is well known that import capacity is particularly limited, as transport of capacity is reserved by incumbent companies with contracts with terms of up to 20 years or more. This means that new projects and projects for restructuring/extending electricity and natural gas (gas pipelines) infrastructure must proceed with all speed at both European and national levels. Regasification plants are of primary importance: particularly in the Mediterranean, they play a key role as a link with the main producer countries (Libya, Algeria).

7.17

Increasing solidarity: EU countries need to promote, at both regional and bilateral level, cooperation agreements providing for mutual assistance and cooperation when an EU Member State finds itself with an energy deficit arising from circumstances for which it is not directly to blame.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/31

1.1

The EESC appreciates the unique consultation process that has taken place on the Green Paper on A Future Maritime Policy for the Union: a European Vision of the Oceans and Seas and has actively contributed to it with its relevant opinion and participation in two conferences (1).

1.2

The Communication stresses the importance of the human factor within the maritime cluster. The EESC is pleased with the agreement reached between the social partners (ETF and ECSA (2)) to incorporate provisions of the ILO (3) Maritime Labour Convention (2006) into Community law. It wishes the worldwide implementation of maritime labour standards ensuring a level playing field for all seafarers in accordance with the Convention as soon as possible. Equally important is that Member States ratify international instruments concerning the fishing sector including the ILO Work in Fishing Convention 2007.

1.3

The EESC endorses the review of exclusions affecting seafarers/fishermen from EU labour legislation in close cooperation with the social partners, and requires clarifications regarding the certificate of Maritime Excellence. Consideration should be given regarding the feasibility of a certificate of maritime excellence for seafarers compulsory in intra EU ferry services and voluntary for other services.

1.4

The floating University provides a seaborne experience to students participating to its voyage. The idea of an ocean-going floating campus fits into wider trends and should be further explored by the Commission in the context of attracting quality students to pursue a maritime career (4). The lifestyle of seafarers should be urgently addressed and investigated by the EU social partners.

1.5

In dealing with maritime accidents, future EU policy should be driven by the following considerations:

1.6

The EESC reiterates that the shipping industry burns as bunkers the lower end of oil due to non availability of better quality of bunkers by refineries. It supports initiatives on a global basis to address the quality of bunkers in order to make a breakthrough in the issue of air emissions from ships.

1.7

The Communication and the Action Plan ignore the important share of pollution of the seas by oil due to pleasure craft activities, especially given the sensitivity of the coastal states where these craft most commonly operate (5). Moreover, the marine environmental pollution problem is exacerbated by the activities of military vessels — escaping from the scope of EU rules.

1.8

Contamination of rivers and the seas (the Baltic and the Black Sea) from land based sources) is an issue where EU efforts should be stepped up. For reasons of political expediency, problems should be addressed at a multilateral rather than bilateral level.

1.9

The EU should play a leading role internationally regarding the tackling of environmental issues. There is scope for re-enforced cooperation and coordination of EU Member States positions in the context of international organisations without jeopardising their individual participation. The expertise input of EU Member States in international organisations is of high repute and this should not be undermined but rather enhanced.

1.10

Concerning the ‘European Space for Maritime Transport without barriers’, the EESC acknowledges the advantage that it has been affirmed as a virtual maritime area. In line with the EESC views the Communication stresses that the concept is only meant to be concerned with simplification of administrative and customs formalities and trade facilitation in the context of the single EU market.

1.11

The EESC endorses the symbolic message of the Communication that Europe is and has been a maritime nation. Nevertheless, it is still awaiting concrete measures to put it into action.

1.12

The EESC reiterates the role it can play in the implementation of maritime policymaking including spatial planning, in promoting the EU maritime identity and maritime cultural heritage and in sensitising the European public opinion on global warming.

1.13

The EESC endorses the proposals regarding the European network for maritime surveillance and the improved cooperation between Member States coast guards. Such measures will promote maritime safety and security, fisheries control and control of external borders and protect the marine environment.

The EESC reiterates that a coordinated approach regarding bilateral ship boarding agreements with third countries is desirable to meet enhanced security considerations. It also urges EU action concerning the proliferation of incidents of armed robbery and piracy at sea against merchant vessels in South East Asia and Africa.

2.1

The present Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the EU and the attached Action Plan, providing the future elaboration of 29 specific actions, take into account the opinions expressed by the EU institutions as well as the stakeholders on the relevant Green Paper.

2.2

The unprecedented round of consultations launched under the Green Paper, ended in a wide consensus over the need for a holistic, integrated, cross sectoral, strategic approach vis-à-vis the oceans. The rationale of replacing fragmentation leading sometimes to unintended consequences by a broad vision deserves support.

2.3

The EESC endorses the symbolic message of the Communication that Europe is and has been a maritime nation. The 29 measures of the Action Plan are all endorsed (subject to specific comments) but are not sufficient.

3.1.1

The EESC attaches great importance in maintaining the integrity of the marine environment and ensuring that the whole range of human activities that affect it do not result in its progressive degradation.

3.1.2

The EESC welcomes the Commission's plans to focus on making international co-operation more effective, improving policy integration, implementing existing legislation end encouraging environmental technologies (Sixth Community Environment Action Programme — 6EAP). Emphasis should be given to the implementation of the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land based Sources (6).

3.1.3

The accumulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere arising from excessive emissions is already leading to greater absorption of CO2 into the oceans, and this process is expected to continue. The resulting acidity of the oceans is likely to cause increasing stress to the marine environment. Research into these marine impacts needs to be further expanded along with research into the development of environmentally friendly methods for the re-absorption of CO2. Moreover, marine energy resources will be important in the diversification of Europe's energy supply.

3.1.4

The Communication ignores the important share of pollution of the seas and rivers by oil due to pleasure craft activities, especially given the sensitivity of the coastal states where these craft most commonly operate (7). Furthermore, the marine environmental pollution problem is exacerbated by the activities of military vessels — escaping from the scope of EU rules — which are increasingly detrimental to the environment and tourism.

3.1.5

The EESC reiterates that the shipping industry burns as bunkers the lower end of oil due to non availability of better quality of bunkers by refineries. It supports initiatives on a global basis to address the quality of bunkers (8) in order to make a breakthrough in the issue of air emissions from ships.

