Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Intermodal transport and multimodal logistics — making modes complementary in greening transport’

(Own-initiative opinion)

(2021/C 374/01)

Rapporteur: Stefan BACK

Plenary Assembly decision	25.3.2021
Legal basis	Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure
	Own-initiative opinion
Section responsible	Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society
Adopted in section	24.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	230/0/6

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

A long-term viable solution to developing efficient and sustainable multimodal transport and logistics can only be achieved by dealing with the problems that make multimodal transport more expensive, slower and less reliable than, in particular, unimodal road transport. It cannot be built with financial promotion or regulatory support.

1.2.

This kind of approach would also be resource-efficient from a regulatory point of view, since no dedicated regulatory framework would be needed.

1.3.

To improve multimodal traffic, the EESC also recommends, in addition to technical innovation and solution of competitiveness problems, full internalisation of external costs for all transport modes to achieve a level playing field. The EESC calls for serious measures to safeguard and/or relaunch a European single wagon load system, link of strategic infrastructure (e.g. ports) to rail solutions, investment in industrial sidings, and involvement of large logistics companies in a modal reorientation of their flows.

1.4.

In order to ensure fair competition between transport modes, the EESC recommends socially exemplary behaviour by all transport modes to ensure high-quality transport services, high-quality jobs and good social conditions with a view to achieving a level playing field for all market players.

1.5.

Current problems relating to multimodal transport are — apart from additional costs due to transhipment and additional transaction costs — disadvantages such as long delivery times, complexity, higher risk and lower reliability, which make it more difficult for multimodality to take off.

1.6.

Therefore, measures are needed to make multimodal freight transport competitive in its own right and achieve efficient and seamless multimodal freight transport flows at the same cost as unimodal transport.

1.7.

There is also a need for rail to adapt better to an open market context and remedy problems due to lack of punctuality, reliability, predictability and flexibility, which have a negative impact on multimodal solutions involving rail.

1.8.

Regarding inland waterway transport, improvements seem to be needed with respect to cross-border transport capacity.

1.9.

Adequate terminal infrastructure is key to successful intermodality. As a matter of resource efficiency, it would also be useful for Member States to agree to collaborate on the planning of terminal infrastructure in border regions. Distance between terminals should be adapted to demand, density of the network and other local conditions.

1.10.

With regard to public debt, the EESC recommends that public investment in intermodal infrastructure be exempt from the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) beyond the COVID-19 crisis.

1.11.

It is important for well-functioning multimodality that regulations regarding, for instance, the handling of dangerous goods between different modes are consistent and that other regulatory and practical issues that may cause difficulties in the interface between modes or in transport between Member States are resolved.

1.12.

A number of the problems hampering intermodal transport could be resolved by smart digital solutions such as track and tracing possibilities and other digital solutions facilitating the effective management of multimodal transport flows.

1.13.

Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on electronic freight transport information will facilitate the exchange of regulatory information between operators and authorities on digital platforms as of August 2024 and improve the flow of intermodal transport.

1.14.

The EESC calls on the European Commission to consider the above suggestions when drafting its upcoming review of the regulatory framework for intermodal transport and to enable multimodal transport to play its full part in the transport system, without dedicated support measures.

2.   Background

2.1.

The European Commission Communication on a Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (COM(2020) 789 — the SSM Strategy) points out that, to support the greening of cargo operations in Europe, the existing framework for intermodal transport needs a substantial revamp and must be turned into an effective tool. It singles out the need to review the regulatory framework, including the Combined Transport Directive (Council Directive 92/106/EEC (2) — hereinafter the Directive) and the option of introducing economic incentives for both operations and infrastructure. Incentives should be based on emissions monitoring.

2.2.

The core of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy is a 90 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Multimodal transport plays an important role in the strategy, which aims to ensure environmentally-optimised interaction of modes, including reducing the predominance of road haulage.

2.3.

The SSM Strategy also stresses the importance of multimodal logistics, including in urban areas, underscores the need for efficient planning to avoid empty runs and points to the need to include freight in urban mobility planning.

2.4.

The SSM Strategy also pinpoints the problem of lack of transhipment infrastructure, including inland multimodal terminals, and the need to improve transhipment technologies, including multimodal exchange of data and smart traffic management systems in all modes. The Commission intends to make funding available and to gear policies, including on R&I, to addressing these issues. State aid rules for rail may also be useful in this regard.

2.5.

In the Action Plan accompanying the SSM Strategy the Commission plans to carry out a review of the regulatory framework for intermodal transport, including the Directive, in 2022.

2.6.

In a 2017 proposal (COM(2017) 648), the Commission proposed amendments to the Directive highlighting the need for better Member State coordination regarding the construction of intermodal terminals and various administrative simplifications, but also maintaining the need for a promotional approach including dedicated rules on market access, in particular with respect to the road transport leg. Considerable changes were made to the proposal during the legislative process and the Commission therefore chose to withdraw it.

2.7.

However, through Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), which amended Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), Member States were given the possibility to deviate from the dedicated rules on market access to the road transport leg and apply ordinary cabotage rules.

3.   General comments

3.1.

A viable long-term solution for developing efficient and sustainable multimodal transport and logistics can only be achieved by dealing with the problems that make multimodal transport more expensive, slower and less reliable than, in particular, unimodal road transport. It cannot be built with financial promotion or regulatory support.

3.2.

This kind of approach would also make it possible to dispense with complex rules defining combined or multimodal transport and ensuring that operators are entitled to financial support and dedicated rules on market access. It would therefore also be resource-efficient from a regulatory point of view.

3.3.

To improve multimodal traffic, the EESC recommends, in addition to technical innovation and solution of competitiveness, full internalisation of external costs for all transport modes to achieve a level playing field. The EESC calls for serious measures to safeguard and/or relaunch a European single wagon load system, link of strategic infrastructure (e.g. ports) to rail solutions, investment in industrial sidings, and involvement of large logistics companies in a modal reorientation of their flows.

3.4.

In order to ensure fair competition between transport modes, the EESC recommends socially exemplary behaviour by all transport modes to ensure high-quality transport services, high-quality jobs and good social conditions with a view to achieving a level playing field for all market players.

3.5.

The EESC underlines that skilled and motivated workers and good working conditions are an important prerequisite for the successful evolution of multimodal transport. The EESC asks for a review of posting rules to take into account the situation of highly mobile railway staff. Furthermore, the EESC recommends simple, clear and verifiable regulations and an adequate compliance monitoring system to ensure fair working conditions (training, working hours and rest periods, language level, pay, occupational health and safety, modern sanitary facilities, suitable overnight accommodation, etc.) for all transport workers to ensure health and fair competition.

3.6.

Problems relating to multimodal transport are — apart from additional costs due to transhipment and additional transaction costs — disadvantages such as long delivery times, complexity, higher risk and lower reliability. These make it difficult for multimodality to take off.

3.7.

A recent study (5) shows a considerable cost difference between unimodal (road only) and intermodal solutions. The additional costs stem from the extra work involved in organising multimodal transport (EUR 50-100 per shipment), longer transit times (ranging from 4 to 120 hours) with an average of 25 hours, incurring an additional cost of EUR 75-100 per shipment and a lack of harmonised document procedures, causing a loss per shipment of EUR 5-150.

3.8.

The study nevertheless concludes that a financial break-even point may be found on long distances and quotes, not counting support measures — 595 km for rail/road, 266 km for inland waterways/road and 736 km for short sea shipping/road.

3.9.

In particular, the study deplores the frequent absence of track and tracing facilities and problems and the fact that it is impossible to use documents in electronic form.

3.10.

An impact assessment of the 2017 legislative proposal concerning the Directive shows an overall additional cost for intermodal transport solutions of almost 60 %, mainly due to implementation, delays, transaction costs, etc. (6).

3.11.

Clearly, therefore, measures need to be taken to make multimodal freight transport competitive in its own right and to resolve the problems set out above, to achieve efficient and seamless multimodal freight transport flows at the same cost as unimodal transport.

3.12.

In this context it may also be pointed out that rail needs to adapt better to an open market context and remedy problems due to lack of punctuality, reliability, predictability and flexibility, which obviously have a negative effect on multimodal solutions where rail is involved.

3.13.

Regarding inland waterways transport, improvements seems to be needed with respect to cross-border transport capacity.

3.14.

Bottlenecks due to a lack of capacity in multimodal terminals and logistics hubs cause further problems. The Commission Staff Working Paper accompanying the SSM Strategy (7) estimates that distances over 300 km between terminals, such as in Finland, for instance, and in parts of Sweden, are too long, since they limit the possibility of short road legs of about 150 km. While recognising the vital importance of adequate terminal capacity, in particular along the TEN-T Core Network Corridors, it must nevertheless be borne in mind that distance between terminals must also be linked to the transport volumes in a region and to differences in the density of the network in different parts of Europe.

3.15.

Coordination between adjacent Member States of terminal planning in border regions is, on the other hand, essential as a matter of resource efficiency.

3.16.

It is worth noting in this context that a recent study (8) analysing the effects of cabotage restrictions on combined transport road legs concluded that use of ‘combi-cabotage’ is fairly frequent, due to problems with driver availability and flexibility and cost level differences, and that restrictions on this kind of cabotage may therefore cause certain immediate negative effects for those concerned, including a reverse shift to unimodal road transport and a reduction in rail freight services, whereas in the long term terminal operators believe that improved terminal productivity and services would compensate for possible transport cost increases.

3.17.

It is also important to consider the consistency of regulations regarding, for instance, handling of dangerous goods between different modes, and that other practical and regulatory issues that may cause difficulties in the interface between modes or in transport between Member States are resolved.

3.18.

A number of the problems indicated above may be resolved by smart digital solutions. Examples of this are track and tracing possibilities and other digital solutions facilitating the effective management of multimodal transport flows.

3.19.

Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 on electronic freight transport information will facilitate the exchange of regulatory information between operators and authorities on digital platforms as of August 2024 and resolve at least part of the issue of standard documentation and electronic exchange of documents described above.

3.20.

Hence, there appear to be possibilities for resolving most of the problems set out above that make it difficult for multimodal freight to flourish.

3.21.

For that to happen, however, adequate terminal infrastructure needs to be provided. As a matter of resource efficiency, it would also be useful for Member States to agree to collaborate on the planning of terminal infrastructure in border regions.

3.22.

The EESC recommends, with regard to public debt, exempting public investment in multimodal infrastructure from the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) beyond the COVID-19 crisis.

3.23.

As has already been pointed out, more market-focused behaviour is needed on the part of railways and terminal inland waterways in particular.

3.24.

If the problems set out above are adequately resolved, multimodal transport will be able to play its full part in the transport system, without dedicated support measures.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on electronic freight transport information (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 33).

(2)  Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (OJ L 368, 17.12.1992, p. 38).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 17).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72).

(5)  TRT (2017) — Gathering additional data on EU combined transport — Final report.

(6)  Commission Staff Working Document, Impact assessment (SWD(2017) 362).

(7)  SWD(2020) 331.

(8)  Mobility Package 1 — Data gathering an analysis of the impacts of cabotage restrictions on combined transport road legs TRT Transporti e Territorio SRL.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Exploiting the economic and social opportunities of digitalisation and improving the digital transformation of the economy, especially SMEs, focusing on human-centred artificial intelligence and data

(Exploratory opinion)

(2021/C 374/02)

Rapporteur:

Antje GERSTEIN

Referral	Slovenian Presidency, 19.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	15.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	217/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

While we have learned in the current pandemic that remote working, home office and flexible working schemes will — at least to a certain degree — remain the ‘New Normal’ we also need to understand that digital business models will increasingly shape our world of work. These models need to be designed in a people- and values-oriented way. In a broader societal sense, the challenge is to guarantee the digital inclusion of particularly vulnerable groups.

1.2.

The benefits of a completed Digital Single Market in the EU are forecast to contribute EUR 415 billion a year to the EU’s economic output. While the digital transformation entails significant opportunities for companies across the EU, many enterprises not only face a huge degree of legal uncertainty in their cross-border activities, but are also at significant risk of falling behind due to lack of access or investment resources, as well as to a lack of skills, which applies generally to many SMEs and affects microenterprises in particular.

1.3.

One of the keys to the success of a European Digital Single Market will be openness to technology in the regulation of new digital business models and applications such as artificial intelligence (AI) and access to innovation funding so that SMEs can benefit from the advantages of such new digital applications. The EESC has conducted a study on AI in SMEs which can provide useful insights (1).

1.4.

The EESC has been at the forefront of the debate on AI since its first AI opinion in 2017, and has published a number of opinions on the subject over the past couple of years. The EESC is currently in the process of drafting its formal opinion on the European Commission’s proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AIA proposal’). This opinion will be presented to the EESC plenary in September, and, among other things, will address in particular the definition of AI, as this is an important element of the AIA proposal.

2.   Background

2.1.

Considering its envisaged Presidency priorities, the upcoming Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU has drawn up proposals, for which the Committee was requested, by letter of 18 March 2021, to provide exploratory opinions. These areas of EU policy are of particular importance to the Presidency.

2.2.

The present opinion is thus a response to the request by the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU to prepare an exploratory opinion on the economic and social opportunities of digitalisation.

2.3.

This exploratory opinion summarises several topics related to digitalisation that are covered by recent or ongoing EESC opinions. It responds to four questions posed by the Presidency, relating to the Data Governance Act, the Digital Services Act and the Artificial Intelligence Act. All other relevant information on these topics can be found in the corresponding EESC opinions (2).

3.   General comments

3.1.

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted both the EU’s digital lag and its enormous potential. Now more than ever, we need to understand that the EU needs a strong Digital Single Market. This entails strengthening its capacities in areas such as cloud computing, 5G, and the secure use of data. In order to keep pace with the global players USA and China, it is necessary to invest in a strong digital Europe.

3.2.

The benefits of a completed Digital Single Market in the EU are forecast to contribute EUR 415 billion a year to the EU’s economic output. Predictive maintenance, digital platforms and quantum computing are just three examples of how digital technologies will have a significant impact on the digitalisation of the European economy. While the digital transformation entails significant opportunities for companies across the EU, many enterprises not only face a huge degree of legal uncertainty in their cross-border activities, but are also at significant risk of falling behind due to lack of access or investment resources, as well as to a lack of skills, which applies generally to many SMEs and affects microenterprises in particular.

3.3.

While we have learned in the current pandemic that remote working, home office and flexible working schemes will — at least to a certain degree — remain the ‘New Normal’ we also need to understand that digital business models will increasingly shape our world of work. These models need to be designed in a people- and values-oriented way.

3.4.

In a post-pandemic economy we need to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises in certain particularly hard hit sectors (service sectors, such as retail and tourism), do not lose ground because investment needs are too high (and savings are exhausted after more than a year in a pandemic situation). These companies need special support for the digital transformation and the further development of business models, which needs to be reflected in the national recovery programmes linked to the EU Recovery Fund. The European Commission needs to take a coordinating role in order to avoid fragmentation between different European funds and make sure that activities and projects in this particular field (digital transformation for SMEs) are streamlined.

3.5.

The political framework must be appropriate, to ensure that SMEs can take advantage of the opportunities presented by digitalisation. Regulation should only be considered in cases where an undesirable development can clearly be foreseen. Innovation and new business models need a certain space to develop. Overly hasty or strict European regulations put European companies, particularly SMEs, at a disadvantage compared to internationally active corporations in the rest of the world.

3.6.

In certain branches however, particularly in the service sector (i.e. retail, tourism, catering), there is an urgent need for a regulatory framework that helps combat disinformation in the digital space and makes it possible to take action for instance against fake reviews that can be extremely harmful to businesses. The EESC elaborated on these issues, which are particularly prevalent on digital platforms, in its very recent opinion on the Digital Services Act (DSA) (3).

3.7.

The advancing technical development and digital transformation of the economy also entails certain risks that must be kept in mind in order to fully exploit their potential. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that, along with technological progress and digitalisation, mechanisms are ensured to counteract the digital exclusion of particularly vulnerable groups.

3.8.

The EESC has been at the forefront of the debate on AI since its first AI opinion in 2017 (4), and has published a number of opinions on the subject over the past couple of years (5). The EESC has been advocating a ‘human-in-command’ approach to AI, where humans both remain in command of AI in a technical sense, and retain the ability to decide if, when and how to use it in our society at large. The EESC has welcomed the European AI Strategy that was published in 2018, the Commission’s communication on the ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, and its endorsement of the 7 requirements for trustworthy AI. Furthermore, the EESC has drawn attention to the impact of AI on jobs, the importance of finding the right balance between regulation, self-regulation and ethical guidance, and the impact of AI on consumers, among other elements.

3.9.

The EESC is currently in the process of drafting its formal opinion on the European Commission’s proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AIA Proposal’) (6); this opinion will be presented to the EESC plenary in September. The EESC cannot provide its formal position on the AIA as yet, but it can offer some reflections on the specific question posed by the Slovenian Presidency on the definition of AI set out in the AIA Proposal.

3.10.

With regard to the workplace, as a basic principle in the age of digitalisation, decent work must be guaranteed for all employees. In companies, employees and their representatives must be involved at an early stage in the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) that directly affects employees, and be involved in determining how the AI in question is to be used. Employees must be trained for the new jobs in the digital world of work with foresight and in good time.

4.   Specific comments

4.1.

The Presidency considers artificial intelligence to be the most important aspect of digitalisation. Other particularly important issues include the integration of advanced technologies into society, and transition to a gigabit society. With emerging technologies such as AI and the data economy, the EU can recover rapidly from the crisis and become the world’s leading digital society.

4.2.

The Presidency asked the EESC to reply to four specific questions: — The Data Governance Act introduces new business models, such as data sharing service providers, which will encourage the use of data. What is the EESC’s view on the economic effects of such services? — The Data Governance Act introduces data altruism organisations, which will facilitate the re-use of data made available by natural and legal persons. This will also enable the provision of new services, including the collection of data produced by natural persons for objectives of general interest. What is the EESC’s view in this regard? — What is the EESC’s position on the proposal for an appropriate definition of artificial intelligence (included in the Artificial Intelligence Act adopted in April 2021)? — What is the EESC’s view on the Digital Services Act?

4.3.

The Data Governance Act introduces new business models, such as data sharing service providers, which will encourage the use of data. What is the EESC’s view on the economic effects of such services? (7)

4.3.1.

The EESC believes that the Data Governance Act is appropriate and necessary given that the processing, storage and sharing of digital data are becoming increasingly important both for the economy and for social and civic reasons: individuals, administrations and businesses are subject to a complex, interlinked regulatory framework.

4.3.2.

The EESC considers recognising the usefulness of a cooperative model for establishing data management and exchange and as a very useful tool for neutral shared data management. To this end, it encourages the Commission and the Member States to support SMEs in order to take initiatives to develop mutual organisations for the management and exchange of data.

4.3.3.

Cooperatives and other structures based on cooperation would seem particularly well suited for managing intermediary activities and data exchange or sharing between citizens (workers, consumers, entrepreneurs) and companies. Cooperatives in particular would enable the data management interests of the data subjects and the cooperative data holder — which in this case would be owned by the same data subjects — to coincide, and thus such structures would allow for participatory governance shared between citizens, companies and entrepreneurs which both provide and use the data. This mechanism could support the climate of trust and openness which is a prerequisite for good data governance in the EU’s single digital market.

4.4.

The Data Governance Act introduces data altruism organisations, which will facilitate the re-use of data made available by natural and legal persons. This will also enable the provision of new services, including the collection of data produced by natural persons for objectives of general interest. What is the EESC’s view in this regard? (8)

4.4.1.

The EESC welcomes the proposal to lay down a regulation for organisations dealing with ‘altruistic data’ management. It supports the proposal’s stipulation that these organisations should be legal entities operating on a not-for-profit basis and in the general interest, and above all that they should be autonomous and independent, particularly from other organisations pursuing commercial or for-profit data management objectives.

4.4.2.

Such provisos and the establishment of a public register of altruistic data organisations would meet the need to ensure transparency and protect the rights and interests of the individuals and businesses which are the object of the altruistic exchange of data. This would increase the trust of all parties involved.

4.5.

What is the EESC’s position on the proposal for an appropriate definition of artificial intelligence (included in the Artificial Intelligence Act adopted in April 2021)?

4.5.1.

The EESC welcomes the European Commission’s clear message in its recent legislative proposal for AI, that fundamental rights and European values are at the core of Europe’s approach to AI. Many of the EESC’s recommendations over the past couple of years found their way into this proposal.

4.5.2.

The EESC is currently working on a separate opinion in response to the proposal, in which it will address in particular the definition of AI as set out in the proposal, as it is an important element of the AIA proposal.

4.5.3.

As an initial remark, the EESC stresses that AI remains an essentially contested concept, as there is no universally accepted definition. One complicating factor is that legal definitions differ from purely scientific definitions, in that they should meet a number of requirements including inclusiveness, precision, comprehensiveness, practicability and permanence), some of which are legally binding and some of which are considered good regulatory practice.

4.5.4.

On the one hand the AIA proposal looks not only at the technology itself, but also at what is used for and how it is used. On the other hand, it contains a specific definition of AI including a list of AI techniques that fall within the scope of the regulation. As such, the AIA proposal appears to hinge on two thoughts. Whether this slightly ambivalent approach will be adequate to appropriately address the specific challenges of AI and foster its opportunities will be discussed in more detail in the upcoming EESC opinion on the AIA proposal.

4.6.

What is the EESC’s view on the Digital Services Act? (9)

4.6.1.

The EESC welcomes the proposal for a single market for Digital Services at a time when new and innovative information society digital services have emerged, changing the daily lives of EU citizens and shaping and transforming how they communicate, connect, consume and do business.

4.6.2.

The EESC supports the Commission’s efforts to prevent the internal market being fragmented by a proliferation of national rules and regulations and calls for a clear statement regarding the exhaustive nature of the Digital Services Act. This is an opportunity to establish global standards for the digital markets that can lead Europe into this new era, ensuring a high level of consumer safety and protection online.

4.6.3.

The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to define a reasonable schedule for setting up the discussion and inclusive public consultation and implementing the regulation and strategy. It is fundamental for social partners and civil society organisations to play a role in this process in order to achieve a level playing field for all players.

4.6.4.

The EESC welcomes the greater transparency for recommender systems and advertising, ensuring that consumers get only the advertising they want.

4.6.5.

The EESC notes that there are many shortcomings with regard to the country of origin principle and calls for the careful consideration of alternative methods, such as the country of destination principle, especially in tax, labour and consumer issues unless there is a stronger regulation on the EU level in order to ensure fair competition and the highest possible level of consumer protection.

4.6.6.

The EESC calls for an adequate framework to be developed to allow companies to assert the fairness, reliability and security of their artificial intelligence systems, taking into account the highest possible level of consumer and worker protection.

4.6.7.

The exemption of liability for hosting should only cease to apply when it comes to content that is clearly illegal or that has been established by a court decision as illegal. The EESC recommends establishing a positive liability regime for online marketplaces to be applied in certain circumstances.

4.6.8.

The EESC draws attention to the huge task of achieving proper coordination between all relevant instruments and initiatives in the context of a wider regulatory approach to the platform economy. A proper overview is needed of how these different perspectives affecting the DSA can be integrated.

4.6.9.

