28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/1

1.1

In addition to being an aim in itself, equality between women and men is a prerequisite for meeting the EU's aims for growth, employment and social cohesion.

1.2

The Mid-term assessment of the roadmap for equality is taking place at a time of economic crisis. It is important to note the impact and consequences of this crisis on women and men, given their different positions in society.

1.3

Equality should be mainstreamed into all policies, especially social and employment policies, and efforts should be furthered to remove barriers preventing women and men from participating fully and equally in the labour market.

1.4

To ensure and improve women's financial independence, both the quantity and the quality of female employment should be improved, including support for the self-employed. The risk faced by women of falling into a precarious situation must be addressed and a fair distribution of family and domestic responsibilities encouraged.

1.5

Unequal pay has structural causes: the undervaluing of skills traditionally viewed as female, occupational and sectoral segregation, precarious employment, breaks in working life, etc. Legislation and collective agreements are effective instruments for tackling the issue of unequal pay, with the need for all economic and social stakeholders to be involved.

1.6

The greater presence of women in business and political activities fosters equality, women's economic independence, victory over gender stereotypes and the promotion of women in the decision-making process.

1.7

Women are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty. Tailoring social rights to individual needs, a guaranteed minimum income and taking into account periods of inactivity and reduced working hours enabling women to take care of a relative/dependent are measures that improve social protection and lower the risk of people falling into poverty.

1.8

Reconciling family life and work is crucial to achieving equality and improving jobs for women: high-quality public social services and improvements to existing maternity, paternity and parental leave. Progress needs to be made on all social stakeholders accepting responsibility for ensuring that household and caring tasks are fairly divided.

1.9

The EESC considers that the equal representation of women in decision-making must be promoted and that the Member States should, therefore, make a greater commitment, by setting clear goals and implementing effective measures such as positive action, equality plans, etc.

1.10

Given the persistence of gender-based violence and human trafficking, the Committee is of the view that current legislation should be enforced and national action plans should be drawn up, coordinated by a global European strategy, and that specific programmes in the field should be boosted.

1.11

To combat sexist stereotypes the EESC considers it is essential to educate society along non-sexist lines, offering training to both men and women, encouraging more women to study science and technology, attaching greater value to jobs traditionally viewed as ‘female’ and avoiding sexism in the media.

1.12

Use should be made of the EU's foreign and development policy to promote women's rights on the international stage, improving their skills and empowerment.

1.13

The EESC considers that gender analysis needs to be fully mainstreamed into all of the Commission's spheres of activity and should be recognised in European and national budgets. Staff trained in equality issues will be needed to ensure this, in addition to indicators broken down by gender that help show the situation affecting women and men and assess the degree of compliance with the equality plan.

1.14

In the new equality strategy to be followed from 2010 the objectives cannot become mere recommendations from the Commission to the Member States. Instead, they should be binding directives with quantifiable objectives. Greater political involvement is therefore required at all levels. The EU institutions must lead by example, looking at a proactive review of work done and an impact assessment on implementation.

2.1

The Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010 demonstrates the European Commission's commitment, working together with the Member States, to making progress on equality. At the Commission's request, the EESC is carrying out a review of the roadmap for equality, studying the impact of the measures adopted and the extent to which they have been achieved, and is also making proposals for action for the new strategy in 2010.

2.2

The EESC acknowledges the EU's wide-reaching commitment to equality: the 1957 Treaty of Rome introduces the principle of equal pay, the 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam adopts a dual approach which combines a cross-sectoral method with specific measures and the Treaty of Lisbon gives an explicit commitment to eliminating inequalities and promoting equality.

2.3

At the international level, the EU has signed up to the Beijing Platform for Action, the Millennium Goals, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which places women firmly at the centre of human rights concerns.

2.4

Despite this broad regulatory framework, the stated aims have not been achieved and inequality between women and men is still a reality. No significant progress has been made in any of the six priority areas for political action set out in the roadmap for equality between women and men (2006-2010). In light of this, real political will to make change has to be questioned. Incorporating the principle of gender equality, which is a key factor for competitiveness and growth, should be a priority for the EU's new 2020 Action Strategy.

2.5

The evaluation of the roadmap for equality between women and men (2006-2010) is being carried out during an economic downturn, and the implications of the crisis for women need to be studied, given their different position in the labour market and in public social spending policies, especially those concerning social services, which are the policies that most affect women.

2.6

The crisis has affected in the first place sectors traditionally occupied by men, such as construction, transport and industry, and has subsequently spread to other sectors where a larger proportion of women work (banking services and the commercial sector for example). In many families the women's salary thus becomes the only source of income, which is generally lower than men's because women tend mostly to be employed in the service sector, on part-time or temporary contracts, or in the hidden economy. All of these factors in turn have a detrimental effect on the national economy, as they inhibit private consumption and thus slow down recovery.

2.7

The crisis also has an effect on social policies; women receive fewer unemployment benefits in terms of both amount and duration, due to their often weaker position in the labour market. Furthermore, basic public services such as healthcare, education and social services in general provide less coverage just when families, and especially women, need it most. As these are also sectors in which the female workforce is concentrated, this will again have a knock-on effect on women's employment.

2.8

Measures to combat the crisis cannot be gender-neutral and where necessary, the new policies to achieve economic recovery and the current Structural Funds programmes must take account of the different positions that men and women occupy in society.

2.9

Equality should be a priority, not only in order to address the current crisis and the longer-term recovery, but also to deal with the demographic and economic challenges that affect the European social model and that have an impact on women and their financial independence.

1.

Achieving equal economic independence for women and men

2.

Reconciling work with private and family life

3.

Promoting equal participation of women and men in decision-making

4.

Eradicating all forms of gender-based violence

5.

Eliminating sexist stereotypes

6.

Promoting gender equality in external and development policies.

3.1.1.1

Many countries are still failing to meet the Lisbon Strategy's target of having 60 % of women in employment. While 70,9 % of men are employed, only 58,8 % of women are in employment (1), and in the over-55 age bracket, 36,8 % of women are employed compared with 55 % of men. Women are more likely to be unemployed, but the gap is decreasing as the economic crisis develops (9,8 % in comparison to 9,6 % of men).

3.1.1.2

There is a need to improve both the number of jobs available to women and the quality of these jobs, as women are over-represented in low-paid sectors and in jobs that are more likely to be precarious. Part-time work is predominantly feminine (31,5 % women compared with 8,3 % men) and 14,3 % of female employees are employed on a temporary contract. Furthermore, when women are also mothers, their rate of employment falls by more than 10 percentage points which reflects the unequal distribution of family tasks and the insufficient care infrastructure.

3.1.1.3

The EESC recommends making a joint study of women's unemployment rates and the rate of women's inactivity for family reasons (2). Due to their role as carers, women often do not meet the criteria to be considered ‘unemployed’, with inactivity thus becoming a form of hidden unemployment.

3.1.1.4

A multidisciplinary approach is required, as this would help supplement employment policies with educational and social measures, a form of education that eradicates stereotypes in employment, high-quality public social services that guarantee care for dependent persons and campaigns to raise awareness about the division of domestic work between women and men.

3.1.1.5

The Commission should include and promote equality in all its programmes (as it does with the PROGRESS programme. The Structural Funds provide the ideal framework; they help to provide information on how countries are achieving this goal, carry out an annual assessment of the gender impact of such measures by country and also to establish appropriate measures and penalties for countries which do not ensure the quantity and quality of jobs for women.

3.1.2.1

Achieving wage parity is crucial to achieving equality but despite the advances made in legislation, the pay gap between women and men has gone up to 17,4 %, and is as high as 30 % for women over 50.

3.1.2.2

The wage gap is structural in origin: segregation into undervalued economic sectors and low-paid professions, a greater presence in the hidden economy and in precarious jobs, and career breaks or working fewer hours for family reasons are factors which all have detrimental effects on women's salaries.

3.1.2.3

The EESC (3) recommends that each Member State scrutinises its legislation on contract conditions and pay in order to avoid direct and indirect discrimination against women.

3.1.2.4

Legislation should incorporate control mechanisms that will detect gender discrimination, promoting transparent job classification systems so that the qualifications, experience and potential of all staff are valued and rewarded equally.

3.1.2.5

Collective bargaining is a useful tool for incorporating non-sexist criteria for rating jobs, training leave for women’s career advancement, career breaks and special leave for family reasons, flexible working hours, etc. that reduce differences in salaries.

3.1.3.1

Despite being highly qualified, women still form the minority in management positions within companies. The Commission has promoted equality in the framework of Corporate Social Responsibility, increased State aid for women’s start-ups (Regulation (EC) No 800/2008), and has given its support to the European Network to promote Women's Entrepreneurship. In addition to governments and official bodies, this network should involve relevant civil society organisations with a view to benefiting from the exchange of experiences and good practices.

3.1.3.2

It is suggested that the recommendations of the EU Entrepreneurship Action Plan on increasing women's start-ups be implemented through measures such as providing better access to finance and credit, developing entrepreneurial networks that provide organisational and advisory services, appropriate vocational training and re-training, promote good practices, etc.

3.1.4.1

Women are especially vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty. Women's unequal position in the labour market and their dependency on social protection systems are factors that contribute to this situation.

3.1.4.2

Conditions of access to social protection should be made the same for women and men. Shorter working days for family reasons, the use of maternity and/or parental leave to look after children, part-time or temporary work, segregation and wage discrimination are factors that reduce the amount and duration of the future social benefits received by women, especially as regards unemployment benefits and retirement pensions. To mitigate this situation partially, measures should include recognising time spent carrying out unpaid work, working shorter hours and stopping work for family reasons as fully paid up tax periods.

3.1.4.3

Public social protection should guarantee a decent minimum income that reduces the risk of poverty by focussing in particular on elderly women, widows who are in receipt of a derivative pension, and single-parent families headed by women.

3.1.4.4

Special attention should be paid to the private pension schemes established in some countries, since future pensions are determined by individuals’ income and life expectancy, which penalises women in particular.

3.1.4.5

2010 is the European Year for combating poverty and social exclusion, and also marks the end of the Lisbon Strategy and the implementation period for the Open Method of Coordination. The EU's new 2020 Strategy should set specific objectives and measures that are more effective in both the short and long terms, to combat poverty, especially poverty affecting women.

3.1.5.1

The EESC considers that a new health strategy is needed which takes account of the different health requirements of men and women, but points out that no tangible measures have been provided for to achieve this. Further work is therefore needed on researching women's health and the illnesses affecting them.

3.1.5.2

The ageing population coupled with women's participation in the job market will increase the demand for long-term care services in future. The Member States should guarantee high-quality public health and social services: the lack of such coverage has a particularly negative impact on women, as they are primarily responsible for providing care.

3.1.6.1

The EESC reiterates the need to mainstream the gender perspective into migration and asylum policy. Closer attention should be paid to immigrant women and women from ethnic minorities, as they suffer the greatest inequalities and are in a particularly vulnerable position, especially given the current economic crisis (4).

3.1.6.2

The increasing number of women migrants is directly linked to the demand for workers in the domestic and care work sectors, due largely to the lack of social infrastructure. Significant numbers of women immigrants are employed in sectors where casual and precarious jobs are typical. There is a need to ‘professionalise’ and regularise these jobs, and promote professional qualifications to ensure women immigrants are better incorporated into the job market.

3.2.1

Where women's employment is concerned, the targets set in the Lisbon Strategy have been reached, despite the failure to meet the Barcelona Objectives for childcare facilities (33 % coverage for children under the age of 3 and 90 % for children aged between 3 and 6). A care service infrastructure is essential, with available places and a flexible range of services that guarantees a tailored, high-quality approach: arrangements for out-of-hours and holiday periods, canteens and specialist centres to cater for different degrees of dependency. Investment in social services not only has positive effects on the economy and especially employment; it is also of great social benefit.

3.2.2

Caring for children and dependent persons requires flexible working hours and working time thus needs to be reorganised to meet people's family and work requirements and also to be equally accessible to women and men.

3.2.3

Many women use part-time work as a means of reconciling working life and family life, partly due to the lack of care facilities. The increasing proportion of women in part-time work, however, is due not only to family obligations but is also in many cases the only way in which women can access the labour market (5).

3.2.4

As regards leave, the individual rights of men and women should be put on an equal footing, regardless of the type of employment contract they have (freelance, temporary or open-ended contract for example). The EESC therefore welcomes the agreement reached between ETUC, Businesseurope, CEEP and UEAPME to extend parental leave (6), although it deems it crucial to continue working towards full equality. The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to improve protection for workers who are pregnant, have recently given birth or are breastfeeding and agrees that paid maternity leave of at least 18 weeks should be guaranteed (7).

3.2.5

A clear commitment should be given to ensuring that all social stakeholders share responsibility for domestic work and care, which in the main is carried out by women, and thus ensure that the best use is made of all human capital. A campaign is needed to encourage households to share domestic work and caring (one cause of inequality), as is a re-assessment of this type of work.

3.3.1

A firmer commitment is required to achieve gender equality in the decision-making process (8) in the economic, political, scientific and technological spheres. The situation facing women has barely changed in recent years. Clear targets should therefore be set, with deadlines for achieving them, in addition to specific policies and effective measures (such as positive action, equality plans, specific training, participation quotas, awareness-raising campaigns, etc.).

3.3.2

Ensuring men and women are on an equal footing in politics should be a cornerstone for building Europe. In the elections of June 2009, women held 35 % of seats in the European Parliament; 10 Members of the Commission are female, whilst 17 are male. Women hold 24 % of seats in national parliaments and 25 % of ministerial portfolios in national governments (9). At the EESC, 23,6 % of current Members are women, whilst 76,4 % are men, and in senior management posts (directors, deputy directors, deputy secretaries-general) women account for only 16,7 %, whilst the figure is 83,3 % for men. Equal representation between men and women should be a top priority for achieving equality at all levels.

3.3.3

Progress has been slow in the field of public sector research (39 % of posts are held by women), and only minor improvements have been seen in the economic and financial sectors (no directors of central banks are women and only 17 % of central bank board members are female) with the figure being barely 3 % for the boards of management of major companies.

3.4.1

Violence against women and girls remains a serious problem. This is a global and systemic phenomenon, taking many different forms and shapes. Like the Commission, the EESC is extremely concerned at the number of women who suffer violence, the scale of trafficking in women and prostitution, especially among immigrants and the persistence of acts of violence committed under the cloak of traditions and religion (10).

3.4.2

The appropriate social, economic and legal measures need to be used to reduce and eliminate the various factors that foster violence against women, such as a lack of material resources, financial dependence, low levels of education, persistent gender stereotypes, and difficulties in accessing the job market.

3.4.3

Women immigrants require particular support as they are more vulnerable, either due to their irregular situation or because they are isolated from their social surroundings. The language barrier, social and cultural differences, or simply not knowing about the support structures in place, sometimes prevent them from asking for help when they are victims of domestic violence. The situation is worse still for undocumented immigrant women: specific measures should be put in place so that the obstacles these women face can be removed and their rights guaranteed.

3.4.4

Specific programmes are required (as well as continuing with those already in place, such as Daphne) to prevent and combat violence against women. Funding for these programmes should be increased. National action plans should be drawn up as part of a strategy coordinated at European level, containing both practical measures and deadlines to ensure that they will be properly implemented. It must be a priority for Member States to enforce current legal frameworks regarding domestic violence prevention and the protection of victims and those at risk, including children. Additionally, indicators are needed to provide a detailed picture of all aspects of gender-based violence, including sexual harassment and people-trafficking. Statistics harmonised at the EU level are essential to monitor and assess developments in this field.

3.4.5

Given the worrying number of violent acts among young people, including gender-related violence, the Committee welcomes the Commission's timely decision to include the fight against gender violence in the projects forming part of the ‘Youth in action’ programme. There is also a need however to incorporate a culture of non-violence and respect for the rights of all people into all education and training programmes for children and young people.