3.1.6

Sea and air pollution from all sources deteriorate the marine environment with health, social and economic repercussions. Sufficient measures to control and mitigate marine pollution from ships, including penalties to polluters, are in place and should be enforced rigorously. However, a similar framework is not in place to tackle pollution of the seas and rivers from other sources (e.g. industrial, urban, agricultural activities, pesticides). The EESC is concerned that if comprehensive and effective action is not taken, the health of coastal and marine tourism, Europe's biggest sea related industry, will be at stake. Such action would also help in maintaining the size and diversity of the life within the marine environment, including fish stocks.

3.1.7

The EESC stresses the need to negotiate a bilateral agreement between the EU and South Mediterranean countries under the Annual Action Plans of the Neighbourhood Policy. The agreement will ensure that the third countries concerned will share the responsibility with EU Member States of maintaining clean seas by controlling air emissions and waste discharges into their rivers (e.g. the Nile Delta). The ultimate purpose would be to preserve the common heritage of the Mediterranean Sea.

3.2.1

The Communication stresses the importance of the human factor within the maritime cluster. In the search for the right balance between economic, social and environmental dimensions of a sustainable maritime policy in the Action Plan due care should be given to the social dimension.

3.2.2

The EESC is pleased with the agreement between the social partners (ETF and ECSA) to incorporate certain provisions of the ILO Maritime Labour Convention (2006) into Community law. It wishes the worldwide implementation of maritime labour standards ensuring a level playing field for all seafarers with the Convention as soon as possible. Equally important is that Member States ratify relevant international instruments concerning the fishing sector including the ILO Work in Fishing Convention 2007.

3.2.3

Regarding the development of an Action Plan on the qualification of EU seafarers, the EESC draws attention to the review of the IMO STCW (9) Convention governing global training and certification standards. Any EU proposal should be consistent with the IMO/ILO regime.

3.2.4

The EESC endorses the review of exclusions affecting seafarers and fishermen from EU labour legislation in close cooperation with the social partners and requires clarifications regarding the certificate of Maritime Excellence. Consideration should be given regarding the feasibility of a certificate of maritime excellence for seafarers compulsory in intra EU ferry services and voluntary for other services.

3.2.5

The promotion of EU seafaring careers can only be effective if resources are put into higher quality standards, thus enhancing EU seafarers' competitive advantages on a quality basis rather than on costs.

3.2.6

The global increasing scarcity of skilled seafarers presents alarming consequences for the EU's marine safety infrastructure and will increase without concerted efforts by the EU and Member States to address it. Without such a supply, Europe will lack the knowledge and experience required for key safety-critical maritime activities (ship inspection, surveying, law, insurance, vessel traffic services, salvage, coastguards and pilotage). Moreover, maritime clusters may relocate to other regions. Ongoing actions have proven not to be sufficient and the EESC deplores that the Commission has no intention to address the issue before the end of 2009.

3.2.7

The EESC is alarmed at the high drop rates from nautical colleges in some Member States and the early abandonment of a seafaring career by those already in the profession. The maritime vocation of the EU could be seriously jeopardised unless immediate attention is given to the present crisis; solutions in the context of a holistic strategy should be devised to make the seafaring profession more attractive. The career mapping opportunities exercise already conducted by the social partners (ECSA and ETF) should be further developed. ‘Attraction’ to the seafarers' profession should be coupled with measures for their ‘retention’.

3.2.8

The floating University provides a seaborne experience to students participating to its voyage. The idea of an ocean-going floating campus merits to be explored by the European Commission in the context of attracting quality students to pursue a maritime career. In the same way, schools of the ‘Harbor School’ (10) type could be set up in large European ports to teach children in primary — and possibly secondary — schools all the subjects by referring them to knowledge of the marine aquatic environment and boats, and the bases of navigation; this would be done on land, which is easier, but close to the sea.

3.2.9

The EESC requests the Commission to examine existing best practices in Member States at secondary education level concerning the attraction of future careers at sea.

3.2.10

In dealing with maritime accidents, future policy should be driven by the following considerations:

3.2.11

Seafarers may undertake acts that go well beyond the scope of their normal duties under extremely hazardous weather conditions. As IMO Secretary General said ‘The elemental nature of the working environment occasionally places professional seafarers in the sorts of situation for which there can be little or no adequate preparation. How they respond is a test of true courage — that deserves to be acknowledged and recognised’ (11). The Commission is invited to take the above considerations into account when proposing future measures to deal with maritime accidents.

3.3.1

The future Communication on the EU Maritime Transport Policy (2008-2018) should create an appropriate framework attracting investments in shipping and contributing to enhance the global leadership of European shipping and its catalyst role for the maritime cluster.

3.3.2

The EESC welcomes the Commission's recognition of the necessity of global rules for a global industry, the importance of international maritime regulation and the support for finding solutions to regulatory challenges at international bodies (such as IMO). Indeed, the global character of shipping, the global labour market in which shipping operates and the competitive position of European shipping in the global market are themes that should be taken into account.

3.3.3

The need for improving the efficiency of existing port capacity and services and for more port capacity and better hinterland connections has to be reiterated.

3.3.4

The EESC notes that its suggestions have been taken on board regarding the enhancement of ratification of IMO Conventions by EU Member States as well as internationally, and suggestions regarding port development, reducing the levels of air pollution from ships, the formation of multi-sectoral clusters and of a European network of maritime clusters. The vital role of European shipping for European and international trade and for the daily life of European citizens has also been recognised.

3.3.5

Concerning the ‘European Space for Maritime Transport without barriers’ in line with the EESC (12) views, the Communication stresses that the concept is only meant to be concerned with the creation of a virtual maritime space within which there will be a simplification of administrative and customs formalities and trade facilitation in the context of the single EU market. The EESC notes the consultation launched by the Commission with a view to decide on possible further proposals to efficiently implement the concept.

3.3.6

The EESC believes that there is scope for an enforced cooperation/coordination of EU Member States in international organisations without jeopardising their individual participation. The expertise input of EU Member States in international organisations is of high repute and should not be undermined but rather enhanced.