For the EESC taxation (10), data governance, employment status, working conditions and consumer protection, are significant factors for the, sometimes unfair, competition in the digital economies which deserve special attention.

---

(1)  Study ‘Boosting the use of Artificial Intelligence in Europe’s micro, small and medium-sized enterprises’.

(2)  Data Governance Act (OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 38); Digital Services Act (OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 70); Artificial Intelligence Act.

(3)  Digital Services Act.

(4)  OJ C 288, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

(5)  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 1; OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 51; OJ C 240, 16.7.2019, p. 51; OJ C 47, 11.2.2020, p. 64; OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 87.

(6)  Artificial Intelligence Act.

(7)  Data Governance Act.

(8)  Data Governance Act.

(9)  Digital Services Act.

(10)  OJ C 367, 10.10.2018, p. 73.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Upgrading inclusive, secure and trustworthy digitalisation for all’

(Exploratory opinion)

(2021/C 374/03)

Rapporteur:	Philip VON BROCKDORFF
Co-rapporteur:	Violeta JELIĆ

Referral	Slovenian Presidency, 19.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	15.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	221/0/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC recommends the swift adoption of an inclusive EU digital government policy, building on the eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020, the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment, the Berlin Declaration on Digital Society and value-based digital government. (1) The Council conclusions recognise that public administrations have the added responsibility for ensuring citizens are treated equally and are entitled to the same rights of access to digital government.

1.2.

The EESC recommends that in pursuing inclusivity, governments put in place comprehensive strategies, supporting measures and legislation that is adequate and proportionate, to ensure the interoperability, quality, human-centricity, transparency, security, safety and the accessibility of digital public services and products, as well as optimal access to health, education and economic and cultural opportunities. National, regional and local governments need to digitalise as quickly as possible and accelerate the implementation of new digital infrastructures, including 5G.

1.3.

The EESC recognises that huge investment is needed on the part of governments in order to achieve inclusivity. Moreover, it is presumed that, in Member States’ recovery and resilience plans, inclusivity will feature very prominently in the planned digital transformation, tapping into the EU’s albeit limited Just Transition Fund as part of Next Generation EU, as well as the Digital Europe Programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds (particularly the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)).

1.4.

The EESC recognises that digitalisation can provide both opportunities and threats for businesses. Hence the need for governments to provide adequate financial support, including through EU funds to businesses of all sizes, especially SMEs. This will help them to adapt successfully to the transition.

1.5.

The EESC also recommends that work practices such as remote working be implemented with full consideration for work-life balance. Social dialogue, support to SMEs and social economy enterprises, and respect for workers’ rights, including collective bargaining, are paramount to ensuring a smooth transition.

1.6.

The EESC recommends that Member States work more closely together on the development and validation of digital solutions, leading to a network for sharing best practices.

1.7.

The EESC also recommends an EU-wide review of government policies and measures to engage the relevant stakeholders in proposing effective measures based on social justice. This should include policies and financial resources with the aim of facilitating the digital transformation. The EESC also highlights the need to significantly increase enrolment rates in STEM-related fields of education over the coming years.

1.8.

The EESC recommends strengthening the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), as a pre-condition for a digital transformation that is trustworthy and where consumers can make choices in a truly open and competitive market. In the DSA, responsibilities and liabilities for platforms should be made clearer and better enforceable than currently proposed. In the DMA, the use of ‘dark patterns’ and other ‘non-neutral’ choice architecture, which surreptitiously influence consumers’ behaviour, should be outlawed.

1.9.

Finally, the EESC recognises that digitalisation and the greening of EU economies and the EU’s carbon neutrality targets in particular, go hand in hand. Going ‘digital and green’ is of vital importance, but again the EESC emphasises that equity and social dialogue should always be the guiding principles for implementing digital and green technologies.

2.   General comments

2.1.

European societies are moving online. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the need for society to digitalise, as digital channels have often during lockdowns been the only channels available for citizens and businesses.

2.2.

On their part, many business owners recognise the fact that it is necessary to gravitate towards the digital world to ensure the long-term success of their businesses. Equally, workers and the public need to understand what digitalisation is all about, how it affects their working and daily lives as members of a business organisation or public sector entity, or simply as members of a community. As is stipulated in the New Consumer Agenda, European consumers should be at the core of digital transitions with consumers being afforded adequate protection and empowerment in the process of change.

2.3.

As for governments across the EU, swift digitalisation is inevitable and this can only be made possible through public spending on digital infrastructure. Public authorities at local, regional, national and European level need to develop into flexible, resilient and innovative organisations, seizing the benefits of the digital transformation and emerging technologies and advanced capabilities to provide inclusive, seamless, convenient, transparent, secure and trusted human-centric digital services to citizens and businesses.

2.4.

Public administrations, businesses, workers and the general public need to adapt (while being provided with support and, where necessary, analogue solutions as an alternative) to the tech-centric world we are living in, and it is important to understand what the difference is between the digitisation, digitalisation and digital transformation.

2.5.

Digitisation refers to the digital version of physical or analogue items and it plays an important role in the context of businesses and governments, and the number of hours worked. The process of digitisation sets off a chain of events that can drastically optimise the workflow of any business and government, resulting in automated business and government processes. This represents a challenge to workers and civil servants alike.

2.6.

While most businesses and governments use basic methods of digitisation in their everyday processes, there is so much more that can be done to apply digitisation effectively. The challenge here is building trust among workers, civil servants and the general public if they are to adapt successfully to new digitised workflows and processes. In the workplace, this transition requires social dialogue, as well as respect for collective bargaining. The transition can deeply affect workers’ lives and hence the need to provide information and hold consultations at an early stage of the process. Equally, the public needs to be made aware of the unintended consequences of the transformation.

2.7.

Whereas digitisation appears to increase efficiency in businesses and governments (the potential benefits have always been overestimated), there is always a cost, as is the case when workers or civil servants are made redundant, or when the public, especially older people and persons with disabilities, do not adapt quickly enough or at all to digitisation. Hence the relevance of making digitalisation accessible to all regardless of age, gender, socioeconomic status and disability. Similarly, SMEs may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they cannot keep up with the pace of digitisation in their industry, particularly if such processes require a high upfront initial cost.

2.8.

Digitalisation is the second term that businesses, workers and the general public need to understand. It encompasses a vast range of elements. Digitalisation helps transform how businesses operate through the application of digital technologies. This affects business models, communication flows within and external to the business concerned, and indeed the entire value chain.

2.9.

Digitalisation opens new windows of opportunity for businesses by creating digital-based revenue streams that were never available in the past. From social media integration to the ability to offer subscription-based data services to clients, having custom-built business applications may be the key to innovation, growth and expansion for businesses in the future. New digital technologies, especially those denoted by the acronym SMACIT (social, mobile, analytical, cloud and Internet of Things), are a great opportunity for SMEs because these technologies for large and old organisations represent opportunities and existential threats simultaneously.

2.10.

Years of research into the outcomes of digital transformations have shown that the success rate of these efforts is consistently low: less than 30 percent of planned outcomes. Recent McKinsey results on a sample of 263 respondents show that only 16 percent of respondents said the digital transformations of their organisations had successfully improved performance. These challenges are also faced by ‘smart industries’ such as high technology, media and telecommunications, among which the rate of successful outcomes does not exceed 26 percent. On the other hand, in organisations with fewer than 100 employees, respondents are 2,7 times more likely to boast of a more successful digital transformation than is the case in large organisations with more than 50 000 employees.

2.11.

Irrespective of size, however, businesses that are still rooted in more traditional processes risk losing competiveness and it is wrong to assume a priori that all businesses can successfully achieve digitalisation. The same holds true for workers, especially those who work in traditional activities.

2.12.

The transition to digitalisation may help drive business efficiency and open up new opportunities for businesses to generate income, besides helping to reduce the carbon footprint. It may also support increased mobility in the labour market, enhance productivity and flexibility at the workplace and enable work-life integration when workers work remotely from home, as has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.13.

The reality, however, may be very different and questions need to be asked as to whether digitalisation and remote working in particular has actually resulted in a better work-life balance. Though many workers favour remote working, it has often been implemented haphazardly, impacting working conditions, especially in the case of working mothers and workers with inadequate digital skills. Hence it is legitimate to ask whether digitalisation has blurred the boundaries of private and professional life. Whereas digitalisation may boost workers’ and business performance, the implications for family life and possibly health may be altogether a different story. Artificial intelligence tools, hurriedly applied during the pandemic, have tended to increase stress and health and safety risks among workers.

2.14.

There is also an increasing tendency for individuals not to ‘disconnect’ from digital work processes. As remote working becomes the norm in businesses and public services, it is vitally important that it takes place in the context of social dialogue and collective bargaining. The right to disconnect also needs to be recognised through an EU-wide instrument.

2.15.

The final aspect of digitalisation affects not only business owners, but society in general. Over the past three decades, and most noticeably in the last 10 years, there has been a dramatic shift towards the adoption of digital technologies in all social settings and human activities. This has essentially developed what are known as ‘digital customers’, with increasing numbers of people becoming reliant on digitalisation in practically all aspects of their daily lives. Digitalisation is slowly becoming the basis for the way that organisations of all shapes and sizes connect with customers but it would be wrong to assume that all persons, whatever their age, are able to keep up with new digital developments.

2.16.

This brings us to the distinction between digitalisation and digital transformation. The latter is all about the transformation of business and social operations into elements of the digital world, as we have all experienced in countless ways during the pandemic, with for instance increased remote working.

3.   Specific comments

3.1.

The ongoing digitalisation of our society and economy will only continue to grow and deepen, and whereas digitalisation promises further social and economic advantages, there are also concerns about its divisive impact on society and whether an increasing number of people are actually digitally dexterous. On paper, the transformative technologies appear to boost social inclusion rather than widening gaps between the digitally dexterous and the disadvantaged, but again the reality on the ground may be somewhat different. Many people are simply not managing to adapt to the rapid pace of the digital transformation. This applies especially to older people, persons with disabilities, and people living in rural and remote regions.

3.2.

Whereas digitalisation for all is necessary to enhance efficiency and productivity, as well as to accelerate socioeconomic development in a post-pandemic world, the digital transformation has to be carried out the right way. By this we mean that the policy on digital transformation, both for the public and the private sector, must be inclusive, avoiding at all costs the exclusion of groups within society such as older people, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, persons with disabilities, and those in rural areas.

3.3.

To achieve inclusivity, governments need to put in place comprehensive strategies and supporting measures to ensure the interoperability, quality, human-centricity, transparency, security, safety, and accessibility of digital public services and products, as well as optimal access to health, education and economic and cultural opportunities. In this context, digital tools can be used by public administrations to engage citizens in the creation of digital public services, ensuring that such services meet the needs and preferences of the citizens that use them.

3.4.

Above all, achieving inclusivity requires huge investment on the part of governments and it is presumed that, in Member States’ recovery and resilience plans, inclusivity will feature very prominently in the planned digital transformation, tapping into the EU’s Just Transition Fund as part of Next Generation EU, as well as the Digital Europe Programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds (particularity ERDF and ESF+). However, in the case of the Just Transition Fund, reservations have been expressed about its adequacy to meet the transition challenges of both digitalisation and climate change (2). National, regional and local governments also need to digitalise and to accelerate the implementation of new digital infrastructures, including 5G.

3.5.

The wave of digital transformation is unprecedented in terms of speed, scope and scale. To expect all businesses, SMEs and social economy enterprises to adapt quickly and successfully to this unprecedented wave of change is not realistic. The transformation may generate as many victims as successes unless businesses are allowed time to adapt and are supported by relevant measures.

3.6.

Such measures should include providing businesses with the infrastructure necessary to support the digital transformation and the accompanying legislative framework that is proportionate and fit for purpose. Also relevant is the need for Member States to work closely on the development and validation of digital solutions leading to a network for sharing best practice. Other measures could include tax credits to further support the investment required by businesses in the digital transformation of their operations and work processes.

3.7.

Markets where consumers can trust, be free of manipulation and make choices in a truly open and competitive environment are a pre-condition for trustworthy digitalisation. This is often not the case, if we look at how concentrated certain markets are (social media, communications apps, search, OS, etc.) and how often consumer rights are being violated. The EESC highlighted in its opinion on the New Consumer Agenda (INT/922 (3)) that consumer protection rules also need to be adapted to the digitalised world. The new challenges posed by emerging digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT) and robotics call for a strengthening of current protection.

3.8.

A further pre-condition for achieving the desired outcomes of the digital transformation is the preparation of business of all sizes, including social economy enterprises, for the digital transformation. This includes support from eligible financial resources and training programmes for small business owners and staff to get acquainted with the latest technologies and the opportunities arising therefrom. Secondly, all aspects of introducing this profound change need to be communicated at all levels in the workplace. Thirdly, it also necessary to raise awareness about the need to introduce new ways of working, behaving and communicating in line with the unprecedented change in organisational culture.

3.9.

The digital transformation has led to a significant increase in demand for digital skills across practically all industries, from manufacturing to financial services and beyond, with demand only set to increase further in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is imperative that governments and businesses continue to invest in education and training for all, including vocational education, to ensure that the digital transformation occurs smoothly and with the right talent in place to enable individuals and businesses to reap the benefits of this transition. This should also include education on participating in digital platforms.

3.10.

As the digital transformation gathers pace, this needs to be accompanied by a significant increase enrolment rates in STEM-related fields of education over the coming years. Developing STEM skills is necessary to support the transformation, to bridge the gender gap, and to create the next generation of innovators. STEM education will help boost the economy and create jobs.

3.11.

The digital transformation has resulted in increased work intensification and job insecurity, thereby posing serious challenges for workers’ protection, representation and fair treatment. The ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work, adopted in 2019, proposed a human-centred approach to new technology in the world of work. However, the challenge is how to translate this into effective policies, legislation and measures that protect workers and allow for adequate representation. This is why an EU-wide review of policies (and quite possibly legislation that is proportionate and fit for purpose) and measures is deemed necessary, not only for policy coherence purposes but also to engage the relevant stakeholders in crafting policy that is based on the fundamental objective of achieving social justice.

3.12.

Finally, any discussion on digitalisation for all cannot ignore its connection with the greening of EU economies and the EU’s carbon neutrality targets, as well the emphasis being placed in the Recovery and Resilience Plans on initiatives that support these targets.

3.13.

‘Digital and green’ should not only go hand in hand, they are essential to promoting innovation across the EU. Examples include blockchain technologies to optimise the supply chain and enhance efficiency, which would assist in reducing resource consumption while keeping track of components, products and materials, thus contributing to the circular economy. In addition, digital technologies can help neutralise or offset emissions that are technically challenging or expensive. Going ‘digital and green’ is of vital importance, but as has been stressed in this opinion, fairness in society should always be the guiding principle for its implementation. Put differently, the benefits of digital transformation in, for instance, application of the latest technologies used to deliver smart, seamless and unobtrusive services in the areas of energy, security, mobility, wellness and community which help achieve carbon neutrality, should be accessible to all.

3.14.

We recognise that this is not easily achievable but it is precisely why digitalisation plans connected with the greening of EU economies should involve a multi-stakeholder consultation process and analysis, based on social dialogue and collective bargaining, where the focus is on medium- and long-term targets that effectively make a difference to Europeans’ lives.

---

(1)  This is in line with the Council Conclusions on Shaping Europe’s Digital Future (9 June 2020), in which the Council ‘calls on the Commission to propose a reinforced EU digital government policy, bearing in mind the e-inclusion of all citizens and private actors, to ensure coordination and support for the digital transformation of public administrations in all EU Member States, including interoperability and common standards for secure and borderless public sector data flows and services’.

(2)  https://www.epsu.org/article/proposed-transition-fund-really-just

(3)  OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 45.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Adult learning

(Exploratory opinion at the request of the Slovenian Presidency)

(2021/C 374/04)

Rapporteur:

Tatjana BABRAUSKIENĖ

Request by the Slovenian Presidency of the Council	Letter, 19.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Bureau decision	23.3.2021
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	21.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	8.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	233/3/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC appreciates the increased focus on Adult Learning (AL), training and skills development reiterated in the recent European Commission (EC) initiatives, mainly in the European Skills Agenda. The EESC calls for immediate well-targeted policy measures to be designed and implemented, accompanied by incentives to support Member States (MS) as already pointed out in EESC opinion on ‘Supportive education systems to avoid skills mismatches — what transition is needed?’ (1).

1.2.

The EESC points out that the rapid invention and spread of new technologies need to be accompanied by effective upskilling and reskilling. The EESC underlines that the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on Europe’s society and economy further highlighted the importance of effective education and training policies and high-quality jobs in supporting a sustainable and just social and economic recovery and resilience, which is crucial in helping Europe overcome the consequences of the pandemic. Investment in AL and skills development can play a crucial role in economic recovery and a social Europe.

1.3.

The EESC recommends that the European Commission and the Member States enhance AL policies by taking a holistic view and improving its accessibility, quality and inclusiveness while respecting national competences and the principle of subsidiarity. The EESC calls for AL policies to be improved in a broad sense, taking into consideration effective strategies for meeting the new skills requirements, tailored to local needs. The EESC underlines the importance of improving pedagogy and andragogy in AL with quality initial education, continuous professional development and enhanced, fair working conditions and a supportive working environment for AL educators.

1.4.

The EESC stresses that AL is essential for helping adults improve and acquire citizenship skills and take an active role in society. Lifelong learning should become a lifestyle for all to overcome disparities and inequalities in society and it should also become a reality at the workplace. In this respect, the use of ‘skills’ is more than important in its broader meaning and understanding concerning the workplace with social and personal life as a holistic perception of the skills development process.

1.5.

The EESC underlines the importance of AL and regrets that the EU institutions and several Member States do not consider it a political priority while AL is essential for tapping the full potential of employment and social inclusion and to enable adults to actively participate in the labour market and be democratic citizens. The EESC recommends that MS strengthen the policy, governance and funding to adult learning according to the principles of Unesco’s Four Pillars of Education (2) as: learning to know, to do, to be and to live together. In order to implement SDG 4, there needs to be effective support for civil society to build a partnership on AL provision in informal and non-formal settings and to ensure effective outreach to people.

1.6.

The EESC suggests that the European Commission and the MS set achievable long-term goals and establish a continuous monitoring system for AL participation and high-quality and accessible lifelong learning, including employee training, for each MS, taking into consideration regional differences. This system should aim to ensure that everyone has the knowledge, skills, competencies and attitude needed for Europe to establish a just, cohesive, sustainable, digital and wealthy society. It is also important to improve research and skills intelligence at sectoral and national level on skills needs and skills forecasts to update AL for adults facing transitions and to improve data on Member States’ investment in AL and to ensure frequent monitoring and data collection on learning and training courses obtained by employees. Social partners and civil society should be actively involved in improving national skills intelligence, including analysing, forecasting and anticipating skills needs.

1.7.

Member States need to step up implementation of the Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults (3) to ensure that all low-skilled and low-qualified adults develop their basic skills and be guided and motivated to participate in training to improve their life and employability. To ensure that 80 % of adults have basic digital skills, the EESC calls on the European Commission and the MS to support adults in the acquisition of a minimum of basic digital skills for free to support their skills acquisition for work and in daily life.

1.8.

The EESC points out that all adults, irrespective of their qualifications and socioeconomic background, need support to access quality and inclusive lifelong learning and to have their skills and competencies validated. Public employment services should increase and facilitate better access to fair and free guidance and counselling and should ensure that all adults are informed about lifelong learning possibilities and that workers are made aware of how jobs will change and the skills needed for new jobs and tasks.

1.9.

The EESC asks the European Commission and the MS to launch information and awareness campaigns with the social partners for adults and workers affected by the green and digital transition to help the workforce acquire the skills needed. The EC should organise yearly events following the example of the VET Skills Week to inform and motivate adults about adult and further learning and to assist national policies.

1.10.

The EESC underlines the importance of subsidiarity concerning AL policies to respect the role of national and sectoral social partners in identifying skills requirements and in managing national systems to finance and ensure access to AL and employee training. The EESC notes that the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) should ensure that all companies have the right and the ability to set up skills strategies for innovation needs and to support the just transition of workers and quality apprenticeships for young people and adults in the context of the green and digital transition. The Council’s Employment Guidelines (4) (2020) make a clear distinction between ensuring rights/entitlements to training and providing individual learning accounts as one of the possible tools, allowing the countries to decide how to ensure such entitlements. Individual learning accounts are tools that could ensure the right/entitlement to training. All adults and workers should have the right — in accordance with collective agreements and national legislations — to access quality employee training, paid educational leave, qualifications, validation of informal and non-formal learning, and quality-assured and flexible guidance and counselling. The EU Member States need to set up financial mechanisms and tools to facilitate adults’ access — in particular, that of workers — to learning and training, with the involvement of the social partners.

1.11.

The EESC reminds the MS to ensure that all adults, especially those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, have equal access to lifelong learning that will serve their personal or career development interests. Targeted support needs to be provided to NEETs (not in education, employment or training), migrants and refugees, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, as well as to older people to ensure active and healthy ageing. The EESC calls on the European Commission to ensure that the new EU Disability Rights Strategy’s focus on education extends to learners of all ages and focuses on making AL accessible and free for all learners with disabilities and learning difficulties in physically accessible settings, and ensure that training is provided for teachers about how to adapt their lessons and how to make online learning accessible too.

1.12.

The EESC underlines that democratic governance is key for education and training systems, including effective social dialogue and meaningful consultation with civil society organisations, to support skills development in all adults, in particular workers and unemployed people, while meeting the EU targets on participation in AL as defined by the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) Action Plan, the Council Recommendation on VET and the Osnabrück Declaration, and to contribute to the upcoming Council Resolution on an agenda for AL. The EESC points out that social dialogue and interaction between trade unions and employers is instrumental in increasing access to adult learning for all, promoting flexibility and guidance, aligning training with labour market needs, ensuring training quality and financing training.

1.13.

The EESC highlights that all adults, especially workers, must have better access to updated information on recognition and validation procedures. This can be achieved by effectively implementing the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (5) and by ensuring that validation systems receive sufficient public funding in every EU country. By ensuring that training is recognised, employers and unions can support the increase of the workers’ qualification levels and can contribute to their career development and a just transition in the labour market. Social partners’ involvement in the governance of AL, employee training and paid educational leave systems is essential, including promoting joint actions among the social partners.

1.14.

The EESC underlines that upskilling and reskilling are of the utmost importance in supporting the green and digital transitions of industries and they need to be seen as a social and economic responsibility to ensure inclusive training for quality jobs, and a just transition for all. Forward-looking industrial strategies, including effective skills policies, are needed to support upskilling and reskilling of the workforce. These can help ensure a just and socially fair transition to a climate-neutral economy through balancing the labour market that contributes to inclusive digitalisation and high-quality jobs. Companies need effective support to strengthen and finance their strategies for upskilling and reskilling their workforces to encourage innovation. At the same time, the overall economic and social interest should be respected. Collective agreements should determine access to different types of paid education leave for workers’ personal and professional needs. The EESC reminds the EU Member States to align workers’ access to paid educational leave with ILO Convention 140 on Paid Education Leave as soon as possible through national actions and collective agreements and to ensure, with the support of social partners, that its use is effective.

1.15.