3.5.1

Sexist stereotypes are cultural and social views which assume that there are ‘male’ or ‘female’ roles and tasks. These stereotypes have an impact on training and job options and lead to segregation in the job market. Stereotypes make it harder to achieve equality and the full participation of women and men in the decision-making process.

3.5.2

Despite the high educational levels they attain, women are still concentrated in economic sectors (healthcare and social work, teaching, the commercial sector, public administration, business services, hotels and restaurants, etc.) and professions that have traditionally been viewed as ‘female’ (sales assistants, domestic help, care providers, as administrative staff, etc.), on the lowest rungs of the career ladder, with little potential for moving up to better positions. This segregation has remained almost unchanged over the past few years, because the increase in the number of women in employment has taken place in sectors that are already dominated by women.

3.5.3

In order to combat gender stereotypes, there is a need to:

3.6.1

The Commission should continue to promote women's rights at the international level through its foreign and development policies. The gender dimension should be included in all aspects of cooperation, with specific measures for women, promoting their involvement in decision-making processes and their sense of initiative, and the capacity of developing countries to take on the task of promoting equality should be boosted.

3.6.2

The gender dimension should form part of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), for action in crisis situations. In the field of humanitarian aid (ECHO), the Commission should pay particular attention to women with children or dependent relatives in the event of natural disasters and to women who have suffered violence at the hands of men in times of upheaval.

4.1

Gender analysis should be mainstreamed into all of the Commission's spheres of action, including the budget, and the progress on equality within its own walls should be assessed. This would require staff to be trained in gender equality and robust disaggregated indicators that would give an accurate picture of women's situation.

4.2

The Commission should hold open and ongoing talks with women's organisations, the social partners and other civil society organisations to gain a better understanding of problems relating to inequality.

4.3

The EESC calls on the Commission to urge all of its units to use non-sexist language in all documents, in official texts, in interpreting into all languages and on its web pages.

5.1

A global approach should be used to tackle equality between women and men. EU policies should aim not only to strengthen the involvement of women in all spheres, deal with demographic challenges and improve children’s wellbeing for example. Measures should rather focus explicitly on reducing the lack of equality in the distribution of family, care and domestic responsibilities between men and women specifically, and more generally between all social stakeholders.

5.2

The Commission should ensure gender equality is mainstreamed across all sectors as a priority across all its areas, units, measures, policies and directorates. Gender is not an issue of concern only to the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs.

5.3

Specialists in gender issues are needed who can provide the training and materials required to raise awareness and increase the knowledge and skills of European staff about equality. Eurostat must continue to break statistics down by gender, improving existing methodologies and incorporating new indicators that provide better information on the situation facing women and thus give a comprehensive overview of the situation in the EU.

5.4

The gender perspective should be recognised in European and national budgets. Studies are also necessary to assess the impact of public measures relating to gender.

5.5

The Structural Funds offer an ideal framework for the Member States to include gender equality in their operational programmes and in the different stages of the fund's implementation, with the assessment of the gender impact in each priority policy area or sphere of activity of these programmes. Better coordination and collaboration is required between the Structural Funds and the bodies responsible for equality in each country in order to achieve better results.

5.6

The Commission should ensure the legislation is complied with, providing examples of good practice and sanctioning Member States that fail to respect the principle of equality between women and men. Gender equality must be overseen and assessed in all policies and in all departments. An evaluation method is required that enables the level of compliance with the established objectives to be noted and rated, together with achievements and any backward steps. An evaluation unit should be set up that supervises and assesses the actions of the different Member States in a systematic way using the indicators set out in the roadmap for equality.

5.7

If amendments are made to the future roadmap, the Committee would recommend adapting area 1. This area needs to be subdivided as it covers a variety of different issues (employment, health, immigration), and different methods are therefore required to tackle them. It would also be useful to develop a new area for ‘women and the environment’, because women play a fundamental role in sustainable development, given their particular concern for ensuring the quality and sustainability of life for current and future generations (11).

5.8

The EESC wishes to emphasise the important role placed by the social partners in promoting equality through social dialogue and collective bargaining. One good example of this is the 2005 framework strategy on gender equality.

5.9

The European Institute for Equality should play a key role in improving governance and revising current legislation on raising awareness and equality. The institute should monitor and guarantee that all policies include and promote equality, and foster the involvement of Europeans in a more responsible and more inclusive gender policy.

5.10

Europe's economic and financial problems and demographic changes should not affect the goal of equality and should not be used as an excuse to relegate it to second place.

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/8

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) calls for a specific section on disability to be included when the EU 2020 strategy, the Employment Guidelines and the Social Agenda are adopted, to ensure that this aspect is mainstreamed and better coordinated across all Community policies.

1.2

The EESC recalls that including criteria to strengthen disability policies in the future post Lisbon Strategy would produce an economic spin-off for society as a whole, as well as progress in social inclusion and non-discrimination.

1.3

The EESC believes that a European Disability Pact needs to be adopted, laying the foundations for a new European policy on disability, in keeping with the Commission's future strategy for people with disabilities under the Treaty of Lisbon and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its protocol. The European Union and the Member States should conclude the Convention as soon as possible.

1.4

The EESC calls for policies that foster innovation, are based on statistical data and give visibility to people with disabilities in all relevant European and national statistics.

1.5

The EESC supports a market that is inclusive for all, and points out that employment policies for people with disabilities must focus on the entire life process relating to employment (‘lifestreaming’), and in particular on education, recruitment, staying in employment, and re-employment. Policies aimed at young people with disabilities, together with policies for those disabled as a result of accident or illness, must be a priority in the future EU 2020 strategy and the Commission's new strategy for people with disabilities.

1.6

The EESC calls on the Commission to present a report within a year on the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC concerning disability and employment.

1.7

The EESC recalls that recruitment in the ordinary work environment entails the deployment of sufficient social services and of incentives and motivation, while recognising the role of companies that employ a majority of people with disabilities and, more widely, of social economy undertakings and SMEs, which also require the support of sufficient social services and incentives, stressing the importance of the social partners in this area.

1.8

The EESC calls for awareness-raising policies to combat persistent stereotypes regarding workers with disabilities, and highlights the role of the media in ensuring acceptance of diversity.

1.9

The EESC affirms that accessibility is good for society as a whole, not only for people with disabilities, and brings businesses more customers.

1.10

Regarding accessibility, the EESC recommends progressive implementation by means of common short-, medium- and long-term objectives (including clear and final deadlines for new products, services and infrastructures and also for those already in existence).

1.11

The Committee supports the establishment of a European Capital of Universal Accessibility.

1.12

The EESC warns that there is a pressing need for eAccessibility legislation to be presented; restates its commitment to the principle of ‘design for all’ and the development of accessibility standards; calls for an intensive action plan on this question to be presented before 2011; and backs the development of a ‘European disability card’ that would facilitate mutual recognition of rights and cross-border travel for people with disabilities.

1.13

Gender needs to be mainstreamed into the design, implementation, follow-up and evaluation of disability policies, in order to counter the invisibility and multiple discrimination affecting women and girls with disabilities.

1.14

The EESC recognises the importance of the social partners in ensuring that people with disabilities work on an equal conditions with others, with just and favourable conditions of work conditions.

1.15

The social partners should include the disability dimension in all intersectoral, sectoral and company-level actions and negotiations, especially regarding employment, accessibility and social protection issues.

1.16

The EESC expresses its complete support for the principle of ‘Nothing about disabled people, without disabled people’ and for this principle to be applied within the EU 2020 strategy and programmes for people with disabilities that receive public funding.

1.17

The EU and the Member States must promote the development of civil society and guarantee its funding, ensuring that it is independent and capable of playing a part in preparing policies and/or delivering social services.

2.1

The EESC welcomes the request from the Spanish Presidency to draw up the opinion on People with disabilities: employment and accessibility by stages for people with disabilities. Post-2010 Lisbon Strategy.

2.2

In its opinions, the EESC has built up a permanent, cross-cutting body of knowledge, starting with its first own-initiative opinion specifically on the Integration of disabled people in society adopted in July 2002 (1), which has helped support equal treatment and non-discrimination for people with disabilities (PWD) and their families (2).

2.3

People with disabilities represent more than 16 % of the population (at least 80 million) (3), and this percentage is rising with an ageing population.

2.4

The EESC recognises that the progress made in both legislation (4) and the implementation of European policies (5) which, together with the 2002 Madrid Declaration (6), has helped to make the EU more inclusive of PWD. However, there is room for improvement, since the progress made has been of a sectoral nature, is fragmented and has suffered from a lack of a unified, structured Community strategy: as confirmed in the Mid-term Evaluation of the European Action Plan 2003-2010 (7) published in June 2009, the European Commission's own services dealing with European policies for PWD also need to be strengthened.

2.5

The EESC points to the recent Eurobarometer results (8), displaying a strong increase in perceived discrimination on the grounds of disability (8 % in the last year, i.e. 53 % in 2009 compared to 45 % in 2008), with more than 33 % of PWD feeling they had been discriminated against in 2009.

2.6

The EESC recognises that progress on disability policies owes much to the campaigning work and pressure of the European disability movement and its representative bodies, gathered together in the European Disability Forum (EDF), as well as to the support of the social partners.

2.7

The EESC would remind the Council presidency trio of the importance of taking account of the present opinion in carrying out their presidencies.

3.6.1.1

The EESC calls for the coordination and limited effect of the current Lisbon Strategy and the Renewed Social Agenda (12) to be improved in the adoption of the EU 2020 strategy and the Social Agenda, which must consequently include a specific section on PWD and their families, and must cover inter alia employment, education, social inclusion and protection and accessibility, ensuring that disability is reflected in the strategy's three key priorities (13).

3.6.1.2

The EESC recalls that including disability policies among EU competences in the EU 2020 strategy would produce an economic spin-off for society as a whole, as well as progress in social inclusion and non-discrimination, as clearly demonstrated in recent cost-benefit analyses (14).

3.6.1.3

The European Disability Pact must be in keeping with the Commission's future strategy for PWD (15), which is to replace the current 2003-2010 Action Plan for People with Disabilities.

3.6.1.4

The European Employment Strategy (EES), the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) in social inclusion, social protection, pensions, education, youth and other areas must continue to include and must improve, in their guidelines and common objectives for the Member States, disability so that it is reflected in their national plans, increasing their capacity for analysis and setting out the results in regular reports.

3.6.1.5

European policies should support the eradication of all extreme breaches of the fundamental rights, especially regarding the placement of PWD in large closed institutions, segregated education, deprival of legal capacity and violence towards PWD, taking account of the additional disadvantage suffered by women and girls with disabilities, together with people requiring a high level of support (16).

3.6.1.6

We need policies that foster innovation and are based on statistical evidence. The Pact should seek to make PWD more visible in all relevant statistical tools (17). It must have harmonised, up-to-date and reliable statistical sources, indicators and tools. This could be done, for example, by creating a permanent disability module within the European Labour Force Survey, together with a module on the social participation of PWD, and including questions on disability in the relevant general modules.

3.6.1.7

The EESC calls for the EU Guidelines: Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, to be adopted by the EU Council, to include a guideline on the rights of PWD, based on the UNCRPD.

3.6.2.1

The EESC considers that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty establishes new legal bases. It also highlights the value of Articles 10, 11 and 19, together with Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which have treaty status.

3.6.2.2

The UNCRPD creates new obligations for the EU. The EESC therefore urges:

3.6.2.3

The EESC welcomes the presentation of this proposal for a Directive for non-discrimination beyond employment (21), but warns that it is not sufficiently in line with the UNCRPD. The directive, still under discussion at the Council, needs to ensure that the concept of discrimination gives preferential treatment of PWD in specific circumstances, its scope in terms of social protection, health and education, indicating that segregated education is discriminatory; accessibility for PWD must be applied across the board; reasonable adjustments must be applicable in all spheres and public incentives should be available for their implementation; accessibility must also extend to all goods and services offered to the public and, lastly; where implementation is concerned, greater specificity must be given to the EU's commitments in this area, to be applied with immediate effect to new buildings and with realistic engagements regarding existing buildings.

3.6.3.1

The Committee recalls that the provisions of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds regarding non-discrimination and accessibility for PWD as criteria for selecting and implementing projects that are co-financed by the EU (22) must be maintained and strengthened in the future Cohesion Policy which should also ensure action for and by PWD as a whole in all the Member States, with adequate financial facilities. These principles should be extended to the European budget and other European programmes concerning research, competitiveness, training, employment, social affairs and development cooperation, including, inter alia, the new programmes from 2014 onward.

3.6.3.2

The EESC acknowledges that the involvement of civil society in the direct management of the ESF (in training and employment) and the ERDF has produced very encouraging results, and calls for this model to be introduced into Structural Funds operational programmes from 2013 onwards.

3.6.3.3

The EESC considers that continuing to provide financial support, through the PROGRESS programme supporting European organisations of PWD, including the EDF, as well as bodies working for social integration, strengthens democracy in the EU and a structured civil society.

4.1

The employment of PWD must be an integral part of the EES. The employment situation of workers in Europe is complicated, but that of disabled workers is even more difficult, and so a market that is inclusive of all must be strengthened.

4.2

The EESC is concerned by the state of unemployment among PWD, since even before the crisis, 78 % of people with serious disabilities did not have access to the jobs market, with a rate of inactivity that was double that of the rest of the population, and with an employment rate that was stuck at a level 20 % below the average for people without disabilities (23).

4.3

The crisis (which has driven unemployment up to 10 % (24)) is making the situation of people with disabilities on the labour market more difficult in two ways: entry into the market will be more difficult (25) and, secondly, governments will tend to adjust their public deficits by cutting all types of assistance and pensions. The EESC warns that PWD must not be the main victims of the crisis, and opposes any cuts in assistance to them (26).

4.4

There is a danger that the crisis might increase the risk of poverty among PWD and their families. On the other hand, the crisis could provide an opportunity for more inclusive business activity, with incentives, and boost business productivity, thereby improving the economy as a whole.

4.5

The Committee maintains that fostering the employment of PWD must be one of the main aims of the EES, and calls for the Employment Guidelines to include an objective incorporating Conclusion 34 of the European Council of Spring 2006 (27) ‘A key objective is to increase labour market participation, especially of … persons with disabilities … To achieve these objectives, work should be conducted in close cooperation with social partners’. A list of measures to be applied by the Member States through their National Plans should be drawn up.

4.6

The social partners play a crucial role in enabling PWD to enter the labour market by means of collective bargaining and to fit into companies. They also help to implement diversity policies and negotiate diversity plans in agreement with employers, who must be offered incentives to move in this direction: corporate social responsibility policies can be used to this end. The EESC consequently welcomes the successful conclusion by the European social partners of the negotiations for a new autonomous agreement on inclusive labour markets.

4.7

The EESC calls for a report on the implementation of the disability and employment provisions of Directive 2000/78 to be presented within a year (28).

4.8

The EESC reaffirms that PWD are as qualified as any other person to have a full working life, and that their skills should not be underestimated. PWD are entitled to work just like anyone else.

4.9

The EESC draws attention to the fact that, according to Eurofound research, the growing incidence of mental health problems is turning this form of disability into the main cause of early departure from the labour market, accounting for some 40 % (29) of early retirements in some countries. A change is needed in the way the general public and the authorities think about the plight of such workers.

4.10

The EESC recalls that in order to recognise these skills, there must be arrangements for certifying the knowledge acquired either by (unregulated) experience or through formal education. The EESC therefore urges the introduction of a ‘qualifications passport’ (30) that would give occupational mobility to PWD within the EU.

4.11

Employment policies for PWD must cover the entire life process relating to employment (‘lifestreaming’ (31)) addressing housing, basic education, training, household indebtedness, financial difficulties, health, an unfavourable environment and the economy, together with recruitment, staying in employment, and re-employment.

4.12

Freedom of movement (a Community principle) has not been fully achieved for PWD, and impacts on their movements to other EU countries to work, also affecting study, retirement and all other activities.