3.3.7

The EESC supports the goal of exercising the EU clout vis-à-vis third countries with a view to encouraging them to enforce and ratify major international maritime Conventions. European port state control should inspect both EU and third country vessels compliance with international environmental and social standards.

4.1.1

It is gratifying that the EESC proposals on the promotion of coastal tourism and data base on EU funding for coastal regions are taken on board. Islands should be moved at the centre of the EU preoccupations by following measures:

4.2.1

The EESC welcomes: proposals regarding increased cooperation in managing the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policies and the Northern Dimension.

4.2.2

About 20 %-30 % of the world's undiscovered oil reserves lie beneath the Arctic Ocean. Due to climate change, Arctic shipping routes may open for much of the year by 2015. Opening the Arctic route is attractive for reasons of both distance and security: for instance, Shanghai to Rotterdam via the Arctic route is 1000 miles shorter than via Suez. Shorter shipping routes could significantly cut fuel consumption and emissions. The EESC notes that — in view of a host of legal and environmental problems involving several countries — a clarification of international law on sea ice will become imperative. In this context, it awaits with interest the announced report relating to the Arctic Ocean which will cover the geopolitical implications of climate change. The possible environmental impact of the use of new vessels routes through the Arctic should be studied in advance.

4.3.1

The EESC endorses the proposals regarding the European network for maritime surveillance and the improved cooperation between Member States coast guards. Such measures will promote maritime safety and security, fisheries control and control of external borders and protect the marine environment.

4.4.1

Contamination of rivers and the seas (the Baltic and the Black Sea) from land based sources is an issue where EU efforts should be stepped up in the Action Plan. For reasons of political expediency problems should be addressed at a multilateral rather than bilateral level.

4.5.1

Given the alarming diminution or disappearance of marine species, the EESC stresses the necessity to rationally exploit the fishing resources. Proposals on fisheries management are in the right direction. Fishing being one of the most dangerous professions, more should be done in order to increase a safety culture among professionals. In particular, there is the need to address safety measures for fishing vessels of less than 24 meters length (this is a gap in existing international Conventions and EU Directives). The EESC points out that the necessary safeguarding of species has social consequences that should be treated as such: the commitment of fishermen to the sea is often in relation to their lack of resources and it is then that their life is on the line.

4.5.2

The physical and financial hazards of the fisherman's profession are serious and explain why so many are leaving the industry. EU projects and programmes are urgently required to develop the technology of fishing vessels. In the context of exchanging better practices on attractiveness of the fisherman's profession, the EESC commends a wide dissemination of the ‘Handbook for the prevention of accidents at sea and the safety of fishermen’ recently jointly published by the European social partners Europêche and ETF. Equally important is that Member States speed up the ratification process of the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, (June 2007). The ultimate purpose would be for fishing activities to become more sustainable and attractive.

4.6.1

In its recent opinion on a Green Paper on Better Ship Dismantling COM(2007) 269, the EESC has expressed concern over ‘the serious worldwide shortage of dismantling facilities compatible with principles of environmental and social sustainability’. ‘The situation is aggravated by the huge number of ships going out of service following the global phasing out of single hull oil tankers’ (13). The improvement of the facilities and the working conditions in South Asia (where the vast majority of ship recycling is taking takes place) should be brought up to internationally acceptable standards.

4.6.2

The EESC supports the progress at international level on dismantling obsolete ships in an efficient, safe and environmentally sustainable manner. The priority is the conclusion of a mandatory Convention by 2008/2009 and in the meantime promotion of the IMO guidelines. This internationally agreed benchmark would set clear obligations on ship owners to provide details of potentially hazardous materials on their ships, and establish minimum standards for the recycling yards in terms of health and safety provisions and the management of hazardous materials.

4.7.1

Enhanced security considerations have prompted several EU Member States to conclude bilateral ship boarding agreements with third countries. The EESC reiterates that a coordinated approach of EU Member States to such initiatives is desirable as well as a coordinated division of labour between Member States including their navies in the application of such rules. An alternative could be the early ratification of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA) Protocols by EU Member States which include safeguards to protect the legitimate commercial interests of shipping operators and the human rights of seafarers.

4.7.2

The EESC expresses concern regarding the escalation of attacks on merchant vessels and the proliferation of incidents of armed robbery and piracy at sea particularly in South East Asia and Africa. It urges EU action so that commercial vessels are escorted by naval forces in dangerous waters.

4.8.1

As a measure to reduce emissions of green house gases from ships at berth the Commission proposes the use of shore-side electricity (Action Plan). By using shore-side electricity ships will not burn fuel and, thus, they will not emit pollutants (SOx, NOx, PM) and CO2.

4.8.2

The EESC supports the above proposal; however, it draws the attention to the following concerns: a single solution may not be suitable for all types of ships; shore side electricity may be generated in power plants burning fuels and coal and, thus, producing additional CO2 which may offset the benefit. That is why it prompts the Commission to take into account the above considerations in order to propose a sensible policy on a global basis.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/36

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/37

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative setting up a programme specifically designed to help SMEs comply with environmental legislation, given both the complexity of the legislation and the economic and social importance of SMEs within Europe's economy. In this context, however, the EESC points out that particular attention should be given to micro-businesses, given the structural difficulties that make them more vulnerable.

1.2

Aware of the complexity of environmental legislation, and hence of the difficulties faced by SMEs in complying, the EESC welcomes the development of instruments designed to make it easier to understand. Although over the last decade there has been increased attention on matters social, and particularly environmental, corporate responsibility is not yet perceived across the business world as contributing to a company's competitive edge.

1.3

The EESC feels that the Commission's initiative setting up a programme to help SMEs comply with environmental legislation represents a very important first step.

1.4

The Committee believes that the Commission needs to develop a proactive approach towards SMEs by establishing a structured system of cooperation for companies at local level. In this context, particular attention must be given to cross-border cooperation.

1.5

In particular, it is essential to:

2.1

Helping small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) use energy and resources efficiently is the aim of the Commission communication (1). It does this by providing a legal framework and measures that reinforce existing policies and initiatives in line with the particular characteristics of smaller companies. To this end the communication proposes to create a programme to help SMEs implement European environmental legislation. The programme will channel financial resources towards support networks, simplify access to environmental management systems, and promote greater awareness of environmental issues among these companies.