The EESC advocates sustainable national financing for AL, complemented by the effective use of EU funds, including the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), to support economic growth and resilient society in the context of the digital and green transitions of the economy, by ensuring quality and inclusive AL for all, including the unemployed and other people outside of the labour market, paying special attention to making training available and accessible for all workers. This requires a clear commitment at the European and national levels to devote an appropriate share of the available resources to promote the development of systematic and coordinated AL systems as a key part of the national plans.

1.16.

The EESC underlines the importance of ensuring quality, relevance, effectiveness and inclusiveness in AL and training. The EESC suggests encouraging the Member States to ensure that all educational learning and employee training programmes and curricula clearly define the learning outcomes and key competences, and the European Commission should further work on implementing the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning (6) and supporting joint actions among social partners. It is important to improve AL quality assurance systems and further develop the European Commission’s EQAVET Network to apply to adult learning, continuous VET, apprenticeships and employee training. This should take into consideration translating the needs of the economy, employers and workers into AL programmes and curricula.

1.17.

The EESC urges the Member States to involve companies and trade unions to the fullest extent in setting up strategies for skills development for the digital and green transitions of industries. The EESC suggests connecting environmental policies to education policies and setting up national green skills and competency strategies to make every adult aware of climate change, environmental responsibility and sustainable development as part of lifelong learning by appointing national coordinators.

1.18.

The EESC calls on the European Commission and the Member States to strengthen AL policies to make quality and inclusive AL for life skills a right for all adults and to meet and increase the target of 60 % of AL participation per year by addressing skills mismatches and enhancing governance and financing for AL, including employee training. The EESC calls on the European Commission to reinstate open methods of coordination between the relevant ministries dealing with AL in the EU Member States, the social partners and civil society as part of a working group and to ensure that the fruitful work done by previous AL working groups is continued. The EESC also calls for a platform to be set up for national AL coordinators, social partners and stakeholders, separate from EPALE (7), and for these various players to meet regularly as a network.

2.   Background

2.1.

The COVID-19 crisis, demographic changes, the digitalisation of the labour market and the decarbonisation of the economy are triggering enormous changes in jobs and tasks. Even before the pandemic, it was predicted that in 2 out of 5 jobs some tasks would change and that 14 % of jobs would change due to digitalisation (Cedefop). By 2030, up to 20 million jobs could be created worldwide due to the green transition of industries (OECD). Approximately 128 million adults (8) — 46,1 % of Europe’s adult population — need upskilling and reskilling. The effect of digitalisation, robotisation, new economic models such as Industry 4.0 and the circular and sharing economy on new skill requirements call for concerted action to stimulate further adult learning in Europe.

2.2.

The leaders of the EU countries met at the Porto Social Summit on 7 May 2021 to reinforce the EPSR. The measures proposed in the EPSR Action Plan aim to: create ‘more and better jobs’, promote ‘qualifications and equality’, and improve ‘social protection and inclusion’. The leaders set targets for 2030, e.g. at least 60 % of adults should participate in AL every year and 80 % of adults should have at least basic digital skills. These targets relate to the first principle of the EPSR, which stipulates that ‘everyone has the right to quality and inclusive education, training and life-long learning to maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully in society and manage successfully transitions in the labour market’, as well as to the rights mentioned in the fourth principle, including support for training and requalification, especially young people’s access to continued education, apprenticeships and traineeships.

2.3.

The implementation of recent European Commission policy initiatives (9) relating to lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling need to help meet the EPSR’s targets for AL through effective social dialogue with the social partners and consultation with civil society. Following the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/402 (10), AL systems need to be complemented by setting up effective lifelong guidance systems, and advisory and awareness-raising activities, integrating vulnerable groups and introducing effective systems of validation of non-formal and informal learning for all.

3.   General comments

3.1.

Strengthened democratic European and national level governance and tapping social partners’ potential to identify skills needs and contribute to improving labour market inclusion is essential for designing and implementing more accessible and quality AL systems to improve life and social skills for all adults, including raising awareness of sustainable development, environmental responsibility, democratic citizenship, tolerance and European values. It is important to strengthen AL policies in a broad sense and to take into consideration effective strategies for meeting the new skills requirements.

3.2.

Effective social dialogue with the social partners and consultation with civil society is key to ensuring that AL policies are successfully designed and implemented. Social partners play a vital role in defining skills needs and updating qualification profiles as companies and workers experience the evolution of jobs and tasks on a daily basis. Companies and workers must be fully involved in setting up strategies for developing skills for the digital and green transitions of industries.

3.3.

Making AL systems more accessible for all requires strong national strategies and further policy cooperation among the EU countries, in particular among ministries, education social partners and the relevant stakeholders in civil society. It is important to link together EU and national, regional and local policies in order to achieve effective access to AL and employee training and to link together various policy areas so that social, environmental, digitalisation and financial policies can improve AL.

3.4.

The ambitious AL participation target set by the EPSR Action Plan can be achieved if an EU initiative backed by a Council Recommendation encourages governments to ensure better access and sufficient funding for AL and employee training through various financial tools. The EESC refers to its opinion on Sustainable funding for lifelong learning and development of skills, in the context of a shortage of skilled labour (11) and underlines that sustainable public investment in AL and effective private investment in employee training are prerequisites for the success of policy measures for the social and economic inclusion of learners of all ages and support for companies. Therefore, the Recovery Plan, Next Generation EU and other EU funds (e.g. ESF+, Just Transition Funds) must be used efficiently and consistently to support education and training policies within the European Semester.

3.5.

The EESC notes (12) the importance of improving the skills, competencies and attitudes of everyone in Europe in relation to the environment and to address skills needs. The EU Member States need to connect environmental policies to education policies and set up national green skills and competency strategies to make every adult aware of climate change, environmental responsibility and sustainable development as part of lifelong learning and to ensure that workers are also equipped with the green skills and competencies needed for the just transitions of industries.

3.6.

Training support needs to be available to those who are most in need of them, such as low-skilled and atypical workers. Employee training and training outside but financed by companies need to support skills development to meet the needs of companies and workers. To ensure that all workers, regardless of their skill level and contractual situation, have access to upskilling and reskilling, sectoral, national and company-level agreements need to be made to determine training needs and training provisions. Collective agreements need to be concluded to ensure that workers have through various incentives access to AL and to paid educational leave.

3.7.

The EESC refers to Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning (13) and stresses that Member States need to do more to improve the quality of teaching in the adult education sector by enhancing initial education and continuous professional development with the involvement of teachers, by facilitating the mobility of teachers, trainers and other adult education staff, and by ensuring good working conditions and a supportive working environment for AL staff. Effective social dialogue with their trade unions is required so that measures can be agreed on to make the profession more attractive and to improve recruitment and retention.

3.8.

Setting up a European exchange platform for digital materials and courses within the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-27 and European standards on micro-credentials can be useful for enhancing access to and trust in AL courses. Learners need comprehensive information on whether courses lead to full or partial qualifications or to micro-credentials, who validates and ensures the quality of the courses, whether and how they are recognised, and how they could be converted to full qualifications.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 16.

(2)  https://en.unesco.org/themes/education/research-foresight/revisiting-learning

(3)  OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 1.

(4)  Employment Guidelines.

(5)  OJ C 398, 22.12.2012, p. 1.

(6)  OJ C 189, 4.6.2018, p. 1, https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/council-recommendation-on-key-competences-for-lifelong-learning_en

(7)  https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en

(8)  Cedefop: Empowering adults through upskilling and reskilling pathways. Volume 1: adult population with potential for upskilling and reskilling, February 2020.

(9)  These initiatives are the Communication on a European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience, the Council Recommendation of 24 November 2020 on Vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (OJ C 417, 2.12.2020, p. 1), the Communication on Youth Employment Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation, the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on A Bridge to Jobs — Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee, and the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-27.

(10)  Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/402 of 4 March 2021 on an effective active support to employment following the COVID-19 crisis (EASE) (OJ L 80, 8.3.2021, p. 1).

(11)  OJ C 232, 14.7.2020, p. 8.

(12)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2021, p. 1.

(13)  OJ C 372, 20.12.2011, p. 1.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade

(COM(2021) 118 final)

(2021/C 374/05)

Rapporteur:

Gonçalo LOBO XAVIER

Referral	European Commission, 21.4.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	15.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	207/0/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Commission’s plan for the 2030 Digital Compass arrives at a critical moment for the Union and for the entire world. The EESC salutes the initiative and the aim to use digital technologies to improve citizens’ lives, create more jobs and facilitate progress and enhance European competitiveness. The pandemic has emphasised the importance and the possibilities of digital developments, has stressed the need for adjustments and has changed the way we socialise and work. The EU needs to address those challenges in a proper way. Having a strategy, a plan with specific goals and a way to measure progress is essential to turn intentions into results.

1.2.

The EESC believes that digital innovation must always safeguard fundamental rights, ensuring everyone’s health, safety and privacy (protection of personal data). It is crucial that citizens perceive the developments and growth as having a positive impact on the quality of their lives. The effects of new technologies that support our daily life must be good and fairly distributed in order to truly benefit society and the right to health must always prevail and be recognised on the list of fundamental rights of Digital Citizenship.

1.3.

The EESC calls for the need to restore public confidence and to improve cybersecurity and cyber-resilience with ‘security by design’ along the whole digital value chain, to provide people with better choice and control over their data (‘Data Ethics’), and to establish the responsibility of intermediaries to fight illegal and harmful content.

1.4.

The online accessibility of all key European and national public services is a justified objective. Nevertheless, the EESC warns that no one should be left behind and that it is essential to support those who cannot benefit immediately from the digitalisation process. There is still a significant group of citizens that lack the knowledge and skills and even the necessary hardware and software to benefit from these facilities. The EESC calls on the Commission to support those who are in a transition process.

1.5.

The EESC points out the enormous risk of learning disadvantages that can result from unbalanced investment. From children to older people, the effects of digital poverty must be kept in mind and close attention to the real risks is therefore a priority. Investment in infrastructure must be made at the same time as investment in training to reduce gaps.

1.6.

The EESC stresses the need to help people upskill and reskill. This should be done by creating equality of opportunities by boosting public-private partnerships for upskilling and reskilling (both the current workforce and adult learners), promoting a life-long learning attitude for all.

1.7.

The EESC considers the need to modernise education for a digital society. It is essential to drive the digitalisation of education systems by updating educational content to the digital era and to create public-private ecosystems to implement new methodologies of education that are open and accessible to provide the same opportunities to all.

1.8.

Digital developments include risks such as fraud, breaches of privacy and a lack of transparency, which could undermine the goals set out in the document. The EESC believes that the conditions must be created to prevent such risks and to regulate responsibilities at EU level.

1.9.

The EESC stresses the need to consider strategies to deal with the possible job displacements resulting from technological displacement. As stated in previous opinions, it is recognised that AI and robotics will displace and transform jobs, eliminate some and create others. In any event, the EU must ensure that all workers, whether employees, self-employed or bogus self-employed, have access to social protection, in line with Europe’s set of social rights. Social dialogue on these issues, at all levels, must be promoted and bringing obligations and rights into line with the current digital and platform-driven economy must be a priority.

1.10.

The EESC believes that, in order for the digital transition to be managed in an inclusive and socially responsible way and to cope with the loss of jobs, especially in the post-COVID period, one priority must be a European fund, supported mainly by taxing the biggest tech companies, with the aim of benefiting workers who are losing their employment and business due to the digitalisation of the economy, via proper training, upskilling and reskilling.

1.11.

The EESC also calls for a coordinated policy that effectively addresses Europe’s starting point and matches both the technological and the societal shifts that we have seen over the last few years and that have speeded up due to the pandemic: an industrial strategy — including competition policy and sector-specific regulation, namely for secure connectivity, is paramount.

2.   General comments

2.1.

The EESC supports the European Commission’s plan for the 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade, as part of a broader action plan to boost Europe’s economy and social recovery.

2.2.

The COVID-19 crisis has shown a high degree of external dependency regarding technology and data processes, which must be tackled with efficiency and swiftness. Europe’s assets in these areas must be better harnessed and European citizens more closely involved.

2.3.

The EESC stresses the notion that no citizen should be left behind. Digital illiteracy is still high in Europe — 35 % according to the Commission — and the lack of access to digital resources must be mitigated. However, access to human presence in economic and administrative relationships must be guaranteed. It is also important to ensure that the benefits of digitalisation are not reaped only by a few. The Digital Decade must be for the benefit of everyone.

2.4.

European companies, especially SMEs, must be supported in their digitalisation efforts and empowered to compete on a global scale. Where the EU owns or funds computing resources, such as quantum acceleration computers, access to them must be fairly distributed, on the basis of objective criteria.

2.5.

Nevertheless, ambitions and public money alone will not deliver the outcomes we seek. We also need a coordinated policy that effectively addresses Europe’s starting point and matches both the technological and societal shifts that we have seen over the last few years and which have speeded up as a result of the pandemic: an industrial strategy — including competition policy and sector-specific regulation, namely for secure connectivity, is paramount.

2.6.

The EESC welcomes the vision of developing a digital education and innovation ecosystem and highlights the need to leverage the top-tier European science and academic institutions to achieve that goal.

2.7.

There is a need to boost existing public and private cooperation and create more synergies to secure a new Digital Deal based on a governance model that combines social, environmental, and economic aspects, to achieve a long-term sustainable, fair, and inclusive digital transition.

2.8.

The EESC stresses the need to consider strategies to deal with the possible job displacements resulting from technological displacement. As stated in previous opinions (1), it is recognised that AI and robotics will displace and transform jobs, eliminate some and create others. In any event, the EU must ensure that all workers, whether employees, self-employed or bogus self-employed, have access to social protection, in line with Europe’s set of social rights. Social dialogue on these issues, at all levels, must be promoted. Measures to support people who are displaced should be adopted and coordinated, possibly funded by a EU tax on the companies that profit the most in the digital economy.

2.9.

The role of venture capital, the stock markets and private investment in general must not be disregarded. Technological development in Europe will be driven by private companies and the EU will only be able to compete on a global scale if it remains a welcoming place for those investments. All of this must take place with due regard for social standards.

2.10.

Ambitious connectivity targets should go hand in hand with a commitment towards a more favourable regulatory framework supporting private investment in network infrastructure. It will be of key importance to align the EU’s industrial strategy and the vision for European leadership in digital connectivity with competition policy and the regulatory practice for the telecoms sector.

2.11.

The Digital Decade roadmap sets out plans to develop European ‘own cloud infrastructure and capacities’ to prevent data produced in Europe from moving abroad, which is where more than 90 per cent of European data currently goes. Europe must not be naïve and must continue in its fight to become more independent and to keep the data of its citizens, especially sensitive data, within its boundaries. In that regard, the aim pursued in the Digital decade plan to have 10 000 highly secure climate-neutral data-edge and cloud nodes, is a step in the right direction. The GAIA X project must be speeded up and become rapidly operational.

2.12.

The EESC supports the idea of promoting a European Tech sector to reduce dependency on American and Chinese tech giants and to catch up in areas such as 5G deployment, chip-making and data handling, but cautions against the approach of a protectionist data economy in Europe. International partnerships and cooperation should be promoted.

2.13.

To achieve these goals, 20 million technology experts will need to be employed in the relevant areas of work by 2030 — compared to 7,8 million today. In 2019, only 18 % of the 7,8 million ICT workers were women. Diversity in the digital sectors is essential and will help shape the vision of the world and its challenges, namely to reduce risks of bias. The target of achieving a more balanced gender composition must be closely monitored and women’s access to STEM disciplines must be encouraged. Social dialogue should be promoted at all levels (company, industry and national) as it can contribute to this aim. Powerful campaigns should be promoted in the Member States, starting in primary schools, to encourage young girls to choose scientific and technological disciplines. The digital divide is a major challenge. In many rural areas, not even 3G is available yet. Europe and the Member States should provide incentives to encourage investment in rural areas to ensure that no citizen is left behind.

2.14.

These investments could promote territorial cohesion and regional development, and could enable people, if they so wish, to live more fulfilling lives outside big urban centres (the ‘smart villages’ referred to in the Communication). Remote working must be developed through social dialogue and collective bargaining at all levels, to safeguard the health and wellbeing of workers.

2.15.

The EESC encourages the European Commission to establish incentives for people to move outside big urban areas, promoting the economic and social development of rural areas. This can only be done if the proper infrastructure, specifically in telecommunications and transport, is put in place.

2.16.

There are major environmental challenges to tackle in the next decade and all actions taken in this context should also take the environmental aspect into account. Moreover, the Digital Compass should be used as a further tool to help meet the European Green Deal objectives and reduce environmental impacts.

2.17.

Likewise, digital technologies must be transparent, inclusive, non-discriminatory, fair, and unbiased. This is even more essential as public services become increasingly digital. Today, according to the Commission, 65 % of European citizens have basic digital skills. The target is to make this 80 % by 2030. The issue of including and supporting the remaining 20 % of people (around 90 million citizens in EU), is crucial to reduce poverty and exclusion. These citizens are usually amongst the poorest, oldest and living in rural areas. They could become even more vulnerable in dealing with public and private services, which are becoming more and more digitalised. The EESC stresses that access to humans in economic and administrative relationships must be guaranteed.

2.18.

The EESC fully supports the aim of making all key European public services available online and European citizens’ medical records will also need to be fully digital, as it is expected that 80 per cent of citizens will use a digital identity. This will also, however, require coordinated efforts and political will from all Member States. The EESC calls for the involvement of civil society organisations to achieve this goal. Basic digital facilities for public services should, in principle, be free. In any event, the digitalisation of public services must not lead to higher financial barriers for users.

3.   Specific comments

3.1.

The increased digitalisation of life requires particular care in terms of cybersecurity and susceptibility to fraud and it is essential to educate citizens in this regard. The regulation of wearable technology is of particular concern and should be paid special attention.

3.2.

European laws relating to the digital economy are evolving fast. Citizens and companies must be made aware of their rights and duties in the digital realm. There should be a continuous effort to consolidate legislative initiatives and make the law easier to understand and apply for citizens and companies.

3.3.

The EESC welcomes the regular monitoring of the targets and the governance system put forward in the Communication and multi-country projects are essential to achieve the vision it sets out.

3.4.

The EESC suggests that case studies of certain sectors in Member States and non-EU countries be drawn up, in order to adopt or promote best practices at European level. Regulatory sandboxes, providing a safe space to test new business models and ideas, should be promoted. An ambitious digital economy must establish agile and permissive test fields.

4.   A digitally skilled population and highly skilled digital professionals

4.1.

The EESC supports the objective of having 20 million employed ICT specialists, with convergence between women and men (2) (2019 baseline: 7,8 million). This will, of course, require investment in proper education systems that can support this objective.

4.2.

The digitalisation of liberal professional services that are closely related to public interests such as health, safety, law and living standards has a major impact on society and requires new professional and ethical approaches (3). Its success depends both on highly skilled professionals and on the digital skills and understanding of users, patients, clients and consumers.

4.3.

The EESC stresses the increasing need to upskill and reskill people, promoting a life-long learning attitude for all.

4.4.

The pandemic has boosted distance learning. At the same time, it has become clear that this entails a high risk of learning delay for children from lower social classes. In realising the Digital Targets 2030 action plan, digital poverty must receive specific attention.

5.   The Global Role of the EU in the Digital Decade and a level playing field for SMEs

5.1.

As regards SMEs, it is of course essential to support their digitalisation efforts through different approaches but it is also important to stress the role of SMEs as drivers of innovation in digital technologies.

5.2.

Software development is an rapidly growing sub-sector in the digital process. Support for innovative SMEs deserves specific attention. The EESC endorses the financial mechanisms that can ensure proper support SMEs to guarantee a smooth transition. At the same time, continuity must be ensured, meaning that upgrades to newer versions are provided so that users do not have to constantly invest in new programmes.

5.3.

All companies, whether SMEs, start-ups or scale-ups, need capital. The goals set out in the document highlight the urgency of achieving a Capital Markets Union, which considers market solutions and decreases reliance on bank financing and advance support, which favours the transfer of savings between different Member States seeking the best return, and the need to eliminate tax bias in favour of debt. Innovative companies need equity and a tax scheme that does not overly penalise entrepreneurs with marginal tax rates on their capital gains.

6.   Risks and safeguards

6.1.

The need for safety, predictability and both physical and mental health must be also a priority in this agenda. It is important to raise people’s awareness of security, along with technology to improve the quality of life and jobs. Under this principle, the EESC believes that the European Commission should take the opportunity offered by the planned annual monitoring exercise sounding out Europeans’ views on compliance with their rights and values to assure that the right to health is properly safeguarded.

6.2.

On a similar note, the EESC recommends that the EU frames a specific monitoring strategy covering all electromagnetic pollution generated by the various technologies currently available to flank this new industrial revolution. Electromagnetic effects could then be tracked across Europe with a view to developing a body of literature on this issue in order to assure people’s state of health once the European electronic health records have finally been rolled out and data can be cross-referenced. Every Member State should monitor this issue and the findings should feed into a single European database. A European policy should be developed to improve people’s confidence in this area.

6.3.

The digital technologies should be at the service of the European citizens, who should never be treated as objects or mere sources of data. The existing ethical and technical guidelines, such as the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, should be taken into account.

6.4.

The EESC recommends that, in view of the risks presented by data processing, measures must be taken to ensure that no more data is retained than is actually needed by a business, and that data is retained for no longer than is necessary. At the same time, data-driven innovation is a key factor to be competitive in the digital environment and authorities should push for a cross-sector data-sharing regulatory framework to allow user-centric data-sharing. The applicable framework must promote access to data and focus on interoperability.

6.5.

20 % of The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is earmarked for digital connectivity and 37 % for green transition. This requires an ambitious and coherent vision for the European telecoms industry and a commitment to a more favourable regulatory framework that supports private investment in network infrastructure, as well as the development of sovereign integrated telecom services with cloud, edge, data and AI technologies.

6.6.

The EESC considers that the digital transition must be aligned with the transition to a greener economy and take into account the environmental impact. The use of resources (including scarce resources) and their energy consumption must be reasonable. Transparency on the carbon footprint of cloud services should be required at European level to enable any organisation to calculate its digital carbon footprint and to develop plans to reduce it.

6.7.

The EESC stresses the need to keep pace with the rapid evolution of the technology and business models, striving to eliminate any regulatory gaps, especially those that may harm consumers and the most vulnerable citizens.

---

(1)  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p.1.

(2)  DESI indicator ‘2b1’. Currently the share of women among employed ICT specialists is only 18 %.

(3)  OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 8.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (recast)’

(COM(2021) 85 final — 2021/0045 (COD))

(2021/C 374/06)

Rapporteur:

Christophe LEFÈVRE

Referral	European Parliament, 24.3.2021 Council of the European Union, 11.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Single Market, Production and Consumption
Adopted in section	15.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	204/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) notes that the Commission proposal is linked to: — the deployment of infrastructure to remove ‘white spots’ and improve broadband connectivity, and to the roll-out of next-generation (5G) technologies; — the objective of achieving high levels of consumer protection and ensuring competition between mobile network operators; — creating a ‘Europe fit for the digital age’, with a view to preventing the return of barriers to the single market.

1.2.

The EESC notes that the proposal will increase transparency at retail level by providing information, in contract conditions, on: — the quality of roaming services in the EU; — value-added services, the type of services likely to be subject to higher charges, and similar matters, contained in the welcome text message sent when the customer enters another country; — the different ways of accessing the emergency services when roaming. More generally, this proposal will increase the level of consumer protection.