4.13

One of the most prominent barriers to free movement is the impossibility of exporting rights, such as that to personal assistance, which could become a reality with practical measures to coordinate social security systems and Europe-wide awareness-raising and training campaigns.

4.14

The EESC points out that ‘active inclusion’ must tie in with the labour market and provide an adequate level of income and access to high-quality social services, reflected in improved living conditions, for those not in employment too (32).

4.15

The EESC recalls that recruitment in the ordinary work environment entails employment services, vocational reskilling facilities, and social and health services, as well as maintaining/managing incomes and providing incentives (33).

4.16

The EESC urges that social benefits and tax systems be adjusted so that entering the labour market does not entail a loss of purchasing power for PWD and so that they provide motivation to work in fairly-paid, quality jobs; it also urges that financial incentives be introduced to encourage recruitment by companies, and backs supported employment on the ordinary market, self-employment by PWD, and encouragement for their entrepreneurship by means, inter alia, of micro-finance (34), as well as for NGOs providing support services for workers with disabilities and their families.

4.17

Measures must be introduced to keep those who acquire a disability as a result of accident or illness in their jobs or to find new placements for them, so that they do not have to leave the labour market prematurely. It calls for work places and their surroundings to be adjusted (reasonable accommodation) for PWD, for vocational training and retraining programmes for PWD to be assured to provide for their career development (35). In those countries where quota arrangements are in place, it must be ensured that recruitment targets are met, using appropriate support mechanisms. The social dimension of public procurement can also boost the employment of PWD.

4.18

The EESC is firmly convinced of the advantages of funding employment rather than unemployment benefit, and of the value of encouraging PWD to want to obtain employment, employers to recruit them, and self-employment among PWD.

4.19

The EESC believes in policies, including early education, aiming to help young people with disabilities move from training to their first job, and in policies that apply in cases of acquired disability, ensuring maintenance of employment or new job placements. These groups must be a priority in the future post EU 2020 strategy, and be included in the review of the Commission's strategy for PWD. In this regard, the EESC would recall its opinion SOC/349 in favour of a strategy to be developed not only FOR youth but also WITH youth (36).

4.20

The EESC recognises the role of businesses that employ a majority of PWD and others that are more active in this field as well as, more broadly, social economy enterprises such as cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations that foster social inclusion and the participation of PWD in the labour market with the same labour rights, granting them special arrangements to be decided by the Member States.

4.21

The EESC emphasises support for SMEs so that they can take an inclusive view of work and implement their key role in ensuring the effectiveness of measures for PWD at work.

4.22

The European and Member State institutions and bodies must be aware of the situation and be exemplary in including workers with disabilities in their workforces, by means of a practical action plan to improve on the current rates of employment, which are very low.

4.23

The EESC highlights the importance of the flexicurity concept for PWD, i.e. enhanced flexibility and adjustability of in-company human resources, backed by better-quality working conditions and security in employment. Strategies must ensure a balance between working and private life, life-long training, and steps for moving between the various possible social resources and situations and employment, as part of on-going life for PWD.

4.24

The EESC supports the drive for the creation of new green and social job sectors, and the promotion of accessibility and design for all, which offer job opportunities to PWD.

4.25

The EESC advocates help for those disabled workers who require it, together with the necessary services to enable the members of the families of PWD to continue working.

4.26

Awareness policies counter stereotypes (37) about workers with disabilities (, and must target the social partners, middle and senior management and workers, health professionals and public administrations (38).

4.27

The relevant instruments of promotion must be easy to use for companies and workers and must be effectively promoted and used by public bodies.

4.28

The role of the media should be highlighted as a key factor for awareness and dissemination in fostering the principles of tolerance, social inclusion and acceptance of diversity in European society.

4.29

The EESC supports the development of innovative initiatives, such as the ‘qualifications passport’ and ‘lifestreaming’ mentioned above, and would point to further examples:

5.1

The EESC recalls the EU Council Resolution of 17 March 2008‘accessibility represents no less than a cornerstone of an inclusive society based on non-discrimination’  (42), with a fundamental role fort he social partners in this process, as accessibility is a pre-requisite for employment.

5.2

The EESC reaffirms its exploratory opinion (43) on Equal opportunities for people with disabilities which points to the same rights but different needs and different forms of accessibility to goods and services.

5.3

The EESC recommends progressive implementation by means of common short-, medium- and long-term objectives (with clear and final deadlines for new and existing goods, services and infrastructures), that would be binding upon the Member States, harnessing, among other methods, the potential of public procurement.

5.4

The EESC recognises that accessibility is crucial if immediately applicable political and civil rights are to be exercised, and this must be reflected in specific accessibility plans, accompanied by standards and penalties which are binding upon all public authorities and with the possibility for disabled citizens to invoke mechanisms to uphold their rights. There should be no more EP elections without a guarantee of accessibility to polling stations and without access to a significant presence of PWD among candidates: the appropriate measures must be taken at national level.

5.5

The EESC hails the efforts of the EU Member States and the Commission to ensure accessibility, the objective of which must be to ensure universal accessibility (public buildings, buildings of public interest; private companies, goods and services, tourism, e-commerce, information, transport, technology and communications).

5.6

The EESC affirms that accessibility is good for society as a whole (ageing, pregnant women, reduced mobility, etc.). Accessible businesses will attract more customers (15 % of consumers). New products generate more markets and are a source of sustainable economic growth.

5.7

The EESC further emphasises that a commitment to accessibility is a commitment to the fundamental rights of European citizenship, as it stated in its opinion on eAccessibility  (44).

5.8

The EESC would remind the European institutions, and especially the Commission, that the number of their buildings and electronic information technology systems (e.g. web pages, the Commission's section on public consultations) that are accessible remains low. An accessibility plan which displays a real commitment to PWD must therefore be drawn up (45).

5.9

The EESC calls for state aid (46) for private companies and services in order to attain the goal of reasonable accommodation as stipulated in Directive 2000/78 (47). The principle of forward-looking accessibility must be implemented in private services.

5.10

The development of accessibility standards to support legislation in public purchasing should continue, taking the successful American legislation as an example. The EESC recalls the importance of dialogue between institutions, industry and civil society in defining such standards (48).

5.11

The EESC supports the declaration of a European Capital of Universal Accessibility, based on a system for granting flags, granting European cities and regions recognition for their efforts concerning accessibility to places, goods and services and fostering the sustainable development of local authorities.

5.12

The EESC expects that further regulations on travel by sea, urban and interurban bus, and taxi, to take adequate account of the differing needs of PWD, adjusting means of transport and their setting, modelled on the present Regulations for air and rail travel.

5.13

The EESC welcomed the Communication from the Commission on eAccessibility (49), and called on the EU to incorporate the actions proposed in the eAccessibility communication in the European strategic framework on the information society. There is a pressing need for eAccessibility legislation to be presented in fields such as the accessibility of websites, inclusive communication, teleservices, mobile telephones, digital technology and ATMs, for example. These objectives appeared as far back as 2003 in the Crete Ministerial Declaration (50) and the Riga Declaration. There are now reasonable grounds to doubt that they will be attained within the deadlines set. Consequently, the EESC calls for an intensive action plan to reach these objectives before 2011.

5.14

The EESC restates its commitment to the principle of ‘design for all’, and believes that it is crucial for this concept to be built into the curricula of both vocational training and university courses, so that all professionals apply this principle.

5.15

The EESC backs the development of a ‘European disability card’ ensuring the mutual recognition of the rights PWD embarking on cross-border travel, including the same level of access to transport, culture and leisure, following the example of the European Parking Card.

6.1

The EESC points out that women account for 60 % of PWD in Europe, and they are not treated equally, as they continue to be discriminated against in recognition of rights and access to goods and services (health, education and prevention of gender violence, amongst others).

6.2

The employment levels of women with disabilities have remained unchanged for a decade, with a high percentage of non-employment and unemployment, lower pay and additional problems in entering the labour market.

6.3

Gender needs to be mainstreamed into the design, implementation, follow-up and evaluation of disability policies. Specific measures and actions need to be geared to guaranteeing access to employment, and to foster the recruitment of women.

7.1

The EESC calls on the social partners to ensure that PWD work on an equal basis with others, with just and favourable conditions of work, including equal opportunities and equal remuneration for work of equal value, and that they are able to exercise their labour and trade union rights; in particular, it encourages PWD to participate in professional and trade union organisations and urges that subcontracted work be carried out under the same labour conditions (51) (Article 27 of the UNCRPD).

7.2

Social dialogue is crucial in defending the rights, equal opportunities and non-discrimination of PWD in employment, social security, safety at work, and other contexts, and in labour relations in general. It is essential to implementing positive employment and accessibility measures, as well as in training, promoting and assisting workers with disabilities.

7.3

The social partners must take the disability dimension on board in all intersectoral, sectoral and company-level actions and negotiations, particularly regarding employment, accessibility and social protection issues, in cooperation with organised civil society and PWD.

7.4

The social partners must be involved in the follow-up and application of the UNCRPD concerning labour relations and social protection.

8.1

The EESC expresses its complete support for the principle of ‘Nothing about disabled people, without disabled people’ (52) and believes in empowerment and self-advocacy policies.

8.2

The EESC considers that civil dialogue with PWD and their families is the best framework for improving EU governance: introducing binding mechanisms and protocols and creating ad hoc participatory and consultative bodies within the EU.

8.3

Organisations representing PWD should be involved in the regular reports evaluating employment and accessibility policies, the implementation of the UNCRPD and Commission programmes and financial instruments, in order to ensure that the civil society point of view is included, by means, for example, of alternative reports.

8.4

The EU and the Member States must promote and ensure funding to develop civil society, to safeguard its independence and ability to take part in framing policies and/or delivering social services.

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/16

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/23

—

establishing an ambitious research and development plan for transport and mobility (covering issues such as motoring, fuel, emissions reduction, energy efficiency);

—

setting up a forum for exchanging good practices in the field of urban and long-distance transport;

—

developing park and ride schemes as well as public transport, particularly dedicated bus lanes and tram and metro lines;

—

improving ICT as a tool for providing efficient, reliable and safe public transport;

—

putting in place genuine mobility management services covering sufficiently large geographical areas and tasked with ensuring fluidity and good connections between the various modes of transport;

—

the creation of local delivery zones and urban distribution centres in city centres;

—

maintaining rail facilities in urban areas;

—

using taxation measures to promote transport means and technologies that are more energy efficient and emit less CO2 and other pollutants;

—

the creation of safe and comfortable rest areas for professional drivers, improving their working conditions and their training;

—

the rapid implementation of rail networks giving priority to freight and the development of a genuine customer service culture in this particular domain;

—

the promotion of cars powered by alternative energy and third generation biofuels, where necessary through appropriate taxation measures;

—

launching a real European plan for the development of electric vehicles which puts the EU in a position to define or help define international standards in an emerging sector;

—

developing the concept of ‘green ports’ and establishing motorways of the sea;

—

improving working conditions and vocational training for seafarers;

—

the development of inland waterway and inland-sea motorways and the introduction of new barges, adapted for the transport of semi-trailers and containers;

—

taking into account sustainability and environmental protection needs when selecting types of transport infrastructure;

—

the internalisation of external transport costs for all transport sectors to ensure that no single mode of transport loses out and to establish the true cost of transport services;

—

the adoption by public authorities of realistic targets for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants and of sustainability objectives linked to local transport;

—

taking account of such objectives when designing public transport systems and choosing;

—

systematically commissioning solid and realistic impact studies before carrying out any policies or measures that are proposed.

—

internal transport within western Europe is set to increase by 33 %;

—

internal transport within eastern Europe is expected to rise by 77 %;

—

transport from eastern to western Europe is set to grow by 68 %;

—

transport from eastern to western Europe is expected to increase by 55 %.

3.2.1

This mode of transport is governed by a number of specific constraints. Urban traffic is responsible for 40 % of CO2 emissions and 70 % of emissions of other pollutants arising from road transport. In addition, congestion in cities, apart from its damaging effects on public health and the environment, costs the EU an estimated 2 % of GDP. The development of public transport is clearly a necessity; however, it must meet certain criteria if it is to meet the requirements of providing a genuine service in the public interest and thus present a viable alternative to the passenger car e.g. frequency, rapidity, safety, comfort, accessibility, affordability, size of network, ease of connections etc. It will enable not only environmental challenges to be met but will also help to tackle social cohesion issues, such as how to overcome suburban isolation.

3.2.2

Use of electric transport would be desirable; however, the electricity itself should be produced in a sustainable manner and, where possible, without CO2 emissions. Car-sharing or car-pooling schemes should also be encouraged.

3.2.3

A veritable sustainable urban mobility policy needs to be put in place. This would involve curbing the use of private transport, by setting up urban tolls for instance. Above all, however, this would mean improving the quality of public transport and making it more user friendly through the development of the infrastructure and services needed to provide effective inter-modality. Given the situation of public finances in many EU Member States, this could be made easier in certain cases if the public authorities develop public/private partnerships to construct new infrastructure such as dedicated bus lanes, tram, trolleybus or metro lines, new regional rail networks or to re-instate disused transport routes, develop specialist transport ICT, modernise or simplify ticketing.

3.2.4

In practice, common sense measures such as the development of park and ride schemes well connected to urban centres, the introduction of dedicated bus lanes or the reinstatement of disused railway lines should all be capable of ensuring real progress at an affordable cost.

3.2.5

Improving information and communication techniques can be an effective means of developing the inter-modality of transport through the implementation of a genuine regional transport management policy. These technologies mean that traffic can be managed more effectively and should make it possible to devise energy optimisation systems for vehicle flow on the road network. They also inform travellers in real time throughout the length of their journey, simplify and optimise ticketing, and make ticket reservation easier. Thanks to these techniques travellers are able to optimise their journeys, search for timetable or service frequency information and even identify the energy usage of their chosen mode of transport. ITC therefore act as a means of synergising modes of transport, infrastructure use and energy efficiency.

3.2.6

Transport system management problems often extend beyond the confines of a single local authority and can affect a wide area outside an urban centre. Based on the initiative of local authorities, genuine mobility management services may be set up covering a large and well-defined geographical area, e.g. through the delegation of public powers. These mobility management services would have the following missions:

3.2.7

The organising authority would, naturally, retain its right to select local operators, to set tariffs and to formulate transport, travel and local planning policy. It would help ensure the transparency of contracts, draw up binding target commitments for both the management services and the local authority concerned, and identify service quality targets.

3.2.8

The EESC has already highlighted that local authorities play a decisive role in the organisation of public transport and local and regional planning. The subsidiarity principle certainly has a role to play in this area but nonetheless, the European Union quite rightly wishes to promote the most sustainable urban transport models possible. It has already allocated financing via the structural and cohesion funds as well as through the CIVITAS programme. The EU should not only boost the exchange of urban transport best practices but also finance research efforts on the interaction between transport and urban development under the next framework programme.

3.3.1

This type of transport generates a significant volume of traffic. In Paris, for example, it accounts for 20 % of all traffic and 26 % of GHG emissions. We therefore need to optimise urban transport logistics and, where possible, encourage a modal shift towards rail or inland waterway transport.

3.3.2

The following may be considered:

3.4.1

The growth of road freight transport has meant that there is a need to address a series of challenges: growing CO2 emissions, the high dependency of the transport sector on fossil fuels, as well as a need to improve infrastructure, particularly its safety, and to ensure that drivers have a favourable working environment and good working conditions.

3.4.2

Regarding CO2 emissions, action should be taken to step up research and development to curb emissions, particularly by developing new engines and alternative energy sources. Tax-related measures to promote products and/or measures geared towards alternative propulsion techniques and the reduction of CO2 emissions will be all the more effective if an ambitious research policy is in place. The internalisation of external costs (1) must therefore apply to all modes of transport in a fair and balanced manner.