2.2

While each individual SME employs fewer than 250 people, in total, there are some 23 million SMEs in the European Union, representing about 99 % of all EU enterprises and 57 % of the Union's total economic added value. Being responsible for such a large percentage of the EU economy's turnover, the impact of SMEs on the environment is significant.

2.3

Many companies are not aware of the impact their activities have on the environment and a majority actually think that their activities have little or no impact. SMEs also tend to believe that they are complying with legislation unless told otherwise. Under such circumstances the activities of SMEs may pose increased health and safety risks to workers as well as a significant threat to the environment. By not integrating environmental considerations into their economic activities, SMEs could also lose out on the economic benefits presented by better environmental management and eco-innovation.

2.4

The Environmental Compliance Assistance Programme proposed by the Commission is a set of measures that aim to ensure that SMEs minimise the environmental impact of their activities and to facilitate compliance with existing legislation. The programme intends to reduce the burden of compliance by designing instruments and policies to integrate environmental concerns into the core of SME activities.

2.5

The measures presented in the communication also cover the dissemination of information specifically targeted for SMEs, promoting support networks, and training activities that build local environmental expertise.

2.6

Funding for the programme's measures will come from the LIFE+ budget (EUR 5 million for 2007-2013) with additional funds to be made available through the Competitiveness and Innovation framework Programme (CIP) and the Structural Funds.

2.7

A website providing information on EU environmental policy for SMEs is already available in seven languages and guides on energy efficiency, air emissions, waste production and emissions of pollutants into water and soil are planned. A handbook on funding opportunities will also be published.

2.8

The new network in support of business and innovation will participate in implementing the programme from 2008. This and other SME support networks will play an important role in helping SMEs translate European environmental policies into operational measures.

2.9

The staff working document attached to the communication presents a selection of case studies and examples of good practice implemented by SMEs across Europe and the world.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's programme, particularly for its recognition of the importance and value of SMEs to the economy and European society.

3.2

In view of this, the EESC stresses the importance of the decision of the Feira European Council of 19 and 20 June 2000 (2) to endorse the European Charter for small enterprises (3) and its statement that ‘small enterprises are the backbone of the European economy’ and that ‘they are a key source of jobs and a breeding ground for business ideas’. One of the priorities of the Charter is to enhance the growth and competitiveness of business, not only at local level, but also in the context of a globalised market.

3.3

Companies must integrate environmental impact assessments into their management system. Therefore, given that the majority of SMEs — and particularly small and micro-businesses — generally do not apply an environmental policy, it will be necessary to introduce integrated environmental management whilst ensuring that administrative burdens are kept to a minimum.

3.4

The first step is to increase awareness that these practices are not simply constraining or more costly but rather a means of improving a company's competitiveness and creating long-term added value.

3.5

SMEs that manage to continually monitor these activities, for example through environmental management schemes, are also able to expand the management areas subject to controls and coordinate into a single strategic plan both the relevant economic and financial data and that relating to the company's social and environmental impact (4). In this way, besides the economic and environmental benefits ensuing from an efficient and rational use of resources, safety in the workplace is also safeguarded by changing the way work is organised.

3.6

The EESC therefore agrees that a long-term strategy needs to be adopted and rapidly implemented by the Member States.

4.1

Better regulation in design and implementation of policies: In this context, better regulation means increasing the involvement of SMEs in framing environmental policies that are based on best practice analysis. Best practices, when properly identified and promoted, represent the most economically efficient means of supporting the implementation of environmental legislation. The aims of reducing administrative burdens and cutting red tape at EU, national and regional levels and increasing clarity must not only be envisaged in terms of possible new legislation, but must also be a consideration in any revision of the current rules.

4.2

More accessible tailor-made environmental management schemes: Integrating environmental concerns into strategic decisions with a view to growth and innovation will enable firms not only to comply with existing legislation, but also to pilot new, better practices taking account of both freedom of initiative and legal constraints to meet the specific requirements of small and micro-businesses. In particular, there is a need to encourage the adoption of environmental management schemes (such as EMAS or ISO). With regard to EMAS (European Eco-Management Audit Scheme), this could be achieved, for example, by inserting SME-friendly provisions into the relevant regulation, implementing the rules in line with the structure of SMEs (5), and gradually reducing inspections and requests for information from registered companies. All of this would be intended as an incentive for SMEs to come on board, given that currently only Italy, Germany and Spain are seeing a substantial level of registration. The EESC hopes that the Commission will take account of these proposals and of the EESC's opinion on climate change and civil society of July 2006 (6), particularly for the purposes of the current EMAS revision. Finally, the EESC calls on the Commission to seek useful elements within the various informal and non-codified instruments at local and regional level to expand the current environmental management schemes, as only the direct involvement of SMEs and SME bodies at local level can help change the current situation.

4.3

Focused financial assistance and a multi-annual financial programme: The sheer number of financial instruments available may be confusing and may mean that the instruments do not function effectively. The EESC therefore hopes that the Commission will publish as soon as possible its planned handbook setting out new funding opportunities for projects that support improved environmental compliance and performance among SMEs. Taking a long-term view, the Committee believes that all SME-related measures should preferably come under a single budget heading.

4.4

Building local environmental expertise for SMEs: Professional experts are needed to provide technical assistance to SMEs. To this end, the EESC would stress the need to involve local SME bodies and the institutions. Furthermore, costs must be set at reasonable levels for the services provided, and SMEs must be able to train and avail themselves of in-house consultants.

4.5

Improved communication and more targeted information: The planned new multilingual website, linked to the SME portal (7), must become the main source of information for SME support networks on EU environmental policy and SMEs. The EESC considers it crucial to ensure immediate access to the information and direct contact between the EU institutions and SMEs.

4.6

The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative in launching the Enterprise Europe Network — an important new European support network for businesses within the EU and beyond. The EESC considers it crucial that the EU continue to build up services to SMEs, particularly with regard to cross-border trade and investment; technological cooperation between SMEs and large companies; innovation; awareness of EU funding sources; and SME research programmes.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/40

1.1

The EESC agrees with the Commission's view that the general framework for environmental inspection systems in Member States should remain in the form of a Recommendation. However, the Recommendation should be amended in order to improve its implementation and strengthen its effectiveness. In key areas, sectoral legislation means that the inspection activity, its implementation and methodology, are legally binding across the whole of the EU.