1.3.

While a study has demonstrated a deterioration in access to local networks for roaming services, the proposal aims to ensure that roaming services (‘roam-like-at-home’ — RLAH) are provided under the same conditions as for domestic consumption of these services, with unlimited access to the latest generations and network technologies available for roaming. Where the problem is poor local infrastructure, the EESC recommends increasing investment in this infrastructure, particularly to improve coverage of ‘white spots’, but also introducing minimum requirements to be progressively met by operators in order to enable consumers to make full use of these services.

1.4.

The lower caps on prices that visited networks can charge visiting operators are also welcome, but the scale of the reduction is insufficient given the difference between the prices re-charged and the actual costs of roaming in the visited network. This increases the cost of basic subscriptions for consumers and undermines the competitiveness of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), who have to buy roaming services from the main mobile operators. Data consumption in particular is increasing at high rates. To avoid negative scaling effects for MVNOs and small mobile network operators (MNOs), wholesale caps need to decrease at the same rate as consumption increases.

1.5.

The EESC should express its support for the preferred option in the proposal ‘Option 3 — Sustainable and genuine RLAH’ (preferred option) and ensure even lower price caps than indicated in the proposal.

1.6.

While the proposed regulation improves the transparency of value-added rates through the creation of value added service numbering ranges, with a centralised EU database accessible to operators for these numbering ranges, the Committee recommends that it include the possibility of interrupting a service when it is put in place fraudulently (ping call) following an alert from the judicial or police authorities, providing for a means of redress for operators of these services.

1.7.

While the regulation refers to ‘fair use’ to describe roaming usage, the Committee regrets that it completely fails to define its limits, nor does it address fair use policy rules for unlimited tariff plans, or the pricing of international calls, irrespective of whether the customer is roaming or not. The Committee proposes deleting the term ‘subject to fair use’ unless its scope is specified, as this argument is currently used by operators to severely restrict the use of roaming packages.

1.8.

With regard to consumer alerts when approaching a limit defined either by the consumer or by the operator, the Committee recommends requiring the operator to alert the consumer again whenever the volume set for the first alert has been consumed again, particularly during the same call or data use session.

1.9.

In particular, the Committee feels that special attention should be paid to situations where mobile devices are used in cross-border areas with non-EU countries, and recommends that: — a specific link be requested from operators operating in the European Union’s areas for EU RLAH roaming charges to be extended to those countries or to the bordering geographical area; — international agreements be concluded with those countries bordering EU countries for extending EU RLAH roaming.

1.10.

The Committee points out that the study and consultations on the revision of the EU regulation were carried out to a certain extent before the COVID-19 crisis. This crisis has led to severe restrictions on intra-European travel and extensive use of teleworking and streaming of university courses, especially for Erasmus+ students.

1.11.

The Committee highlights the fact that there are still many areas not served by local loop broadband in the European Union, and notes, above all, that the speed is insufficient for meeting the demand generated by these data-intensive video conferences, whether roaming or not.

1.12.

The Committee recommends that both the strategy for optical fibre-based broadband coverage and the capacity for broadband provision, be it in a local loop or mobile network, be strengthened significantly.

1.13.

The EESC recommends that the EU regulation be implemented with the ultimate aim of making the European Union a single tariff zone, in a single market, offering calls and data consumption at ‘local’ rates to all mobile phones and landlines of customers who have a telephone subscription in Europe, with the same speed and access to infrastructure, to or from whichever country the call is being made.

1.14.

The Committee is concerned by the proposal to change the way of revising maximum wholesale charges by means of a delegated act and recommends a comprehensive legislative review with regard to the societal aspects of the development of roaming.

2.   Gist of the Commission proposal

2.1.

The aim of the proposal is to extend the application of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), which expires on 30 June 2022. The proposal adjusts maximum wholesale charges to guarantee the sustainable provision of retail roaming services at national prices. It also introduces new measures to increase transparency and ensure a genuine ‘roam-like-at-home’ experience with regard to quality of service and access to emergency services while roaming. As Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 has been amended several times, the aim of this proposal is to recast the regulation in order to make it clearer and replace the amending acts it contains.

2.2.

The main changes proposed should enable operators to provide ‘roaming like at home’ and to recover costs sustainably on the wholesale market. Wholesale roaming charges are to be capped across the EU for calls made, text messages and data at levels below those applicable until 30 June 2022.

2.3.

In addition to reducing the maximum applicable wholesale charges, the proposal includes changes designed to offer genuine ‘roaming like at home’ to end-users and to facilitate innovation and access to networks, while establishing a future-proof regulatory framework, in the interests of both consumers and operators.

2.4.

In short, the proposal contributes to the creation of a ‘Europe fit for the digital age’ that can make the most of the digital transition, in order to give citizens better opportunities to connect, communicate and facilitate professional and business activity in the single market. Its purpose is to prevent the reintroduction of barriers to the single market that had been removed by the abolition of retail roaming surcharges.

3.   Legal basis

3.1.

The legal basis for this proposal is Article 114, the framework for the ordinary legislative procedure, which is intended to establish or improve the functioning of the internal market (Article 26 TFEU).

4.   General comments

4.1.

The Committee welcomes this draft European regulation and deems it necessary that the proposal at last aim to provide consumers with the same level of service and protection abroad as at home. However, operators should have the possibility to negotiate their wholesale roaming agreements according to their commercial needs. The Regulation should not mean that wholesale access agreements can be concluded only with operators with the most advanced networks.

4.2.

The Committee notes that the Commission proposal is linked to: — the deployment of infrastructure to remove ‘white spots’ and improve broadband connectivity, and to the roll-out of next-generation (5G) technologies; — the objective of achieving high levels of consumer protection and ensuring competition between mobile network operators; — creating a ‘Europe fit for the digital age’, with a view to preventing the return of barriers to the single market.

4.3.

The EESC notes that since 2018 the Commission has carried out impact assessments, including a 12-week public consultation in 2020, on: (1) retail roaming services (clarifications and measures on quality of service, on value-added services and on emergency communications when roaming); (2) the provision of wholesale roaming services; (3) the administrative burden associated with Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 and the impact of potentially simplifying measures.

4.4.

The EESC notes that the proposal will increase transparency at retail level by providing information, in contract conditions, on: — the quality of roaming services in the EU; — value-added services, the type of services that are likely to be subject to higher charges, and similar matters, contained in the welcome text message sent when the customer enters another country; — the different ways of accessing the emergency services when roaming, particularly in the welcome text message.

4.5.

The 2019 study of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) demonstrated the deterioration in access to roaming services, while a strategy for technical improvements is being implemented across Europe. The proposal aims to ensure that roaming services are provided under the same conditions and with the same quality of service as for domestic consumption of these services, and that mobile network operators are able to provide access to all available generations and network technologies.

4.6.

The proposed measures are therefore necessary to ensure that the legitimate expectations of consumers are met and the original aims of the roaming regulation achieved. Where the problem is poor local infrastructure the EESC recommends increasing investment in this infrastructure, particularly to improve coverage of ‘white spots’, but also introducing minimum requirements to be progressively met by operators in order to enable consumers to make full use of these services.

4.7.

The lower caps on prices that visited networks can charge visiting operators are also welcome, but the scale of the reduction is insufficient given the difference between the prices re-charged and the actual costs of roaming in the visited network. This increases the cost of basic subscriptions for consumers and weakens the competitiveness of MVNOs, who have to buy roaming services from the main mobile operators.

4.8.

The EESC should express its support for the preferred option in the proposal ‘Option 3 — Sustainable and genuine RLAH’ (preferred option) and ensure even lower price caps than indicated in the proposal.

4.9.

The proposal increases the level of transparency at wholesale level for value-added services’ numbering ranges by creating an EU-wide database of these ranges that is accessible to operators.

4.10.

The Committee recommends that the proposal include the possibility of interrupting a service when it is put in place fraudulently (ping call) following an alert from the judicial or police authorities, providing for a means of redress for operators of these services.

4.11.

It ensures free access to emergency services for roaming customers through specific measures at wholesale level, including free calls and geolocation services.

4.12.

While the proposal for a regulation does seek to eliminate anomalies experienced by customers accessing the roaming network (ease of connection, reduced access to 3G or 4G, etc.) who are not subscribers in the roaming country, the EESC points out that it does not however regulate practices that it would not deem to be normal, such as: — limiting the volume of megabytes included in a subscription that can be consumed while roaming, and — the practice of setting prices that are too high for the non-roaming customer when they contact someone with a mobile plan in another country.

4.13.

While the regulation refers to ‘fair use’ to describe roaming usage, the Committee regrets that it completely fails to define its limits, nor does it address fair use policy rules for unlimited tariff plans, or the pricing of international calls, irrespective of whether the customer is roaming or not. The Committee proposes deleting the term ‘subject to fair use’ unless its scope is specified, as this argument is currently used by operators to severely restrict the use of roaming packages.

4.14.

In particular, the Committee feels that special attention should be paid to situations where mobile devices are used in cross-border areas with non-EU countries, and recommends that: — a specific link be requested from operators operating in the European Union’s areas for EU RLAH roaming charges to be extended to those countries or to the bordering geographical area; — international agreements be concluded with those countries bordering on EU countries for extending EU RLAH roaming.

4.15.

The Committee points out that the study and consultations on the revision of the EU regulation were carried out to a certain extent before the COVID-19 crisis. This crisis has led to severe restrictions on intra-European travel and extensive use of teleworking and streaming of university courses, especially for Erasmus+ students.

4.16.

The Committee highlights the fact that there are still many areas not served by local loop broadband in the European Union, and notes, above all, that the speed is insufficient for meeting the demand generated by these data-intensive video conferences, whether roaming or not.

4.17.

The Committee recommends that both the strategy for optical fibre-based broadband coverage and the capacity for broadband provision, be it in a local loop or mobile network, be strengthened significantly, including in terms of quality.

4.18.

With regard to consumer alerts when approaching a limit defined either by the consumer or by the operator, the Committee recommends requiring the operator to alert the consumer again whenever the volume set for the first alert has been consumed again, particularly during the same call or data use session. If these alerts fail or are not implemented, mechanisms for reimbursing unfair charges should be provided for.

4.19.

With regard to the centralised database for numbers with value-added services, the Committee recommends that it be set up incorporating the possibility of interrupting a service when it is put in place fraudulently (ping call) following an alert from the judicial or police authorities, providing for a means of redress for operators of these services.

4.20.

The EESC recommends that the EU regulation be implemented with the ultimate aim of the European Union creating a genuine single market, offering calls and data consumption at ‘local’ prices to all mobile phones and landline customers who have a telephone subscription in Europe, and with the same speed and access to infrastructure whichever country is making or receiving the call.

4.21.

The Committee is concerned by the proposal to change the way of revising maximum wholesale charges by means of a delegated act. A comprehensive legislative review should adopted as the way forward, so that all societal aspects of roaming development are taken into account. The views of the European Parliament and civil society organisations are important here.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ L 172, 30.6.2012, p. 10).

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a new funding strategy to finance NextGenerationEU’

(COM(2021) 250 final)

(2021/C 374/07)

Rapporteur:

Judith VORBACH

Referral	European Commission, 31.5.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion
Adopted in section	22.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	8.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote for/against/abstentions)	186/0/4

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC welcomes the fact that all Member States have completed national ratification of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 (1) (Own Resources Decision — ORD) and that, therefore, on 1 June 2021 the new ORD entered into force, enabling the Commission to start borrowing resources for the recovery instrument. The EESC calls on all stakeholders to go through the next steps swiftly in order to start the money flowing.

1.2.

The NextGenerationEU (NGEU)’s confidence-boosting effect has already helped stabilise the Union and Member States’ economies and borrowing costs. NGEU funding will step up the volume of EU safe assets and enhance the international role of the euro. The EESC notes that the NGEU’s funding strategy relies on capital market borrowing and private investment.

1.3.

Compared to the broad debate about NGEU spending, funding is perceived to be a technical matter. However, a well-functioning funding strategy is key for the smooth implementation of NGEU. Sound funding, solid risk management, low borrowing costs and sustainable financing are in the interests of civil society, which ultimately bears the market risks. Borrowing and debt management has to be based on democratic control, legitimacy and transparency.

1.4.

The NGEU’s funding needs require a sophisticated strategy to ensure that the EU can meet payment pledges in a timely manner and under favourable market conditions. The EESC stresses how important it is that the Commission manage the funding strategy directly and it welcomes the Commission’s increase in its human resources in this domain. However, this should be done in a gender-balanced way. Additionally, an advisory board should be established, on which the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, social partners and organised civil society are represented.

1.5.

The EESC stresses the importance of preserving the EU’s high creditworthiness and low borrowing costs in order to avoid redistributional effects from borrowers to lenders. Moreover, this will — together with rising economic growth rates — facilitate repayment. Creditworthiness will depend above all on the EU’s economic, political and social strength and would be consolidated by the deepening of the EMU. In any event, crises should be anticipated, which may also include the ECB acting as a buyer of last resort.

1.6.

Overall, a major part of the new funding strategy is dedicated to investor relations. The EESC welcomes the borrowing decision and the funding plans, which are primarily means of providing transparency for the financial markets. However, communication with the public and its representatives should never become a second priority. It is to be welcomed that one precondition for participation in the Primary Dealer Network (PDN) is, among other things, supervision by a competent authority of the Union. As compliance with the relevant rules is imperative, the EESC supports the possible involvement of OLAF in this supervision and welcomes the fact that other public authorities may also be appointed to verify the compliance of members of the PDN with the rules set up in the Decision.

1.7.

The massive engagement on capital markets will be accompanied with a broad set of risks. The EESC supports the establishment of solid risk-management systems and the holding of the ‘NGEU account’ with the ECB. Due to the public interest in sound risk management, the Chief Risk Officer (CRO) should consult the European Parliament and the Council when drawing up the High-Level Risk and Compliance Policy. Finally, the EESC calls on the Commission to ensure accountability, transparency and sound financial management from the very beginning of NGEU borrowing and warns against excessive borrowing from investors outside the EU, while advocating the introduction of new own resources.

1.8.

Overall, the EESC welcomes the NGEU’s enhanced risk-sharing component, but also stresses the importance of risk reduction to ensure financial market stability and to properly protect the financial interests of the Union. In order to take due account of civil society interests, the EESC welcomes the planned ‘NGEU Green Bond framework’ and proposes that the issuance of NGEU social bonds be considered.

2.   Background to the opinion

2.1.

NextGenerationEU (NGEU) will inject up to EUR 806 billion — 5 % of EU GDP — into the EU economy in the form of grants and loans. On behalf of the EU, the Commission will borrow these amounts through funding operations on international capital markets. The NGEU is designed to be a temporary instrument. The borrowing will take place between mid-2021 and 2026. Within this period, the Commission will execute financing operations of between EUR 150 and 200 billion per year. The financing raised by the EU is due to be repaid either directly by Member States (for loans) or through the EU budget (for non-repayable support) by December 2058 at the latest.

2.2.

The Communication on a new funding strategy to finance NGEU (2) is adopted under Article 5(3) of Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053, which requires the Commission to establish the necessary arrangements for the administration of the borrowing operations and to regularly inform the European Parliament and the Council about all aspects of its debt management strategy. Based on the approval of the Own Resources Decision (ORD) by all Member States, the Commission will implement a funding strategy, as outlined in the Communication and specified in three Decisions (3). The instruments will include EU Bonds and EU Bills; the techniques involved will consist of syndications and auctions. An annual decision fixing the maximum amounts to be borrowed and semi-annual funding plans will be established. The Commission will boost its structures and will set up a pan-European Primary Dealer Network.

3.   General comments

3.1.

The EESC has supported NGEU from its very beginning and has repeatedly expressed its endorsement (4). In its opinion on the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2021 (5), the EESC confirms that ‘the Next Generation EU initiative has been developed and adopted in the right form and at the right time’. Due to its confidence-boosting effect, NGEU is already having a positive impact on the EU’s economy and has reduced the likelihood of a deep crisis in some countries. In the long run, NGEU is expected to considerably increase the EU’s output, meaning that, ultimately, all Member States are likely to become net beneficiaries (6). The EESC welcomes the fact that all Member States have completed national ratification of the ORD, allowing borrowing to begin, and calls on all stakeholders to go through the next steps swiftly to start the money flowing.

3.2.

There is rightly a broad debate on the use of funds of NGEU and — to a lesser extent — about new own resources. Compared to that, little attention has been paid to NGEU funding, which is perceived as more of a technical matter than a political one. Yet, NGEU borrowing will decisively increase the financial obligations of the Union and has to be conducted with democratic control, legitimacy and transparency. The EESC stresses that sound and sustainable funding, solid risk management and low borrowing costs are in the public interest. European civil society will ultimately be liable for the debts occurred and enhanced borrowing costs would constitute redistributional effects from borrowers to lenders. A well-functioning funding strategy is also key for the smooth implementation of NGEU.

3.3.

The EESC notes that the proposed strategy relies on funding via international capital markets. There are no capital buffers implemented, as they are in the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and there are no plans to roll over debt beyond 2058. However, other approaches have also been publicly debated, such as perpetual bonds jointly guaranteed and issued by the ECB (7). In the long run, and particularly in case of permanent common debt issuance, consideration should be given to entrusting the ECB with the role of lender of last resort.

3.4.

Given the NGEU’s high funding needs, its complex and potentially uncertain disbursement schedule and not precisely known budgetary envelopes, a sophisticated funding strategy is needed to carry out the borrowing on the markets. Financial market developments must be anticipated in order to ensure that the Union can meet payment pledges in a timely manner without being forced to raise capital in adverse market conditions. This requires market proficiency and flexibility to decide when to execute funding operations and which funding techniques to use in order to provide the lowest possible execution risk and funding costs. The EESC stresses how important it is that the Commission manage the funding strategy directly and not outsource this. The establishment of new operational capacities is needed and the Commission is, quite rightly, stepping up its respective human resources and competencies. The EESC calls on the Commission to implement a gender-balanced approach in doing so.

3.5.

Moreover, the EESC notes that the NGEU funding strategy is accompanied by an extension of responsibility to the Commission and welcomes the obligation to keep the European Parliament and the Council regularly informed about all aspects of the debt management strategy along with the provisions of the Interinstitutional Agreement (8). The provision of annual updates will start from the third quarter of 2021. Given the strong public interest in solid NGEU funding, this appears to be a minimum level of involvement. The EESC proposes that a NGEU funding advisory board be established. Members of the NGEU Risk and Compliance Committee should meet on a semi-annual basis with selective representatives competent in financial market questions from the European Parliament, the Council, the social partners and organised civil society.

3.6.

Due to the EU’s high credit rating and stable outlook, the Commission will be able to borrow on advantageous financial terms and to pass the benefit on to the Member States. The EESC stresses the importance of preserving low borrowing costs throughout the funding period. Together with the prospected enhanced economic growth rates, this will considerably facilitate repayment. Above all, the EU’s creditworthiness will depend on its economic, political and social strength and will be consolidated by the deepening of the EMU. On the downside, centrifugal forces and tenacious conflicts between Member States are likely to weaken it, while the taking effect of guarantees (9) at the expense of some Member States could lead to severe political friction (10). Moreover, crises of an economic nature or relating to the financial market, health or anything else should be anticipated. Hence, it is vital to establish the funding strategy on the most resilient and sustainable foundation possible, which may also include the ECB acting as the buyer of last resort.

3.7.

While NGEU funding activities have already started, the timing of the introduction of new own resources is much less concrete. The Commission will provide proposals for new own resources based on a carbon border adjustment mechanism, the Emissions Trading System and a digital levy in mid-2021. Further proposals in 2024 could include a Financial Transaction Tax or a financial contribution linked to the corporate sector. Should new own resources be available before January 2028, these will be used to start repayment sooner. The EESC calls on the Commission to bring forward the proposals scheduled for 2024 and advocates the swift introduction of new own resources. Appropriately implemented, these would not only serve as compensation when taxes cannot be enforced effectively at national level due to tax competition, but would also contribute to a fair repayment scheme and help combat climate change. This would also help avoid the need to increase national contributions or to cut spending from the EU budget.

3.8.

The NGEU borrowing of about EUR 800 billion will step up the volume of euro denominated safe assets to about EUR 2 trillion, including SURE (11) and another EUR 800 billion in assets issued via ESM/ESFS and the EIB before the pandemic (12). The boosting of European safe assets covering all maturities up to 30 years will provide new safe instruments for investment, help banks to diversify their sovereign bond holdings, increase the attractiveness of the euro area and strengthen the international role of the euro. Moreover, the confidence-boosting effect of NGEU is also likely to reduce government and private-sector borrowing costs, particularly in euro-area countries with large spreads in relation to Germany. NGEU lending will also provide an option for Member States in case of market turbulences affecting national bond issuances. The EESC welcomes the enhancement of the risk-sharing component, but also stresses the importance of risk reduction by ensuring sound financial market regulation and supervisory convergence.

4.   Specific comments

4.1.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the annual framework borrowing decision will set maximum limits, for example, for long-term and short-term funding and that the borrowing will be organised on the basis of six-month funding plans based on information on upcoming payments. Apparently, these are meant to provide transparency to the markets by ensuring the predictability of issuances for investors and facilitating the coordination with other issuers, while also serving as a basis for information to the European Parliament and the Council. The EESC is fully aware of the importance of investor and issuer relations, but stresses that communication with the public and its representatives should never be of second priority and that the financial interests of the Union have to be carefully protected.

4.2.

Ongoing liquidity planning will ensure that cash holdings are sufficient to avoid liquidity shortfalls while preventing unnecessary high cash balances. Given that the absorption capacity of capital markets is finite and that liquidity shortfalls would lead to a disruption of the NGEU implementation, the EESC pleas for prioritising solid risk buffers above excessive cost minimisation and explicitly supports prudential cash holdings being held in a dedicated account with the ECB in order to prevent these holdings from becoming subject to any counterparty risk.

4.3.

Belonging to the Primary Dealer Network (PDN) entitles financial institutions to participate in auctions and includes the promotion of market liquidity and the provision of fair advice and market intelligence to the Commission, while it is connected to buying and reporting commitments. The EESC welcomes the fact that applicants already have to be an active member of an EU PDN and to be supervised by a competent Union authority. Primary dealers will play a key role within NGEU funding and any negligence or misconduct could lead to higher borrowing costs. Moreover, counterparty risks, as well as the market power and systemic relevance of primary dealers, must be considered.

4.3.1.

Due to the significant responsibilities of PDN members, their compliance with relevant rules is imperative. The supervision of compliance with the rules set up in the Decision (13) relies to a great extent on the reporting obligations of the primary dealers themselves. Furthermore, the EESC supports the possible involvement of OLAF in supervision and welcomes that in addition to the Commission also other public authorities may be appointed as third parties in order to conduct verifications to check the compliance of the members of the primary dealer network with the Decision.

4.3.2.

The Commission will also draw up a method for determining which primary dealers will be considered for participation in syndicated transactions, who will be appointed for the purpose of each borrowing transaction. Particularly active members should be eligible to serve as lead and co-lead managers in syndicated transactions and be remunerated. This group should engage in market-making activities, promote issuances with investors and provide further fair advice and market intelligence to the Commission. The EESC takes note of the pivotal role of financial institutions in funding activities and draws attention to possible conflicts of interest, particularly relating to the advisory role. In any event, it is highly welcome to ensure high-level financial market capability and intelligence within the public authorities.