3.4.3

It will be vital to develop technological solutions and to introduce ICT technologies tailored to freight road transport if we are to address the challenges facing the sector, limit energy dependence, vehicle emissions and network congestion. A clear framework is needed to introduce new technologies, with the creation of open standards, to ensure interoperability, and to increase R&D spending on technology still requiring further development before its introduction onto the market. Such technologies must also be used to reduce the frequency of trips by empty vehicles through a better application of information to logistics. They may be of great interest in improving transport safety.

3.4.4

Infrastructure should also be improved, especially through the provision of fully equipped, secure and monitored rest areas and facilities to protect drivers against theft and other criminal acts, and ensure their safety.

3.4.5

We need to ensure that professional driving continues to be an attractive occupation by guaranteeing a favourable working environment and good conditions, such as regulated working time, with harmonised driving hours and rest periods, and to ensure that such measures are not empty legislative promises but that they are actually implemented in practice (2).

3.5.1

While there has been a general increase in the number of rail passengers, particularly over long distances with high speed rail links, rail freight transport remains at a low level, accounting for 8 % of all goods transport. In general, steps should be taken to see that when carrying out modernisation and improving competitiveness on the railways, maximum attention is paid to safety requirements and the need to ensure continuity of service during periods of bad weather.

3.5.2

The EESC supports the Commission's proposal to set up rail networks giving priority to freight. However, there is a need to instil a customer service culture, which is competitive and business-minded. Opening services up to competition should make this transition easier.

3.5.3

The principle behind a priority freight network is to identify time slots and specific locations where freight trains would benefit from priority passage, without disrupting passenger train traffic.

3.5.4

It should be noted that a number of such schemes have already been set up in the European Union, and that some lines are even reserved exclusively for freight transport such as the Betuwe line between the port of Rotterdam and Germany. The New opera and Ferrmed projects should also be mentioned in this context.

3.5.5

The development of rail freight transport is possible, provided that certain conditions are met:

3.5.6

The development of rail freight transport also requires the development of inter-modal road-rail transport platforms. In this context, we can only be delighted by the inauguration of the road-rail transport link between Lyon and Turin, but after a period of uncertain development for road-rail transport the time has now come to promote road-rail highways (such as the alpine highway or the lorry-rail link between Perpignan and Luxembourg) and maritime highways such as the Franco-Spanish Fres Mos project between Nantes Saint Nazaire and Gijon.

3.6.1

The climate/energy package has imposed a number of important restrictions on car manufacturers. There is a need to develop new alternative fuel vehicles, especially electric or hybrid motor cars. Equally, it is important to maintain an open debate regarding biofuel. Today, we are witnessing the development of higher performing third generation biofuels, especially algae-based fuel, which can help avoid conflict over the use of arable land earmarked for the cultivation of agricultural produce for human consumption.

3.6.2

Alongside developments in the technologies and vehicles available on the market, there have been other areas of progress, especially with regard to saving energy and space that is currently congested because of cars. This concerns action such as courses on energy and cost saving measures, which have been organised by certain large companies or public sector bodies, the creation of car sharing or car pooling schemes or the decision by certain towns to make small electric vehicles available for hire.

3.7.1

The development of these modes of transport should be encouraged in urban areas, although they are constrained by topographical and climate considerations and the age of the persons involved. However, it is clear that local authorities should develop safe cycle tracks, as one of the obstacles preventing the development of bicycle use is the potential danger from cars.

4.2.1

Seagoing vessels use highly polluting oil by-products. Notwithstanding the need for technological development, we should examine together with the profession how best we can offset this adverse effect on the environment. If the CO2 quota system is not suitable, we could perhaps consider introducing an eco-tax. This issue should be discussed by international maritime bodies.

4.2.2

In any event, the Committee reaffirms its support for investment in research and development into sea-going vessels, fuel and green ports, and also insists that the motorways of the sea outlined in the TEN programme be fully implemented.

4.3.1

One can never truly avoid the perils of the sea or the danger of shipwreck but everything must be done to ensure passenger and crew safety, both in the field of ship design and maintenance. European law on maritime safety is among the most comprehensive and detailed such legislation in the world. Equally, there is a need to step up the fight against illegal degassing through a firm and stringent approach.

4.4.1

If we are to maintain and develop European maritime transport, young people need to choose maritime careers and show an interest in remaining there. We should improve the quality of training given to seafarers, along with their living and working conditions at sea and strive to boost crew numbers.

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/30

1.1

The powered two-wheeler industry plays an important role in the EU in terms of the economy and jobs. Manufacturers’ situations vary widely: some operate globally across all segments, or in very specialised segments, and some operate country-wide or even local businesses, which at times verge on craft trades. That is also true of the related components, distribution and aftersales sectors, in which there are a considerable number of SMEs (1).

1.2

The industry was struck by the crisis in the last quarter of 2008, and the adverse effects of the fall in demand have been felt throughout the sector, with severe structural and employment consequences (31 % fall in demand resulting in a 35 % fall in turnover and orders, with adverse effects on employment). Provisional data for 2009 confirm the negative market trend, with figures down 21 % on 2008 and 25 % on 2007.

1.3

The EESC fears that if policies to support the sector are not developed without delay there may be further, substantial job losses in 2010.

1.4

The EESC held a public hearing as part of the 67th International Motorcycle Exhibition (Milan, 12 November 2009), where it collected further statements from manufacturers, component suppliers, trade unions and users, NGOs and universities. The hearing substantially confirmed the views expressed in the study group.

1.5

Against this backdrop, the EESC:

2.1

The powered two-wheeler industry plays an important role in the EU in terms of the economy and jobs. When compared with the automotive industry (3), there are some similarities but, most significantly, the powered two-wheeler industry has some distinctive characteristics owing to the fact that it is smaller, its structure is more fragmented and its production more diversified.

2.2

This industry has changed considerably in recent decades, as longstanding European brands have been faced with growing Japanese competition. Japanese manufacturers, which are now among the leaders in the industry, have developed production activities directly in the EU. Over time, the European industry has been reorganised with restructuring, mergers and acquisitions and the birth of medium-large industrial groups, operating alongside niche producers and a substantial number of SMEs.

‘Traditional’ European manufacturers, Japanese and Americans currently share leadership of the European market, but since the 1990s they have been facing growing competition from emerging economies. In terms of vehicles produced, EU production is relatively low (1.4 million) compared with that of China in particular (over 20 million), India (over 8 million) and Taiwan (1.5 million), although it is characterised by greater added value, innovation, quality and safety.

2.3

Eurostat places the powered two-wheeler industry under NACE code 35.41. The most recent data, from 2006, present the EU 27 powered two-wheeler manufacturing sector as being made up of 870 businesses, 80 % of which are located in six Member States (Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and Austria). The average turnover of EUR 8 million reflects the substantial number of SMEs, estimated at 650, which make up 75 % of the total.

2.4

90 % of European production is carried out by a hundred or so medium-large and medium-small manufacturers operating in various EU countries (in addition to those mentioned above, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden) as well as Norway and Switzerland. The remaining 10 % of European production is shared between small and very small manufacturers.

2.5

Manufacturers’ situations vary widely: some global operators are active across all segments (motorcycles for various uses with various cylinder capacities, scooters with various cylinder capacities, mopeds, three- and four-wheeled motorcycles) or in very specialised segments, while others operate country-wide or even local businesses which at times verge on craft trades in terms of size and production processes.

2.6

Technical regulations (European type approval) establish various categories of powered two-wheeler, with different characteristics (cylinder capacity, intended use). For its part, the European Driving Licence Directive establishes different conditions for access to powered two-wheelers (AM mopeds; A1 motorcycles; A2 motorcycles; A motorcycles). These complex divisions encourage fragmentation of production and reduce economies of scale.

2.7

The origins of the fragmentation of the powered two-wheeler industry are in part historical, but derive mainly from the nature of the powered two-wheeler market. While segments more closely geared to utilitarian mobility (in particular urban mobility) such as scooters allow greater production synergies, particularly as regards engines, motorcycle-related segments lend themselves less easily to synergies such as using the same components and engines on different brand models. In particular, dynamic properties differ greatly according to the size of vehicles, and then there are differences arising from specialist vehicle use, and, lastly, the different expectations of users. In many cases different brands are strongly identified with particular cycle or engine configurations (such as the BMW boxer engine, Ducati desmodromic distribution, the Moto Guzzi v-twin engine and the three-cylinder Triumph engine), reflecting demand from European and export markets which are to a large extent made up of groups of devoted fans.

2.8

The vehicles are produced in smaller series and limited numbers, which means less yield on capital invested than in the automotive sector. This is also reflected in part in the component and distribution sectors.

2.9

Supported by an EU market which had been expanding since 2002 (+22 % between 2002 and 2007), turnover from EU powered two-wheeler production amounted to EUR 7 billion in 2006 as against total turnover of EUR 34 billion for the powered two-wheeler sector in the European Union. It is interesting to note that, in the period 2004-2006, the EU powered two-wheeler sector saw a rise of 12 %, which is greater in percentage terms than the figure for the manufacturing sector in general and that for the automotive sector (both +8 %), with a positive impact on jobs.

3.1

The components and distribution sectors are also characterised by a high degree of fragmentation.

3.2

Components come partly from automotive suppliers, which have a small sideline in the powered two-wheeler industry (fuel-feed systems), but mainly from specific suppliers (wheels, exhausts, clutches etc.) because of the level of specialisation required. The number of suppliers to the industry is estimated at around 500. These suppliers have traditionally been European (concentrated in Italy, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands). In recent years competition from Asian suppliers has increased. In response to this competition some European suppliers have in turn relocated part of their activities to Asia. However, European component suppliers rely exclusively on orders from European producers.

3.3

The distribution and assistance network meets a need for proximity which is specific to powered two-wheelers (especially as regards mopeds and scooters): in the EU there are around 37 000 active points of sale and after-sales assistance, often run by family businesses. Italy, France, the UK, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece and Sweden account for 91 % of turnover in the distribution and assistance sector; this figure rose by 5 % between 2004 and 2006.

4.1

Between 2002 and 2007 employment rose steadily in the powered two-wheeler industry, to 150 000 jobs in the EU in 2007. It is interesting to note that, between 2004 and 2006, employment in the industry rose by 4 % in the EU, as against a fall of 3 % in manufacturing industry in general and a fall of 5 % in the automotive sector. This is evidence of the sector’s dynamic nature and innovation, buoyed up in difficult circumstances by rising demand for vehicles for either urban mobility or leisure.

4.2

25 000 of these jobs are directly related to powered two-wheeler production, located principally in Italy, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. The seasonal nature of the powered two-wheeler market (concentrated in spring and summer) causes production peaks at certain times of year, during which manufacturers also take on seasonal workers. There is a demand in that respect for greater flexibility to meet temporary demand from the market.

4.3

20 000 of these jobs are in the components sector, located mainly in Italy, Spain, France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary.

4.4

105 000 of these jobs are in the sales and after-sales assistance sectors. By their very nature they are located throughout the EU, although Italy, Germany, France, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium and Sweden employ 92 % of the workforce.

5.1

The above data is evidence that the powered two-wheeler industry has been very dynamic in recent years, with an expanding European market which amounted to over 2.7 million vehicles in 2007. (The number of vehicles in circulation in the EU is estimated at around 34 million.) However, the crisis which has struck the EU in the last two years caused the 2008 market to shrink by 7.4 % compared to 2007. In particular, sales were down a hefty 34 % during the first quarter of 2008 on the same period in 2007. This negative trend was confirmed in the first quarter of 2009, when powered two-wheeler sales were down 37 % on the same period in 2008. Provisional data for 2009 confirm the negative market trend, with overall figures down 21 % on 2008 and 25 % on 2007.

5.2

The effects of the crisis can be seen throughout the sector. For manufacturers, the fall in sales, in addition to impacting heavily on revenue, has caused a fall in production in order to manage overstocks. This fall has, in turn, resulted in cuts in working hours, halts in production and less use of seasonal labour, causing short- and medium-term industrial plans to be revised. In some cases up to 25 % of staff have had to be permanently laid off. The courts have had to take over administration of some small-medium manufacturers’ businesses, which are currently being sold; others have even closed down their activities. These developments herald other restructuring, although it is difficult to predict effects on the socio-economic fabric in terms of possible relocation to outside Europe.

5.3

Component suppliers, faced with falling demand from manufacturers, are also having to cut production, with an impact on jobs. Some have had to terminate their business activities and it is estimated that, at present, around 10 % of the industry’s suppliers are in danger of bankruptcy. This situation is generating additional costs for manufacturers as well, who have to make unforeseen investments to support component suppliers or find others, even developing new presses for aluminium or plastic parts where supplies are no longer available. As things stand, orders, and sales revenue, have fallen by about 40 %. Not infrequently, many manufacturers turn to suppliers from South-East Asia in order to remain competitive.

5.4

The distribution and after-sales assistance sector, owing partly to the fact that businesses (SMEs and family businesses) are smaller, is heavily affected by the crisis and the fall in activity. For instance, in Spain the number of sales outlets fell by 25 % in 2008, leading to more than 6 000 job losses. If this trend continues, it is estimated that around 25 % of businesses and dealers and 60 % of agents will close down in Spain over 2009 and 2010. The effects of the crisis on the distribution network are generating additional costs for manufacturers as well, which have to sustain the network in order to keep product outlets open and to be in a position to benefit from economic recovery, whenever that may be.

5.5

The EESC fears that if policies to support the sector are not developed without delay, there may be further, substantial job losses over the course of 2010. Moreover, to help maintain employment levels in the sector, ‘social dialogue’ needs to be developed, encouraging lifelong learning and worker specialisation, including at university level, while, at the same time, helping to reduce insecure employment.

5.6

Medium-term measures to bolster demand for powered two-wheelers have thus far been isolated and inadequate. Unlike the situation in the automotive sector, only Italy lost no time in providing a scrappage incentive, the effects of which were positive for the Italian, and therefore European market as well, encouraging the most heavily polluting vehicles to be taken out of circulation. Italy moved from an initial situation, in the first two months of 2009, of market decline of around 35 % to a positive situation for scooters with low cylinder capacity, which benefited from a EUR 500 contribution for scrappage of obsolete vehicles, while motorcycles and mopeds are still in a negative situation with an overall decline of over 20 %. Despite adopting a powered two-wheeler scrappage incentive scheme in July, which had been promised for months, Spain has yet to implement it, in actual fact giving consumers further reason to wait and therefore further slowing down purchases. (Between January and August 2009 moped sales were down by 52 % and motorcycle sales were down by 43 % on the same period in 2008.) This example shows the clear importance of a European regulatory framework which encourages stability on national markets, helping to increase consumer confidence.

5.7

Measures to bolster demand certainly benefit users but they do not necessarily resolve the issue of component suppliers or the European powered two-wheeler industry. In Italy, for example, the flat-rate EUR 500 contribution dramatically improved the situation of small 125 and 150 cc scooters imported from Taiwan and priced at between EUR 1 500 and 2 000, and, to a lesser extent, higher-priced European products, but it did not serve to sustain demand for medium-sized powered two-wheelers priced at between EUR 6 000 and EUR 8 000. European component suppliers did not benefit at all as they do not supply Asian producers. In order to benefit the industry as a whole, measures are needed to support demand, ensuring a contribution which grows at the same rate as the prices of the vehicles in question, in particular for those incorporating advanced solutions reducing environmental impact and advanced safety systems.

5.8

There is an urgent need to make access to funding easier for EU businesses operating in the sector so that they can bear the additional costs generated by the crisis and continue to invest in research, development and innovation (manufacturers and component suppliers together), to remain competitive, focusing on quality and innovation to produce increasingly environmentally-friendly, safe vehicles.

6.1

Should the negative results of the first half of the year be confirmed for the whole of 2009, the entire sector will see its credit capacity reduced by banks in 2010. Even if recovery is just round the corner, the industry’s capacity for investment and research and development will be diminished, with adverse medium-term effects making businesses more insecure, with potential further implications in terms of jobs.