1.2

The Recommendation must be absolutely clear and comprehensible for its effective implementation. It is therefore important to clearly define the scope of environmental inspections taking into account the detected problems.

1.3

The definition, clarity and uniformity of terms are of major importance for the harmonisation of inspection activities across the whole territory of the Community and for providing a level playing field for businesses. There are many other examples of the use of these terms in other community legislation, for which the definition varies from one act to another. The definition of terms will therefore generally require closer attention.

1.4

Clearer definition of criteria for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on environmental inspections is also required.

1.5

The use of modern management methods should be recommended for the system for managing the inspection activities. These methods would help focus inspection activities on key areas of importance for environmental protection, improve planning and could also contribute to the sustainable improvement of environmental protection.

1.6

Further standardisation in access to information is required in accordance with current Community legislation. Information provided should give an overall picture of the facts uncovered by the inspection, the necessary corrective measures and details of their implementation.

1.7

The IMPEL network must be supported in order to further strengthen international cooperation and ensure greater harmonisation in standards of inspection and enforcement.

2.1

Inspections are an important instrument for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of Community environmental legislation. In 2001, the European Parliament and Council adopted Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States (1).

2.2

The Recommendation contains legally binding criteria for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on environmental inspections, which aim to strengthen compliance with Community law and to contribute to its more consistent implementation and enforcement in all Member States.

2.3

The Commission has carried out a survey on the implementation and enforcement of this Recommendation, which will be used as a basis for drafting the new version of the Recommendation, to be submitted in 2008.

2.4

All Member States submitted reports on the implementation of the Recommendation and a report on their experiences with its application. However, it should be noted that the application process for the Recommendation varied widely from State to State. While all Member States have implemented the Recommendation at least in part, only a small number have applied it fully. There are always large differences in the implementation of environmental inspections within the Community. Moreover, these differences lead to distortions of competition for businesses.

2.5

Marked differences, which need to be eliminated, are particularly noticeable in the following areas:

2.5.1.1

The current scope focuses mainly on industrial and waste treatment installations and excludes many activities that are regulated under Community environmental legislation. In particular, the Recommendation does not contain criteria for the inspection of waste shipments. Transboundary shipments of waste are regulated at EU level by the Waste Shipment Regulation (2). The implementation of this Regulation is a high priority for the Commission.

2.5.1.2

The Recommendation also does not include criteria for the inspection of Natura 2000 sites. The Commission thus welcomes the creation of the Green Enforce Network, which aims at encouraging cooperation and exchange of experiences between Member States to facilitate the implementation of nature legislation. The Green Enforce Network is currently considering contributing to the further development of environmental inspections by developing criteria for the inspection of Natura 2000 sites.

2.5.1.3

Other environmental legislation to which the Recommendation is not applicable concerns the registration and authorisation of chemicals (REACH (3)), the restriction of certain hazardous substances in products (e.g. the RoHS Directive (4)), trade in endangered species (5) as well as activities related to genetically modified organisms and producer responsibility systems.

2.5.2

Clarification of definitions: some terms used in the Recommendation are interpreted in different ways by Member States. Differing interpretations can be identified in particular for the following concepts:

2.5.3

Criteria for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on inspections: the objective of the Recommendation is to strengthen compliance of controlled installations with environmental legislation and to achieve a high level of environmental protection. In order to achieve this, the Recommendation sets out criteria on how to plan, carry out, follow up and report on environmental inspections.

2.5.4

Reporting: The first reporting exercise has produced a large amount of information showing how the Recommendation is implemented and applied in the Member States. The information is, however, not always comparable. A very clear uniform format for such a reporting system would need to be developed to ensure comparability of the data.

2.5.5

Access to information: the Recommendation states that the inspection plans and the inspection reports should be made available to the public in accordance with the Community Directives in force. The reports have shown that several Member States make neither the inspection plans nor reports available. Information related to environmental inspections is covered by the requirements of Directive 2003/4/EC, so the legal obligation to make the information available exists already. The Directive also gives sufficient grounds for exemptions to refuse access to this information where other overriding interests need to be protected. Appropriate mechanisms will need to be developed to allow this right to be exercised.

2.6.1

Revision of the Recommendation: the Recommendation should be seen as a general framework for environmental inspection systems in Member States. Its criteria are of a general nature. Due to this very general and descriptive nature of the criteria, it does not seem appropriate to transform them into legally binding requirements. However, the Recommendation should be amended in order to improve its implementation and strengthen its effectiveness.

2.6.2

Sectoral inspection requirements: In addition to the general criteria for environmental inspections set out in the Recommendation, specific legally binding requirements for the inspection of certain installations or activities should be included in sectoral pieces of legislation. Legally binding requirements are necessary to ensure that a higher political priority is given to inspections and that environmental legislation is better enforced throughout the Community. Sectoral inspection requirements can be complementary to the Recommendation or they can concern installations or activities that are not covered by the Recommendation.

2.6.2.1

As part of the review of the IPPC Directive (7), which is on the 2007 Commission Legislative Work Programme, and based on the analysis of the implementation of this legislation, the Commission will consider ways to secure a better compliance framework to ensure more consistency and confidence in Member States' inspection of IPPC installations.

2.6.2.2

The Commission is considering proposing specific legally binding rules for inspections of waste shipments. Specific criteria should be defined to ensure sufficient quality and frequency of inspections and provide for appropriate training and co-operation among authorities.

2.6.3

Development of guidance and cooperation between Member States: IMPEL has carried out a long list of projects which aim to strengthen the cooperation and encourage the exchange of information between Member States on environmental inspections (8). The Commission has actively supported and participated in these projects. All these initiatives have had a positive impact on the strengthening of inspections in the Community and IMPEL should be encouraged to continue such projects.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's Communication on the review of Recommendation 2001/331/EC providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States, and appreciates the efforts (9) made to undertake a study on the application of this Recommendation.