4.4.

The massive engagement on capital markets will be accompanied by a broad set of risks, which are ultimately borne by European civil society. The EESC fully agrees with the Commission’s statement to the effect that ‘In view of the unprecedented volumes of the operations and the sophistication of the funding strategy that is needed, it is of paramount importance that NGEU operations are subject to a robust and independent risk management and compliance framework’. Indeed, it has to be ensured that NGEU operations are conducted in a manner consistent with the highest standards of integrity, probity and sound financial management. The EESC supports the establishment of solid governance and risk management systems, including the establishment of principles and structures to ensure the robust and independent oversight of all NGEU financial operations.

4.4.1.

A central pillar of this system will be the Chief Risk Officer (CRO), who will have complete autonomy when carrying out his/her tasks and will report, among others, to the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Budget and to the Member of the College responsible for the Budget. He/she will be responsible for developing a High-Level Risk and Compliance Policy and ensure that all NGEU operations comply with it, while being supported by a Compliance Officer and a Risk and Compliance Committee. Due to the importance of solid risk management and the associated public interest, consideration should be given to the CRO having to consult the European Parliament and the Council when drawing up the High-Level Risk and Compliance Policy.

4.4.2.

Questions remain regarding the risk management at the beginning of the borrowing activities, particularly during the period prior to the appointment of the CRO and the three-month period planned for drawing up the High-Level Risk and Compliance Policy. In order to offset maturity mismatches between loans and underlying funding instruments, particularly in 2021, the Commission will apply a set of financial market instruments including swaps and possibly commercial papers, which are especially risky. The EESC calls on the Commission to ensure accountability, transparency and sound financial management from the very beginning of NGEU borrowing.

4.5.

Apparently, an elaborate and comprehensive accounting system is needed to manage the diversified funding strategy in a proper way. The EESC welcomes the reinforcement of the Commission’s back-office and accounting functions. Using tried and tested software should of course be standard. The EESC notes the important role of the Commission’s Accounting Officer responsible to ensure the appropriate accounting for all NGEU operations and to open the ‘NGEU account’ held with the ECB.

4.6.

The EESC acknowledges that a major part of the new funding strategy is the development of an investor relations strategy and the accompanying tools. One element will be an EU funding newsletter allowing the Commission to communicate to the investor community in a regular and transparent manner. The Commission will also reach out actively to ‘investors across the globe’ through a systematic programme of structured visits. However, the EESC warns against excessive borrowing from investors outside the EU, which could, particularly in times of crisis, go along with increasing risks such as, for example, a sudden stoppage of lending activities.

4.7.

The Commission will seek to raise 30 % of NGEU funds through the issuance of green bonds, which could total EUR 250 billion of green bond issuance, establishing the EU as one of the biggest green bond issuers globally and reinforcing the EU’s policy and market leadership in sustainable finance. The EESC welcomes the planned ‘NGEU Green Bond framework’, which builds on the obligation for Member States to ensure that 37 % of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)-financed expenditures is dedicated to address the climate change. Moreover, also social bond issuance should be stepped up within NGEU and should complement the volume of EUR 100 billion dedicated to SURE. To receive support from the RRF, EU countries are also asked to draw up projects in, among others, the policy areas of inclusive growth and social cohesion — a basis for the development of a framework for the issuance of social bonds. In this way, civil society’s interests could be taken fully into account in the funding strategy.

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (OJ L 424, 15.12.2020, p. 1).

(2)  COM(2021) 250 final.

(3)  C(2021) 2500 final (OJ L 131, 16.4.2021, p. 170), C(2021) 2501 final, C(2021) 2502 final.

(4)  OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 124.

(5)  OJ C 155, 30.4.2021, p.45.

(6)  The nonsense of Next Generation EU net balance calculations (Bruegel).

(7)  Covid Perpetual Eurobonds: Jointly guaranteed and supported by the ECB.

(8)  Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

(9)  Due to the adoption of the ORD.

(10)  See Article 9(5), Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053.

(11)  The European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency.

(12)  Klaus Regling, Webinar — Deepening EMU and the role of ESM, 5.5.2021.

(13)  C(2021) 2500 final.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan’

(COM(2021) 102 final)

(2021/C 374/08)

Rapporteurs:

Cristian PÎRVULESCU Carlos Manuel TRINDADE

Referral	European Commission, 26.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	21.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	8.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	160/79/19

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC welcomes the Action Plan on the European Pillar of Social Rights (‘the Plan’) and its implementation at EU and national level, with due regard for respective competences, and considers it very timely, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted every aspect of human life, worsening pre-existing social issues, and put tremendous pressure on state institutions, communities, organisations and businesses alike. The EESC warns that the pandemic is not ending anytime soon; the EU and the Member States must therefore use and develop the proper infrastructure in place to meet its challenges in the framework of the Plan in the medium and long term, bearing in mind that a functioning civil and social dialogue and the active involvement of the social partners, as an important part of a competitive social market economy, play a crucial role in this regard.

1.2.

The EESC welcomes the political consensus built around the Plan during the Social Summit in Porto with the Porto Commitment. The EESC also welcomes the Porto Declaration by the Council As stated in point 4 of the Declaration, which the EESC fully endorses: ‘Its implementation will strengthen the Union’s drive towards a digital, green and fair transition and contribute to achieving upward social and economic convergence and addressing the demographic challenges. The social dimension, social dialogue and the active involvement of social partners have always been at the core of a highly competitive social market economy. Our commitment to unity and solidarity also means ensuring equal opportunities for all and that no one is left behind’.

1.3.

The EESC supports the vision and goals set out in the Plan and welcomes the concept underpinning the Plan that adopting relevant and consensual social targets will help focus policy efforts on reaching results and constitute an important incentive for reform and investment in the Member States. The EESC also underlines that the Action Plan should be based on concreteness and tangibility, with actions that are measurable and accompanied by monitoring frameworks jointly agreed among relevant stakeholders and encompassing the social, environmental, and economic criteria (1).

1.4.

The EESC acknowledges the diversity and the common basis of social models across the EU. They are part of our common history and constitute building blocks for shared commitment to a European social model that is an integral part of the common market and all EU policies. The countries with less robust social models should be strongly supported, through encouraging investment, learning and benchmarking. The wellbeing and fundamental rights of citizens should be built around a common and consistent social model, flexible enough to accommodate different national traditions and experiences in line with the values, principles and goals of the Treaty, the Pillar and its renewed and forward-looking consensus.

1.5.

The EESC believes that guaranteeing minimum social standards for every person living in the EU is of the utmost importance for building a fair and inclusive society. In implementing the social pillar, a balanced mix of legislation and soft law should be sought. The legislation should be fully compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as with the better regulation principles, and be subject to thorough consultation with the social partners and civil society organisations at EU and national level.

1.6.

As previously stated by the EESC, competitiveness and higher productivity based on skills and knowledge are a sound recipe for maintaining the well-being of European societies. We need to reinforce the strengths of our European social market economy system, while removing its weaknesses, and thus adapt it to face the challenges ahead (2).

1.7.

The EESC considers that specific objectives and targets should be set for all of the 20 principles of the Pillar. The EESC also invites the Member States to be ambitious in voluntarily setting their own targets so that all Member States together with the social partners and civil society organisations, contribute to the achievement of the European targets. The quality and results of the dialogue related to the Pillar and the Plan should be monitored, supported and communicated by the European Commission. The objectives and targets should be included in the reporting mechanism provided by the European Semester and the national reform plans.

1.8.

The EESC proposes that in order to make the planned mid-term review more effective, intermediate objectives and targets for this Plan for 2025 may be defined by the Member States in a constructive dialogue with social partners, so that progress in the first half of its implementation can be assessed. Guidance in using the existing coordination mechanisms should be a priority for the Commission in relation to the Member States.

1.9.

The EESC suggests that as European coordination mechanism for the application of the Plan the framework of the European semester should be used. This coordination mechanism could take the form of an EU inter-institutional forum on the social pillar, which would convene on a regular basis to assess progress and give new impetus to the Plan.

1.10.

The EESC supports the intention to update whenever necessary the social scoreboard, seeking alignment with the UN 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

1.11.

The EESC considers that the European Semester is the appropriate framework for the monitoring of the Plan — equal attention shall be placed on social and environmental objectives together with macroeconomic stability and productivity. It welcomes the assertion made in the Plan that the national recovery and resilience plans represent a unique opportunity to plan and finance investments and reforms that support a recovery that is social and focuses on jobs, while embracing the green and digital transitions and implementing the relevant country-specific recommendations under the European Semester. The Plan rightly calls on the Member States to make the best use of the European Semester and to seize the unprecedented opportunity offered by the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

1.12.

The EESC notes that the Plan has not clearly stipulated the need to prolong the current emergency support until the economy no longer needs it, thus not sufficiently valuing the need to protect jobs and companies during the crisis. The EESC also notes that, while NextGenerationEU is an emergency tool based on Article 122 TFEU and will continue to be treated as a one-off measure, it is also a precedent for bold and constructive action.

1.13.

The EESC notes that the Plan recognises that strong national and EU-level policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been successful in limiting its employment and social consequences, supporting companies and workers. Equally, it notes that the pandemic has further highlighted existing inequalities (particularly regarding workers with lower educational levels, women, young people, migrants and other vulnerable groups) and that unemployment and inequalities are likely to further increase as a result, if the social progress is not coupled with sustainable economic growth. The EESC hopes that the Plan will contribute to reversing this trend and highlights the need to promote sustainable and competitive economies, based on quality jobs and equal opportunities for all.

1.14.

The EESC believes that greater efforts can be made at EU and Member State level in the area of combating poverty, in line with the first Sustainable Development Goal under the UN 2030 Agenda. In particular, the EESC believes that the EU should set the objective of reducing the proportion of children at risk of poverty and social exclusion from 22,8 % in 2019 to 10 % in 2030, with similar voluntary commitments in every Member State.

1.15.

The EESC proposes that the Plan should include measures leading to address income inequality, given the well-defined priority of social cohesion, as an essential part of the European social model.

1.16.

The EESC considers that the Plan should promote not only the creation of new jobs — a justified objective — but also the quality of employment, including combating precarious work. Proper legal and administrative checks at national level should be in place to ensure that workers have safe working conditions, adequate and predictable pay and an organised voice in the workplace. The EESC is especially worried about the conditions of work for many seasonal workers, EU and non-EU citizens working in agriculture, services and construction and calls for the efficient implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) on transparent and predictable working conditions which aims at improving working conditions by promoting more transparent and predictable employment while ensuring labour market adaptability. The EESC considers that the in-work-at-risk-of-poverty rate should be significantly reduced. The objective of eradicating in-work poverty should be pursued through setting minimum European common standards at the EU level.

1.17.

The EESC welcomes the intention to reduce the disparities between men and women in employment and pay in a decade and the intention to increase — although this increase has not yet been quantified — the provision of early childhood education and care. The EESC supports to this end the European Child Guarantee. Gender equality should be pursued in all aspects of economic and social life.

1.18.

The EESC notes that the Plan does not include a proposal for a directive on minimum income security, which it considers necessary to combat the most serious forms of poverty.

1.19.

The EESC endorses the Commission’s encouragement to the European Parliament and the Council to conclude negotiations on the revision of the social security coordination rules in order to improve the mobility of workers and provide adequate social protection within the EU, without creating excessive burdens for employees and companies.

1.20.

The EESC shares the view expressed by the Commission on the need to promote collective bargaining coverage and social partners’ membership and organisational density. It thus proposes considering setting and monitoring relevant indicators at national and EU level, and that the objectives here should be supported by ring-fenced funds for capacity-building and joint actions for achieving the Plan objectives, while preserving the autonomy of the social partners. The EESC supports the Plan’s suggestion that further EU-level agreements be negotiated to contribute to the successful transformation of Europe’s labour markets, as well as its call on the Member States to encourage and create the conditions for better-functioning and more effective collective bargaining and social dialogue at all levels.

1.21.

The EESC shares the conclusions of the consultation held in support of the Plan which emphasised the importance of better implementation, application and enforcement of existing EU labour and social law. The Commission should engage more actively with the Member States in order to facilitate the timely and quality transposition of EU legal instruments and promote compliance. The EESC expects the Commission to resort to infringement procedures if Member States do not fulfil their obligations under EU law.

1.22.

The EESC stresses the need to align the financing of national policies with the objectives and actions of the Plan, and ensure that there is no return to the SGP rules in their original form, and that any revised version of them fully facilitates the Plan’s implementation.

1.23.

The EESC urges greater emphasis on the potential contribution of public procurement as an instrument towards the realisation of the objectives of the Plan.

2.   General comments

2.1.   The design of the Plan

2.1.1.

Since the proclamation of the Pillar in 2017, the EESC has called for a clear roadmap for its implementation (4) and therefore welcomes the Plan. The Committee supports the call for all stakeholders to engage in a collective effort to implement the Pillar within their spheres of competence. The EESC points out that, in addition to the contribution of the EU institutions, the success of the Plan will be strongly determined by the commitment of the Member States and their social partners to implement all of its principles.

2.1.2.

At the Porto Social Summit, held on 7 and 8 May, a commitment to implement the European Social Rights Pillar was made at the highest political level through the Porto Social Commitment. This Commitment welcomed the European Commission Action Plan on the European Pillar of Social Rights (‘the Plan’) and called on all relevant players to learn the lessons of the pandemic and join forces.

2.1.3.

The EESC acknowledges the fact that the Plan combines legislative and non- legislative action with the setting of common objectives to be achieved by the joint action of stakeholders, especially the social partners and civil society, organised at local, national and European level. The EESC expects the legislation indicated in the timeline of the Plan to fully comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to be subject to impact assessments, and stresses the need for extensive consultations with the social partners and civil society. Any legislative decision should be evidence-based, taking stock of the views of relevant stakeholders.

2.1.4.

The EESC supports the targets set out in the Plan and the notion that these will help focus policy efforts on reaching results and constitute an important incentive for reform and investment in the Member States with a view to achieving upward convergence and well-being. The EESC also underlines that the Plan should be based on concreteness and tangibility with actions that are measurable and accompanied by monitoring frameworks, jointly agreed among relevant stakeholders and encompassing the social, environmental, and economic criteria.

2.1.5.

While supporting the EU headline targets, the EESC endorses the Commission’s call for the Member States to voluntarily set their own national targets. It invites the latter to be ambitious in setting their targets so that all Member States, together with their social and civic partners, contribute to the achievement of the European targets and stresses that without a major coordinated effort it will not be possible to achieve them. The setting of the three main priorities of job creation, improvement of qualifications and social inclusion will provide a common framework of action including in the implementation of the national recovery and resilience plans.

2.1.6.

The EESC is pleased that the employment target is complemented by commitments to promote inclusive employment and reduce employment gaps, notably by unleashing the labour market’s potential, halving the gender employment gap, decreasing the rate of young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) and ensuring that other under-represented groups participate in the labour market to the maximum of their capacity, and the Committee encourages the Commission to quantify all of these commitments in cooperation with the Member States and social partners.

2.1.7.

The EESC also welcomes the emphasis in the Plan on education, skills and lifelong learning, including continuous up-skilling and reskilling, with the aim of improving employability, boosting innovation, ensuring social fairness and closing the digital skills gap, noting that, as the Committee has previously stated, access to continuous and lifelong learning must be an individual right for everyone in order to cope with digital and AI developments, shape progress and keep ‘humans in command’ (5).

2.1.8.

The EESC proposes that, in order to make the planned mid-term review more effective, the Member States should engage in a constructive dialogue with social partners and consider intermediate targets for 2025 should be set, which will enable progress in the first half of its implementation to be assessed.

2.2.   On job creation and the future of work

2.2.1.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the Plan states that working conditions in the EU are among the best in the world, whilst also acknowledging that new forms of work bring challenges as well as opportunities. The social partners — both at European and national level are welcome to joint efforts to work together for meeting the needs of the future of work, achieve upward convergence and ensure that workers are protected and safe regardless of the sector they work in and the country they live in. The social partners — both at European and national level, are central to the joint efforts in this direction. The Plan rightly notes that preserving and creating new quality jobs is a priority for the EU. The COVID-19 crisis has shown that the functioning of our societies depends on essential workers across a range of sectors such as transport, services, health and agriculture. We need to create the new jobs of the future by building on the essential jobs of today.

2.2.2.

The EESC agrees with the strategic approach of the gradual transition from emergency measures to actions that can contribute to achieving the employment target set in the Plan.

2.2.3.

The EESC agrees with the concern expressed in the Plan for the groups most affected by the pandemic, including women, young people, low-skilled and low-paid workers, temporary, self-employed and migrant workers.

2.2.4.

The EESC believes that the allocation of EU funds for the priorities should be monitored, both in terms of the resources available from the Commission and in terms of resources allocated by Member States and the social partners.

2.2.5.

The EESC agrees with the Commission’s call on the Member States to use the EU funds available to promote active and effective support for employment.

2.2.6.

The EESC supports the Commission’s approach to the effects of the digital transition of work. The EESC supports the Autonomous Framework Agreement on Digitalisation and is ready to work with the social partners on any follow-up to it.

2.2.7.

The EESC takes note of the recent OECD Employment Outlook 2020 report entitled ‘Worker security and the COVID-19 crisis’ (6). The EESC recognises that workers’ well-being in the workplaces contributes positively to the overall performance of the companies, organisations and institutions they work in. In addition to promoting health and safety of workers, the EESC expects measures taken at the appropriate level in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to improve the functioning of the labour markets so that they contribute to economic growth, international competition and foster decent working conditions. Labour market developments must be supported, not hindered, as to ensure that workers are protected, secure and contribute to the overall performance of the companies, organisations and institutions they work in.

2.2.8.

The EESC expects measures to promote upwards convergence to be taken at the appropriate level in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to improve the functioning of labour markets so that they contribute to economic growth and international competition, and foster decent working conditions and well-being.

2.2.9.

The EESC emphasises that the EU must remain fully faithful to the principle that there can be no employment relations, regardless of their nature, which do not have social protection. The EESC considers all forms of undeclared work unacceptable and encourages the Member States to act to combat it.

2.2.10.

The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure that digitalisation does not create precariousness and vulnerabilities while ensuring that the opportunities provided by digitalisation are fully utilised.

2.2.11.

The EESC would like to see a stronger link between the ambitious goal for skills, education and lifelong learning and the financial means available to achieve it. The EESC draws attention to the fact that public expenditure on education in the EU dropped from 5 % in 2010 to 4,7 % in 2019, and stresses that the Social Pillar’s targets and goals cannot be pursued without more public investment in education. It also emphasises the need for public and private investment to support training and lifelong learning and encourages employers to increase opportunities for employees to undertake work-based learning and training.

2.2.12.

The EESC recognises the Commission’s concern about the green and demographic transitions and their effects on employment and skills. However, the Plan may benefit further from specific agreed commitments and initiatives in this respect, so further detailing should be done in the Plan and in national documents.

2.2.13.

The pandemic has hit young people particularly hard. The statistics show that half of all young people in the EU are employed on a temporary basis. Addressing the risks linked to involuntary temporary employment, there is some clear potential in the Plan to improve the quality of employment for young people — in particular through the Review of the Traineeships Recommendation, a focus on the quality of offers under the Youth Guarantee, and a number of initiatives planned on working conditions, for example, for platform workers.

2.2.14.

While the Plan contains clear provisions for enhancing the role of the social partners (trade unions and employers) in the initiatives, it says very little about the role of civil society organisations such as youth organisations, which play a vital role in representing EU citizens.

2.3.   On skills and equality

2.3.1.

The EESC shares the Commission’s view that a skilled workforce is the engine of a prosperous green and digital economy, powered by innovative ideas and products and technological developments. As the Plan states, education and training systems play a key role in laying the foundations for lifelong learning and employability and can help overcome skills shortages, provided they are geared towards labour market needs. Education and skills should be at the centre of political action to support the creation of jobs.

2.3.2.

The EESC supports the ambition to improve lifelong education and expresses its concern regarding the access to basic digital skills, which it considers, like the Commission, to be a precondition for inclusion and participation in a digitally transformed Europe.

2.3.3.

The EESC regrets that there is no objective on gender equality in access to lifelong learning and encourages the Commission to define one. The EESC points to the need for a gender mainstreaming approach in all EU policies and strategies.

2.3.4.

The EESC is currently drawing up a separate opinion on the proposed directive aimed at strengthening the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women and will present an opinion on the text.

2.4.   On social protection and inclusion

2.4.1.

The EESC considers that further proposals on social protection and social inclusion should be pursued. It shares the view stated in the Plan that Europe is home to the most equal societies in the world, the highest standards in working conditions, and broad social protection. Nevertheless, poverty levels in the EU remain unacceptably high and considerable efforts are still needed to ensure similar conditions in every country.

2.4.2.

Children account for 20 % of those at risk of poverty in the EU, which the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has described as ‘an exceedingly high number for developed country standards’ (7). The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposals for an EU strategy on the rights of the child and a Recommendation for a child guarantee, as well as the target to lift five million children out of poverty by 2030. It reiterates its call for ‘a “Care Deal for Europe”, ensuring the provision of greater quality services for all throughout the life-cycle’ (8) and for Member States to invest in the availability of high-quality, affordable, accessible and diverse care services. It believes that the eradication of child poverty would have very positive effects in reducing the poverty of young adults and the unemployed.

2.4.3.

The EESC believes that EU should set minimum social standards, fully compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and this process should be subject to thorough consultation with the social partners and civil society organisations at EU and national level.

2.4.4.

The EESC notes that the Plan does not include a proposal for a directive, but a recommendation instead (9), on minimum income security, which it considers necessary to combat the most serious forms of poverty.

2.4.5.

The EESC believes that it is necessary to take significant steps to strengthen the resilience of social security systems and their coordination at EU level, guaranteeing universal access to workers, respecting national competences regarding access to social protection.

2.4.6.

The Committee shares with the Commission the view that reforms and investments in health systems are necessary in order to improve, inter alia, access to quality healthcare for all, and reduce social, territorial and economic inequalities in health. However, if the Commission supports the Member States only by providing evidence-based information and sharing best practices, that is insufficient and much more should be done, while respecting the division of competences: formulate objectives and targets, support investment in the infrastructure, train the workforce in the health system, devise common quality standards, and finance health research.

2.4.7.

The EESC welcomes the plan for a High-Level Expert Group to study the future of the welfare state. As the representative of European organised civil society and a forum for social and civic dialogue, it is uniquely prepared to reflect on the challenges of the welfare state of the Member States. The Committee advocates in particular the adoption of fiscal models — taking into account national economy characteristics and promoting sustainable growth — that make it possible to maintain reasonable and adequate social benefits, support public and social services and distribute the tax burden equitably, while promoting active inclusion in the labour market and the digital and demographic transitions.

2.5.   On the implementation of the Plan

2.5.1.

The EESC shares the determination of the Heads of State and Government expressed in the Porto Social Commitment to continue deepening the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights at EU and national level, with due regard for respective competences and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The EESC also emphasises the complementarity between the social dimension, social dialogue and the active involvement of the social partners and the highly competitive social market economy.