6.2

In the last decade, from the introduction of the Euro 1 standard in 1999 to the standards applied now, the industry has achieved a major reduction in pollutant emissions of around 90 % for CO and HC and over 50 % for NOx. Encouraging results have been achieved in the area of sound pollution; the industry as a whole (including consumer associations) is still working on further improvements, which can be achieved on road by using only type-approved exhausts and more environmentally-friendly driving styles. The industry has made innovations in the area of safety, with a series of advance braking systems which are gradually being fitted on the different types of powered two-wheelers, as well as on new structures such as three- and four-wheeled motorcycles.

6.3

The Commission is drafting a proposal for a regulation on powered two-wheelers, due to be issued in early 2010. Although progress must continue on environmental and safety issues, in the current economic climate it is essential to avoid disruptive change and take into account the real capacities of the sector and the size of its operators. As regards the new Euro standards, it is necessary to propose goals which the industry will be able to achieve, phasing in targets in a way which respects the timeframes imposed by design, production and the market. The regulation should favour an approach which enables the industry to capitalise on its capacity for innovation, giving it a degree of flexibility which takes into account the economic climate and the wide range of products (in terms of the market and technical properties), in particular as regards fitting advanced braking systems. The industry has already put proposals on environmental and safety aspects to the Commission, to this end.

6.4

‘Traditional’ manufacturers are exposed, and will increasingly be so, especially in the current economic climate, to low-cost-low-quality competition principally from South-East Asia, particularly when it comes to powered two-wheelers with low or medium cylinder capacity, for which margins are smaller. Inquiries have revealed that these imported products often fail to comply with European type approval requirements, jeopardising consumer safety and placing the environment at risk. Tests performed on samples of Chinese powered two-wheelers imported into the EU recorded non-compliances leading to braking distances of up to 35 % longer than, and polluting emissions up to 20 times above EU type approval requirements. There are also issues related to forgery of European vehicles or vehicle parts by manufacturers from emerging economies, as well as falsification of certificates of conformity by commercial companies importing non-compliant vehicles into the EU. In a segment of the EU market which is very price-sensitive, to ensure a level playing field greater oversight is needed in respect of type approval and the markets, with ‘conformity of production’ inspections by the competent authorities and/or technical control services of vehicles being sold, to verify their type conformity and respect for intellectual property.

6.5

‘Traditional’ manufacturers are, on the other hand, rewarded by the consumer for product quality, design and degree of innovation and safety. This is true of top-of-the-range vehicles with small or medium cylinder capacity and, in particular, of vehicles with high cylinder capacity, which have high added value and stand out because of the technical solutions adopted and where brand is important. These products are worst affected in the current economic situation. Any increase in production of technologically-advanced vehicles – such as hybrid or electric vehicles, which are starting to appear on the market – will depend to a large extent on support from the public sector and therefore on capacity to find a way out of the current crisis.

6.6

Free trade agreements warrant particular attention, to ensure that liberalisation of customs duty between the EU and the countries of South-East Asia benefits both parties, with the removal as well of non-tariff barriers (such as the ban on circulation in China of powered two-wheelers with cylinder capacity over 250 cc), which cause European exporters serious problems.

6.7

To address current challenges, as in the past European manufacturers must pursue restructuring, mergers and acquisitions and build further cooperation which will maximise the possible synergies.

6.8

The survival of European component suppliers is essential to preserve the specific nature of distinctive European production, recognised by users as exclusive. In other words, repetition of what has happened in the cycling industry, for example, must be avoided – there, suppliers of key components such as frames have disappeared, with the result that Europe is now dependent on China to be able to assemble bicycles.

6.9

European component suppliers cannot cope with price competition and have of necessity to focus on innovation, developing joint design between manufacturers to achieve economies of scale – where possible – in a genuine partnership which keeps orders flowing between manufacturers and suppliers of top-of-the-range products.

6.10

A similar approach to CARS 21 is needed, specific to the powered two wheeler industry as a whole, to respond to these challenges as effectively as possible and to bolster the industry’s competitiveness and jobs.

6.11

FP7 research funds can contribute to the achievement of these goals, favouring businesses which produce in Europe and use the European production chain. To this end, a dedicated research platform for the powered two-wheeler industry could make a key contribution – particularly where SMEs are concerned – through participation in consortia to establish research priorities, as is the case in the automotive industry.

6.12

The Commission has recently presented an Action Plan on Urban Mobility, the various goals of which include improving traffic flow, which is something powered two-wheelers do by their very nature. The powered two-wheeler industry has been made vulnerable by the crisis but it will benefit in the long term from the growing needs for alternative, low-emission vehicles ensuring more sustainable mobility, in particular in towns, provided that the current economic problems can be surmounted in the medium term before it is too late to repair the damage.

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/35

—

is able to produce under (often distorted) world market conditions in all European regions;

—

at the same time meets all the production expectations (in terms of quality, safety, protection of natural resources, animal welfare, etc.) while coping with European costs;

—

and also secures a modern and attractively remunerated labour market that is marked by high standards of employment, safety, and basic and further training.

—

increasingly volatile markets and a trend towards falling producer prices;

—

the ever-growing market clout of the processing and marketing sector vis-à-vis producers; and

—

clear problems in the marketing of local, regional and premium products. Specific legislation is therefore needed for farming geared towards local and regional markets.

—

not only that that small number of market stabilisation measures that remain should be retained and brought into play when required by the market, but also that new approaches to market stabilisation that are consistent with WTO rules should be developed and introduced;

—

that, given the growing number of imponderables on the international agricultural markets, appropriate strategic steps be taken to store agricultural products in readiness for future crises;

—

that consideration should also be given using producer organisations and/or sectoral agreements to help stabilise markets.

—

for milk packaging to show pictures of grazing cows when the milk it contains comes from non-grazing animals; instead, a more nuanced approach to the market must be fostered (ranging from schemes to support milk from grass-fed or pastureland cows to regional marketing strategies by producers or small cooperatives); or

—

to advertise using regional indicators although the goods in question were produced elsewhere.

—

first- or second-pillar direct payments should only be given to farmers actively farming, to associations for the protection of the landscape or to other bodies involved in maintaining the cultural landscape;

—

first- or second-pillar direct payments should take account of the jobs in place and created on each farm;

—

first- or second-pillar direct payments should compensate for the services that are provided to society by the farming sector to maintain the European agricultural model. Farmers' incomes should come mainly from prices in a regulated market in which production costs are recognised by the market;

—

in view of the extreme agro-climatic variations in the EU, first- or second-pillar direct payments should include provisions to balance out, across the EU, the costs incurred by farmers due to agro-climatic conditions (5);

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/43

1.1

The world economy became more integrated than ever before. With major global crises in a multipolar world there is a need for a new governance and greater legitimacy for international organisations. This legitimacy needs to be based on common values, standards and objectives, on coherence and effectiveness and on inclusiveness towards all countries and their citizens. The EESC supports the EU in taking actively part in developing such a new governance of international organisations.

1.2

Even before the current crisis it was acknowledged that reform of international organisations, UN organisations and the Bretton Woods Institutions was necessary, but since the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis the process of reform gained further momentum. As soon as it became clear that the impact of the financial crisis was irreversible the G20 took the lead in responding. Despite the well received results of the G20 process, the legitimacy of its decisions is being questioned. The EESC request the EU to develop effective linkages between the G20 process and the representative UN institutions and to strengthen ECOSOC.

1.3

Emerging and developing countries need a more prominent role in the governance of international organisation. The EESC supports the further restructuring of the World Bank and IMF to increase the representation of these countries.

1.4

The governance of international organisations should be based on the UN Charter and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The EU has been a strong promoter of multilateral cooperation and the EESC fully endorses this policy. However the EESC notes that the environment for promoting the multilateral values has changed and therefore the EESC considers the need to revisit the EC Communications on the EU’s policies towards multilateralism  (1).

1.5

Even though international organisations may have clear objectives, they are lacking effectiveness due to inadequate monitoring of the follow-up of their decisions and assessing their impact. The EU developed monitoring systems that are good practice and could be adopted on an international scale to monitor complex multi-level interventions. The EESC encourages the EU to introduce these monitoring systems to international organisations.

1.6

The EESC supports the increase of the authority of international organisations to regulate financial markets at the international level in order to prevent a new financial crisis. The EESC supports greater regulation at European and international level in the following areas: increasing reserves, regulating hedge funds, opening up tax havens, discouraging excessive and perverse remuneration, reduction of leverage risk, and supra-national consolidation of supervisory authorities.

1.7

The EESC supports any initiative by the EU to encourage cooperation and coherence between international organisations. The EESC urges the EU to take an initiative to follow-up on the initiative of Ms Merkel and facilitate a formal dialogue between international organisations to promote cooperation based on the ILO Decent Work Agenda.

1.8

The EESC welcomes the Resolution of the European Parliament calling for ratification by the EU Member States of up-to-date ILO Conventions and supports the call of the European Parliament to the Commission to prepare a Recommendation to the Member States to ratify the up-to-date ILO Conventions and to actively contribute to their implementation. The EESC wishes to be actively engaged in preparing this Recommendation.

1.9

The EESC acknowledges the ‘soft power’ used by the EU in the governance structures of international organisations, but the Committee is nevertheless of the view that for each of the international organisations the EU should develop a strategy to increase its power and strengthen its position. The EESC should be heard in consultative meetings while preparing these strategies.

1.10

The EESC hopes that the new Lisbon Treaty, the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the reinforced diplomatic cooperation will result in a more unified voice and a better position of the EU in international organisations. The EESC encourages the EU to be coherent in its external policies and consistent with its objectives.

1.11

The process of shaping the new governance structure is not very transparent. Social partners and representative civil society organisations should be included and the EESC expects the EU to make information on this process easily available.

1.12

International organisations gain effectiveness by being open to consult representative civil society organisations as well as trade unions and employers’ organisations. They must be part of their transparent consultative structures and part of their monitoring system. The EESC expects the EU (EC and Member States) to promote and facilitate an improved consultation of civil society organisations and social partners in the future governance structures of international organisations.

2.1

The discussion on the system of governance of international organisations is not new, but the rapid spread and deep impact of the global financial crisis revealed the weakness of global governance in the globalised economy. It showed the increased interdependence of all countries. Not only is the crisis affecting all economies, but it has turned into a major employment crisis affecting millions of already vulnerable workers and enterprises. In order to limit the negative impact of this crisis as much as possible and to avoid a future crisis, it will be necessary to better regulate the financial sector, where this crisis began. But not just that. In order to create a sustainable and value-based economy, new and more effective, more accountable and more transparent governance of the world economy must be created.

2.2

This opinion will focus on the international organisations that govern social, economic and financial policies, considering the ongoing process of reform of these organisations and the context of the financial crisis: the UN, WTO, ILO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, OECD, the G20 and the Financial Stability Board.

2.3

The world faces major global crises that can only be addressed effectively at the global level. This not only applies to the challenge of the current financial and economic crisis, but also to the crisis in food, water and energy, increased poverty, environmental problems including the effects of climate change, security and increased migration.

2.4

Globalisation has changed economic relations and this must be reflected in the global economic governance structure. Power relations are changing, with the BRIC countries becoming more important economically, politically and strategically. We are moving from a bipolar (Cold War) via a unipolar (US supremacy) to a multipolar world. Emerging economies and developing countries must play their part in the institutions that compose the new global governance model.

2.5

These challenges can only be addressed by institutions that have legitimacy. The new governance structure will only have this legitimacy when they are coherent in their policies, effective in implementing them and inclusive to all nations and their peoples.

2.6

Several initiatives to review the global governance system of international organisations and to reform the UN have been taken in the past years. Progress has been made in the One UN Delivery approach at national level, with the UN Resident Coordinator in the driving seat. In 2009, the UN System Chief Executive Board of Coordination announced 9 initiatives to be jointly taken by UN organisations and the Bretton Woods Institutions. While looking for a new architecture for the governance of the world economy, it is suggested that the role and competence of ECOSOC should be strengthened. Since the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis the process of reform gained momentum, with the G20 taking the lead.

2.7

In Pittsburgh, USA, on 24 and 25 September 2009, the leaders of the G20 countries took decisions that will change the governance of international organisations substantially. They decided that the G20 will be their premier forum for international economic cooperation. They have decided that they will continue their efforts to regulate the financial markets and to put quality jobs at the heart of the economic recovery. They agreed to set up a Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Economic Growth, by which they committed to formulate common–mid-term–objectives for their macroeconomic, fiscal and trade policies to be consistent with a sustainable and balanced growth of the global economy. They gave IMF the authority to assist them in assessing their policies in order to facilitate their dialogue. By doing so they largely increased the IMF role, which was already boosted by a USD 500 billion extra funding. The World Bank has its authority for poverty reduction reconfirmed with extra lending (USD 100 billion) and with a special focus on food and energy security for the poor. The G20 leaders will meet again in June 2010 in Canada, in November 2010 in Korea and in 2011 in France.

2.8

The G20 leaders agreed to modernise the architecture for economic cooperation. Voting rights in IMF for emerging countries will increase by 5 % at the cost of overrepresented, smaller economies. The World Bank too is requested to look at the representation of the emerging countries in its decision-making structure.

2.9

However, despite relatively well-received results of the G20 meetings, the legitimacy of its leadership is being questioned. The world’s poorest countries are excluded from the debate. The G20 agenda is not based on an agreed policy and not all of the relevant international organisations are actively involved. Within the UN there is great concern that the role of the UN is being eroded in particular on social economic issues. A new balance has to be found between the new role of the G20, the UN and its agencies and the Bretton Woods Institutions. It is to be expected that new initiatives and ideas will come up, with economic and political relations changing permanently and swiftly.

2.10

The G20 countries must develop effective linkages with representative processes of the United Nations so that the interests of all countries worldwide are taken into account in a new and inclusive global architecture, accompanied by the establishment of a ‘UN Economic and Social Security Council’, a strongly reformed ECOSOC with reinforced decision-making powers or a ‘Global Economic Council’ (2) Within all of these changes, the EU has to position itself and some observers fear that the changing balance of power will be at the cost of European influence on the international stage.

2.11

Not enough attention is given to the role of civil society and social partners in this process. The EESC recommends that formal space is given by the G20 to civil society and social partners, and encourages the G20 Labour Ministers to involve in their work institutions representing social partners at international level. Though some international organisations do give consultative status to social partners and civil society organisations, the process overall lacks transparency and representative organisations like the EESC and the Social Economic Councils should be more actively involved.

3.1

Any new governance of international organisations should be based on the UN principles and values. While all international organisations may have their own governance structure, all of their functioning should be based on the Charter of the United Nations, on the fundamental human rights, human dignity and equal rights for men and women. It should be based on justice and respect for international treaties and standards. It should promote social progress, better standards of living in larger freedom. A new governance structure of international organisations must promote sustainable development and social inclusion, and it must address the major global problems effectively.

3.2

The values of the UN Charter and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are also the values of the European Union. The EU is based on the principles of freedom and dignity, dialogue and stability and respect for international agreements. The EU has been a strong promoter of multilateralism and of the UN and its treaties The EESC supports this. However the EESC notes that the environment for promoting the multilateral values has changed and therefore the EESC considers the need to revisit the EC Communications on EU’s policies towards multilateralism. (COM(2001) 231: Building an effective partnership with the United Nations in the field of development and humanitarian affairs. And COM(2003) 526: The European Union and the United Nations: The choice for multilateralism.)

3.3

A new governance structure of the global economy should be based on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and focused on addressing urgent social issues like unemployment, poverty, food security and the increasing inequality. It should contribute to social justice and a fairer world. It should play a greater role in promoting a green economy and protect public goods like clean water and air, biodiversity and the reduction of CO2 emissions.

4.1

The EESC calls upon the European Commission as well as other European institutions to actively promote a new governance of international organisations, aimed at enhancing their coherence and at making them more effective in contributing to sustainable development, as well as delivering decent work and sustainable enterprises.