3.2

Environmental inspections constitute an important element of the executive power of each state in environmental protection. It is appropriate that they pay ensure the application of not only national environmental protection policy but also the Community's common principles in environmental policy, in a way which is as balanced as possible, whatever legal entity is given the responsibility for carrying out inspections in a given Member State.

3.3

The EESC is aware that it is vital to strengthen compliance with Community environmental law and to contribute to its more consistent implementation and enforcement in all Member States, to ensure that the agreed and applied minimum criteria contribute to creating a level playing field in the future, in particular with regard to competition.

3.4

The EESC believes that further debate with stakeholders regarding the communication will offer insights necessary for creating an optimal framework for inspection activities, which will be both clear and well enforced throughout the Community.

4.1

The recommendation must be absolutely clear and comprehensible for effective implementation. The EESC is therefore delighted that the Commission intends to draw attention to this point.

4.1.1

The EESC believes that it is essential that the scope of environmental inspections is well defined, covering important problem areas, without undermining the flexibility of the inspection systems or specific national approaches. However, only those national approaches that are required under specific national objectives for environmental protection should be applied.

4.1.2

Whenever specific Community legislative acts provide for inspection activities, these should be governed by a specific legislative act, to avoid differences of interpretation.

4.1.3

It can be seen from the Communication that differences in the definition, clarity and uniformity of terms are of major importance for the harmonisation of inspection activities across the whole territory of the Community and for providing a level playing field. If uniform application of the Recommendation is to be achieved, it is absolutely essential that the basic terms are precisely defined in order to allow harmonisation and to establish links to other legislation.

4.1.4

The EESC therefore also draws attention to the fact that there are many other examples of the use of these terms in other community legislation, for which the definition varies from one act to another. The definition of terms will therefore generally require closer attention.

4.2

In addition, the EESC considers it essential to determine the criteria for planning, carrying out, following up and reporting on inspections, while also preserving the necessary flexibility for specific inspection activities to be undertaken. A reporting system that is as simple and clear as possible should be established to provide comparable information on how inspection systems function and whether they achieve the objective of improving compliance with environmental legislation.

4.3

The use of modern management methods should be recommended for the system for managing the inspection activities, as such methods have shown positive results in some Member States. These methods would help focus inspection activities on key areas of importance for environmental protection, improve planning and could also contribute to the sustainable improvement of environmental protection.

4.4

The EESC recommends further standardisation in access to information in accordance with current Community legislation to respect the specific level of access to information in the Member States. The provision of such information should not hamper the inspection activities and the information provided should give an overall picture of the facts uncovered by the inspection, the necessary corrective measures and details of their implementation.

4.5

The EESC agrees with the Commission's view that the general framework for environmental inspection systems in Member States should remain in the form of a Recommendation. Indeed, given the very general and descriptive nature of the criteria, it does not seem appropriate to transform them into legally binding requirements. However, in order to improve its implementation and strengthen its effectiveness, the Recommendation should be amended.

4.6

This opinion is based on the fact that a considerable amount of current and forthcoming Community legislation includes conditions and criteria for carrying out inspection activities specific to particular sectors. This legislation means that the inspection activity, its implementation and methodology, are legally binding across the whole of the EU.

4.7

The EESC considers that the IMPEL network must be supported if international cooperation is to be further strengthened. The network has drawn up many documents with guidelines for planning and carrying out inspections. In addition, the network has organised exchanges of information and experience between inspectors. The professional activities of the IMPEL network could contribute a considerable amount, in particular through specific projects, as was the case in the past. IMPEL might play a useful role in facilitation of common training and professional development. It might also be useful to develop a central unit for the compilation of Europe — wide statistics and other information instruments about inspection and enforcement activities throughout Europe.

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/44

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/45

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/46

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/47

19.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/48

1.1

The EESC welcomes the inputs from the European Parliament, the Council and the European social partners into the flexicurity debate. In a changing world it is essential to discuss how the balance between flexibility and security at EU and Member State level can contribute to the creation of more and better jobs.

1.1.1

The EESC has already emphasised that the flexicurity concept does not mean unilateral and illegitimate reduction of workers' rights. The European social partners have called upon Member States to review, and if necessary adjust, the design of labour law, job protection systems and, together with the social partners, collective bargaining practice with a view, for example, to ‘ensuring an optimal balance between flexibility and security for all employment relationships [and] providing adequate security for workers under all forms of contracts in order to tackle segmented labour markets’.

1.2

The discussions on flexicurity have also triggered debates in Member States and concerted action in a few. This underlines that it is important for the social partners to be actively involved in the debate and the decision-making process.

1.3

The EESC emphasises that flexicurity cannot be viewed separately from the challenges facing the European Union. Globalisation, the rapid development of new technologies and the demographic challenge as well as environmental challenges are changing the European labour market. Flexicurity should be a part of a response to these external and internal trends and pressures, aiming for a fair balance between workers and employers.

1.4

The EESC considers that Europe should focus on its innovation capacity, the high quality of its products and services, its well-trained workforce and its social model, and should compete with its global competitors on quality. This should be reflected in the Employment Guidelines. The EESC would like to see changes in the guidelines due to the flexicurity discussions and especially regarding the quality of jobs.

1.5

Finally, the Committee makes some recommendations regarding the implementation of flexicurity. It

2.1

Flexicurity has been an ongoing issue ever since the first employment guidelines were adopted. However, the current debate started in January 2006 with an informal Council meeting on flexicurity. The 2006 Spring European Council asked Member States to direct special attention to the key challenge of ‘flexicurity’. At two Tripartite Social Summits, in conjunction with the December 2006 and March 2007 European Summits, the issue of flexicurity was discussed. The Commission published a Communication on flexicurity in June 2007 which has been discussed and processed in the European Parliament and the Council, and the Council Decision was unanimous. Furthermore, in October 2007 the social partners concluded a joint analysis of key challenges facing European labour markets, including recommendations on flexicurity. The EESC welcomes all contributions and especially the European social partners' joint analysis (1).

2.2

The discussions on flexicurity have also triggered debates in Member States and, recently, concerted action in some. The EESC welcomes these discussions and activities but underlines that it is crucial that the social partners should be actively involved in the debate and the decision-making process.