2.5.2.

The EESC stresses the need to align the financing of national policies with the objectives and actions of the Plan. This is another reason why there must be no return to the SGP rules. Moreover, any revised rules must fully facilitate the implementation of the Plan.

2.5.3.

The EESC expects that socially responsible public procurement practices defined and promoted by the European Commission should be streamlined in the implementation of the Plan. Amounting to more than seven times the equivalent of the combined MFF and RRF (an estimated EUR 2 trillion, i.e. 14 % of GDP p/a), it offers huge potential as a market to incentivise employee organisation, representation and collective bargaining, and sustainable quality employment and environmental practices.

2.5.4.

The EESC reaffirms the importance of integration between different policy areas for the achievement of social progress, following closely the economic recovery and prosperity. Synergies must be established between existing and future initiatives and strategies that fall under the different principles of the Social Pillar. Its objectives must be mainstreamed and included in the European strategic framework for post-2020 recovery.

2.5.5.

The EESC calls on the Member States to recognise and enhance social and civic dialogue, both tripartite and bipartite, each with its specific role in the implementation of the Plan.

2.6.   On the relationship between the Social Pillar and the European Semester

2.6.1.

The EESC considers that the European Semester is the appropriate framework for the monitoring of the Plan — equal attention shall be placed on social and environmental objectives together with macroeconomic stability and productivity. It welcomes the assertion made in the Plan that the national recovery and resilience plans represent a unique opportunity to plan and finance investments and reforms that support a recovery that is social and focuses on jobs, while embracing the green and digital transitions and implementing the relevant country-specific recommendations under the European Semester. The Plan rightly calls on the Member States to make the best use of the European Semester and to seize the unprecedented opportunity offered by the Recovery and Resilience Facility.

2.6.2.

The EESC recommends that, within the European Semester, a regular high-level assessment of progress is made, including when relevant at national level, by means of indicators devised in cooperation with the social partners, in the context of the mainstreaming of the Pillar principles and UN SDGs.

2.6.3.

The EESC believes that the Plan should be a structuring tool for social policies in the EU. It must be a central part of renewed economic and social governance, aimed at sustainable and inclusive economic recovery and growth, and equipped with monitoring indicators and procedures that lead to Country Specific Recommendations in all matters related to it.

3.   Specific comments

3.1.

The EESC draws attention to the need to adapt the European statistical system to the needs of monitoring the targets and indicators set out in the panel of social indicators.

3.2.

The EESC agrees with the point made in the Plan that integrating and updating the existing set of indicators should contribute to tracking progress towards the Pillar principles in a more comprehensive manner and help to monitor the implementation of the policy actions proposed in the Plan.

3.3.

The EESC agrees with the need to revise the concept of working-age population and encourages the Commission to work with the Member States in this area, while taking into consideration the mainstreaming of the policies on ageing and the rights recognised and protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

3.4.

The EESC notes that the goal of vocational training has a baseline from 2016, as the European statistical system only produces this indicator every five years. The measurement of this indicator should be on a yearly basis in order to be able to properly monitor progress.

3.5.

The EESC reiterates its position regarding platform work and states that ‘the EU and the Member States move towards uniformity of concepts in order to achieve decent work in the platform economy’ (10).

3.6.

The EESC calls on Commission to implement in relation to social security, the stated principle that ‘taxation should be transferred from work to other sources more favourable to employment and in line with climate and environmental objectives, while safeguarding revenues for adequate social protection’, bearing in mind that the essential challenge is ensuring adequate coverage for all workers in a changing labour market, fully respecting the principle, expressed in point 3.2.9 above, that all forms of employment must have social protection.

3.7.

The EESC endorses the Commission’s encouragement to the European Parliament and the Council to conclude negotiations on the revision of the social security coordination rules in order to improve the mobility of workers and provide adequate social protection within the EU, without creating excessive burdens for employees and companies.

3.8.

The EESC calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the results of the announced work of a group of experts on investment in education and training is reflected in the adoption of measures that significantly strengthen education and training systems, in particular in meeting the targets defined in Plan.

3.9.

The EESC believes that the area of care is one of the major challenges across the EU. The EESC supports the inclusion in the Plan of an initiative on long-term care that ensures better access to quality services for people in need.

3.10.

The EESC, in regard to the EU’s role as a responsible global leader, reaffirms its previous recommendations that the European Commission, the OECD and the ILO work together with the social partners at all appropriate levels, as well as with civil society organisations in general, to develop appropriate provisions with regard to decent working conditions and the necessary protection (11), as well as regarding the promotion of a progressive, fair and sustainable trade policy (12).

3.11.

In this context, the EESC hopes that joint work by the Commission, the OECD and the ILO could lead to a possible ILO Convention for platforms (13). In the same sense, efforts should be made in relation to the regulation of teleworking. The EESC points to its recommendation that ‘a joint process by the European Commission, the ILO and the OECD should be initiated with a view to drawing up an ILO convention on teleworking. The EESC also considers that decent telework conditions should be part of the ILO Decent Work Agenda and the corresponding national programmes’ (14).

3.12.

The EESC also believes that the EU should take more responsibility in helping the world tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plan should acknowledge the EU’s participation in COVAX, in line with the speech by the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen and her statement that Europe ‘must guarantee the availability of safe vaccines, not only for those who can afford them, but for everyone who needs them’ (15).

---

(1)  EESC contribution to the Porto Social Summit (OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 6).

(2)  EESC contribution to the Porto Social Summit (OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 6), point 7.

(3)  Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 105).

(4)  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145; OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 1.

(5)  OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 46, point 1.4.

(6)  OECD Employment Outlook 2020: ‘Worker security and the COVID-19 crisis’.

(7)  Statement by Professor Olivier De Schutter.

(8)  OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 13.

(9)  As done 30 years ago — Council Recommendation 92/441/EEC of 24 June 1992 on common criteria for sufficient resources and benefits in social protection systems (OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 46).

(10)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173. Conclusion 1.8.

(11)  OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10, point 3.9.

(12)  OJ C 47, 11.2.2020, p. 38, point 1.4.

(13)  OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 173. Conclusion 1.14.

(14)  OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 1. Conclusion 1.14.

(15)  State of the Union Address, 16 September 2020.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030’

(COM(2021) 101 final)

(2021/C 374/09)

Rapporteur:

Ioannis VARDAKASTANIS

Referral	Commission, 26.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	21.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	233/0/2

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC welcomes the new EU Disability Rights Strategy, which has taken on board many of the suggestions proposed by the European disability movement and civil society. It also reflects many of the proposals made in the EESC’s opinion from 2019 (1), works to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) at EU level and is a vital part of the Union of Equality. The EESC is, however, concerned with the watering down of the binding measures and hard legislation implementing the Strategy, but acknowledges that the new Strategy is a clear step forward in ambition compared to the Strategy for 2010-2020.

1.2.

The commitment to set up a Disability Platform shows great promise, but also has the potential to disappoint if poorly implemented. There must be transparency regarding members, meeting agendas (with the possibility for input on agenda items) and outcomes. The Platform must also ensure that organisations of persons with disabilities have a strong voice. We believe that the EESC has a role to play and must have a seat at the table.

1.3.

The link between the Disability Strategy and the significant investments to come under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) should be made stronger. The link with the implementation and monitoring of the Action Plan for the EU Pillar of Social Rights and particularly of Principle 17 of the Pillar should also be ensured and maximised. The EESC would like to see a clearer and stronger agenda from the European Commission (EC) on how to promote the use of the national RRF in order to help persons with disabilities recover from the pandemic. The EC must address those Member States (MS) which have not been transparent about their plans or followed EC guidelines to ensure meaningful consultation of civil society. The EC must also be resolute about opposing plans that propose investments that go against the CRPD, such as investments in institutional care settings.

1.4.

The EESC is pleased to see the proposal for AccessibleEU, although at this stage it falls short of the Committee’s request for an EU Access Board to be set up. The EC needs to be clear and transparent about how it plans to fund and staff this agency, and how it will make sure that persons with disabilities are represented; they must be represented internally, as employees and experts and not just externally, as consulted actors.

1.5.

The EESC strongly endorses the flagship initiative on the EU Disability Card and considers that it has the potential to foster great change. However, the EESC regrets that there is as yet no commitment on how to ensure that it is recognised by the MS. The Committee stresses the need for the Disability Card to be implemented by means of a regulation which would make it directly applicable and enforceable throughout the EU.

1.6.

The EESC supports the plan for a guide on good electoral practice addressing the participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process, planned for 2023. It also supports the work planned with the MS, the European Cooperation Network on Elections and the European Parliament to guarantee the political rights of persons with disabilities on an equal footing with others. The EESC advises bringing this deliverable forward to ensure that national and local authorities have time to adopt more accessible practices in advance of the 2024 European elections.

1.7.

There is a lack of specific actions addressing the needs of women and girls with disabilities. The EESC calls for this to be remedied as far as possible by ensuring that the gender dimension is mainstreamed into all actions already included in the Strategy. This should be approached particularly carefully in actions tackling violence. The focus on women should also be extended to family members providing long-term and informal care to their relatives with disabilities, as women are particularly likely to take on caring roles. After the mid-term review of the Strategy, the EESC would like to see a specific flagship initiative proposed on women with disabilities in the second half of the period of the Strategy.

1.8.

The actions dealing with access to justice and persons with disabilities as victims of violence are hugely important. The EESC considers that these actions, particularly those on training of professionals in the justice system and law enforcement officers, must also give guidance on how to ensure that persons with disabilities are not denied access to justice due to legal incapacitation or subjected to delays when seeking justice because of accessibility issues, lack of support in decision-making or a lack of availability of assistance for communication, such as sign language interpretation.

1.9.

The proposed guidelines on improvements in independent living and inclusion in the community is a point that the EC needs to address with particular care. The guidelines must be based on very clear definitions of what we understand by institutional care, community-based services and independent living. The EESC recommends that the EC base its definitions on those established and agreed upon by the European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care, as well as CRPD General Comment 5 on Article 19.

1.10.

The proposed package on improving employment outcomes, as well as the EC’s pledge to improve recruitment and inclusion of persons with disabilities in the EU institutions, come as a clear response to calls from civil society. It cannot be stressed enough just how crucial it is to focus on boosting quality employment for persons with disabilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic (2), and in this sense the Strategy could have been bolder. The EESC strongly recommends that work begin on setting out indicators to monitor the implementation of these actions, and that efforts be made to align these measures with those for civil protection and for health and safety at work. As regards employment in the MS, this could be achieved in part by the EC’s proposal to include indicators on the disability employment gap in the Social Pillar’s new Social Scoreboard, and to include disaggregation around disability in some of the other indicators. The EESC stresses that the aim is not just higher employment rates, but also quality employment that allows persons with disabilities to improve their social position through work. We therefore suggest that the scoreboard contain indicators on the quality of employment of persons with disabilities, such as whether they have full-time and long-term contracts, and whether they are employed in the open labour market. The EC will need to push hard on the targets being set for the MS which stipulate how far they should reduce the disability employment gap by 2030. We want to see ambitious targets that aim to get as close as possible to the elimination of any employment gap, with a focus on employment in the open labour market.

1.11.

The Strategy proposes a number of actions on education. The EESC stresses that the action on training for Special Needs Teachers should also focus on training teachers in mainstream education settings to offer inclusive classroom learning. The MS must be encouraged to allocate Special Needs Educators to inclusive settings to allow children with disabilities to receive the specialised support they might need, while being part of a mainstream school attended by learners without disabilities.

1.12.

The proposal for an update to the Toolbox on the ‘Rights Based Approach, encompassing all human rights for EU development cooperation’ is a positive step. This should be done with input from national and local disability organisations based in the countries where these investments are being made.

1.13.

The action on supporting MS to implement the 2000 Hague Convention would clash with the CRPD with regard to issues such as forced treatment and coercion. This needs to be addressed with input from disability organisations before the EC takes any further action.

1.14.

The EESC is pleased to see a commitment by the EC to lead by example. Proposals such as those on the accessibility of EC buildings need to be strictly enforced and not stray from the timeline for implementation outlined in the Strategy.

1.15.

The proposed strategy for data collection is one of the crucial proposals. The EESC underlines the need to ensure more systematic collection of disaggregated data, possibly with the use of the Washington Group’s Short Set of Questions.

1.16.

A framework to monitor the objectives and actions of the Strategy is expected to be ready by 2021. The EESC, and in particular the EESC Disability Group, is ready to assist the EC in designing it, alongside disability organisations which should be fully and meaningfully involved throughout the process.

1.17.

The Strategy states that persons with disabilities should participate fully in the Conference on the Future of Europe. The EESC would like to see the EC deliver on this commitment by including persons with disabilities and their representative organisations in all areas of the Conference, not just those relating specifically to disability.

1.18.

The EESC calls on the EC to start preparing for the selection of an EU candidate for the CRPD Committee, and recommends that the candidate be a European woman with a disability.

1.19.

The Council of the EU also has an essential role to play in the implementation of the Strategy. The EESC calls on the Council to join the Disability Platform, and to swiftly appoint a disability coordinator as provided for in the Strategy. The disability coordinator in the Council should serve as the CRPD focal point, as suggested to the EU in the Concluding Observations of the CRPD review in 2015.

1.20.

The EESC also calls on the disability movement to be proactive and to push for each and every action of this Strategy to deliver on what it promises, and to show solidarity in ensuring the measures also benefit immigrants and refugees with disabilities. The launch of the Disability Rights Strategy is but a starting point. It is not the Strategy itself that will deliver real change for persons with disabilities, but rather the strength of each of its components over the coming decade. Social partners and civil society organisations should fully support the implementation of the new Strategy.

2.   General comments

2.1.

The EESC is pleased to see that the EU Disability Rights Strategy 2021-2030 is a clear step forward in comparison to the previous Strategy. The EESC also highly commends the EC’s consultation process, and the fact that many of the proposals made by the EESC in its opinion (3) made it into the final strategy. This also underlines the Committee’s clear ability to shape the outcomes of new EU policies and initiatives.

2.2.

The EESC is pleased that the EC has committed to seven flagship proposals with clear objectives and dates for delivery. This level of transparency will greatly facilitate the work of the EESC, civil society and the social partners in preparing their input for these actions.

2.3.

Among the flagship proposals, the EESC sees particular potential in the AccessibleEU resource centre. Its success will come down in part to the resources that the EC attributes to it, the expertise of the staff running it, and its ability to bring together experts who can pass on knowledge of real value to the MS.

2.4.

The EESC is pleased to see the proposal for an EU-wide Disability Card. The difference that this card makes to the lives of persons with disabilities will depend on the rights and entitlements provided by the card when it is launched and on whether steps are taken to ensure that it is enforced in all MS.

2.5.

One of the Strategy’s strengths is the way it will impact the EC’s inner workings and connection with other EU institutions. The EESC particularly welcomes the commitment to an annual exchange between the EC and the EESC. We also consider that the EESC should have a place in the new Disability Platform, alongside organisations of persons with disabilities.

2.6.

In some respects the Strategy appears to be a reluctant step forwards. The Strategy takes on many of the proposals from the EESC’s opinion (4), but the commitment to new legislation is all but absent. Of the five actions referring to hard legislation, four are reviews of existing legislation that are already taking place, and one is a proposal to explore the possibility of legislation ‘if appropriate’. The new Strategy favours mechanisms such as guidelines and toolkits which, although able to advance practices in the MS, carry a much greater risk of non-compliance without any recourse for bringing MS before the Court of Justice of the EU.

2.7.

In the Strategy, the EC promised to address certain issues through other EU strategies and action plans such as the EU Digital Government Strategy and the Action Plan on Social Economy. The EC does not always provide details on exactly how disability issues will be addressed within these strategies. More details should be provided on precisely how the EC proposes to do this.

2.8.

The EESC has concerns regarding the action on supporting MS to implement the 2000 Hague Convention, which would clash with the CRPD on issues such as forced treatment and coercion in medical procedures. This needs to be addressed with input from disability organisations before the EC takes any further action.

2.9.

The EESC considers that the Strategy has the potential to achieve real change, but this depends entirely on how well it is implemented and how ambitious the individual actions are. If the EC and the MS are not ambitious in pushing for actions that challenge the status quo, the Strategy could well fall short of the expectations of the more than 100 million persons with disabilities in the EU.

2.10.

The EESC calls on the disability movement to be proactive in pushing for the Strategy to deliver on what it promises. It is not the Strategy itself that will deliver real change for persons with disabilities, but rather the strength of each of its components over the coming decade.

3.   Accessibility and enjoying EU rights

3.1.

Chapters two and three of the Strategy cover actions related to accessibility and enjoying EU rights. The main actions include the following:

3.1.1.

A flagship initiative to establish a resource centre called AccessibleEU. It will bring together national authorities responsible for implementing and enforcing accessibility rules and accessibility experts and professionals, share good practices develop tools and standards to facilitate the implementation of EU law. This reflects the EESC’s call for a European Access Board. The EC needs to clarify on how this centre will be funded and staffed, and how it will reach out to accessibility experts, persons with experience of accessibility issues and organisations of persons with disabilities.

3.1.2.

Establishing a European Disability Card by the end of 2023, to be recognised in all MS. The EESC is pleased to see that this responds directly to the call in its opinion from 2019 (5). The success of this initiative will come down to the scope of the entitlements afforded by the card, and to whether all the MS agree to implement it fully. The EESC urges the EC to be ambitious with the Disability Card, taking into account that it will be one of the Strategy’s key outputs and a benchmark by which many will measure the Strategy’s success.

3.1.3.

Evaluating the application of the Web Accessibility Directive and assessing whether the Directive should be revised. This evaluation is an opportunity to analyse whether this legislation is fit for purpose in an increasingly digital public sector, particularly after COVID-19. The EESC considers that the EC should discontinue the exemption from the scope of the Directive applying to certain websites (e.g. schools, kindergartens and nurseries), as these potential exclusions may have had a negative impact on persons with disabilities who can only access these public services via digital tools. We would also like to see a clearer explanation about what action will be taken in the case of MS which fail to meet the Directive’s requirements.

3.1.4.

Reviewing a number of existing pieces of legislation, namely the legislative framework related to the energy performance of buildings including its impact on accessibility improvements as a result of renovation requirements; the regulatory framework on passenger rights; the Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) on Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network to strengthen accessibility; and the Urban Mobility Package. While the EESC is disappointed that the EC was not more ambitious in proposing more actions based on hard legislation, it is pleased to see that its call for action on accessibility of the built environment and transport have shaped the Strategy. The EESC urges the EC to be ambitious in its amendments and to advocate bold accessibility measures.

3.1.5.

Establishing a guide on good electoral practice addressing the participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process, and working with MS, the European Cooperation Network on Elections and the European Parliament to guarantee the political rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to stand for election and to receive accessible information. The EC will also address the needs of persons with disabilities in the compendium on e-voting and support inclusive democratic participation. It will be important for the EC to work closely with the European Parliament to ensure that the next EU elections are accessible and that the EU leads by example.

4.   Decent quality of life and equal participation

4.1.

Chapters four and five of the Strategy cover actions related to quality of life and equality. The main actions include the following:

4.1.1.

A flagship initiative on guidelines for independent living for the MS to improve independent living and inclusion in the community. The EESC sees this as a potentially crucial initiative. Its strength will rely on a clear and strict definition of what constitutes institutional care, why it should be avoided, and what is understood by investment in community-based services and independent living. The guidelines must be drawn up with input from persons with disabilities and their representative organisations.

4.1.2.

A framework for social services to improve service delivery for persons with disabilities and to enhance the attractiveness of jobs in this area. The EESC considers that this framework must focus not only on how to make the social service sector more attractive in terms of salary and working conditions, but also ensure that service providers receive adequate training on how to provide support that is guided by the choices of services users and takes a person-centred, human rights-based approach.

4.1.3.

A new package on labour market outcomes of persons with disabilities. As part of this package, the EC will also seek to ensure rigorous application by the MS of the rights covered by the Employment Equality Directive and will report on the Directive’s application in 2021. The EC will also oversee the development of an Action Plan on the Social Economy in 2021, including opportunities related to persons with disabilities and integration into the open labour market. Persons with disabilities face many barriers to accessing employment. The EESC believes that the EC must be clear on which barriers exist and which must be addressed most urgently, as well as how COVID-19 has worsened the situation. We recommend that the design of the package be preceded by research or a survey to ask persons with disabilities, and the organisations of persons with disabilities, what they want to see done. The EESC also believes that the employment package should focus on the ability to access quality employment on the open labour market, including in the social economy and D-WISE employment models, preventing the further exclusion of persons with disabilities, and particularly reaching out to women and young people with disabilities who are looking for work. The aim should not only be to improve employment rates, but to enable persons with disabilities to improve their social status and financial wellbeing through paid work.

4.1.4.

A 2022 study on social protection and services for persons with disabilities followed by guidance to support the MS with the reform of social protection, focusing on disability assessment frameworks. The study should focus on social services as the basis for ensuring a dignified life for persons with disabilities as well as the role of families and carers. The guidance should thus underline that services must be able to meet the individual needs of persons with disabilities, be based within the community and not in isolated settings, and be accompanied by adequate disability allowance payments. It is crucial that guidance on social protection reforms address the heightened cost of living for persons with disabilities and urge the MS to be more flexible in allowing people to retain disability allowances regardless of their own income, or that of their spouse or partner. Persons with disabilities should be free to seek employment or live with/marry their partner without being penalised financially.

4.1.5.

A training strategy for justice professionals, with a focus on EU disability legislation including the UNCRPD. This will include a study on procedural safeguards for vulnerable adults in criminal proceedings and will assess the need for legislative proposals on support and protection of vulnerable adults in line with the Victims’ Rights Strategy. The EC will also provide MS with guidance on access to justice for persons with disabilities in the EU. It will support the MS in boosting the participation of persons with disabilities as professionals in the justice system. The EESC welcomes these proposals that echo recommendations it made in its opinion (7). The EESC is also pleased that the EC will ask the Fundamental Rights Agency to examine the situation of persons with disabilities living in institutions in terms of violence, abuse and torture. These actions should also provide guidance on how to ensure that persons with disabilities do not have their right to justice denied or subject to delays because of accessibility issues, lack of legal capacity, lack of assistance for supported decision-making or the absence of communication assistance, such as sign language interpretation. Good practices on supported decision-making should be collected in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the CRPD. It might also be beneficial to explore how the MS have implemented the Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings (8).

4.1.6.

Several actions in the area of education. These include support for the MS in securing assistive technologies and providing an accessible digital learning environment and content under the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. The EC also proposes a toolkit for inclusion in early childhood education and care, with a specific chapter on children with disabilities. Lastly, the EC will help the MS to further develop teacher education systems to address shortages of teachers in Special Needs Education and enable all education professionals to manage diversity and inclusive education. The EESC is pleased to see the EC acknowledge the role that the EU can play in fostering inclusive education, particularly e-learning as learners with disabilities faced many accessibility issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The EESC would however like to stress that the action on training for Special Needs Teachers should also focus on training teachers in mainstream education settings on how to offer inclusive classroom learning. The EC should promote mainstream inclusive education and encourage the MS to allocate Special Needs Educators to inclusive education settings. The provision of career guidance for persons with disabilities in education systems should also be invested in and improved.