4.2

International organisations, and the UN and its agencies in particular, do have clear objectives, but they are often lacking in effectiveness. Even if the objectives have been formalised in international treaties and standards, the implementation is often inadequate and an effective system of assessing the impact is missing. New governance of international organisations should put more emphasis on the enforcement and follow-up of its decisions.

4.3

Monitoring is becoming an important tool to guarantee coherence of policy implementation and to provide indications to managers and policy makers how to focus on the areas of greatest concern to them. It also provides ‘early warnings’ that allow timely and appropriate intervention. The EESC suggests that such approach be used and developed, along the needs of international organisations on a larger and more coordinated international scale, since the successful European experience in monitoring complex multi-level interventions has stimulated the common management capacity of public authorities, professionals, and the private sector.

4.4

International organisations can be more effective if they reinforce each others objectives. Some international organisations have complaints and binding arbitration mechanisms (WTO), others have well developed supervisory mechanisms, however without enforcement competence (ILO). Policies of international organisations should not contradict each other and only if the UN organisations, the International Financial Institutions and the EU work together to promote each others standards, like gender equality, sustainability, decent work and liberalisation of trade, can the objectives of any of them be achieved.

4.5

The governance of financial institutions, the IMF, the World Bank and the Financial Stability Board, has been at the centre of the debate for international governance of the global economy. The need to regulate financial markets and to make them more transparent is more urgent than ever, as it is no longer possible to take adequate measures at national level alone. In order for international organisations to be able to be more effective in preventing future crises, the EESC supports an even-handed increase of their authority to regulate financial markets at the international level, without becoming over restrictive, stifling and bureaucratic. The EESC supports greater regulation at European and international level in the following areas: increasing reserves, regulating hedge funds, opening up tax havens, discouraging excessive and perverse remuneration, reduction of leverage risk, and supra-national consolidation of supervisory authorities, amongst other concerns.

4.6

More international cooperation is needed to address the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy. A safe global economy needs more regulation on a more value based foundation. An important initiative was taken by German Chancellor Ms Merkel. At a meeting of the WTO, World Bank (WB), IMF, ILO and OECD early in 2009 she proposed a Charter for Sustainable Economic Governance (3) which would lay the groundwork for coherent policies to achieve joint objectives, with each organisation working from its own mandate. Based on this Charter the G20 leaders in Pittsburgh formulated ‘Core values for Sustainable Economic Activity’, in which they formulate their responsibility to the different stakeholders – consumers, workers, investors and entrepreneurs – to increase the prosperity of the people through coherent economic, social and environmental strategies. The OECD has prepared a ‘Global Standard for the 21st Century’ based on its existing standards for corporate governance, multinational enterprises, fighting corruption and fiscal cooperation (4). The Stiglitz Commission recommends strong measures for countering falling demand, creating jobs and attaining the Millennium Development Goals. The EESC recommends that the EU and its Member States support these initiatives.

4.7

A special role in the new governance structure is to be played by the ILO. Its core labour standards and the concept of decent work and sustainable enterprises give guidance in addressing the employment crisis. At its 98th Conference in June 2009, the three constituent parties of the ILO, agreed on a Global Jobs Pact, a package of measures to reverse the downward employment and growth trends. The EESC urges the EU to press for a formal dialogue between international organisations based on the ILO Decent Work Agenda on employment, enterprise development, social protection, humane working conditions, sound labour relations and rights at work.

4.8

To obtain greater coherence, the Committee advises the EU to promote internally as well as externally the ratification of up-to-date ILO Conventions and the implementation of the decent work agenda. The Committee urges in particular the ratification and implementation of the conventions most relevant to the decent work agenda, including the Conventions on OHS, the Conventions on Social Security and Convention 94 on labour clauses in public contracts. EU rules do not absolve Member States of their obligations under ratified ILO Conventions. The EESC supports the call of the European Parliament to the Commission in its Resolution of 26 November 2009 to prepare a Recommendation to the Member States to ratify the up-to-date ILO Conventions and to actively contribute to their implementation. Following the EESC opinion on The Social Dimension of Globalisation (5) and Promoting Decent Work for All (6), the EESC wishes to be actively engaged in preparing this Recommendation.

4.9

In addition to this the EESC supports any initiative by the EU to encourage cooperation on specific topics between international organisations. Good examples are the cooperation between the WTO and the ILO on employment, cooperation on the issues of social security between the World Bank and the ILO, cooperation on the implementation of Core Labour standards between WB and IMF. Youth employment, micro finance and social security are the issues of most importance.

5.1

Developing and emerging countries must play a stronger role in new global governance structures to be adopted by international organisations. However their integration must be based on the UN rules and on respect for human rights. The goal of securing decent work and the implementation of ILO core labour standards in emerging and developing countries should guide the policies of the international organisations. The World Bank and the IMF must restructure further in order to increase the representation and strength of the poorer countries in their institutions and processes.

5.2

It is necessary to assist developing countries in order to facilitate their effective participation in the decision making process of WTO. They must be equipped to participate more readily in trade negotiations and be encouraged in improving their depth of knowledge of trading matters as well as their technical capacities and competences in the field of market integration. Developing countries must be allowed some legitimate policy space in trade relations.

5.3

In March 2009 the IMF made an analysis of the vulnerability of low income countries to the adverse effects of the global financial crisis and the ensuing recession (7). According to ILO estimates, over 200 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty, most of them living in developing and emerging economies. The number of working poor, those who earn less than USD 2 per day, may rise to 1.4 billion, undoing the progress made on global poverty reduction during the past decade. Increasing poverty will affect women the most, considering that 60 % of the world’s poor are women. Under these circumstances additional efforts must be made to meet the MDGs. The EESC urges the EU to enact forcefully its commitment to achieve the MDGs.

6.1

The EU has a special role to play on this international stage. The European Union is the most important exporter in the world, the foremost donor of aid to developing countries and the market of reference worldwide. Despite this, some research indicates that the EU is losing its position in the UN (8). The EU is gaining less support for its human rights resolutions in the General Assembly than a decade ago due to the increased influence of countries that resist interference in ‘internal affairs’ like China and Russia (9).

6.2

The EU has much at stake in the system of global governance. The EU’s social market model is unique and has proven to be particularly adept at addressing the complex problems of the current economic crisis. The EU and its institutions need to take active steps to safeguard their interests and to promote their values.

6.3

The EU is represented in all international organisations dealing with the governance of the global economy, be it by the presence of member countries in the Board of these organisations, by coordinating the members’ policies in these organisations, by being represented by the member that holds the presidency of directly with a representative status for the EC. In most international organisations the EU has only observer status (the exceptions are the WTO and the FAO) and it relies on ‘soft power’ to exert influence. Though this ‘soft power’ and the EU’s network of goodwill may be effective, the EU should actively strive for formal positions where possible. For each of the international organisations the EU should develop a strategy to increase its power and strengthen its position in order to promote a more effective and just governance of these organisations.

6.4

In the IMF the EU is represented by different Spokesmen (the EURIMF President, the ECB, the Eurogroup President, the Minister of Finance of the EU’s Presidency). and divergences among Member States on financial and development issues prevent Europe to speak with one voice. Whereas on trade issues the EC has the authority to speak on behalf of the EU, on other financial or economic issues even the 16 EU Member States that have a common currency and delegated some of their competences to the ECB, do not necessarily take a unified position. Given the increased importance of the Bretton Woods Institutions, the IMF in particular, the EESC urges the EU and its institutions to improve their coordination in the governance of these institutions. EU countries together hold 32 % of the voting rights in IMF, as compared to US 17 %. A loss of influence by smaller EU members to make space for emerging economies, can be compensated by a better coordinated EU policy.

6.5

The EESC calls on the EU to encourage IMF to promote policies that provide access to credit and financing, for SMEs and farmers in particular, as in all national economies, these sectors act as the backbone and largest providers of employment. The EESC also requests that the EU urges the international financial institutions to make funds available for developing countries to implement counter-cyclical measures and in so doing to abstain from pro-cyclical conditional ties.

6.6

Since 2000 the EU has significantly increased its financial contributions to the World Bank (EUR 241 M in 2008). The EESC acknowledges the importance of the World Bank for poverty eradication and recommends that the EU encourages the World Bank to adopt economic development policies that include decent work as well as access to health care, education and other public goods. The EESC urges the EU to support the World Bank to finance recovery plans for countries affected by the current financial and economic crisis, that focus on supporting sustainable enterprise development, job creation, public investment, active labour market policies, the extension of basic social security to all, additional safety nets for the most vulnerable and investment in the ‘green economy’.

6.7

Under the new Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament has co-decision competences in trade policy areas. For the EESC this poses new opportunities to reinforce its cooperation with Parliament and the Commission on trade issues. The EESC prepared several relevant opinions on trade issues and on the need to make trade policies coherent with the EU’s social and environmental policies (10) .

6.8

The EU is spending much time on coordination of its views and positions in international organisations and less time and effort is therefore available to gain support for these positions among other members of international organisations. The UN Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities is one of the recent positive exceptions. Civil society organisations can support a joint position. The EESC notes that the voting of the EU member countries shows convergence and encourages the EU to prepare to speak with one voice to prevent influence being lost because the members disagree. The Lisbon Treaty will hopefully contribute to the improvement of this. The acceptance of the new Treaty, the new position of High Representative and the reinforced diplomatic cooperation represents an opportunity to increase the EU’s international position.

6.9

A better governance of international organisation, with more coherence and therefore more effectiveness, starts at home. EU policies in the UN and in UN agencies, in the G20 and in the Bretton Woods Institutions should be subject to the same principles and promote the same objectives, within the mandate and structure of the different organisations. Much more effort is needed to develop coherent policies in international organisations. The EU policy on Coherence for Development is a positive example. The EESC also refers to the coherence between the internal and external policies in the Lisbon Strategy (11).

7.1

Participation of social partners and civil society organisations is a precondition for protecting and promoting the values that are fundamental to international organisations. Civil society has a lot at stake in the governance of international organisations. The recent crisis showed that civil society, as tax payers, workers, consumers, savers, house owners and entrepreneurs pay a high price for insufficient and ineffective global governance.

7.2

The new governance structure is getting shape in high-level diplomatic summit meetings. This process is not very transparent. Civil society organisations and social partners have very little access to information about the process, let alone access to the decision making. Civil Society organisations and trade unions try to mobilise public opinion and lobby their governments to communicate their ideas on the future governance structure of the global economy. Some parts of the business community are consulted, others are excluded. The voice of civil society organisations and social partners should be better heard within the EU policy process towards the international organisations.

7.3

Several examples of good practice at national, regional and international level of involvement of civil society in the governance of international organisations are available. At international level the example of the ILO stands out. Employers’ and workers’ representatives participate on an equal footing with governments in all ILO institutions, be it in governance, decision-making, standard-setting or monitoring. The OECD’s Advisory Councils for Business (BIAC) and Trade Unions (TUAC) also stand as good examples of institutionalised consultation of the social partners. All other international organisations have more distanced consultations of social partners and other civil society organisations, like the consultative status for NGOs at the UN, or none at all as in the G20. The effective governance of international organisations will be strengthened by institutionalising the involvement of representative organisations of civil society and social partners in a transparent way. International organisations can also become more effective when civil society organisations and social partners are included in their follow-up and monitoring mechanisms and early warning systems.

7.4

The EESC expects the EU to include civil society organisations and social partners in the development of its policies and positions towards the new governance of international organisations. The Committee also expects the EU to promote within the international organisations an openness to consult civil society and social partners when discussing their governance structures. A meaningful consultation assumes transparency and easy access to documents within a timeframe that enables stakeholders’ views to be considered and incorporated.

7.5

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/50

—

continue the enlargement process;

—

speed up the process of visa liberalisation with Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to allow visa-free travel for their citizens to Schengen countries. Also start negotiations with Kosovo (1) on this issue;

—

mobilise all available sources of financing in order to maximise investment in infrastructure projects and use the newly created Western Balkans Investment Framework for this purpose;

—

maintain the social dimension as a priority when implementing the treaty establishing a Transport Community. The Social Forum should be supported in order to become an effective instrument for enhanced sectoral social dialogue at regional level;

—

support moves towards greener modes of transport such as inland waterways and railways in the Western Balkans;

—

take into account assessments of the socio-economic impact of transport networks while developing a common transport policy;

—

support the updating of the Core Regional Transport Network in line with needs;

—

to take into account the South East Europe Core Regional Transport Network as future part of TEN-T in the process of TEN-T Policy Revision in order to support the further integration of Western Balkans into EU;

—

initiate a study on employment in the Western Balkan Contracting Parties of the Transport Community. Also, give due attention to the development of training programmes for both employers and employees in order to enable them to better respond to changes in the labour market; and

—

allocate sufficient human resources to social affairs and social dialogue in the Transport Community secretariat.

—

through the work of the Joint Consultative Committees encourage the social partners in the Western Balkan countries to play an active part in social dialogue both at country and regional levels;

—

organise a conference on transport policy in the Western Balkans with the participation of representatives of civil society organisations from the Western Balkan countries, the European Commission and the EESC; and

—

identify mechanisms for creating and institutionalising future cooperation with the regional Social Forum, which is due to be set up under the treaty establishing a Transport Community.

—

strengthen regional cooperation in the field of transport policy and transport infrastructure;

—

ensure efficient planning of public investment of regional interest in the transport sector and increase capacity-building in the transport sector;

—

implement the necessary reforms and speed up the process of adopting the acquis communautaire;

—

exploit opportunities for private funding/co-financing of priority projects as well as complementary projects (public-private partnerships) and create a suitable environment for this type of project;

—

improve transparency in public procurement;

—

improve border management and increase the capacity of border crossings in order to speed up and improve the quality of transport at regional level;

—

develop coherent policies at regional level that would encourage inter-modal transport and the deployment of intelligent transport systems (ITS);

—

continue improving relations with neighbouring countries and resolve open issues in bilateral relations;

—

play an active role in the development of the Danube Strategy, which is currently being prepared, in order to take advantage of joint infrastructure projects with EU members and neighbouring countries; and

—

involve the social partners, as well as representatives of other relevant civil society organisations in the process of developing regional transport policy and achieve convergence between employment policies and reforms.

2.2.1

The EU has a direct interest in the Western Balkans since the region lies at the heart of Europe. All Western Balkan countries are either candidates or potential candidates for EU membership. To reach this goal, they have to fulfil all the criteria and conditions required for membership. Regional cooperation is one of the preconditions for their successful integration into the European Union and is therefore also an essential component of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). For this reason, the EU is keen to support the development of regional projects, including the Core Regional Transport Network, which plays a crucial role.

2.2.2

The EU considers transport to be an obvious and suitable policy area for efficient regional cooperation and therefore believes that transport policy in the Western Balkans can be far-reaching and push the region forward towards alignment with the acquis. The importance of transport policy is further strengthened by the fact that four out of ten Pan-European Corridors pass through the Western Balkans. EU transport policy in the region has three main goals. The first is to improve and modernise the South East European Transport Network for the sake of social and economic development. The second is to improve traffic on the network by implementing soft/horizontal measures. The third is to help bring the region in line with the transport acquis. To develop these priorities, the EU is currently negotiating a treaty establishing a Transport Community with the countries of the Western Balkans (see point 4.3 below).

3.2.1

The total length of the Core rail network is 4 615 km, including 3 083 km of corridors and 1 532 km of routes. Only 15 % of the Core rail network is classified as being in good condition, while 19 % is in poor or very poor condition (5).

3.2.2

Railways are the weakest link among all the transport modes. Accessibility analysis shows that railways have travel times up to 200 % longer than the respective roads along the same origin-destination pairs. The railway infrastructure is underdeveloped in all the Western Balkan countries. Therefore, there is a need for extensive rail investment in all countries of the region. Another challenge ahead is the restructuring of railway companies, which are often considered to be over-staffed.