2.3

Taking the EESC opinion on flexicurity that was adopted in July 2007 (2) as a still valid basis the present opinion intends to:

3.1

The EESC welcomes the various inputs into the flexicurity debate. In a changing world it is essential to discuss how the balance between flexibility and security at EU and Member State level can contribute to the creation of more and better jobs.

3.2.1

Flexicurity cannot be viewed separately from the challenges facing the European Union. Globalisation, the rapid development of new technologies and the demographic challenge are changing the European labour market. The EESC would however like to add that the environmental challenges are also likely to have an impact on labour markets. Flexicurity should be a part of a response to these external and internal trends and pressures, aiming for a fair balance between social, environmental and economic progress.

3.2.2

The EESC is of the opinion that environmental challenges will affect Europe's labour markets. They will increase pressure to save energy and introduce systems for a more sustainable environment. But they can also spur technological innovation contributing to economic growth and employment growth.

3.2.3

The Committee has observed that climate change may accentuate current social distortions and gaps (3), in both the EU and in other parts of the world. It has also noted that the objective must be to manage adaptation and achieve mitigation without causing unemployment and social distortion (4).

3.2.4

Globalisation and the resulting integration of markets are affecting Europe's labour markets. Consumption, production and investment patterns are changing. These developments are not inevitable nor are they impossible to affect or shape. Legislation on health and safety and workers' rights improve working life and shape global norms. Product standards can improve competitiveness with due regard to adaptability of enterprises. Nevertheless, European labour markets will have to adjust to meet the challenges of a globalised world. In many respects, Europe has benefited from globalisation. The single market has helped to create globally competitive companies in the EU. The EU has consequently been able to sell products and services at the top of the value chain.

3.2.5

Globalisation and technological change have not undermined employment growth in Europe. Over the period 1995-2005, the EU saw a net expansion of employment with 18,5 million jobs created. The number of job losses due to trade-related adjustment is small compared with the overall rate of job creation in the economy. Indeed, openness to trade can increase employment possibilities, as recent developments in the European Union have shown.

3.2.6

But globalisation can also cause increased vulnerability. Companies are exposed to increased competition. Jobs that were previously considered as protected are now exposed to international competition. Services that for many years were considered as local can now be provided across borders. Restructuring takes place more often and at a quicker pace. When workers who are trade-displaced become re-employed they typically receive lower pay. Thus for many globalisation is about losing income when they move to new jobs. In fact, the wage share of the economy has decreased. The social partners have also remarked that in comparison with the US, the EU has created more jobs in sectors at the lower end of the productivity growth scale while employment in sectors experiencing high productivity gains has declined (5).

3.2.7

Labour market changes have led to an increasing share of part-time and fixed-term work. These types of employment may have helped to ease entry into employment and increase employment rates in Europe. But workers in temporary employment tend to be less productive, receive less employer-supported training (6) and are more prone to work-related accidents (7). They also risk getting stuck in temporary employment. Just over half of those with temporary contracts have a permanent contract after six years compared to more than three-quarters of those who started with a permanent contract (8).

3.2.8

To meet the demographic challenges new services and employment opportunities need to be created within, for example, child care and elderly care. Within this framework Europe also needs to improve work organisation, gender equality and work-life balance.

3.2.9

Fiscal policy in many EU countries has tended to be loosened in good times and tightened in the lower part of the business cycle. This is notably the case with the larger euro area countries. In addition, public debt remains high in a number of EU countries in the light of demographic ageing (9).

3.3.1

When implementing flexicurity policies in Member States, the Employment Guidelines will give Member States indications on what sort of labour markets and economy Europe should aim at. The EESC's view on this is clear: Europe should focus on its innovation capacity, the high quality of its products and services, its well-trained workforce and its social model, and should compete with its global competitors on quality and not enter a race for the lowest wages and social standards in which Europe is bound to be the loser (10).

3.3.2

Several of the Employment Guidelines could form the basis for a discussion on flexicurity. The EESC would like to see changes in the guidelines reflecting its recommendations, especially regarding quality of jobs, as stated in its opinion on the Employment Guidelines (11).

3.3.3

On several occasions, the EESC has commented on the revised Lisbon process and the new Employment Guidelines (12). The Committee has welcomed the new integrated approach and the multiannual cycle but has also pointed out that:

3.3.4

The EESC has also pointed out that one key to the success of the National Reform Programmes is the widest possible involvement of all relevant social players — in particular the social partners — in every phase of the process, and that the role of the social partners has to be strengthened (13). The Committee would also like to emphasise the importance of consulting national economic and social councils within this framework.

3.4.1

Flexicurity can play a major part in achieving the objectives of the renewed Lisbon Strategy, framing national reforms and policy options. However, neither the concept nor the components of flexicurity are new. The first Employment Guidelines, adopted in the context of the European Employment Strategy in 1998, already called on the social partners to negotiate a balance between flexibility and security.

3.4.2

The EESC wishes to underline that there is no single solution for all and that the right mix will vary in different Member States. The EESC has already stressed that the debate has been mostly limited to increasing external flexibility and ways of compensating for such an increase by strengthening labour market policies or social security provisions. Instead, the aim should be to focus on other dimensions to more effectively create win-win situations (14). Flexicurity also entails deciding the balance of rights and obligations between employers and workers where balanced and fair packages need to be negotiated (15).

3.4.3

Flexicurity is used, among others, by the Commission when assessing National Reform Plans and by the Presidency when discussing labour market challenges. It has become a framework for evaluating Member States' labour markets. The Commission must take note of all recent developments and contributions. To assess the different, often very complex preconditions in the different Member States a close cooperation with the relevant actors is essential. The social partners must be consulted before governments present their National Reform Plans.

3.5.1

The EESC has already emphasised that the flexicurity concept does not mean unilateral and illegitimate reduction of workers' rights, an idea the EESC rejects (16). The European social partners (17) have called upon Member States to review, and if necessary adjust, the design of labour law, job protection systems and, together with the social partners, collective bargaining practice with a view to:

3.5.2

The Committee agrees with the importance of comprehensive lifelong learning strategies and better investment in human resources as crucial for achieving the Lisbon strategy. Nevertheless, Eurostat figures show that little or no progress has been made when it comes to increasing workers' participation in lifelong learning. The importance of lifelong learning for improving workers' skills, career opportunities and productivity has been stressed in a number of recent EESC opinions. Whilst many commitments have been made in the past to lifelong learning, in practice much remains to be achieved by Member States and other actors. In 2002, the European social partners agreed on a Framework of actions for the lifelong development of competencies and qualifications.

3.5.3

The EESC would argue that inclusive welfare systems combined with active labour market policies improve job-matching and encourage innovation and higher productivity in vulnerable industries which are crucial for Europe's future competitiveness. An important part of flexicurity is unemployment benefits with high replacement rates which are efficient and employment-oriented, providing additional possibilities for adequate job matching into quality employment, while enhancing employment security. It is therefore not only a matter of offering ‘adequate’ replacement levels but also ensuring that they maintain a proper living standard while remaining sustainable, and linking them to activation strategies and high-quality employment services.

3.5.4

The EESC has earlier stressed the importance of gender equality (18). Policies should be implemented to reconcile professional, private and family life as well as measures which enable both women and men to realise their professional potential and to become economically independent. The EESC encourages the European Institute for Gender Equality to monitor flexicurity from a gender perspective.

3.5.5

Geographical and professional mobility of workers are necessary tools for ensuring efficient labour markets and alleviating the mismatch between labour demand and supply, by reducing bottlenecks in specific sectors and professions. Geographical mobility can contribute to upward convergence of working and living conditions. Furthermore, geographical and occupational mobility also have a significant impact on growth and employment levels. In recent years, Member States with the highest overall levels of mobility have also registered strong economic growth and low — or significantly reduced — unemployment rates. This points to a relationship between mobility levels and strong economic and labour market performance.

3.6.1

The EESC underlines the importance of social dialogue and of the social partners being actively involved at all relevant levels in the design and implementation of flexicurity policies (19). As the EESC pointed out in its previous opinion, strengthening industrial relations systems at European and national levels is essential for any discussion on flexicurity.

3.6.2

Flexicurity requires a climate of trust and broadly-based dialogue among all stakeholders, where all are prepared to take the responsibility for change with a view to socially balanced policies. This includes also the possibilities of monitoring and evaluating the implementation as well as the results of policies.

3.6.3

Civil society also has a role in implementing flexicurity. Social NGOs provide essential services for those at risk or experiencing marginalisation and contribute to reconciliation of family and professional life. Educational associations encourage and provide lifelong learning for adults. Organised civil society can help to increase the quality of employment and mitigates challenges faced by the most vulnerable groups facing discrimination within the European labour market such as young and older people, women, migrants and disabled people.

4.1

The EESC urges the Commission to take stock of the different contributions and views on the Commission Communication, and other recent developments. Member States and social partners at all levels also have a role in shaping the concept of flexicurity when it is implemented. This is essential as flexicurity is used in the evaluation process of Member States' National Reform Programmes.

4.2

When Member States incorporate the common principles in their National Reform Programmes, providing a mix of the national policies according to their conditions and practices, the EESC encourages the Commission to monitor the whole process and to establish a platform for good practices exchange and benchmarking including especially the social partners but also organised civil society. The EESC therefore welcomes the fact-finding ‘Mission for Flexicurity’ set up by the Commission.

4.3

The EESC supports the active involvement of social partners in the design and implementation of flexicurity policies in all stages of the process. The EESC has previously underlined the need for ‘a strong and vital social dialogue where the social partners actively participate and are able to negotiate, influence and take responsibility for the definition and components of flexicurity and evaluation of its outcomes …’ (20).

4.4

Mutual trust is very important between the actors involved. Organised civil society can play an important role in increasing trust but also in providing stepping stones for those furthest away from the labour market.

4.5

Important preconditions for flexicurity to work are sound macroeconomic policies fostering employment growth and a favourable business environment realising and supporting the full growth potential.

4.6

The EESC encourages Member States and the EU to create and maintain a legal framework conducive to adaptability, which is simple, transparent and predictable, as well as to strengthen and uphold employees' rights and their justiciability, and to promote throughout the EU a stable legal framework for collective bargaining and social dialogue when implementing flexicurity. The basis of all flexicurity models is a policy able to guarantee high levels of social protection, the assumption of responsibility by adequately funded public services, and a stable legal framework for collective bargaining and social dialogue. In this framework the ILO labour standards and EU legislation, being transparent and predictable, are important bases.

4.7

General welfare systems can improve mobility by ensuring that workers do not lose out when they are confronted with changes affecting their workplace. To follow national and EU rules on information and consultation is important for anticipating change and mitigating its consequences. The EESC has in a previous opinion proposed that the Directive on European Workers' Councils should be reviewed (21) and the Commission has recently launched a second phase consultation that gives social partners the opportunity to start negotiations with a view to revising the existing legislation. The Committee also encourages the Council and the Commission to try to resolve pending legislation in the social field.

4.8

The EESC underlines the importance of devoting economic resources to flexicurity. Implementing flexicurity without investing in strengthening institutions, active labour market policies and lifelong learning will not bring about a high quality labour market. This would include the extension of security to precarious jobs. Policies should focus on integrating women, youth and older people into the labour market. Flexicurity should be applied with a holistic and consistent approach. In this respect, devoting appropriate resources to European funds such as the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is essential.

4.9

The EESC emphasises that all relevant policies should be mutually reinforcing. Growth, jobs, social cohesion and the environment are equally important and mutually enabling. Sustainable growth is a function of higher welfare aspirations and an improved environment.

4.10

The EESC wants to see an integrated, multi-level approach. Given the multidimensional nature of flexicurity, it is important to strive for an integration of different policy levels. A more coherent policy to tackle the issue, increased interaction between the different actors and levels is needed to improve economic and social cohesion.

4.11

The EESC argues that new risks should be taken into account and that transitions should be rewarded in the implementation of flexicurity. Globalisation will increase risks for workers and companies. Taking these new risks into account would be essential for meeting the challenge of globalisation. Promoting job mobility in a positive, high-quality way through investing in people and improving portability of rights is crucial.