4.1.7.

In the areas of inclusive arts and culture, sport, leisure and recreational activities including tourism, the Strategy will strengthen participation by working on multiple fronts, namely by cooperating with mainstream and disability-specific sports organisations, supporting the creation of art by artists with disabilities and using EU funds to make cultural heritage sites and arts events more accessible to persons with disabilities.

4.1.8.

The EESC regrets that the Strategy lacks ambition on the adoption of the Horizontal Non-Discrimination Directive, blocked in the Council for the last decade. There are no real plans to overcome this blockage or propose alternatives should the Council fail to reach an agreement.

4.1.9.

The EESC would also have liked to see more attention paid to health-related issues. The Strategy focuses on the Plan for beating cancer, which we welcome, but is very vague on mental health, the accessibility of information related to health and the provision of healthcare to persons with disabilities still living in institutions.

5.   Promoting the rights of persons with disabilities globally

5.1.

Chapter six of the Strategy covers actions related to promoting the rights of persons with disabilities globally. The main actions include the following:

5.1.1.

Strengthening EU data collection on persons with disabilities in EU-funded humanitarian aid, for example by promoting the use of the Washington Group’s Short Set of Questions. This is an excellent proposal which responds to requests previously made by the EESC. The Committee would like to see disaggregated data collection improved on all fronts, particularly regarding people living in institutions. The EU should also support the implementation of the UNCRPD and promote global ratification.

5.1.2.

Updating the Toolbox on the ‘Rights Based Approach, encompassing all human rights for EU development cooperation’ in 2021. This should be done not only in cooperation with disability organisation in the EU, but also with national and local disability organisations based in the countries where these investments are being made.

5.1.3.

Ensuring systematic use of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) disability marker to track disability inclusive investments for targeted monitoring of EU funding. The EESC is very pleased to see that this suggestion, made in its SOC/616 opinion (9), has been taken on board.

6.   Delivering the strategy and leading by example

6.1.

Chapters seven and eight of the Strategy cover actions related to the implementation of the Strategy, and how the EC will change its structure and way of working to achieve this. The main actions include the following:

6.1.1.

An annual exchange of views with the EESC. The EESC is pleased to see that its involvement in the implementation of the Strategy will be formalised and looks forward to this ongoing, structured cooperation. It is also pleased to see that the EC will also organise regular high-level meetings with the European Parliament, the Council and the EEAS, involving representative organisations of persons with disabilities.

6.1.2.

Establishing the Disability Platform to replace the High-Level Group on Disability. The Platform will support the implementation of the Strategy as well as national disability strategies. It will bring together national CRPD focal points, organisations of persons with disabilities and the EC. It will provide a forum to discuss the UN’s assessments of MS’ implementation of the CRPD. The EESC has great hopes of this new structure, which promises to be more open and transparent than the High-Level Group.

6.1.3.

A renewed Human Resources strategy to boost the recruitment and career perspectives of staff with disabilities. including a ‘Diversity and Inclusion Office’ to oversee the development and implementation of actions advancing diversity and inclusion across the EC. The EESC sees this as one of the most promising actions within the Strategy and hopes that it will result in real growth of recruitment of persons with disabilities in the EU institutions. The EESC is also happy to note that the EC will update EPSO’s targeted communication and outreach strategy, and will strengthen reporting by the managers of all EC services on diversity and reasonable accommodation for staff with disabilities.

6.1.4.

Improving the accessibility of all EC audiovisual communications and graphic design services by 2023. The EESC welcomes this action and calls on the EC to work with accessibility experts to ensure the highest possible level of accessibility.

6.1.5.

Guaranteeing the accessibility of all newly occupied EC buildings. The EC will also ensure that venues for EC events are accessible and that all EC buildings meet European accessibility standards by 2030. The EESC urges the EC to deliver on this without fail.

6.1.6.

Developing a strategy for data collection which will steer the MS and analyse existing data sources and indicators, including for administrative data. The EESC underlines the need to collect disaggregated data, possibly with the use of the Washington Group’s Short Set of Questions, as is already alluded to in the Strategy.

6.1.7.

Publishing a framework for monitoring the objectives and actions of this Strategy followed by the development of new disability indicators and the release of a report in 2024 on the Strategy, assessing the state of play and, if necessary, updating its objectives and actions. The EESC, and particularly the EESC Disability Group, is ready to support the EC in designing this framework, alongside disability organisations. The EESC is pleased that a date has been set for the implementation report, timed to enable the EC to correct any shortcomings during the lifespan of the Strategy.

---

(1)  OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 41.

(2)  Disability and labour market integration: Policy trends and support.

(3)  OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 41.

(4)  OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 41.

(5)  OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 41, OJ C 56, 16.2.2021, p. 36.

(6)  Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1).

(7)  OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 41.

(8)  OJ C 378, 24.12.2013, p. 8.

(9)  OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 41.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Council Recommendation Establishing a European Child Guarantee

(COM(2021) 137 final)

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — EU strategy on the rights of the child

(COM(2021) 142 final)

(2021/C 374/10)

Rapporteur:	Kinga JOÓ
Co-rapporteur:	Maria del Carmen BARRERA CHAMORRO

Referral	European Commission, 31.5.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Bureau decision	23.3.2021
Section responsible	Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship
Adopted in section	21.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	7.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	231/0/2

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The unacceptable figure of one in four children across the EU growing up at risk of poverty and social exclusion requires a coordinated European approach based on strong policy and legal frameworks in order to reverse this trend and break the intergenerational cycle of disadvantage. There must be an ambitious target aiming to lift all children out of poverty by 2030 and not only five million children.

1.2.

Mainstreaming children’s rights into policy-making is essential. Practically every policy area affects children, hence a whole-society approach is needed to ensure that different policies (relating to the family, education, the economy, the digital world, the environment, housing) have empowering and long-lasting positive effects on children’s health and well-being. An integrated approach and horizontal measures need to be adopted urgently at EU, national, regional and local level, in order to encompass all important areas that can have an impact on children’s lives, both today and in the future.

1.3.

The EESC recommends that the national action plans on the Child Guarantee include a set of two- and multi-generation measures to develop supports for both children and their parents as the vulnerability of a child cannot be addressed without addressing that of their family. Parents and carers must be supported through a mix of actions: adequate income, work-life balance, the take-up of adequately paid maternity, paternity and parental leave, carer’s leave, flexible work arrangements and family-friendly workplaces.

1.4.

Human and children’s rights are binding for all Member States as stated in Article 2 TEU. A stronger Europe-wide policy framework on children’s rights is needed and has been called for by many stakeholders. Organised civil society, especially social services, children’s organisations, family organisations, and formal and non-formal education providers, must be consulted and duly involved in drafting national action plans and in their monitoring mechanisms. Targeted actions can best support the effective implementation of these two EU frameworks to end poverty and promote children’s health and well-being.

1.5.

Only 11 countries had earmarked specific ESF+ funding for lifting children out of poverty, while a number of other Member States were very close to the EU average with their data on poverty risks among children. The EESC recommends that all Member States earmark ESF+ funding for lifting children out of poverty, taking the designated 5 % as a minimum. There is also a need to improve the collection of quality disaggregated data in order to help monitor progress towards ending child poverty and social exclusion.

1.6.

The EESC recommends that Member States grant free access to early childhood education and care, education and school-based activities and healthcare or grant these services free of charge. Alternatively, they can ensure, through appropriate cash benefits, that children obtain these key services without causing an extra financial burden for families.

1.7.

While drawing up their National Plans under the Child Guarantee, the EESC recommends that Member States specify the target age group when appropriate, while noting that children’s rights apply to every person under 18 years of age. This is especially important for ensuring the complementarity of frameworks such as the Child Guarantee and the Youth Guarantee, in the best interest of the beneficiaries.

1.8.

The EESC urges the Commission to put the Strategy on the Rights of the Child at a horizontal coordination level with other recently approved European strategies, such as the strategies for gender equality, for LGBTIQ equality, for Roma, and for disability rights.

2.   Introduction

2.1.

Children’s rights are the human rights of all those below the age of 18. The protection of the rights of the child is an objective of the European Union as stated in Article 3(3) TEU and Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Council of Europe promotes and protects the human rights of children based on the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016-2021) and other relevant legal standards. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), every person below the age of 18 years old in the world is entitled to the same set of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights — irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, religion, language, abilities, migration status, sexual orientation or any other status. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also apply in this instance.

2.2.

On 4 June 2007, an annual Forum on the Rights of the Child was launched. This platform enables dialogue between EU institutions and other stakeholders and monitors EU action on children’s rights each year. In 2010, the EESC adopted an opinion on Child poverty and children’s well-being (1), and in 2011 it adopted an opinion on An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child (2) calling on the Member States to support children in every way possible.

2.3.

On 20 February 2013, the Commission adopted recommendations to strengthen children’s rights, reduce child poverty and improve children’s wellbeing (3). On 24 November 2015, the European Parliament called on the Commission and the EU Member States to introduce the Child Guarantee and programmes offering support and opportunities for parents to escape from social exclusion and join the labour market (4). On 13 December 2017, the Parliament, the Council and the Commission proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) which also focuses on ‘Childcare and support to children’ (5) (Principle 11). The EPSR also proclaims the right to protection from poverty and the right to specific measures to enhance equal opportunities. As a follow-up, in July 2020 the Commission commissioned a feasibility study (6) and in August 2020 it launched public consultations on the Child Guarantee and on delivering an EU strategy on the rights of the child.

2.4.

On 24 March 2021, with the support of the European Parliament (7), the Commission adopted the first comprehensive EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child for 2021-2024, as well as a proposal for a Council recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee.

3.   General comments on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the Commission proposal on the European Child Guarantee

3.1.

The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child is a rights-based policy framework mainstreaming children’s rights as a cross-cutting issue across EU policy and legislation. The proposal for a Council Recommendation on the EU Child Guarantee is legally binding with a clear set of implementation actions, targets and measures to be monitored closely by the EU. The EESC welcomes both proposals, believing that their implementation will support efforts at European and national level to promote children’s well-being and reduce child poverty.

3.2.

Children are the most vulnerable members of our society, and are not in a position to tackle the risk of poverty and social exclusion on their own. Violence against children, in all its forms, is widespread. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in certain forms of violence, as reported by the police and other mainstream services such as helplines for children in many Member States which are faced with rising number of cases (8). 18 million children or 22,2 % of children in the EU were growing up at risk of poverty and social exclusion according to Eurostat data from 2019 and this figure is likely to increase due to the socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic (9). One in four children in the EU grows up in families in precarious situations that need support to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty.

3.3.

Children spoke up about the rights and future they want in the survey called Our Europe. Our Rights. Our Future (10) which contributed to shaping both the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the Child Guarantee. Overall, the views of over 10 000 children were collected by five children’s rights organisations. The findings made it clear that children’s views must help frame the economic, social, legal and policy frameworks and priorities of the EU.

3.4.

The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child takes a holistic approach, and its overarching goal is to build a better life for children within the EU and across the globe in six important fields: (i) child participation in the EU’s political and democratic life; (ii) socioeconomic inclusion, education and health; (iii) prevention of and protection from all forms of violence and discrimination; (iv) child-friendly justice; (v) children in the digital age; and (vi) the global dimension of the rights of the child. The proposal for a Council recommendation establishing the European Child Guarantee focuses on socioeconomic inclusion and access by children in need to a set of key services: early childhood education and care, education and school-based activities, access to healthcare, access to healthy nutrition and adequate housing. It contributes to the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child with a focus on children living in the EU.

3.5.

The strategy calls for more inclusive and systemic participation of children at local, national and EU levels. This will be achieved by means of a new EU Children’s Participation Platform, to be established in partnership with the European Parliament and children’s rights organisations, to ensure that children are more involved in decision making.

3.6.

The strategy calls for children to grow up free from violence and exploitation. Children can be victims, witnesses or perpetrators of violence. According to reports by the ILO, many children are exploited in the labour market and used for forced labour, including sexual exploitation and prostitution. The strategy also calls for child-friendly justice, and points out that judicial proceedings must be adapted to their age and needs and must give primary consideration to the best interests of the child. Accessibility of justice must be ensured for children so as to work towards full recognition and realisation of children’s rights while maintaining the efficiency of legal proceedings, including through specialised training of judicial officials.

3.7.

The family environment is key for children to thrive. In its Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the Commission points out that equal sharing of childcare responsibilities between parents plays a key role in children’s social inclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate socioeconomic effect on women, and parents need to work together more than ever as a team in the best interests of the child. The implementation of both the Child Guarantee and the Strategy on the Rights of the Child must be linked to key initiatives of the EPSR, such as the transposition of the EU Work-Life Balance Directive.

3.8.

There is a wide range of family models in the EU, including rainbow families with one or more LGBTIQ members. In accordance with the Commission’s LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, children of rainbow families must be protected, especially in transnational situations where, due to differences in family law between Member States, family ties may cease to be recognised when they cross the EU’s internal borders. In accordance with the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030, children with disabilities must have an equal right to be included in the community with choices equal to those of others. As envisaged in the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020-2030, the social advancement of Roma children must be tackled. Prevention of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and sex characteristic, disability or ethnic origin, has to be fostered from an early age.

3.9.

The Guarantee proposal provides guidance and resources for the Member States to support children in need, given the strong correlation between social exclusion of children and lack of access to key services. Vulnerable children include (i) homeless children or children experiencing severe housing deprivation; (ii) children with disabilities; (iii) children with a migrant background; (iv) children with a minority racial or ethnic background (particularly Roma); (v) children in alternative (especially institutional) care; and (vi) children in precarious family situations.

3.10.

The Guarantee is a strategic framework guiding the actions of the 27 Member States through national action plans focused on implementing the Guarantee and targeting households with children at risk of poverty and social exclusion. The recommendation must be adopted by the Council of the EU, after which all Member States will have six months to prepare national Child Guarantee Action Plans. The Guarantee proposal stresses that although ensuring access to the services is an important part of tackling child social exclusion, it must be set within a broader approach and within an enabling social and family policy framework.

3.11.

The strategy formulates recommendations for action at EU and national level, in different policies and funding programmes which impact the health and wellbeing of children, such as EU funds, migration, healthcare, housing, education, the economy, the environment and digital transformation.

3.12.

The Commission will report back on progress of the Strategy at EU and national level at the annual EU Forum on the Rights of the Child. An evaluation of the strategy will be conducted at the end of 2024, with the participation of children. The Commission will monitor progress on the Guarantee through a mix of tools, including the European Semester.

3.13.

Transparent data on the use of EU and national funds should be included in the national action plans, along with a timeline for activities. The Member States can draw on EU funds to support their actions, particularly the  ESF+ and Next Generation EU. The ESF+ has a specific objective relevant to this matter and earmarks funds for fighting child poverty. According to the new regulation, EU Member States where the child poverty average is higher than the 2017-2019 EU average (23,4 %) will have to allocate at least 5 % of their ESF+ financial resources to tackling child poverty.

4.   Specific comments on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child

4.1.

The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child is a much needed European Union framework to protect children’s rights and empower children. While adults can vote and have access to legal redress and formal complaints procedures if their rights are infringed, children are often excluded from these mechanisms. Children are thus voiceless in the policy-making process, and their interests can remain invisible to government without a conscious and systematic effort to protect and promote them.

4.2.

To be most effective, meaningful children’s participation requires widespread changes in political and institutional structures, as well as in attitudes, values and cultural practices, so that children are recognised as citizens and stakeholders. To support children’s participation and make their voices and claims heard, capacity-building is needed for both children and adults, including through non-formal activities provided by civil society actors in and outside of school settings. The Conference on the Future of Europe is an excellent opportunity to put child participation into action, and the EESC will also explore ways to phase in greater child participation.

4.3.

The child is an individual and a member of a family and community with rights and responsibilities appropriate to their age and stage of development and with the right to quality of life. Parents and caregivers are fundamental in the cognitive, physical and emotional development of the child. A warm and supportive (grand)parent-child relationship is an essential element of children’s wellbeing and resilience. Sibling relationships also play a key role in the development of children. This relationship becomes even more important for children in alternative care, and so brothers and sisters should be able to stay together, unless that is not in their best interest. Policies must prioritise investing in children and their families and ensure that appropriate and high quality support is provided through a systemic multi-generation approach to supporting families in raising children through positive parenting skills.

4.4.

The initiative supporting the development and reinforcement of integrated child protection systems put forward by the strategy should be complemented by measures to prevent all forms of violence against children. Violence suffered or witnessed in childhood can have long-lasting consequences on the physical, emotional and psychological development of children. A plan involving all levels of government from EU to municipal is needed to prevent and address violence against children and must tackle exposure to all forms of violence, abuse and neglect, including physical and psychological violence, sexual violence, online violence, domestic, institutional and school violence. Intersecting vulnerabilities should be addressed, such as the increased risks faced by girls, children (and particularly girls) with disabilities, children living in vulnerable situations and households prone to violence. In case of minors as perpetrators of violence, besides child-friendly judicial procedures, a child-friendly institutional background is also needed to facilitate their full social reintegration. Emergency helplines and other such NGO-driven services to support children and families should receive structural funding to ensure sustainability and effectiveness.

4.5.

Children’s rights must also be addressed in key spheres of influence which impact the wellbeing of children and their families. Decision-makers should systematically mainstream children’s rights to assess the impact of an initiative that can affect children and their rights. In this respect, when the rights of the child are concerned in relations with third countries, it is important to act swiftly and effectively when necessary. This is the overarching approach taken by the strategy and must be at the centre of the implementation and evaluation process. Additionally, in the implementation of the Strategy, Member States should be aided by a pool of best practices that already exist in other countries and have yielded good results.

4.6.

Children are the least responsible for climate change, yet they bear the greatest burden of its impact. The strategy refers to the impact of the environmental and climate crisis on children, but it should go further, ensuring that environmental policies and legislation take children’s physical and mental health as a starting point so as to reduce children’s exposure to environmental hazards. Children are more sensitive and vulnerable to environmental risks than adults.

4.7.

The next generation will likely see a total merging of their offline and online lives. This is the approach taken by the Strategy: mainstreaming children’s rights in the digital world to make it futureproof. Today, more and more children use digital devices at an increasingly early age. We need accessible digital environments which work by default for all children, with strong regulation for a safer internet supported by digital citizenship education. Children have a right to access online information from a diversity of sources, and not be subject to self-learning algorithms or advertising business models leading to low-quality information.

4.8.

Children — from an early age — can become victims of cyber-bullying, which can cause serious or even fatal mental health problems. Children also fall victim to online sexual abuse, as occurred more than ever during the lockdown period, when the amount of Child Sexual Abuse Material shared online saw a significant increase (11). Prevention and countering any form of online violence is of paramount importance for the online safety of children.

4.9.

Children’s rights, especially those of younger children, should be respected by all media and advertisers, and children should be protected as consumers. This is especially relevant in relation to healthy nutrition that is affordable and comes from an environmentally sustainable source. The strategy proposes to develop best practices and a voluntary code of conduct to reduce marketing to children of products high in sugar, fat and salt. Coherent policy making, stricter legislative controls on product information and information on food safety and marketing, aiming to restrict advertising for unhealthy foods and drinks, are needed.

5.   Specific comments on the European Child Guarantee

5.1.

Child poverty, deprivation, discrimination and exclusion are some of the most serious obstacles to enforcing children’s rights; the EESC therefore welcomes the focus on these fields under the European Child Guarantee, in connection with the 2030 poverty target under the EPSR which aims to lift at least 5 million children out of poverty by 2030. This is a significant step forward, but the EESC urges each Member State to present qualitative and quantitative targets in their Child Guarantee Action Plans, exceeding the European Commission’s target by taking the impact of COVID-19 into account. These action plans should be linked to existing legal and policy documents adopted in the framework of UNCRC monitoring.

5.2.

The feasibility study on the Child Guarantee explored the advantages of a twin-track approach whereby all children, including those most in need, should have access to services (12). Where necessary those children facing the greatest barriers to access should receive additional and targeted support to ensure they have access through automatic mechanisms which prevent any form of stigma. This should be applied to all service areas highlighted in the Child Guarantee via a comprehensive and intersectional approach, so as to ensure that every child has the same opportunities and start in life, irrespective of their family setting or background, or individual needs, and to be fully in line with the transition towards good quality, family- and community-based care services.

5.3.

In their 2020 joint statement on childcare provision in the EU, the social partners emphasise that every child is entitled to have access to high quality, inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC) to have a good start in life, taking into account the Barcelona targets and their upcoming revision. This is not to say that this is mandatory: parents should have the freedom to have a say in what they judge to be the best interest of their child before the age of compulsory education. However, there must be continuity between the care provided by families in the first months/years of a child’s life and professional ECEC that is tailored to individual needs, as children enter the education system and parents shift back to the labour market or training.

5.4.

For children in older age groups (namely 15-18 years), consistency must be ensured between the Child Guarantee and Youth Guarantee, acknowledging potential overlaps, ensuring a clear allocation of budgets, and developing age-appropriate and distinctive measures in national action plans to support children and their parents to ensure smooth transitions between education and employment. This includes stereotype-free information for children about the world of work to prepare them for the realities of employment, and encouraging the participation of children in science, engineering and mathematics studies (STEM), especially for girls, while encouraging boys to enter care and teaching professions.

5.5.

Inequality in access to healthcare is morally unjust and socially unfair. It contravenes patients’ fundamental right to the highest attainable health, including mental health; moreover, it does not just have a human cost, it is also expensive from the point of view of the economic sustainability of public spending. Besides the health risks, a decrease in children’s emotional and mental wellbeing has been observed to be one consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, with many children suffering from anxiety due to lack of information and uncertainty about the current situation or experiencing loneliness and having suicidal thoughts. Providing quick high-quality medical assistance and mental health support is essential in these situations.

5.6.

On average, 5,4 % of school-aged children (6-16 years) in Europe live in households that cannot afford a computer or an internet connection. Tackling child and family poverty under the Child Guarantee also means tackling digital deprivation. The EU-SILC severe material deprivation indicator (13) should include at least one digital deprivation variable. One in four Europeans is unable to adequately light, heat or cool their homes — contributing to the deaths of 100 000 people each year. According to the report of the European Social Policy Network published in autumn 2020, energy poverty affects not only low-income households but also a large proportion of middle-income households in a significant number of Member States. Children’s life quality and life choices, as well as their health conditions, are affected by their access to energy. For social and environmental justice together, the energy poverty of children should be tackled within the Child Guarantee linked to the actions under principle 20 of the EPSR.

5.7.

Following the swift adoption of the Council recommendation, the national action plans for the Child Guarantee should be in line with the three-pronged approach of the Commission Recommendation 2013/112/EU (14) on investing in children (access to adequate resources, access to affordable quality services, and children’s right to participate), and should be developed in consultation with children and their families and civil society organisations, reinforcing national, regional and local civil dialogue. Organisations providing support services, both public and non-profit, should be included among the stakeholders involved in the Child Guarantee process, as well as the social partners linked to the service areas, to ensure decent working conditions and access to top quality services for children.

5.8.