3.3.1

The total length of the River Danube (Corridor VII) (6) within Croatia and Serbia is 588 km and the navigable length of the River Sava is 593 km. The Core Network also includes seven seaports and two river ports (7). With the exception of about 30 km, the Danube is mostly in good condition, while the condition of the Sava is far poorer (8).

3.3.2

Inland waterways present the greenest and cheapest mode of transport. Its disadvantage, however, is the slowness of the transport.

3.3.3

Inter-modal transport is limited and currently comprises mostly land transport of maritime containers to and from the ports. In addition, existing inter-modal terminals are still underutilised. However, there is potential for inter-modal transport of around 10 % with an envisaged increase of 15 % by 2015 in the Core Network.

3.3.4

It can be argued that countries throughout the region are continuously making progress in reforming the transport sector by pursuing their National transport strategies and by introducing new legislation and regulations in compliance with the EU transport acquis and policy. They generally recognise that the reforms should be in accordance with the regional interest, which means that they should not create disparities that may counter the development and effective management of the Core Network. As in the integration process to the EU, some countries are more advanced than others.

4.1

A common transport policy for the Western Balkans dates back to the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe established in 1999. As already stated above, the EU considers regional cooperation as a prerequisite to future EU membership for the Western Balkan countries and a precondition for the development of regional transport policy. The EU has therefore encouraged the Western Balkan countries to develop intra-regional cooperation and enhance coordination in the field of common transport policy. In order to stimulate the development of transport infrastructure in South-Eastern Europe, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the development of the Core Regional Transport Network was signed between the European Commission and participants from the region in 2004. As a result, the diverse forums involved in regional transport infrastructure activities were replaced by three main coordinated bodies. The strategic decisions are taken by the Annual Meeting of Ministers; implementation of the MoU is coordinated by a Steering Committee; while the South East Europe Transport Observatory (SEETO) serves as a permanent secretariat (9). The Memorandum (MoU) commits the participants to jointly develop and implement a multi-annual rolling action plan covering a period of 5 years. Another important role of the MoU is that it provides a framework for a coordinated process leading to the drafting of the treaty establishing a Transport Community with the Western Balkans.

4.2

The treaty establishing a Transport Community with the Western Balkans, for which negotiations are under way, will replace the existing Memorandum of Understanding. The objective of the treaty is to establish an integrated market for infrastructure, and land, inland waterways and maritime transport systems and services closely linked to the relevant internal transport market of the European Union. The establishment of the Transport Community would accelerate the integration of the transport systems within the region as well as with those of the EU. Apart from speeding up alignment of the relevant legislation, including the relevant social acquis, the Transport Community would allow transport users and citizens to benefit from the accession process more rapidly. The Transport Community would also provide operators and investors in the transport sector with legal certainty, thereby stimulating and speeding up the necessary investments and economic development (10).

4.3

Other objectives are to create a stable regulatory and market framework capable of attracting investment in all transport modes and in traffic management systems, to increase efficiency in the transport modes and contribute to a more sustainable modal split, as well as to accompany the development of transport with social progress and respect for the environment. It is necessary to underline the fact that the treaty will not become valid in particular Western Balkan countries unless they implement all the necessary acquis.

5.1.1

The main driver of integration in the transport sector is regulatory harmonisation and coordination between authorities. The number of actors included in the process of developing regional transport policy requires adequate planning and coordination of activities.

5.1.2

At national level, the implementation of the acquis commits the governments of the Western Balkan countries to plan and implement important reforms in the transport sectors, as well as in other related sectors. An accurate impact assessment should be a complementary part of the process.

5.1.3

Effective planning of public spending and cooperation with other stakeholders, including the social partners and international financial institutions, should be mentioned as one of the important aspects for the effective development of transport policy.

5.1.4

Another related challenge is the need for harmonisation of National transport strategies with regional interests and coordination of the implementation of the Core Network project, in order to support effective management and development of the Core Network.

5.1.5

Last but not least, the development of the SEETO multi-annual rolling action plans for the development of the Core Regional Transport Network requires effective planning and coordination of activities at regional level. Such coordination will also be needed in the regional Social Forum, in which the representatives of the social partners and other relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations from the Western Balkan countries will participate.

5.2.1

The need to adapt national legislation to the acquis communautaire and EU standards in the transport sector is a priority. The transport acquis is particularly extensive, covering market access and social, technical, fiscal, safety and environmental requirements. The Western Balkan countries therefore face the challenge of implementing and enforcing a large body of transport acquis comprising a large number of regulations, directives and decisions. Another challenge is related to the selective transposition and implementation of the Community acquis.

5.2.2

Due to high fragmentation border crossings issues are very important for the SEE region. Currently border crossing waiting times affect significantly efficiency and competitiveness of the Core Network. Additional effort should be made by Western Balkan Participants in order to improve border management and procedures and reduce waiting times.

5.2.3

Environmental aspects should also be highlighted. The application of environmental standards is becoming increasingly important when developing infrastructure projects. Since environmental legislation forms an important part of the acquis, the issue of whether it shall or shall not be applied is not relevant. It can be argued, however, that the Western Balkan countries have been experiencing serious problems in the enforcement of environmental laws.

5.3.1

The development and maintenance of the transport networks require funding that is not available from the public sector. The coordination of donors therefore plays an important role here. Apart from the EU, international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World Bank (WB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) and bilateral donors should coordinate their activities and allocate the necessary funding. For the governments of the Western Balkan countries, another opportunity to finance the transport networks is through the use of public-private partnerships (PPP).

5.3.2

The importance of the latter was stressed at the ministerial conference held in Sarajevo in September 2009. In the Ministerial Statement, the participants not only recognised and welcomed the important role that the private sector plays in infrastructure development, but accepted the need to develop an institutional and legislative environment that would enable private sector participation in infrastructure projects through the instrument of public-private partnerships. In addition, they declared their commitment to draw up infrastructure projects at regional level and supported the establishment of a Southeast European Public Private Partnership Network (11). The declaration provides a good framework for enhancing the development of PPP infrastructure development projects in the region. Its implementation, however, requires reforms, including the reform of legislative and regulatory regimes, as well as the active support of international partners – the European Commission, IFIs and bilateral donors – by means of technical and financial assistance.

5.3.3

Another important measure that is intended to ensure closer cooperation among IFIs, bilateral donors and the European Union is the Western Balkans Investment Framework (WBIF). The WBIF was launched in December 2009 and consists of a joint grant facility and a joint lending facility to finance priority projects in the Western Balkans, among which infrastructure projects play a pivotal role (12).

6.1.1

Transport has been one of the most dominant sectors of employment in the region. Therefore, employers should play a role in shaping policies and pursuing reforms beneficial to their companies but also to the employees and citizens of their countries. Sectoral transport organisations and individual employers also have a role in negotiating the priorities for national and regional transport networks and analysing their impact on the promotion of mobility, job creation and preservation, and general benefits to national economies.

6.1.2

The visibility and influence of employers’ organisations varies from country to country across the region. Generally speaking, their position is rather weak mainly due to a lack of internal mobilisation capabilities and difficulties in providing effective representation and in pursuing their interests in relations with government and other stakeholders.

6.1.3

There is a need to develop the representation and analytical skills among the members of employers’ organisations, which could be of benefit not only to individual countries but also to the EU.

6.2.1

Transport has been one of the biggest job providers in the region. Social/labour market conditions in most countries are precarious with persisting high unemployment, high rates of poverty and migration in the active population, as well as overburdened social security systems. In the railway sector, on average, 50 % of the labour force has left their jobs within a decade (13). The railway reform to be implemented by each country involves staff reductions, privatisation of the freight operators and closing of unprofitable local lines (14). The plans to liberalise rail transport will thus impact employment and work conditions.

6.2.2

Job losses are also affecting the port industry, as well as dependent communities and domestic economies. Similar job losses have occurred in the inland waterways sector.

6.2.3

Trade unions play an important role in assessing the impact of the development of the core regional transport network on employment with the other social partners. Transport unions from the region under the coordination of the European Transport Workers’ Federation, have campaigned – both at EU and national levels – for social impact assessments to be mainstreamed throughout the strategic planning and implementation of the treaty establishing a Transport Community (15). Another trade union focus is to achieve convergence between employment policies and reform.

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/56

1.1

The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, has brought significant changes to the institutional set-up of the European Union, including the new permanent post of European Council president. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty created a legal basis for the ‘trio’ presidency (1), in which three Member States assume the presidency of the EU Council over 18 months on the basis of a programme agreed on in advance.

1.2

From the perspective of civil society, Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty is particularly relevant, since it is essentially concerned with strengthening participatory democracy, stepping up and structuring dialogue with citizens, carrying out in-depth consultation on the framing of EU policies and making provision for citizens' initiatives. All of this should help to strengthen civil dialogue.

1.3

This document has set itself the task of discussing the issues mentioned in the above paragraphs. To this end, it highlights the special role played by the EESC as the institutional representative of organised civil society at European level, sets out proposals to strengthen that role and, at the same time, expresses support for the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty intended to enable the EU to work more effectively, in greater transparency and with enhanced legitimacy.

2.1

The presidency-in-office, i.e. the presidency of the Council of the European Union, is not a recent innovation; an essential feature is that it rotates every half-year between the Member States. During each presidency, the country holding the presidency acts as the EU's face and voice, defines strategies and plays an organisational and representative role.

2.2

Presidency tasks involve a great deal of responsibility and effort for the whole government. It may not use the presidency to represent its national interests.

2.3

Rules on the presidency were amended on 15 September 2006 by a Council Decision adopting the Council's rules of procedure (2006/683/EC), which laid the foundation for the ‘trio’ system. Essentially, this provides that for each period of eighteen months the three presidencies-in-office during that time work in close cooperation and consultation with the European Commission to prepare a draft programme for Council activities during the relevant period.

2.4

What is the advantage of this new presidency structure? The new system preserves scope for manoeuvre for the country holding the presidency, as under the six-month presidency; at the same time, the programme worked out jointly by the ‘trio’ helps Member States to work together more closely and ensure greater continuity and consistency in EU policies, and thus in the life of the Community.

2.5

The first such group of three presidencies working together (‘trio’), which began on 1 January 2007, comprised Germany, Portugal and Slovenia and was followed by the French-Czech-Swedish group from 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2009. However, it is generally felt that for various reasons, and above all in the absence of the requisite legal basis, that the work of these ‘trios’ was dominated by national considerations and aspirations rather than those common to the three partners in the ‘trio’.

2.6

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, from 1 January 2010 Spain, Belgium and Hungary will form a presidency ‘trio’. This presidency will be based on the work programme adopted by the European Council meeting on 17 December 2009. It is a very ambitious programme covering many areas. To ensure effective presidencies, a key factor is the composition of the ‘trio’, which should include one large and/or founding Member State – i.e. a country with a certain amount of experience, together with a country which joined more recently and a new Member State.

2.7

Experience has shown that whereas countries with greater political weight also have more bargaining power, the smaller countries can often compensate for their apparent handicaps and possible inexperience thanks to well-chosen priorities, a good negotiating strategy and a significant willingness to compromise.

2.8

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the ‘trio’ practice amounts to a precedent with regard to the division of tasks between the European Council president elected for two-and-a-half years (renewable once) and the ‘trio’ working on a rotating basis, and not all aspects of this can clearly be foreseen at this stage. Close cooperation will be needed for the system to succeed. At the same time, given that the current system will continue to apply in many areas, one may rightly expect that national governments will quite naturally continue to make their own points of view heard and have an impact during their six-month presidency. This new situation also has important implications for civil society organisations.

3.1

To start with, we should point out that the performance of rotating Council presidency tasks is basically a government responsibility. The decisive role in these tasks is played by civil servants (diplomats), experts and politicians. Documents regulating the performance of presidency tasks, including the Lisbon Treaty, do not mention the organised, institutionalised involvement of civil society.

3.2

However, there is a growing awareness by both the EU institutions and the countries holding Council presidencies that bringing society on board by involving civil society organisations and citizens can significantly contribute to effective work. This reflects an awareness of the value of participatory democracy and civil dialogue.

3.3

However, this does not mean that a consensus exists at EU level on policies and practices with regard to involving civil society organisations in implementing the Council presidency programmes. At national level the situation varies considerably and largely depends on the extent to which civil society in the country holding the presidency is organised and active, and on its relations with its government. In this respect, the relationship is not typically one between equal partners.

3.4

It follows from the above comments that civil society organisations are not generally involved in drawing up the priorities proposed by the country carrying out Council presidency tasks; this in turn inevitably means that civil society has little or no feeling of ownership with regard to these priorities.

3.5

Given that the ‘trio’ presidency is a relatively new development, it is hardly surprising that there are only isolated cases of civil society in the three countries getting together in advance to act jointly. The first encouraging signs of this are likely to appear during the Spanish-Belgian-Hungarian Council presidency, for example during the preparation and organisation of high-visibility civil society events (Malaga in 2010 and Budapest in 2011).

3.6

Over the past few years, the practice has been – as in the case of a major European Civic Forum held in September 2008 under the French presidency in La Rochelle – for the country holding the Council presidency to host a meeting for the representatives of civil society, with the support of the European Commission. At such meetings, the issues of direct concern to civil society organisations are discussed, and should ideally be incorporated into the priorities identified by the host country.

3.7

The EU thematic years (such as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010) offer good possibilities for involving civil society organisations in Council presidency programmes and activities.

—

inviting high-level representatives from the country holding the Council presidency to EESC plenary sessions and meetings of other bodies (section and group meetings, etc.);

—

identifying EESC priorities and developing specific activities with reference to the programmes of the six-month Council presidencies;

—

adopting EESC positions on various subjects at the request and initiative of the country holding the Council presidency;

—

participating in various Council presidency programmes; presenting EESC opinions on issues which are under discussion;

—

visiting the country holding the Council presidency; participating in specialised programmes and strengthening links with various civil society organisations;

—

participating in major European-level civil society events in the country holding the Council presidency;

—

holding conferences, presentations, cultural events, exhibitions, etc. at the EESC's headquarters, providing publicity for the country holding the presidency and its civil society;

—

receiving group visits at the EESC (by representatives of civil society organisations) from the country holding the Council presidency;

—

focusing the EESC's communication policy on the country holding the Council presidency and its civil society.

5.1

Our starting point is the Lisbon Treaty and its entry into force on 1 December 2009, thus creating the requisite conditions for the European Union to provide forward-looking responses to the diverse challenges which it faces.

5.2

Our objective is to develop participatory democracy, step up dialogue with citizens and strengthen civil dialogue, thus also helping to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the European institutions.

5.3

Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty provides a good basis for doing this; the new possibilities offered by this article are fully consistent with the EESC's earlier recommendations, for example in its opinion on ‘The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership’ (adopted on 13 July 2000) (2) and ‘The representativeness of European civil society organisations in civil dialogue’ (adopted on 14 February 2006) (3). All of this means that it is not only possible but indeed necessary for the EESC as the institutional representative of organised civil society at European level to play a proactive role in ensuring that the possibilities provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, and in particular Article 11 thereof, are implemented as fully as possible, as the Committee has stated in its opinion on The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty: participatory democracy and the citizens' initiative (Article 11) which it also adopted on 17 March 2010 (4).

5.4

In this connection, Council presidencies are well-equipped to achieve the following:

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/59

—

the public does not face any unnecessary obstacles when exercising opportunities to participate, as the Citizens' Initiative is only an ‘agenda initiative’;

—

clear rules and provisions make it easy for initiators to organise initiatives across 27 Member States, without coming up against unexpected national obstacles;

—

where appropriate, initiators are given financial support once a given threshold has been reached.

—

horizontal civil dialogue;

—

vertical civil dialogue;

—

the Commission's existing consultation practices; and

—

the new European Citizens' Initiative.