The EESC welcomes the proposal for Child Guarantee National Coordinators equipped with suitable resources and mandates, who will coordinate and monitor the implementation of the recommendation. An efficient system will be essential to put in place inter-governmental coordinating arrangements (at national and subnational levels) to develop, implement and monitor the wellbeing of children and to reduce child poverty and social exclusion. It must be ensured that integrated approaches at national level are translated into integrated approaches at regional and local level and that effective arrangements ensure synergies between them. All relevant indicators should be disaggregated at local level, where possible, to have a clearer picture of territorial differences and to better plan and monitor the implementation of the recommendation.

5.9.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted previously existing challenges and immediate needs for many families in precarious situations who are likely to be most affected by the long-term economic, educational, health and wellbeing consequences of the pandemic. The gaps in and lack of coordination between systems have been magnified. Deteriorating economic and social conditions have increased the risk of child neglect. The closure of educational institutions has led to serious difficulties for many parents and carers. Absenteeism increased the risk of dropping out of education for children from marginalised groups and made it very difficult for children with disabilities, including learning disabilities. It is essential that school environments provide every child with the same opportunities and targeted support where needed.

5.10.

Family services can play a key role in helping families cope with this situation (15). Support for families in their fundamental role includes filling gaps in education, training, social inclusion, parenting skills, psychological wellbeing, access to services, employment and income, while also looking beyond social policy. Therefore, the EESC reiterates its call for a ‘Care Deal for Europe’, ensuring the provision of greater quality services for all throughout the life-cycle (16). Children’s health and wellbeing depends on universal 21st century family policies, where children are treated equally regardless of family arrangements.

5.11.

Social dialogue plays a role in developing practical tools to make childcare more accessible and affordable by, for example, creating joint funds through collective agreements to support childcare projects addressing specific needs of working parents in specific sectors, such as care for children with illness and disabilities and care outside regular opening hours. It is, therefore, very important to take into account the joint statement by the social partners, which states that shortages of after-school hours and holiday childcare in Europe is a major obstacle to full-time paid work for parents with school-age children. Cooperation between all-day care and the socio-cultural sphere, such as sports clubs, music schools and cultural initiatives, is vital. Physical activity and cultural education contribute significantly to the physical, social, emotional and cultural development of children.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 11.2.2011 p. 34.

(2)  OJ C 43, 15.2.2012, p. 34.

(3)  OJ L 59, 2.3.2013, p. 5.

(4)  EP resolution (2015) on reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty (OJ C 366, 27.10.2017, p. 19), point 46.

(5)  Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights.

(6)  Feasibility study for a child guarantee, final report.

(7)  EP resolution (2021) on children's rights with a view to the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child.

(8)  WHO Europe, The rise and rise of interpersonal violence — an unintended impact of the COVID-19 response on families (2020).

(9)  Unicef, Supporting Families and Children Beyond COVID-19 — Social protection in high-income countries (2021).

(10)  Unicef, Children speak up about the rights and the future they want (2021).

(11)  OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 63.

(12)  Feasibility study for a child guarantee, final report.

(13)  This indicator is being replaced by a severe material and social deprivation (SMSD) indicator.

(14)  Commission Recommendation 2013/112/EU of 20 February 2013 Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage (OJ L 59, 2.3.2013, p. 5).

(15)  OECD Looking beyond COVID-19: Strengthening family support services across the OECD.

(16)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.220.01.0013.01.ENG, OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 13.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Action Plan on synergies between civil, defence and space industries

(COM(2021) 70 final)

(2021/C 374/11)

Rapporteur:	Manuel GARCÍA SALGADO
Co-rapporteur:	Jan PIE

Referral	European Commission, 26.3.2021
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI)
Adopted in section	17.6.2021
Adopted at plenary	8.7.2021
Plenary session No	562
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	195/0/7

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC believes that the initiative to promote synergies between EU-funded instruments, while also facilitating cross-fertilisation between civil, defence and space industries, can enhance European strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty, improve the security of citizens, further develop the single market, and boost competitiveness, economic growth and employment. The EESC therefore fully supports the objectives of the Action Plan and calls for a rapid, forceful and ambitious implementation of the 11 actions.

1.2.

A key priority of the Action Plan should be the uptake of new digital and other emerging technologies in defence and security. To facilitate this uptake, it should be ensured that relevant civil initiatives take into account defence and security requirements from the outset. This would also help optimise the scope and efficiency of defence- and security-specific funding instruments.

1.3.

The EESC takes the view that the Action Plan should not limit itself to identifying existing opportunities for synergies. It should also point the way to moving from an ad hoc approach to a more systematic one that creates synergies by design. The EESC therefore encourages the Commission to introduce new forms of integrated planning across relevant programmes.

1.4.

In the EESC’s view, the approach of linking capabilities, technologies and value chains can achieve greater coherence and a more strategic use of EU funding. We therefore call on the Commission to frame relevant EU programmes accordingly.

1.5.

The EESC considers the envisaged Observatory for Critical Technologies to be an essential element of this approach. To foster cross-fertilisation between civil, defence, security and space, the observatory should in particular develop a common technology taxonomy applicable to all sectors.

1.6.

The EESC considers the Action Plan to be a pillar of the EU Industrial Strategy. The successful translation of technology roadmaps into fully-fledged industrial flagships is therefore crucial. We therefore call upon the Commission to ensure that the work of the observatory leads to tangible results.

1.7.

In the EESC’s view, the full engagement of relevant stakeholders, in particular industry and RTOs, is crucial for the successful implementation of the Action Plan. In this context, we welcome the Commission’s intention to launch targeted actions to support start-ups, SMEs and RTOs to raise awareness about EU programmes and instruments.

1.8.

Equally important is raising public awareness of the economic and technological dividends of EU funding on defence and security for EU citizens. To achieve this, the Commission should launch specific information campaigns in which civil society representatives must be involved.

1.9.

The EESC believes that SMEs play a key role in the process of implementing the Action Plan. It is therefore important to ensure that they have access to all the measures envisaged.

1.10.

Historically, innovations in defence have been adopted by civil products. Today, emerging technologies are driven by huge investment from commercial sectors, and technological dissemination increasingly flows in the opposite direction, from civil to defence. In this context, digitalisation is of particular importance. The Action Plan is fundamental to fostering the integration of new digital and other emerging technologies in the defence, security and space ecosystem.

1.11.

Targeted recruitment, retention and advancement of women in the defence and security sectors should be prioritised, along with ensuring quality jobs and qualifications for young people, in order to foster social inclusion and gender equality in a still male-dominated ecosystem.

1.12.

Alongside the rights to equal opportunities and non-discrimination, quality employment is part of a new social contract to be established with European citizens.

1.13.

Social factors need to be incorporated into investments. In other words, a return on investment should not only be viewed in economic terms, but also in terms of key aspects such as employment, job creation and the quality of employment. Space must be made accessible to SMEs by facilitating their access to resilience funds, increasing synergies in relation to the training, qualification and mobility of SME workers, strengthening ecosystems along the value chain, avoiding the duplication of resources and ensuring that all countries in the EU work together.

1.14.

Likewise, we see a need, even if dealing with investments of high strategic value, to include a requirement to carry out evaluations of investments and to monitor them against set corporate social responsibility standards.

1.15.

These requirements should be introduced for investments at EU level, to ensure that no area in which public money is invested is left out of these provisions.

2.   Background

2.1.

Together with civil aeronautics, space, defence and security form a high-tech ecosystem of strategic importance for Europe. Many companies within this ecosystem undertake both defence and civil activities and are part of complex cross-border supply chains, which include numerous mid-caps and SMEs. This ecosystem has a long record of synergies between its sectors and with other civil hi-tech industry sectors. The emergence of new technologies offers huge potential for future synergies.

2.2.

Historically, innovations in defence have been adopted by civil products. Today, emerging technologies are driven by huge investment from commercial sectors, and technological dissemination increasingly flows in the opposite direction, from civil to defence. In this context, digitalisation is of particular importance. The Action Plan is fundamental to fostering the integration of new digital and other emerging technologies in the defence, security and space ecosystem.

2.3.

The EESC considers that in order to recover from the COVID-19 crisis and to make the ongoing technological revolution a success, the EU needs an industrial ‘reset’, based on the use of advanced digital technologies that will foster economic growth and create a more resilient economic model.

2.4.

Technological advances are a continuous, dynamic process; breakthroughs always occur but are hard to predict. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance to incentivise the convergence of emerging dual-use technologies through large-scale European projects to boost innovation, competitiveness and technological leadership in strategically important sectors.

2.5.

In October 2020, the European Council noted that achieving strategic autonomy while maintaining an open economy is a key Union objective and called for the EU to develop autonomy in the space industry and a more integrated industrial basis for defence. These objectives are supported by numerous important EU initiatives, such as the European Defence Fund (1), the Space Programme (2), Digital Europe, Horizon Europe, the Security Union Strategy and the new Industrial Strategy. We regard the Action Plan on Synergies as a link between these instruments and strategies and call on the European Commission to put maximum effort into the ambitious and effective implementation of the proposed actions.

2.6.

Return on investment should not only be viewed in economic terms, but also in terms of key aspects such as employment, job creation and the quality of employment. The EESC therefore stresses the importance of education and skills for the successful implementation of the Action Plan. There can be no innovation and competitiveness without a highly skilled workforce, and the uptake of new emerging technologies will necessitate additional efforts in reskilling and upskilling. Moreover, initiatives to foster technological synergies between sectors should be accompanied by measures to facilitate the cross-sectoral mobility of employees.

2.7.

The EESC considers diversity to be an essential driver for innovation and calls on the Commission also to use the Action Plan as a tool to foster social inclusion and gender equality in a still male-dominated ecosystem. As research shows, diversity leads to better decision-making. Therefore, the presence of women at all levels of decision-making is vital and should be fostered by recruitment, retention and advancement policies. In addition, the Committee calls for measures to combat vertical segregation and giving young girls initial impetus to pursue careers in these sectors, e.g. by making them enthusiastic about the STEM sector early in the educational agenda.

3.   General comments

3.1.

The European Commission’s Action Plan specifically refers to and emphasises ‘synergies’, which are looked at ‘in a challenging international environment, where the EU needs to maintain its technological edge and support its industrial base’. In the new geopolitical context, it is particularly important to support sectors that contribute to the EU’s strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty.

3.2.

The EU’s 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) significantly scales up investment in technologies for strategic sectors such as defence, security, mobility, health, information management, cyber and space. With the European Defence Fund (EDF), it includes for the first time ever an EU programme specifically dedicated to cooperative defence projects. Relevant MFF programmes cover research, development, demonstration, prototyping and deployment (procurement of innovative products and services) in a complementary fashion. Hence, there is enormous potential for synergies between EU programmes. Fully exploiting these synergies would increase the added-value of European investments tremendously and must therefore be a top priority for the Commission.

3.3.

Public spending on research and innovation (R&I) in Europe remains far below the level of the US and China. R&I efforts are decisive for the industry’s competitiveness and Europe’s autonomy. Therefore, synergies between EU programmes must optimise return on investment, but not replace R&I funding. Member States must step up their efforts as well and not use European investment as an excuse to reduce their own spending on strategic sectors. Equally important is the synchronisation between EU and national R&I programmes, for example, as part of the European Semester, as a means of ensuring the optimal use of resources.

3.4.

New digital and other emerging technologies are driven by huge investment from commercial sectors. At the same time, they are also indispensable enablers for defence and security capabilities. The uptake of these technologies in defence and security should therefore be a priority of the Action Plan. It should ensure that civil programmes such as the European Cloud, Clean Hydrogen and the European Processor Initiative take into account defence and security requirements from the outset.

3.5.

Technological synergies are possible mainly at lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and for components and subsystems. In digital domains such as artificial intelligence, high-performance computing and blockchain, many underlying models and theories are the same for different sectors. Sharing research work at these levels would accelerate the development of sector-specific solutions and free up resources for their deployment. A new partnership-based approach to governance between industry, public authorities, the social partners and other stakeholders should ensure a just transition for ecosystems during their digital and green transformation. Priority will be given to finding synergies between the ecosystems and sectors facing the most significant hurdles to achieving environmental, social and governance resilience and sustainability objectives. SMEs will be encouraged to participate in trans-European, interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral clusters, linking the critical value chains of the aerospace and defence ecosystems, with the mobility, automotive, transport, and health sectors in particular. These clusters need to be provided with support to help them deal with shocks and vulnerabilities, or to diversify, by connecting them with new local or cross-border partners through viable and sustainable competitiveness plans.

3.6.

Synergies in the research phase will not eliminate differences between sector-specific applications. Due to different customer requirements, 5G for defence will not be like commercial 5G, and a combat cloud will differ from a commercial cloud, even if the basic technological bricks are similar. Defence, security and space industries are indispensable for the adaptation and integration of emerging technologies into sector-specific solutions.

3.7.

In the EESC’s view, the implementation of the Action Plan must also take account of differences between the defence, security, space and civil markets. As business models and regulatory frameworks are not the same, a balance must be found on the openness of research results, IPRs, guarantees for high-risk investments, assurance of economic return, etc. In this respect, emerging technologies will also bring new challenges, e.g. for the standardisation and protection of data.

4.   Specific comments

4.1.

The EESC believes that the Action Plan must take into account relevant security and defence initiatives managed by the Member States. Examples would include the Strategic Compass, the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the Civilian CSDP Compact.

4.2.

The EESC also believes it is important to take EU-NATO cooperation into account and to ensure in particular interoperability between NATO and EU assets, including those for encrypted and secure communications. Commission services should continue to work closely with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the European Defence Agency (EDA), whose activities should promote synergies and cross-fertilisation.

4.3.

The EESC welcomes the importance that the Action Plan attaches to flagship projects. Bringing together companies of all sizes from different sectors and from across the EU, such flagships foster cross-border cooperation and can become effective frameworks for the consistent use of industrial policy tools. To ensure that the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights is effective during the digital and climate transitions, and to ensure that it has a long-term and structural impact on the implementation of the mechanisms for sustainable competitiveness linked to the European Semester, we recommend that the proposed measures be accompanied by a multi-stakeholder governance system, with the aim of guaranteeing coherence between different actions and the effective involvement of all relevant stakeholders.

4.4.

The EESC encourages the Commission to implement the Action Plan in both a long- and a short-term approach: In a short-term approach, it should promote cross-fertilisation between existing EU-funded initiatives. The Action Plan itself lists a broad range of initiatives in various domains, from space to maritime security, that seem promising in this respect.

4.5.

At the same time, The EESC takes the view that the Action Plan should not limit itself to identifying existing opportunities for synergies. It should also point the way to moving from an ad hoc approach to a more systematic one that creates synergies by design. The Action Plan contains several elements that can contribute to making this happen: cross-sectoral technology watch, capability planning, close coordination of funding programmes, technology roadmaps, assessment of value chains, etc. To be effective and have a long-term, structuring impact, we recommend that the proposed actions should be accompanied by new governance structures and appropriate planning processes across all relevant programmes. This seems necessary to ensure coherence between the different actions and involve all relevant stakeholders effectively.

4.6.

The EESC considers transparency to be equally important. The choice of technologies, roadmaps and flagships that are to be supported should be comprehensible and based on objective criteria. The envisaged two-yearly progress report should formulate KPIs to measure success and include gate reviews to improve the process and stop actions if no value is being produced. Legal and regulatory aspects should also be part of the evaluation process to identify if and where the legal basis and the provisions of EU programmes would need to be modified to foster and exploit synergies.

4.7.

Looking at each action individually, the EESC is of the following opinion:

4.7.1.

ACTION 1: Before the end of 2021, the Commission will present a proposal to strengthen the forward-looking and early identification of needs and solutions in the field of internal security and law enforcement by fostering capability-driven approaches across security sectors, building on best practices from the defence and space sectors. From the EESC’s perspective, this action is most welcome since a capability-driven approach is key to overcoming the current fragmentation of Europe’s security market and enable security end-users to be ahead of current and future security threats. The envisaged capability-planning process for integrated border management is welcome, but its establishment must be accelerated considerably to have an impact on related spending programmes before the end of the current MFF. To cope with the diversity of security end-users and give some stability to planning processes, we would recommend establishing, at EU level, security missions that are broad enough to capture diverse and evolving capability requirements. The envisaged approach should be strategic and long term, but also flexible enough to cover possible low-probability but high-impact events (such as a pandemic) and react to the sudden emergence of unexpected threats.

4.7.2.

ACTION 2: Before the end of 2021 and with a view to the 2022 work-programmes, the Commission will further enhance its internal process to promote synergies between space, defence and related civil industries by improving coordination of EU programmes and instruments and by launching actions to facilitate access to finance. The EESC considers this action to be one of the centrepieces of the Action Plan. The EU should exploit potential synergies horizontally between R&I programmes (e.g. EDF and Horizon Europe) to foster cross-fertilisation, but also vertically between R&I and deployment programmes (e.g. security research and the Internal Security Fund) to foster market uptake of research results. Differences in the rules and conditions for programmes risk becoming obstacles to synergies and will necessitate careful consideration of legal and technical issues such as IPR. It will be particularly important to establish, within the Commission, new forms of integrated programming and planning to ensure that synergies occur not by coincidence but design.

4.7.3.

ACTION 3: Starting in the second half of 2021, the Commission will announce targeted actions for start-ups, SMEs and RTOs to raise awareness about EU programmes and instruments that offer funding opportunities, provide technical support and hands-on training, provide business-accelerating services, showcase innovative solutions, and facilitate market entry to the defence, security, space or other relevant civil markets. The EESC agrees that start-ups and SMEs are crucial drivers of innovation and play an important role for synergies, as they often operate in different sectors and across the dividing line between civil and defence. At the same time, they normally lack the capacities to execute complex projects and the financial strength to operate independently on purely public, highly regulated markets with very specific customer needs. Consequently, they need strong links to system integrators to drive innovation into the market. The Action Plan should therefore support the integration of start-ups and SME into cross-border supply chains and foster the link between RTOs and industry.

4.7.4.

ACTION 4: The Commission will develop technology roadmaps to boost innovation on critical technologies for the defence, space and related civil sectors and stimulate cross-border cooperation using all relevant EU instruments in a synergetic way. These roadmaps will be based on an assessment produced every two years by a new Observatory for Critical Technologies within the Commission. The roadmaps may lead to the launch of new flagship projects. The EESC fully supports the establishment of an observatory and its mission to develop technology roadmaps that bring together defence, space and related civil industries. We also welcome the intention to include value chains in the assessment, as it paves the way towards the coherent and combined use of industrial policy tools to support technological leadership in strategic sectors. At the same time, the success of this action depends on numerous factors. The observatory will have to — develop strong links to relevant capability planning processes; — actively monitor worldwide technology trends and detect at the earliest possible stage technological breakthroughs and disruptions; — establish objectives, rules and criteria for the assessment of technologies; — develop a common taxonomy applicable to all relevant sectors must be developed to ensure that space, defence and security speak the same ‘technological language’. Finally, it must be ensured that the roadmaps generated by the observatory do not end up as pure paper exercises, but are actually implemented into work programmes and flagships. To achieve all this, we recommend that the observatory also build on lessons learned from similar existing processes, such as the Joint Task Force (EDA-ESA-EC) on critical space technologies.

4.7.5.

ACTION 5: Before the end of 2022, the Commission, in close cooperation with other key stakeholders, will present a plan to promote the use of existing hybrid civil/defence standards and the development of new ones. The EESC considers standards to be a powerful tool to shape markets. The use of hybrid standards makes sense where it is appropriate, and the examples of CBRN or Security Data Space are indeed promising. The challenge, however, is the slowness of the standardisation process for technical standards, which seems to be increasingly struggling to keep pace with new innovation development. Standards requirements should also be part of Horizon Europe’s calls to ensure that new innovations will actually be usable for end-users.

4.7.6.

ACTION 6: In the first half of 2022, the Commission will launch, in cooperation with the European Innovation Council and other stakeholders, an ‘innovation incubator’ to support new technologies and shape dual-use innovation. The Commission will also support cross-border defence innovation networks that will test the relevance of technologies from the civil sector and support responsible innovation in defence value chains. These actions will also address the current fragmentation of the civil-defence innovation landscape, shortages of skills as well as equality and inclusion goals. The EESC considers the establishment of a dual-use innovation incubator and defence innovation networks to be interesting and worth exploring. In this context, special attention should be paid to the rapid obsolescence of many commercial technologies, which is often a major obstacle for their use in defence applications. We also encourage the Commission to actively foster cross-sectoral transfers of technologies with accompanying administrative and financial support measures. Since it opens new avenues, the EESC would recommend active monitoring and regular assessment of this action to measure its success.

4.7.7.

ACTION 7: From June 2021 onwards, the Commission will set up together with Member States the Cybersecurity Competence Centre, allocating the necessary resources from relevant EU programmes and instruments. The Commission will seek to strengthen synergies, spin-ins and spin-offs between the work of the Centre, the EDF and the EU Space programme on cybersecurity and cyber defence with a view to reduce vulnerabilities and create efficiencies. The EESC believes that the activities covered in Action 7 are essential for Europe’s sovereignty in key technology areas. Cybersecurity and cyber defence are obvious choices for synergies between security, defence and space and should indeed be given high priority. Close cooperation between public authorities and the private sector is particularly important here.

4.7.8.

ACTION 8: Starting in the first half of 2022, to support disruptive technologies, the Commission will present innovative forms of funding to promote participation of non-traditional players, attract start-ups and promote cross-fertilisation of solutions, building upon opportunities offered by EU programmes and instruments including the DEP and the EDF. The EESC welcomes the support of potentially disruptive technologies as the logical complement to a more traditional capability-based approach and suggests relating it closely to the envisaged technological observatory. We also support the use of the EDF and DEP for such activities and recommend further developing a fully-fledged European agency similar to DARPA (3) in the medium term.

4.7.9.

ACTION 9: EU drone technologies. Drones (4) provide numerous illustrations of technologies used in commercial aeronautics, and in space, security and defence Cross-fertilisation is of the essence in drone technology, and inclusion of civil and military drones in the aerospace sector is dual-purpose as well. Hence, the EESC fully supports the launch of a drones flagship project as an obvious choice and recommends underpinning it with a specific technology roadmap that prioritises the relevant technological building blocks in line with their relevance for European strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty.

4.7.10.

ACTION 10: EU space-based global secure communications system. The EESC considers this flagship project to be highly important, as it covers key elements of European autonomy and technological sovereignty. At the same time, it remains unclear how this project will create or benefit from synergies with the defence sector. We believe that one option for additional synergies would be to place additional payloads on board satellites in this system. This could include sensors for space surveillance, which would create synergies between the two space-related flagships.

4.7.11.

ACTION 11: Space Traffic Management. STM is crucial for the security of space-based assets and infrastructures that are increasingly important for the functioning of modern societies. The EESC therefore supports the launch of a specific STM flagship. At the same time, we are concerned that this initiative is limited to regulatory and standardisation aspects, which are important but not sufficient. The Commission should therefore also consider the creation of a marketplace for space surveillance data (as is the objective in the US). In order to develop a credible European STM approach, Europe should also significantly improve its space surveillance capabilities (new sensors, analysis and calculation capacity, etc.).

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the European Defence Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1092 (OJ L 170, 12.5.2021, p. 149).

(2)  Communication on space policy (COM(2021) 208 of 21 April 2021).

(3)  The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the R & D agency of the US Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies.

(4)  OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 51.