4.1.1

This provision provides a legal basis for horizontal ‘civil dialogue’, but does not define it more precisely. The Committee has already issued a number of opinions (4)  (5)  (6) on civil dialogue and has stated that it is a key aspect of participation in the European democratic model. It has also repeatedly stated that it is willing to work as a platform and multiplier for this dialogue and to ensure the debate is public across Europe. In this context, the Committee has also on several occasions stated that it wishes and intends to contribute to the development of civil dialogue as a partner and intermediary. In this context, it is prepared to build on its role as a forum for debate and to provide practical support, for example by making its facilities available. The Committee attaches great importance to helping civil dialogue get the (European) audience it needs and develop into a truly interactive discussion.

4.1.2

The Committee once again stresses that this instrument of participatory democracy needs a clear definition and that the specific arrangements for its operation need to be laid down. For example, the representativeness criteria which the associations mentioned in this paragraph of the Treaty have to meet in order to take part in dialogue do require clarification. With respect to the issue of representativeness of civil society actors, too, the Committee has already pointed out (7) how important it is to distinguish between quantitative (legitimate representation of the majority of those affected) and qualitative (proof of relevant expertise) representativeness. The Committee takes the view that the associations to be involved in dialogue must be representative in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

4.1.3

The legislator will also need to be more precise about what specific measures it deems necessary to meet the requirement of ‘appropriate means’ (see TEU Article 11(1)).

4.1.4

In this context, the Committee considers it important to point out the distinction between European civil dialogue and European social dialogue and warns against any confusion between these two concepts. Of course, European social dialogue is a pillar of qualified participation, but it is subject to specific rules concerning content, participation, procedures and impact. Its enshrinement in the Treaty reflects its importance.

4.2.1

This paragraph takes account of vertical civil dialogue and obliges the EU's bodies to practise it regularly. The Committee has already expressed its views on this type of civil dialogue, too (8), and calls on the Commission to set out the arrangements in more detail, both in terms of content and procedure.

4.2.2

Some time ago – in anticipation of this treaty provision – the European Parliament founded the ‘Agora’, thus creating an instrument for vertical civil dialogue.

4.2.3

As TEU Article 11(2) requires all the institutions and bodies to engage in dialogue with civil society, the Committee calls on all the European institutions, especially the Council, to make a statement as soon as possible on how they intend to implement this treaty article.

4.2.4

The Committee places its network and infrastructure at the disposal of all EU bodies, with a view to helping launch and/or supporting civil dialogue with civil society organisations.

4.3.1

This provision puts the Commission's practice of consultation, already employed extensively to date, in the context of the newly-strengthened participatory pillar of the European democratic model. The Committee recalls (9)  (10) that this practice of consultation is fundamentally a key element of the ‘European governance’ (11) concept launched by the Commission in 2001. As a top-down measure, it only indirectly facilitates civil society action. The Committee also points out that ‘consultation’, a top-down measure, should be distinguished from ‘participation’, a civic right. The aspect of actively involving civil society organisations in a bottom-up process remains untouched by this measure.

4.3.2

The Committee is prepared, in line with its mandate, to support the European Commission whenever it wishes to carry out consultations beyond the usual online system, for example by organising joint hearings on specific topics or holding open consultations through stakeholder forums under the open space method.

4.3.3

However, consultation alone does not amount to genuine dialogue with civil society organisations. The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to overhaul and structure the way it has carried out consultations hitherto: Firstly, the time frame for consultations must be appropriate so that civil society organisations and the public really do have time to develop their answers and the consultation is not mere window-dressing. Secondly, the assessment process must be made more transparent. The Commission should be required to respond to submissions and explain its position as to why this or that suggestion was accepted or rejected, thus truly entering into dialogue. The Commission, for its part, should intensively consult with civil society organisations on these and other improvements.

4.4.1

The Committee shares the view that this new European citizens' initiative has significance for European integration that goes way beyond the legal dimension and should be considered to be the first element of direct transnational democracy, although the wording of the provisions means that it is limited to EU citizens. The Committee would like to see third-country nationals permanently resident in the Union to be included when the Treaty is revised.

4.4.2

It should be stressed that the new European citizens' initiative is not a direct initiative such as those provided for in a number of Member States, which give rise to a binding referendum, but rather an ‘agenda initiative’ calling on the Commission to draw up legislation. It is a minority instrument that simply creates an opportunity to influence the political agenda. The right of legislative initiative remains with the Commission, and any legislative process that may follow will do so in accordance with the appropriate procedures.

4.4.3

Of course, this instrument needs certain rules and standards. However, as instruments for direct democracy at European level have yet to be created, the European citizens' initiative should be given a framework to develop progressively. The regulation implementing TEU Article 11(4) should set the lowest possible minimum standards and admission criteria for initiatives and leave room for discretion and interpretation in areas where there are no experiential data at EU level, as all the European Citizens' Initiative can do is to ensure that a particular topic is taken up in the Commission's action plan.

4.4.4

However, the Committee certainly does not share the view of the European Parliament (12) that ‘it is the political task of the Parliament to monitor the process of a citizens' initiative’ and is opposed to the monitoring of a process in the pre-legislative area by the legislator. Such ‘monitoring’ would violate the principle of separation of powers; the Committee therefore calls for an independent ‘advisory body’ or a ‘helpdesk’ to be set up to support initiators when preparing and launching a European Citizens' Initiative so that obvious conflicts with the rules on admissibility and implementation can be avoided in most cases, even if they cannot be ruled out altogether.

4.4.5

In the same report, the Parliament quite rightly refers to the need to distinguish between petitions, which should be addressed to the Parliament, and citizens' initiatives, which are to be addressed to the Commission as a request. With this in mind, a clear distinction should be drawn between these two bottom-up participatory instruments' procedures and requirements.

4.4.6

The European Citizens' Initiative as an instrument of direct democracy is also an effective means of starting transnational deliberative processes. The public, which is currently rather disengaged from ‘political Europe’, can now get involved with specific initiatives and goals. The more they are invited and encouraged to participate in the initiative without having to face unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, the sooner people will stop thinking of themselves as spectators of incomprehensible decisions and move from being on the sidelines of the European polity to being at its centre. Such a process, set in motion step by step, which fosters debate on issues of European magnitude, will automatically lead to the formation of a European consciousness and a sense of European public awareness.

4.4.7

It must be pointed out that the substance of a European citizens' initiative self-evidently must not violate the Treaty or the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, just as extremist groups (ab)use the available channels of opinion-forming in the indirect/parliamentary process for their own purposes, the same could happen in the direct/civic process. This is a serious, fundamental challenge for any democracy, but is also its greatest advantage over undemocratic systems. A modern representative democracy built on both indirect and direct pillars must be capable of discussing uncomfortable and even extremist views in an open, transparent manner.

4.5.1

Although the Committee has not been directly involved in the now-completed consultation procedure, it would like - in anticipation of the proposed regulations being discussed in Parliament and the Council - to make an informed contribution to the opinion-forming process and has set out its views below on the issues addressed in the Green Paper.

4.6.1

The Committee shares the Commission's opinion that the threshold should be determined on the basis of objective criteria. It does not agree with the Commission that a minimum of one third of Member States, i.e. nine states, are needed in order to ensure that the Union's interest is adequately represented; neither does it share, however, the opinion held by some organisations that as few as four Member States would be sufficient.

4.6.2

Rather, the Committee agrees with the European Parliament that one quarter of Member States - currently seven states - would be an appropriate threshold. This figure was reached with reference to Article 76 of the TFEU, which provides for acts relating to administrative cooperation on police and judicial cooperation and on cooperation in criminal matters undertaken on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States. The Committee considers this to be the appropriate reference for ensuring that citizens' initiatives have a truly European dimension.

4.7.1

As the Lisbon Treaty refers only to a ‘significant number of Member States’, it would also be an option not to specify a minimum number of participants per country. However, given the Treaty's repeated references to the double majority, the Committee shares the Commission's view that it would be contrary to the spirit of the Treaty not to require a minimum number of participants per Member State.

4.7.2

Instead of laying down a rigid figure of 0.2 % per Member State, the Committee recommends using a sliding scale, which could provide a useful balance between the states. For example, a fixed lower limit of 0.08 % (13) could be required in order for the signatures from a Member State to be counted, and a citizens' initiative must, of course, have 1 million signatures in total. These two criteria in combination will automatically strike a balance that also does justice to the Treaty's focus on representativeness and a genuine European interest.

4.7.3

The Committee feels that a flexible system such as this, which would facilitate implementation, is likewise justified given that, in the end, the European Citizens' Initiative does not result in a binding decision, but is simply a ‘request’ to the Commission.

4.8.1

The Committee shares the Commission's view that, in order to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens, eligibility to participate in a citizens' initiative should be based on participants' eligibility to vote in the European Parliament elections in their countries of residence. Despite being sympathetic to the idea of involving young people (for example by reducing the minimum age to 16), this departure from the rules used to determine eligibility for voting in European parliamentary elections would make it disproportionately difficult to check the signatures, as almost all countries would have to set up duplicate electoral registers.

4.9.1

Here, too, the Committee thinks that very rigid requirements in terms of form would be inappropriate; the formal requirements necessary for official petitions should apply and certain minimum requirements should be set (see also 4.13). The content of the initiative and the requested decision should be presented clearly and unambiguously. It must always be clear what someone is supporting when they sign a European Citizens' Initiative.

4.10.1

There is no reason not to establish common procedural rules or standards for collection, verification and authentication at EU level that differ from national law, as the European Citizens' Initiative is a (new) transnational participatory instrument.

4.10.2

All methods of signature collection that allow for identity checks should be authorised. It should be possible to collect signatures both via an online portal and in public. In the Committee's view, conditions such as requiring national authorities or a notary to confirm the authenticity of signatures present an unreasonable obstacle. However, alongside identity checks, it must also be ensured that the initiative's supporters have signed freely and independently. With this in mind, procedures need to be put in place for electronic signature collection in particular.

4.10.3

Name, address and date of birth, together with a verification email in the case of online collection, are adequate data for security and authentication purposes. The aim must be to guarantee that no initiative complying with the minimum requirements for signature collection laid down in the regulation is unexpectedly confronted with other, additional obstacles in any EU country. The signatures of Europeans living abroad should be assigned to their country of residence.

4.10.4

Signatures should be verified by the Member States; this could perfectly well be achieved as part of the sample checks customary in some EU Member States.

4.11.1

Experience with citizens' initiatives in the run-up to the Lisbon Treaty has shown that launching an initiative can be a time-consuming process; the Committee therefore considers the one-year time limit proposed by the Commission to be too short, and would recommend 18 months. In view of the aforementioned fact that initiatives do after all set in motion a process towards the creation of a genuine sense of European public awareness, going beyond their specific aim, it would, in the Committee's opinion, be regrettable were such a process to be prevented from reaching a positive outcome - with all the associated social and legal implications - due to a relatively short time limit of one year.

4.12.1

The Committee agrees with the Commission that it is up to initiators themselves to check in advance that their initiatives are lawful and admissible. It should be possible to register initiatives using a website run by the Commission, which would also gather information on their content so that the public could keep up to date on ongoing initiatives.

4.12.2

In this context, the Committee calls on the Commission to provide an online signature collection tool on the European Citizens' Initiative website that is to be set up. In addition, that website could also be used as a discussion forum about the various initiatives and thus help secure public access to the debate.

4.12.3

Nonetheless, the Committee feels that initiators of citizens' initiatives should also have access to a contact point providing advice not only on procedural questions but also on substantive issues. The Committee is willing to act as a ‘helpdesk’ here.

4.12.4

Consideration might be given to a system of yellow and red cards that would indicate at an early stage to initiators of a citizens' initiative that their initiative might not be admissible, either due to formal criteria, such as the matter being outside the Commission's competence, or due to a clear violation of fundamental rights.

4.13.1

In the Committee's opinion, the initiators of an initiative should provide the following information:

4.13.2

The Committee finds the Commission's statement that no provision is made for public support or funding for citizens' initiatives to be completely unacceptable, particularly the claim that this is the only way of guaranteeing the independence of such initiatives. The European Commission funds the structures and the work of many effective non-governmental organisations, and it would be quite unwarranted to assume that these civil society players were therefore dependent on the Commission because they were partly funded by it. Moreover, the logical consequence of the Commission's approach would be that only large organisations with financially strong supporters would even be in a position to consider a European citizens' initiative.

4.13.3

The Committee therefore suggests that the EU provide funding assistance once an initial milestone, for example 50 000 signatures from three Member States, has been reached, in order to exclude hopeless or frivolous campaigns. Here, too, the proposed system of yellow and red cards could play a role.

4.14.1

The Committee considers the six-month time frame proposed by the Commission to be an absolute upper limit, and supports the two-stage approach proposed in the European Parliament's resolution (two months to assess the formal criteria and three months to reach a decision on the content) (14). The Commission should make this internal decision-making process as transparent as possible.

4.14.2

Once a successful citizens' initiative has been submitted, its legal admissibility should be definitively checked.

4.14.3

During the Commission's political evaluation phase, the Committee will organise hearings - possibly involving the Parliament and the Council Presidency - at which organisers could present their initiatives to the Commission. The EESC could, if appropriate, also complement this process by issuing an exploratory or own-initiative opinion.

4.14.4

The acceptance, partial acceptance or rejection of the initiative by the Commission should be explained to the initiators publicly and in detail. In the event of rejection, the Commission should publish a formal decision, which should be subject to appeal before the ECJ.

4.15.1

The Committee considers that it will then be up to initiators to launch an initiative on a similar topic if they wish. It is worth reiterating that the new European citizens' initiative is an ‘agenda initiative’. The Committee therefore sees no reason to incorporate bans or obstacles.

4.16.1

The Committee takes the view that the Commission should have the text translated into all the official languages for the organisers of a citizens' initiative that has already found 50 000 supporters from three Member States.

—

to draft an opinion on citizens' initiatives formally accepted by the Commission within the assessment deadline;

—

where appropriate, to draft an opinion in support of an ongoing citizens' initiative;

—

to arrange hearings on successful initiatives (with organisers, the Commission, Parliament and the Council);

—

to set up an information helpdesk (as a contact point for the public on procedural questions and such like); and

—

to provide back-up information (publication of a handbook on participatory democracy, conferences on practical implementation, etc.).

—

15 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States;

—

13 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the candidate countries;

—

30 members of Member States' national Parliaments;

—

26 members of candidate countries' national Parliaments;

—

16 members of the European Parliament;

—

Two representatives of the European Commission.

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/66

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/67

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/68

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/69

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/70

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/71

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/72

28.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/73

—

it does not apply only to passenger cars, but also other types such as buses and lorries;

—

it obliges each manufacturer to opt between a selective or an exclusive distribution system, while considering mainly two distinct types of distribution system to be exempt:

—

a single contract may not combine selective and exclusive distribution clauses. In practical terms, the so-called ‘location clause’ is not permitted within a selective distribution system, while it was possible to impose this clause on exclusive distributors;

—

Article 8(1) of the Regulation distinguishes between three different product markets:

—

in addition to the market share ceilings, Article 6(1)(c) of the Regulation considered ‘prices or conditions of supply for contract goods or for corresponding goods [that] differ substantially between geographic markets’ to be incompatible. In such cases, the Commission could withdraw the exemption provided by the Regulation;

—

the Commission has sought to tackle obstacles to parallel trade, and Regulation 1400/2002 considers that limits placed by suppliers on sales to end users in other Member States (for example, by making the purchase price or distributor remuneration dependent on the destination of the vehicles or the place of residence of the end users) would be tantamount to an indirect restriction on sales. In addition, sales targets, product allocation or bonus systems based on a territory smaller than that of the Common Market are not allowed.

—

Draft Commission Regulation on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, and a

—

Draft Commission Notice: Supplementary guidelines on vertical restraints in agreements for the sale and repair of motor vehicles and for the distribution of spare parts for motor vehicles.

a)

As regards agreements for the sale of new motor vehicles, with effect from 31 May 2013:

b)

As regards agreements for repair and maintenance services and/or for the supply and distribution of spare parts, with effect from 31 May 2010: