8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/1

1.1

In its previous opinion (1) on nanosciences and nanotechnologies, the EESC recognised that it would be helpful to include a brief definition of the main terms used, reflecting the fact that the opinion dealt with a partly new subject, whose vocabulary was little known or at any rate little used. Those definitions should therefore be restated at the beginning of the present opinion.

1.1.1

Many other European programmes which started in 2000 are still in force in 2006, alongside the sixth framework programme. Consequently, it is worth indicating in the notes which main programmes have implications for N&N, especially those programmes that are of particular importance to the new Member States, who did not have the opportunity to follow their inception and the debate on their objectives before 2004.

1.2.1

Nano — means one billionth of a whole. In this case, nano is used to mean a billionth of a metre.

1.2.2

Micro — means one millionth of a whole. In this case, it means one millionth of a metre.

1.2.3

Nanosciences — The nanosciences are a new approach to traditional science (chemistry, physics, electronic biology, etc.) and deal with the basic structure and behaviour of materials at the level of atoms and molecules. These sciences in fact study the potential of atoms in the various scientific disciplines (3).

1.2.4

Nanotechnologies — These technologies enable atoms and molecules to be manipulated so as to create new surfaces and objects that, having a different make-up and arrangement of atoms, have properties that can be used in day-to-day life (4). These are technologies that deal with billionths of a metre.

1.2.5

In addition to the above definition, it is worthwhile mentioning another, more significant one from a scientific point of view. The term nanotechnology describes a multidisciplinary approach to the creation of materials, mechanisms and systems, by means of the nanometric scale control of materials. In accordance with this multidisciplinary approach, a broad knowledge-base in electronics, physics and chemistry is required to establish a nanotechnology qualification.

1.2.6

Nanomechanics — The dimensions of an object begin to be important in determining its properties when the scale of its dimensions is of one or a few dozen nanometres (objects made of a few dozen or a few thousand atoms). Within this range of dimensions, an object composed of 100 iron atoms has physical and chemical properties that are radically different to one composed of 200 atoms, even if they are both made of the same atoms. Similarly, the mechanical and electromagnetic properties of a solid made up of nanoparticles are radically different to those of a traditional solid of the same chemical composition and are affected by the properties of the individual constituent units.

1.2.7

Microelectronics — This is a branch of electronics that deals with the development of integrated circuits, built within individual semiconductor regions, with minute dimensions. Microelectronics can currently create individual components with dimensions in the realms of 0.1 micrometre, or 100 nanometres (5).

1.2.8

Nanoelectronics — This is a science that studies and produces circuits that are made using technologies and materials other than silicon and that work on a substantially different set of principles (6).

1.2.9

Nanoelectronics is set to become a cornerstone of nanotechnology, just as electronics today permeates all scientific sectors and industrial processes (7).

1.2.10

Biomimetics  (8) — This is the science that studies the laws underpinning molecular structures existing in nature. Knowledge of these laws could enable artificial nanomotors to be created, based on the same principles as those existing in nature (9).

1.3.1

The Committee welcomes the proposals presented by the Commission to implement by 2009 an action plan for N&N in particular with regard to:

1.3.1.1

Focal point staff must possess in-depth, proven scientific and management skills, and be particularly well attuned to the general context in which N&N development takes place.

1.3.1.2

It is also true of N&N that ‘Community-funded research and development activities create considerable European added value. They open up potentials that plainly go beyond the capacities of individual Member States and have already facilitated European developments of global importance’ (10). This illustrates the importance of a Community focal point which can manage the sector, with clearly-allocated responsibilities.

1.3.2

In the light of the N&N revolution, the Committee is convinced that Europe's chances of being at the forefront in a setting where new players are constantly — and aggressively — entering the world market hinges upon its capacity for coordination and upon the creation of a securely-based European critical mass of nanotechnology.

1.3.3

In the Committee's view, it is crucial that the European Union should succeed in shaping an N&N action plan capable of mobilising a collective drive for governance, and of uniting the Community, national and regional levels in complying with the subsidiarity principle. More specifically, the plan should provide:

1.3.4

The Committee calls for the Community action plan to be accompanied by national action plans, providing coordination and regular benchmarking of convergence and synergies in various fields: infrastructure; training and education; risk assessment; harmonisation of standards and patents; and, lastly, dialogue with civil society, especially consumers.

1.3.5

The Committee believes that European industry should expand and intensify N&N research and application efforts, increasing investment to levels at least equal to those of its more advanced competitors. This could be achieved by means of the following actions: development of European technology platforms; incentives for the protection and industrial exploitation of N&N; encouragement for targeted training for small-scale entrepreneurs; development of European N&N innovation and application networks; support for multidisciplinary qualification schemes for workers and technical specialists; establishment of ‘business nanotechnologies’ and prototyping and certification laboratories; and creation of a common framework for technical standardisation and intellectual and industrial property.

1.3.6

The two-yearly monitoring report on the implementation of the Community action plan and its consistency with other EU policies should, in the Committee's view, be accompanied by an annual scoreboard detailing compliance with the adopted timetable, and should include the Member State reports on the implementation of the national action plans.

1.3.7

The report should be submitted to the European Economic and Social Committee as well as to the EP and the Council.

2.1

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies (N&N) represent a rapidly-expanding field which holds great promise for the conversion of basic research into successful innovation. The sector is highly significant in terms of both boosting the competitiveness of European industry as a whole, and creating new products and services capable of enhancing the well-being and quality of life of society and individual citizens.

2.2

Most analysts are convinced that by 2015 N&N-based materials, products and services will be able to generate a global market worth hundreds of billions of euros each year (11) provided that (i) scientific excellence can be successfully translated into commercially viable products, processes and services, and (ii) as emphasised by the Commission itself (12), ‘a repeat of the European 'paradox' witnessed for other technologies’ can be avoided.

2.3

In order to achieve this, there is, in the Committee's opinion, a need to:

2.4

The Committee issued an earlier opinion on this subject (13), which included the following recommendations:

2.5.1

Over the last five years, the European Commission has used Community resources to support some 30 centres of excellence in connection with the various thematic priorities under the Community's Framework Research Programme: many of these centres involved in developing N&N (14) are linked to universities, research bodies and enterprises in the new Member States.

2.5.2

The Committee considers it important for the European Joint Research Centre to continue providing support and encouragement for centres of excellence in the new Member States and the applicant countries, particularly in the N&N sector, specifically including this aspect in their work programmes.

2.5.3

In the Committee's view, the Commission should also support the growth of European N&N innovation, application and prototyping networks, especially for small businesses, which represent the bulk of Europe's industrial fabric.

2.5.4

More specifically, specific service packages should be provided to help entrepreneurs to identify opportunities and links in N&N applications, and multiply successful initiatives such as Gate2Growth (15) and Minanet (16); new sources and methods of risk funding should therefore be identified, together with guarantee systems to supplement existing ones.

2.5.5

The Committee also believes that the PHANTOMS Community initiative — a network of excellence on nanotechnologies set up under the IST/FET Community programme — for Information Society Technologies merits further development and a higher profile.

2.5.6

Furthermore, the EESC considers that, in the light of the need to give greater impetus to research and innovation in the new Member States and applicant states, greater synergies should be built up with the EUREKA and COST initiatives, under which many of these countries are conducting N&N activities.

2.6.1

Overall spending at global level by governments, businesses and the financial world on research and development in the N&N sector was estimated to stand, in January 2005, at some EUR 7 billion per annum (17) (more than half from public funds), of which approximately 35 % was spent in North America, 35 % in Asia, 28 % in Europe and 2 % in the rest of the world.

2.6.1.1

Although the differences in public investment at the end of the 1990s were, in per capita terms, very small (roughly EUR 1 in the US and Japan, in the EU half this amount), by 2005 per capita spending in the US stood at EUR 5, in Japan at EUR 6.5 and in the EU at EUR 3.5. Forecasts to 2011 suggest a level of more than EUR 9 in the US and Japan, and EUR 6.5 in the EU (18).

2.6.2

Spending by industry at world level amounts to more than EUR 3 billion per annum, of which 46 % is carried out by US companies, 36 % by Asian companies, 17 % by European companies and less than 1 % by businesses from the rest of the world. Some 1 500 companies have declared a strong commitment to N&N research and development: of these, 80 % are represented by start-ups, of which more than half are North American. Media coverage of nanotechnology affairs has risen from about 7 000 articles a year to the current 12 000 (19).

2.6.3

Over the five years between the end of 2000 and the present, the federal government of the United States has invested more than US $ 4 billion in nanotechnologies. For 2006 alone, the Bush administration has requested US $ 1 billion for N&N research to be allocated to the eleven federal research agencies. As pointed out in the 2005 report on The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years, ‘the United States is the acknowledged leader in nanotechnology R&D’ at world level, with annual public and private investment of US $ 3 billion, accounting for approximately one third of world spending.

2.6.3.1

The US also comes first in the number of business start-ups, publications and patents. At federal level, it is felt that spending on new knowledge and infrastructure is both ‘appropriate and wise’, likely to generate ‘substantial economic payoffs over the long term’.

2.6.4

Annual spending in Japan in 2003 stood at about EUR 630 million, with 73 % provided by the Ministry of Education and 21 % by the Ministry for the Economy, Trade and Industry. Research is focused primarily on nanomaterials. In terms of nanotechnology venture capital, Mitsui has decided to invest almost EUR 700 million over the next four years, while the Critical Technology Fund will channel some EUR 30 billion to N&N research (20).

2.6.5

Still in Asia, Taiwan too plans to invest more than EUR 600 million between now and 2008, with 800 companies involved with N&N; it is expected that production will rise to EUR 7.5 billion in 2006, with a rise in the number of businesses in the sector to 1 500 and new product development of up to EUR 25 billion in 2012, particularly in the various nanoelectronics sectors.

2.6.5.1

The prerequisite for this expansion to take place is that intellectual and industrial property problems be resolved.

2.6.6

South Korea is one of the first countries whose companies have successfully marketed N&N based products (21). The country, which has a potential domestic nanotechnologies market estimated to be worth some EUR 2 billion, has launched a Next Generation Core Development Program on N&N, with a budget of EUR 168 million. Its priorities include nanomaterials, nanocomposites and bionanotechnologies.

2.6.7

More than 30 N&N companies have been set up in recent years in Australia, and their numbers are continuing to grow by 50 % a year. Public and private spending on N&N research amounts to nearly EUR 60 million a year, focusing mainly on new materials, bionanotechnology and medical and therapeutic applications.

2.6.8

According to a report recently published in Beijing on nanotechnology development in China in the 2005-2010 period, with forecasts up to 2015 (22), the country is one of the world's leaders in terms of new N&N business registrations, publications and patents, with an internal market for N&N products and systems estimated at more than EUR 4.5 billion, and set to grow to more than EUR 27 billion by 2010, and more than EUR 120 billion by 2015 (23).

2.6.9

The EESC believes that the international picture serves to highlight the importance of ensuring a proactive climate favourable to research and innovation in all EU countries, in order to be able to share successfully in research and development investment in the sector.

3.1

The Committee has always argued that stronger efforts to achieve an increase in absolute and relative terms of R&D investment in Europe are necessary as part of the effort to achieve the 3 % Barcelona objective. In the light of international trends, it is convinced that such an effort is necessary first and foremost in the N&N sector.

3.1.1

The Committee believes that the effort would be weakened if not made as part of a robust process of European-level coordination of national and regional N&N research programmes, partly via the ERA-NET and ERA-NET PLUS (24) schemes. It should be backed by actions to raise awareness and support for research centres, industries and universities through the COST (25), ESF (26) and EUREKA (27) programmes, and with EIB loans.

3.1.2

The Committee is of the view that such European coordination and cooperation should also cover Member State actions designed to develop interdisciplinary infrastructures and centres of N&N skills and excellence, which should also aim to link up with a pan-European network to multiply synergies and prevent wasteful duplication.

3.2.1

The Committee is convinced that if the Community action plan is to be effective and credible, it should contain a calendar and detailed timetable, which would facilitate more stringent checks on the progress achieved in the following spheres:

3.2.2

The Committee strongly advocates a substantial increase in investment in N&N research, innovation and training, at Community, Member State and regional level, in parallel and in close coordination with the Member State and regional levels.

3.2.2.1

In this connection, the Committee would emphasise that, in contrast to the situation in other research sectors, the amount of Community funding channelled to N&N is equal to that from the Member States (where, for general research, Community resources account for 4-5 % of overall European research expenditure, while Member State resources represent 87 %).

3.2.3

The Committee considers that no less than 10 % of the resources allocated to the specific ‘Cooperation’ programme under FP7 2007-2013 should be earmarked for the N&N thematic priority.

3.2.3.1

Within the ‘Capacities’ programme, due place should be accorded to SMEs for N&N research and innovation, particularly for ‘nanotechnology districts’, infrastructure for excellence and N&N foresight activities.

3.2.3.2

The proper place should be given to training and mobility for N&N researchers, within the specific ‘People’ programme, and the same should apply to the work of the Joint Research Centre with regard to safety and metronomy, as well as to prospective technological studies.

3.2.4

For its part, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme should, from 2007 onwards, be able to devote — even with the limited resources available to it — some of its efforts to fostering a culture of entrepreneurship geared to the organisational applications of N&N research.

3.2.5

The Committee strongly supports the establishment of European technology platforms, modelled on those already in place for nanoelectronics and nanomedicine; these platforms are in fact ideal instruments for mobilising all the public and private players across the different sectors (science, training, technology, industry, finance) in Community, national/regional or joint projects and initiatives, underpinned by a shared and proactive forward-looking vision.

3.2.6

The Committee considers investment in advanced education and training to be crucial. The new post-2006 Community programmes should make specific provision for areas of action providing multidisciplinary support for N&N.

3.2.7

The Commission should facilitate industrial exploitation by introducing the following by 2007, under the FP7 N&N work programme:

3.2.8

The Commission should immediately strengthen the ethical monitoring system, to ensure that all ethical issues are identified which may arise in connection with N&N, especially in the fields of medicine, the agri-food industry and cosmetics.

3.3.1

The Committee emphasises how important it is for Community action plans to be matched by national action plans, which are to be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission by the end of the first half of 2006. The purpose is to ensure coherence and synergies in the fields of infrastructure, training and education, as well as harmonisation of standards and patents, risk assessment and, lastly, dialogue with civil society, consumers and the media.

3.3.2

The Committee believes that the Member States should allocate a greater proportion of their available public and private investment to N&N, and should submit regular reports to the EP and the Council on the progress made in investment and in implementing national plans.

3.3.3

These reports should be included in the two-year Community report, with specific reference to:

3.3.4

The Committee considers that the Member States should act to preserve a proper balance between two imperatives: on the one hand, the need for cooperation and dissemination for scientific and practical purposes, geared to health and environmental protection and, on the other, the need to safeguard the confidentiality of inventions and intellectual and industrial property.

3.3.5

In the Committee's view, this again highlights the disadvantages of the lack of a Community patent and a single Community patent law. This concerns not only the question as to what can be patented in the Member States, in terms of inventions in bionanotechnology, but also simple access for stakeholders to information about new inventions and patents.

3.4.1

The Committee fully supports the guidelines set out in the action plan for building up structured cooperation and dialogue at international level. It would add the following suggestions:

3.5.1

The Committee believes that companies, especially SMEs, can derive enormous benefit from N&N research work and its direct dissemination to technology transfer, especially by taking on board energy efficiency and environmental technologies, IT nanotechnologies, new materials applied to processes, products and services, and the converging nano-, bio-, and infotechnologies.

3.5.2

The Committee considers that European industry should expand and intensify N&N research and application efforts, increasing investment to levels at least equal to those of its more advanced competitors: this effort should be given strong backing by the creation of a favourable regulatory and legislative environment at both Community and national/regional level.

3.5.3

The Committee is convinced that this approach, which advocates strong business involvement, is vital to N&N research and development and application, provided that arrangements are made for support actions at European, national/regional and, most of all, the joint level, aimed at:

3.5.4

The Committee emphasises that, especially in the field of N&N, workers and technical and scientific specialists represent — and must continue to represent — the greatest asset of socially responsible businesses.

3.5.4.1

The Committee would also highlight, in this respect, the importance of steps to ensure safe production environments and processes, appropriate training for the relevant human resources, particularly in the medical diagnostics and therapeutics sectors, with a special focus on prevention and ex-ante risk prevention and assessment aspects. This could be achieved with the help of technical conduct manuals, certified at European level.

3.5.4.2

The impact on workers of the new working patterns needed to apply N&N in economic life, and of the training and health and safety requirements, must be carefully evaluated and researched by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in Dublin.

3.5.5

The European N&N dialogue with all stakeholders should be put on an official footing by 2007, by establishing a consultative body or forum which should have the necessary visibility and transparency to act as a qualified and recognised partner for the media and civil society.

3.5.6

The successful awareness-raising pilot initiatives should be consolidated by 2007. They should be made visible as of now by linking them to the Europa web portal, and publicised among the European institutions, particularly the EP and the Council. They should also be given an international dimension with the establishment, in 2008 of the ‘Interdisciplinary N&N Prize’, to be awarded annually on the occasion of ‘European N&N week’.

3.5.7

In 2006 the Commission should introduce certified methodologies to identify risks in the application and/or use of N&N and, in the first half of 2008, propose European guidelines in this area.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/10

1.1

The Commission's proposals concern the research content and themes of the proposed seventh research and development programme (2007-2013) and seventh Euratom framework programme (2007-2011); the Committee has already commented on the Commission's earlier proposals for these programmes. The present Committee opinion therefore complements the previous opinion on the two framework programmes.

1.2

In its previous opinion, the Committee recommended making the urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the Commission available in full and not allowing them to become a pawn in — or fall victim to — the negotiations on the EU's future overall budget.

1.3

Clearly, the objective set out in the Lisbon strategy of making Europe the world's leading economy calls for a substantial increase in R&D investment. Europe is competing in this respect not only with countries such as the USA, Japan and Korea, but also with China, India and Brazil. The United States and Japan in particular have made R&D investment a national priority for strengthening their international competitiveness, and have made the requisite funding available. Hence, in view of ongoing global developments, the objective of investing 3 % of EU GDP in research and development, which was set by the Barcelona European Council in support of the Lisbon strategy and which has not yet been achieved, is a moving target. Late achievement of this target will mean that the EU is still lagging behind.

1.4

In view of the overall EU budget which the Council has adopted since then and its implications for the research budget, the Committee therefore reiterates its further recommendation that R&D be given a substantially higher share than hitherto — i.e. about 8 % — and that the increase envisaged in the Council decision should be introduced at an earlier stage instead of waiting for seven years.

1.5

At the heart of the Commission's proposals is the ‘cooperation’ specific programme. The Committee supports funding for the important research themes included in the programme such as energy, health, information technology, nanotechnology, the environment, transport, socio-economic sciences and the humanities, as well as the new themes of space and security. Chapter 4 includes detailed comments on the programme, and recommends an increased share of funding for individual areas.

1.6

In general, the Committee recommends providing as much scope for flexibility as possible, rather than rigidly allocating budgetary resources to the various themes. This should enable the Commission to respond promptly and without additional political measures during the implementation of the programme to any shifts in emphasis during the period, to new issues which arise or to necessary restructuring in view of the cross-cutting nature of many of the programme's themes.

1.7

The Committee reiterates its support for the ‘ideas’ specific programme. It feels that the main challenges presented by the programme, apart from securing adequate funding, lie in the selection of proposals for projects and in the management of the programme. The Committee is pleased to note that the independent European Research Council (ERC) will be put in charge of these demanding tasks.

1.8

The Committee has stressed on several occasions that the key to successful and competitive European R&D lies not only in cutting-edge equipment, funding and adequate general conditions, but also in sufficient highly qualified and creative scientists. The ‘people’ specific programme covers measures enabling the Commission to pursue this goal. The Committee strongly supports these measures. In addition, the Committee would refer to its earlier comments on the European Charter for Researchers published by the Commission.

1.9

The ‘cooperation’ specific programme is a particularly good example of the Community's ‘subsidiary’ roles. This mainly concerns research infrastructures — such as large apparatus, scientific instruments and computers — whose costs and potential exceed the capacities of individual Member States. The ‘research for SMEs’ sub-programme, which is included under ‘capacities’, ties in with previous Committee recommendations to involve SMEs more closely in innovation.

1.10

In conclusion, the Committee refers to its earlier recommendation to drastically cut red tape for applicants, to simplify procedures and at the same time to ensure maximum continuity in support instruments and award procedures.

2.1

The Commission's proposals, set out in seven separate documents, complement its proposal (1) on the 7th R&D framework programme (2007-2013) and the 7th Euratom framework programme (2007-2011), and they contain detailed information on the research content and themes of the support measures provided for.

2.1.1

Hence, this EESC opinion is a brief adjunct to the existing opinion  (2) on the 7th R&D framework programme (2007-2013) and the Euratom programme (2007-2011), and to the observations and recommendations set out therein.

2.1.2

Hence, this opinion is mainly concerned with research content, rather than structures and instruments. For example, the opinion does not return to the important issue of optimising the innovation triangle — basic research, applied research and development — nor to the recommendation that in future the Commission officials supervising the project should continue to be experts with research experience and close familiarity with the relevant specialised theme, a requirement which entails sufficient continuity in terms of staffing. These arguments have been covered in detail in earlier opinions (3).

2.1.3

However, one important aspect should be mentioned at the outset, concerning the budgetary allocation to or subdivision of individual programme elements. The Committee has already recommended providing as much scope for flexibility as possible here, enabling the Commission to respond promptly and without additional political measures during the implementation of the programme to any shifts in emphasis during the period, to new issues or to necessary restructuring in view of the cross-cutting nature of many of the programme's themes.

2.2

The Commission had proposed an increase in the budgets of the two framework programmes to a total of EUR 72.7 billion (4). This would still be less than 8 % of the proposed total EU budget for 2007 — 2013 of EUR 1025 billion. In the EESC opinion on the seventh R&D framework programme referred to above, the Committee recommended making the urgently needed R&D investments proposed by the Commission available in full and not allowing them to become a pawn in — or fall victim to — the negotiations on the EU's future overall budget.

2.2.1

However, on 19 December 2005, the European Council agreed to a total EU budget of only EUR 862.4 (5) billion. As a result, the EU research budget might also be significantly lower (6) than that proposed by the Commission, although ‘the European Council  (7) believes that EU funding for research should be increased such that by 2013 the resources available are around 75 % higher in real terms than in 2006’. The Commission will draw up a revised proposal, in line with this figure. As a result, the political decision-making process on the two framework programmes is not yet finished.

2.2.2

Clearly, the objective set out in the Lisbon strategy of developing Europe as the world's leading economy calls for a substantial increase in R&D investment. Europe is competing in this respect not only with countries such as the USA, Japan and Korea, but also with China, India and Brazil. The United States and Japan in particular have made R&D investment a national priority for strengthening their international competitiveness, and have made the requisite funding available. Hence, in view of ongoing global developments, the objective of investing 3 % of EU GDP in research and development, which was set by the Barcelona European Council in support of the Lisbon strategy and which has not yet been achieved, is a moving target. Late achievement of this target will mean that the EU is still lagging behind.

2.3

In view of the current situation, the Committee feels that it is necessary once again to quote from the opinion referred to above, and reiterates its comments that (i) ‘effective, high-quality research and development that enjoys an adequate level of support is in fact the basic foundation and sine qua non for innovation, competitiveness and prosperity, and thus also for cultural development and the provision of social services’, (ii) ‘the Commission's proposal … is a minimum amount that must be increased still further in the longer term so as not to gamble away — but rather to maintain and strengthen — Europe's position as the cradle of modern science and technology’, and (iii) ‘without such action, it will not be possible, even in the longer term, to meet the Lisbon objectives’.

2.4

The Committee also reiterates its comment that European cooperation on research and development is an effective catalyst for European integration and cohesion. Given that the European Union is currently struggling to secure public support for its constitution, this is a particularly important consideration. It should also be mentioned that an adequate level of R&D is crucial not only for achieving the Lisbon objectives but also for dealing with current issues and problems in areas such as health, energy supplies and the environment.

2.5

The Committee would therefore reaffirm its recommendation that within the overall EU budget which has been decided on, R&D should be given a substantially higher share than hitherto — i.e. about 8 % — and that the increase envisaged in the Council decision should be introduced at an earlier stage instead of waiting for seven years.

2.6

The Committee acknowledges the Commission's proposal (8) to establish a European Institute of Technology (EIT). Without going into the details of this proposal here, it should be pointed out that the requisite expenditure on this proposal ought certainly not to be charged to the budget for the specific programmes discussed in this opinion.

2.7

The Committee also refers to its earlier recommendation to drastically cut red tape for applicants, to simplify procedures and at the same time to ensure maximum continuity in support instruments and award procedures. The Committee will set out its views on this matter in greater detail in its comments on the Commission's proposals concerning ‘rules for participation’ (9).

3.1

The Commission's proposals set out and define all areas of research and development under the 7th framework programme and the Euratom programme, i.e. the full range of research themes, content, methods and tools. There are also proposals concerning the contribution to be made to these activities by the Joint Research Centre. In addition the proposals outline measures to secure and consolidate the human resources required. Altogether there are seven Commission documents which also include very detailed information on the individual sub-programmes.

3.2

The structure of these sub-programmes is summarised as follows, with percentage shares of the total budget:

A — R&D framework programme (total budget: EUR 72 726 million) 2007-2013

B — Euratom programme (total budget: EUR 3 092 million) 2007-2011

3.3

A detailed description of the Commission's proposals is given in chapter 3 of the EESC opinion on the 7th R&D framework programme (CESE 1484/2005).

4.1

The following comments are based on the content of chapters 4-6 of the above-mentioned opinion on the 7th R&D framework programme, and are difficult to understand without reference to that document.

4.1.1

The Committee supports the Commission's resolve to reflect the cross-cutting relevance of many programme components and to promote multidisciplinarity through cross-thematic approaches.

4.1.2

In this connection, the Committee has also discussed the issue of whether branches of research activity relating to such cross-cutting themes — e.g. ICT in medicine — should be included in ICT or rather dealt with as part of the specialised health sub-programme. For example, it recommends steering some of the activities planned as part of ICT more towards the specialised sub-programmes, for instance on health, energy, transport or possibly social sciences, so as to focus on specific aspects related to each of these areas.

4.1.3

However, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions here; instead, decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis, depending, on the one hand, where the greatest scope for methodological synergies may be expected, and where, on the other, optimum linkage can be secured with the specific issues involved in each area. The Committee reiterates its recommendation that, whatever happens, ‘steps be taken to ensure overall coordination and the necessary link-ups’.

4.1.4

The Committee also welcomes the Commission's intention to respond flexibly to emerging needs, new knowledge and proposals, and to unforeseen policy requirements. Action by the Commission to promote and coordinate pre-competitive research and development will help to boost the EU's competitive position.

4.2.1

Health. The Committee emphasises the necessarily broad scope of the approach which ranges from preparing for and preventing epidemics and pandemics, to responding to demographic change with all the accompanying social and health-related implications and long-term effects, including research into old age and disabilities (whereby the latter also includes separate social and technical aspects, for instance, which go beyond health-related issues). In this connection, the Committee supports the Commission's intention not to neglect research into rare diseases. The programme should cover all the relevant scientific and technical fields — including biotechnology, genomics, stem cell research and other multidisciplinary approaches, including the issue of requisite quality and social standards. This concerns both bio-medical research in universities, clinics and publicly funded research institutes, and also involves making the European medical and pharmaceutical sector more competitive. The Committee therefore recommends endorsing the proposed programme framework. Research and development in the field of health are of key European and even global interest.

4.2.2

Food, agriculture and biotechnology (biotechnology is also relevant to the theme of health [point 4.2.1]). The Committee feels that this programme rightly aims to build or maintain a European knowledge-based bio-economy. The objective is to use life sciences and technologies to provide eco-efficient and competitive products and processes from the agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, food, health, forest-based and related industries. In view of the particularly intense agricultural competition with countries such as Brazil, this is also a very important sector. One possible new area for development might be the cultivation of plants that help to clean contaminated soil by accumulating pollutants, or on the other hand do not absorb any pollutants from contaminated soil and can thus be used safely.

4.2.3

Information and communication technologies (ICT). Products and services in the ICT sector have had a revolutionary impact, changing and enriching science, technology, administration and even the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. In terms of both its share of funding and the range of tasks involved, ICT represents the largest component of the ‘cooperation’ programme, and it has — or may have — an impact in all other areas. The objective is to make innovative, ICT-based products and services available in the fields of science, technology, administration and logistics. Thus, the ICT programme ranges from the development of innovative hardware (whereby, for example, chip development clearly overlaps with the nanotechnology programme), hardware systems and networks to new programming tools, where importance should also be attached to the accessibility of ICT services by all social groups. The Committee also refers to its comments on this matter in point 4.1.2. Whether the ICT programme can actually justify its lion's share is closely dependent on the extent to which it fulfils the task of contributing to the other programmes in future.

4.2.4

Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies. This too is a new and extremely innovative area (11) which, as part of the interplay between basic and applied research, has emerged from a whole range of sources and findings in the field of physical and chemical research and technology. It has the potential to yield new or improved products and processes in many branches of technology. At the same time, this area is so diverse and has so many ramifications that a very broad view must be taken in order to identify and harness common features and interconnections within this discipline, elements of which range from atomic physics, plasma technology and nano-mechanics to textile finishing. As nano-processes also take place on a microscopic scale barely imaginable to the public at large, constructive dialogue with users is needed on this subject from the very start, in order to identify and avert potential threats, but at the same time to calm unwarranted fears. The Commission's wide-ranging approach, which also includes efforts to impart knowledge, is therefore very welcome and the Committee supports it.

4.2.5

Energy. The Committee has repeatedly referred to the key theme of energy. It has also expressed its views on the subject in numerous specific opinions and emphasised the significant research needs in the field (12). A very serious energy problem awaits us in the medium to long term (13). It involves both the expected scarcity and price rises for conventional fuels such as crude oil and natural gas and the vital issue of secure supplies of such fuels to Europe, and the effects — in most cases, global effects — of energy use on the environment, particularly the climate. The only solution to the energy problem lies in improved or new technologies, which should, nonetheless, still offer good value for money. The key to this, in turn, is energy research. This must cover all aspects (14), from the better harnessing — and storage — of environmentally sound fuels to energy-saving technologies and more efficient energy use. This includes procedures for the partial or complete sequestration and storage of greenhouse gases. A switch to highly efficient electricity-generating power stations is also particularly important. The Committee finds the Commission's proposals in this regard correct and balanced, but is very concerned that the portion of the budget earmarked for it is too small, given the crucial importance of the task to be addressed. The Committee would recommend allocating an increased share of the budget here.

4.2.6

Environment (including climate change). Environmental protection is of fundamental importance for the quality and very foundations of life of both present and future generations. Recognising and resolving the problems involved — be the causes man-made or natural — is a particularly ambitious and potentially vital goal. This task is closely linked with the most diverse research and policy fields: economy, energy, health and agriculture, including monitoring tasks and, in view of the global aspects, international agreements. While environmental research focuses more on identifying — or learning how to identify — the various problems and their causes, in other areas — not least energy — the search for solutions plays a greater role. Budgeting should be flexible to take account of this.

4.2.7

Transport (including aeronautics). European transport systems are an important element of Europe's economic and social prosperity, and its cohesion. The Transport sub-programme is geared to developing integrated, ‘green’, ‘smart’ and safe pan-European transport systems and modes. To this end, it sets specific technical and logistical development goals for various transport modes and systems. The further development of energy-saving and low-emissions transport modes (aircraft, cars, etc.) is a scientific and technical task that is linked to the energy and environment sub-programmes, in which SMEs could also become involved. The respective technology platforms — ACCARE for aeronautics and air transport, ERRAC for rail transport, ERTRAC for road transport, WATERBORNE for waterborne transport, and hydrogen and fuel cells — are an important instrument here. Given the importance of an operational European transport network, not least for the new Member States, and given the ever-increasing total volume of transport — among other things, the prevention of traffic jams is a key, live issue at the moment — and the significance of such a network for European competitiveness (and its impact on the environment!), the goal of this sub-programme is also very important and is supported accordingly.

4.2.8.1

In the Committee's view, the goal of this programme should be to contribute to an in-depth understanding of the complex and interrelated socio-economic, legal and cultural challenges Europe is confronted with, including issues such as Europe's historical roots and common elements and also its borders and neighbours. A task of particular relevance for laying the Community's intellectual foundations and building European identity, which also concerns the dealings of Member States and citizens with one another, would be to establish a common and uniform description and assessment of European history in all Member States — or to step up current efforts to do so — as a basis for the content of history lessons.

4.2.8.2

However, this area also includes aspects such as economic, financial and tax policy, science policy, growth, employment and competitiveness, social cohesion and sustainability, quality of life, education, cultural and legislative issues and global interdependence. It also encompasses the special challenges facing modern society, such as demographic change (facts, implications, action), migration, social exclusion, cultural splits, and progress towards a knowledge-based society. To make this sub-programme more coherent and focused, the Committee also recommends that the section dealing not with communicating science and better mutual understanding between science and society (see also 4.5.3), but rather with research into the relationship between science and society be switched from the Science in Society programme under the Capacities heading to the Socio-economic sciences and humanities sub-programme. On the whole, the Committee considers the Socio-economic sciences and the humanities sub-programme to be very important, especially as it also plays a crucial role in policy consultations; it should be expanded to take in some of the issues mentioned above and thus, if necessary, also be strengthened in relative terms.

4.2.9.1

The terrorist attacks of the last few years have made citizens of the western world even more aware of the need for adequate security and the issue requires not only a broad legal, social and cultural approach, but also a technological and scientific one as well. However, the subject of security and security research is not confined to the Common Foreign and Security Policy; it also concerns areas such as transport, health (e.g. the EU Health Security Programme), civil protection (including natural and industrial disasters), energy and the environment.

4.2.9.2

The general public is yet to be fully aware of the phenomenal progress made in space exploration and technology. This is important in terms of both geostrategy and understanding the world; after all, astronomical observations and the knowledge, for instance, of planetary movements derived from them were a crucial starting point for modern science. Space research and technology also spearhead the development of innovative technologies. As far as space exploration is concerned, the Committee feels that evenly balanced collaboration is needed on the programme with existing European organisations, such as the ESA and ESO.

4.3

Ideas. Here the Commission is treading promising new ground in its support for research. Again, the Committee has welcomed this on a number of occasions (15). Supporting research proposals that really stand out within the ambit of Europe-wide competition — eschewing the hitherto usual requirement of crossborder cooperation — makes excellence both possible and visible, thus creating a magnet for researchers of outstanding European and international calibre, which in turn generates particularly fertile ground for innovation. On this question, the Committee again stresses that the risk of failure has to be faced if mediocrity is to be overcome. The prime difficulty here, in addition to adequate funding for the programme, lies in its selection procedure and management. The Committee thinks, therefore, that this demanding task should fall to a hand-picked independent panel of particularly successful and recognised scientists: the European Research Council (ERC).

4.4

People. The Committee has stressed on several occasions (16) that the key to successful and competitive European research and development lies not only in cutting-edge equipment and funding, but also in sufficient highly qualified and creative scientists. An interest in science and technology must therefore be instilled during childhood and youth, so that a sufficient number of those with the requisite talents begin and complete the very difficult and demanding studies which are needed in the field.

4.4.1

The Committee has already referred to the key role of universities as educational and research institutions and to the unsatisfactory situation in this respect in Europe in its opinion on the seventh R&D Framework Programme (17). Among other things, it is important to ensure that the scientific and personal conditions (18) are right for researchers to work on their doctorates — which are of importance to their careers. After a first-rate education, these people then also need international experience, an attractive research environment offering sufficient freedom, internationally competitive contracts and career planning. (The Committee has already commented on the European Charter for Researchers, which is of relevance to this subject; some aspects of the Charter meet with the Committee's approval, and others are criticised (19).)

4.4.2

However, given how important it is for science and research for researchers to be internationally mobile, especially between countries that perform particularly well in this area, it is essential to ensure there is no one-sided brain-drain; among other things, this means making salaries such that top American researchers, for instance, can also be brought to Europe, something that at present is practically impossible. The Committee therefore supports the Commission's repeatedly stressed goal of applying the requisite instruments and framework conditions and of working to ensure that the Member States use the instruments proposed in the People programme, some of which are already available. Creating attractive conditions for mobility and removing obstacles to it is also particularly important for the European Research Area. The Commission's vigorous pursuit of this goal is to be welcomed.

4.5

Capacities. This programme is a good example of the Community's ‘subsidiary’ roles.

4.5.1

This mainly concerns the goal of developing/installing, sharing and perfecting research infrastructures — such as large apparatus, scientific instruments and computers, whose costs and potential exceed the capacities of individual Member States. In this connection, the Committee is pleased to note that, in line with its earlier recommendation, preference is to be given to a bottom-up approach to proposals for the relevant projects.

4.5.2

At the same time, the other tasks listed under Capacities, such as Research for SMEs, Research for SME associations, Regions of knowledge and Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU's convergence regions and outermost regions are also very important, particularly for the new Member States and for SMEs.

4.5.3

The Science and society sub-programme is intended to stimulate the harmonious integration of scientific and technological endeavour and associated research policies into the European social web. This is a matter of the capacity to produce, use and propagate knowledge, and to generate innovations. Thus, the sub-programme is concerned, on the one hand, with presenting an image of science, scientists and their findings to the European public. The Committee endorses these objectives; it sees dissemination of knowledge as an important cultural task, which facilitates innovation. On the other hand, the sub-programme is also concerned with research on the reasons for scepticism among certain sections of the population about science (or at least some areas of science), scientific methods and its potential implications. In the Committee's view, these research activities, which are primarily of a sociological character, should be incorporated into the ‘Socio-economic sciences and the humanities’ sub-programme under the ‘Cooperation’ specific programme, so that they can be dealt with in the broader context of European cooperation provided for there.

4.6.1

The issue now in fusion research  (20) is (i) to pave the way for, and complete the construction of ITER, (ii) to work on all preparations required to operate it — including education and training of scientific staff, enlisting and mobilising the research potential of associated laboratories in the Member States and an international division of labour, (iii) to promote technological developments (particularly materials and the fuel cycle) geared to DEMO, and (iv) to research and perfect various (magnetic) confinement concepts. ITER and further development must be embedded in and supported by Member State research institutes. The Commission's proposals are in line with these tasks and international commitments, and they enjoy the Committee's full support.

4.6.2

The issue now in fission  (21) is (i) to further investigate and improve the safety of existing nuclear power plants (a task predominantly for industrial manufacturers and operators) and (ii) to develop new reactor concepts with even better safety, fuel exploitation and disposal parameters. This includes research into the reprocessing of spent fuels (transmutation, recycling). Other tasks include: (iii) solving the problem of final storage and securing political approval for this, (iv) supporting non-proliferation efforts regarding nuclear weapons materials, and (v) finding out more about the biological effects of (low) doses of radiation (22) and developing the appropriate measurement technologies (especially individual dosimetry). An important specific task in all of this is the education of a new generation of appropriately trained specialists. The Committee has misgivings about the shortage of ‘new recruits’ in some Member States and dwindling expertise and asks whether greater weight should not be attached to these very important questions, given the likely longer-term and global importance of nuclear energy use.

4.7.1

The JRC is quite rightly incorporated into both the 7th R&D framework programme (2007-2013) and the 7th Euratom framework programme (2007-2011). However, because this means that the JCR is answerable directly to the Commission and the strength of its policy consultations and flexibility of action derive precisely from this fact, steps must be taken to ensure that it is subject to the exacting and transparent standards required of all Member State research institutions in terms of international peer review, competition, recruitment procedures/staffing policy and monitoring, and that it is integrated into the international scientific community. The Committee considers such integration important, not least in terms of the socio-economic sciences and humanities mentioned above.

4.7.2

The JRC's tasks under the 7th R&D framework programme (2007-2013) include the general topic — important for the Community — of sustainable development (e.g. climate change, food, energy, transport, chemicals, decontamination). This includes the development of scientific and technological reference data for various spheres of environmental and food monitoring; it also provides a valuable contribution to framing the Community's legislative provisions. Another Community task is developing and disseminating internationally recognised reference bases and promoting a common European system of measurements. This could include coordinating the division of labour with national metrological and standardisation institutions and participation in their programmes. In terms of the European single market and European integration generally, consideration could therefore be given to establishing a ‘European Bureau of Standards’ which would involve the relevant national laboratories and institutions such as CEN and CELENEC, the industries concerned and the JRC.

4.7.3

It is quite right that the JCR should support policymaking in the nuclear field under the 7th Euratom framework programme (2007-2011), including the implementation and monitoring of existing strategies and the response to new demands. The Committee also approves of making disposal, safety and monitoring a priority in the ‘nuclear’ JCR programme (with these activities being integrated and coordinated with those of the Member States); this is where the public has concerns and where reliable solutions are needed. In the Committee's view, it is particularly important to (further) develop procedures which will allow an even better monitoring of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons material and technologies.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/17

1.1

Member States should be allowed, on the basis of a risk assessment, to apply more stringent measures than those to be laid down, under the condition that they finance them with their national budgets.

1.2

Each Member State should designate a single authority responsible for the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of security standards.

1.3

Each Member State should draw up a national civil aviation security programme.

1.4

In order to monitor the application by Member States of the new act, and also to identify weak points in aviation security, the Commission should conduct inspections, including unannounced inspections.

1.5

For the purpose of allowing transfer passengers and transfer baggage to be exempted from screening when arriving on a flight from a third country, which is known as the concept of ‘one stop security’ as well as for allowing passengers arriving on such a flight to mix with screened departing passengers, it is appropriate to encourage agreements between the Community and with third countries, recognising that the security standards applied in the third country are equivalent to Community standards.

1.6

The Committee welcomes the initiative of the Commission and fully supports the fundamental principles of the proposal.

1.7

It welcomes also the introduction of common rules for airport security, as procedures vary very much across Europe, and it is important that these should be standardised.

1.8

Considering annex Part 1 1.2 point 5 and part 11, in light of the freedom of movement of labour within the Community and the availability of labour from third countries, can the Commission offer assistance to national authorities, airports, airlines, etc. to validate personal information of potential employees, in order to meet the requirements of background checks.

1.9

The objective outlined in paragraph 1 of this Article should be amended to clarify that the security measures concerned are designed to protect civil aviation from acts of unlawful interference that jeopardise the safety of civil aviation. The measures concerned are not for addressing other types of unlawful interference such as theft and smuggling.

1.10

The European Commission should draw up and implement a comprehensive policy for financing aviation security measures that form part of Member States' national security duty to protect their citizens from the threat of terrorism.

1.11

A mechanism for assessing the impact on the industry of every future proposal for security measure should be added to this regulation. This will ensure that the cost and the impact of a given measure are not disproportionately high compared to its efficiency.

2.1

The European Commission's legislative proposal aims to clarify the European Union's legal framework (established by existing Regulation 2320/2002), to provide a basis for a common interpretation of the international requirements laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to remove sensitive information from the public arena and to place further emphasis on developing requirements in civil aviation security through implementing Regulation, i.e. by use of Decision 1999/468/EC on comitology which establishes a legislative decision-making process involving representatives of the EU Member States and the European Commission.

2.2

The proposal seeks to replace the existing regulation in order to bring forward better legislation, based on four principles, that of simplification, harmonisation, clarification, and enhancing the levels of security.

3.1

The objective of this proposal is to clarify, simplify and harmonise further the legal requirements with the aim of enhancing the overall security in civil aviation.

3.2

Experience over time has shown that the regulation is too detailed and is in need of simplification.

3.3

Whilst recognising the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is of the view that a greater degree of harmonisation than currently exists of security measures and procedures is desirable.

3.4

This has resulted in 25 national systems being in place and a consequential potential distortion of competition and the inability of industry to benefit from the freedoms of the Single Market.

3.5

Increased harmonisation is also an integral element of ‘one stop security’, the concept whereby transfer and transit passengers, bags and cargo need not be re-screened since there is confidence that baseline levels of security were met at the original departing airport. Again, this is an element that is of benefit to operators acting in a highly competitive market as well as to passengers.

3.6

The Commission is of the view that the ability to (re)act swiftly in the light of risks that are constantly evolving over time is of major significance to improve the overall levels of security.

3.7

In the view of the Commission, it is not desirable to have detailed security measures and procedures placed in the public domain. By placing operational details in implementing legislation, this issue can be addressed. The Committee would like to stress the importance that these new common rules take account of the specificities of persons with reduced mobility in line with the recommendations made by the recent Committee's opinion on the issue. Security checks and other security related measures, while legitimate and necessary, may create further barriers and limit the rights of people with reduced mobility, which would be against recent Commission efforts to guarantee disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility equal opportunities in air travel compared to the rest of the population.

3.8

Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes common rules in the field of civil aviation security. The proposal seeks to replace this legislative act.

3.9

Thus, Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 would be replaced by a simplified, clearer regulation laying down general principles.

3.10

The only additional competence sought relates to rules for in-flight security measures. It covers such diverse topics as access to the cockpit, unruly passengers, and in-flight security officers (sky marshals). The Committee would not recommend the use of sky marshals except in exceptional circumstances.

3.11

The requirement for security programmes reflects current best practice in the aviation sector, and, as such, is not a significant burden on industry or administrations. For Community carriers they should be approved by the carrier's national authorities and be mutually recognised by the other Member States and regulators.

3.12

Article 13 lays down an obligation for each Member State to undertake compliance monitoring activities by means of a national quality control programme.

3.13

Article 14 allows for Commission inspections of inter alia, Community airports.

3.14

Article 17 replaces the existing Article 10 on security of flights from third countries. It foresees agreements between the Community and third countries that would allow for the possibility of passengers, bags, and cargo transferring at Community airports without the need for re-screening and/or additional security controls.

3.15

This objective should be achieved by setting common rules and common standards on aviation security as well as mechanisms for monitoring compliance.

3.16

The content of Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 should be revised in the light of the experience gained, and the Regulation itself should be replaced by a new act seeking the simplification, harmonisation, and clarification of the existing rules and the improvement of the levels of security.

3.17

Given the need for more flexibility in adopting security measures and procedures in order to meet evolving risk assessments and to allow new technologies to be introduced, the new act should lay down the basic principles of what has to be done in order to safeguard civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference.

3.18

The new act should cover security measures that apply on board an aircraft, or during a flight, of Community air carriers.

4.1

It is important that common standards are set in relation to prohibited articles so as to avoid confusion and disputes at security search.

4.2

The term ‘continuous random’ is used in the Annex of the proposed Regulation, but is not defined. Inserting a definition of continuous random is essential in order to assure a uniform interpretation across Europe of this principle when it is applied to security checks.

4.3

More stringent measures should only be introduced in response to specific terrorist threats identified by the Member State authority through risk assessment. The introduction of more stringent measures contradicts the goals of harmonising aviation security measures across the European Union and of establishing a one stop security area. Any additional deterrent or preventative security measures henceforth required by the Member State must be concluded in full consultation with the airport operator and the Member State concerned must pay for the additional security measures as part of the government national security duty to protect its citizens from acts of terrorism.

4.4

Some airlines do not allow steel cutlery e.g. knives and forks, while others do, standardisation among all air carriers should be encouraged.

4.5

While scissors, nail files etc. are prohibited items, glass bottles are allowed on. These are deadly weapons, particularly when broken. It is suggested that all duty free and all bottles carried on an aircraft are plastic. Otherwise, they should be stored in the hold of the aircraft with the rest of the baggage. This will need to be agreed on an international level before implementation.

4.6

It is important that rescue equipment like the fire extinguisher and safety axe are secured in a crew locker, and that passengers do not have ready access to these.

4.7

Airlines should use reinforced containers for luggage where possible, to protect against a bomb blast like on El Al airlines.

4.8

In the interest of security, there should be close monitoring by national authorities in relation to the amount of drink that can be served to passengers that cause drink-related security incidents.

4.9

While access to the flight deck is protected by a reinforced door, a hijacker could gain access through the flimsy toilet wall which is often situated next to the flight deck. This would need to be reinforced.

4.10

Article 11 should include Airline and Handling Agent who often supplies security.

4.11

Considering Annex Part 11, all security instructors should be trained at approved training facilities, e.g. the European Security Training Institute (EASTI), in order to standardise the presentation of ICAO Security Training Modules. National authorities should be required to establish National Training Programmes with EASTI qualified instructors.

4.12

Considering Annex Part 4 4.3 (with the increase in the number of deportees etc.) there should be a requirement for the national authority to set a period of minimum notice for carriers/airport/flight crews to prepare for the proposed transport of potentially disruptive passengers where this will involve a scheduled commercial flight.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/20

1.1

The EESC appreciates the proposal for a Directive, which falls within the context of the thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment; this could integrate and coordinate certain existing legal measures, particularly as regards the methodology for action in the field, which is similar to that set down in the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

1.2

However, from a critical standpoint, the EESC believes that while the proposal is necessary, it does not go far enough: the status of our seas and oceans has deteriorated so badly that more coercive measures will be needed in order to implement and monitor compliance with existing measures. Moreover, the proposal only partially covers the status of the marine environment. The EESC therefore believes that a framework directive would be more effective when subsequently integrating and developing the aspects that are not covered in depth here.

1.3

By utilising existing legislative or management instruments rather than creating new ones, Member States can be spared additional costs and, above all, increased bureaucracy. Arrangements are also included for public and stakeholder consultation and participation, which are key factors for the public's involvement in environmental issues.

1.4

The EESC wishes to make several recommendations which it considers necessary in order to improve the proposed Directive, so that the Commission can evaluate its contributions as a sector of civil society concerned by this issue.

1.4.1

Firstly, it is necessary to clarify and strengthen the Commission's monitoring and coordinating role vis-à-vis the regional authorities that are required to assess and plan the targets and the measures for applying these to the marine environment under their control. The aim should be to harmonise and balance actions throughout coastal areas, bearing in mind that seas and oceans stretch across borders. Centralised coordination would make it possible to intervene in the non-EU countries where Community action would be feasible and, in particular, with which the EU has international agreements.

1.4.2

As the good status of marine waters depends to a large extent on quantitative factors, the EESC believes that quantitative descriptors should also be included in the definitions given (particularly the definition of good environmental status based on general qualitative descriptors), as was the case for continental waters in the WFD. As pointed out in point 5.5 below, the environmental targets should, at the very least, be those specified in the Communication, since the format proposed in the Directive is so general that it could prevent them from being fully effective.

1.4.3

The ambiguous wording used in referring to the selection of special areas (defined by their inability to reach the environmental targets) could lead to misuse; the EESC therefore proposes that the reasons for this special status be clearly and carefully defined, along with the procedures for approval by the Commission.

1.5

Lastly, there are two focus areas which are very important if the objectives proposed here are to be effectively applied. The first concerns the immediate application of all previous measures affecting the marine environment, such as those relating to the ERIKA I, II and III packages, in particular referring to ports of refuge, the trans-European network for monitoring maritime traffic, setting up a Member State auditing system for ship registration, investigating and identifying waste (such as bombs, containers with radioactive products), etc.

1.5.1

The second focus area relates to research in the marine environment. By increasing and improving knowledge, it will be possible to set clear objectives and establish the programmes of measures needed to restore good environmental status. Greater participation in the European Framework Programmes for Research is therefore required.

2.1

The present proposal is based on a Communication (1) which the Commission submitted in 2002. It establishes a strategy for the ecological protection and conservation of the marine environment, with the aim of promoting sustainable use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystems. The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme already mentioned the need to set up measures for protecting and conserving the marine environment, and stressed that the objective of sustainable use of European seas and oceans cannot be achieved through individual policies. It has become clear that swift action is urgently needed, as many of the dangers forecast in the Sixth Programme have become reality, with much greater severity than was ever predicted (2).

2.2

The starting point of the strategy proposed in the abovementioned Communication is the situation of the European marine environment, which is undergoing severe deterioration and is suffering from the effects of climate change, pollution by hazardous substances, commercial fishing, eutrophication, and the added danger of introduced exogenous species. If other, institutional obstacles are also taken into account, such as the exclusive jurisdiction that Member States have over their own territorial waters, the existence of international conventions that also apply to non-EU countries, and various global agreements (3), it becomes clear that this strategy must be implemented, despite all the hurdles identified.

2.3

Another communication (4) was issued on the same date as the present proposal, but was not referred to the EESC. It states that a Green Paper is to be drawn up on the marine environment strategy. The EESC believes that the Commission should take into account the observations and content of its opinions, and that the best way to achieve this would be to carry out a further consultation that would incorporate the EESC's expertise and opinions on policies affecting the marine environment (fisheries, transport, hydrocarbons, etc.). It is important for the EESC to make its stance known, as the representative of civil society.

3.1

The proposed Directive includes an instrument for the implementation of the strategy for conservation and protection of the marine environment. It also takes account of international conventions, particularly those signed by the Commission and Member States under UN auspices (5) and regional agreements (6), whose objectives the Directive should serve to meet.

3.2

The proposal is divided into five chapters, the first of which sets out the subject matter (Article 1), scope (Article 2), marine regions and sub-regions (Article 3), marine strategies (Article 4), rules for coordination and cooperation between Member States (Article 5) and competent authorities (Article 6).

3.3

In this first section, particular attention should be paid to Article 4, which covers the marine strategy which Member States should establish for each marine region and which should include, at least:

This should be accompanied by a programme of measures to be implemented by 2016, at the latest, in order to achieve the good environmental status of seas and oceans.

3.4

The marine strategies are developed in the second and third chapters: Chapter II sets down the rules for drawing up these strategies, and Chapter III covers the programmes of measures.

3.4.1

The measures for establishing the marine strategies are based on the requirement for Member States to carry out an initial assessment of their marine waters (Article 7). This is to include various aspects, such as an economic and social analysis of their use and of the cost of their degradation. The good environmental status (Article 8 and Annex II) and environmental targets (Article 9 and Annex III) are defined, and, lastly, the means of establishing the monitoring programmes (Article 10 and Annexes II and IV) and the approval method (Article 11) are set down.

3.4.2

The third chapter lays down the Programmes of measures to be implemented by the Member States for each of their marine regions (Article 12 and Annex V) in order to achieve good environmental status, in line with the initial assessment. The Commission must also be notified of these (Article 14) so it may subsequently approve them (Article 15). Ad hoc measures are included for special areas (Article 13).

3.5

Chapter IV covers the rules for updating the strategies for each marine region (Article 16), and the requirement to draw up interim reports every three years (Article 17). Article 18 is worth noting, as it sets down the rules for public information and consultation, in compliance with Directive 2003/35/EC. The Commission is also required to draw up evaluation reports on the implementation of the Directive (Article 19), whose content is to be reviewed 15 years after entry into force.

3.6

Finally, Chapter V contains the technical provisions, with particular reference to the Annexes (Article 21) and the committee that will assist the Commission with its task (Article 22).

4.1

The current proposal for a Directive should be considered in relation to the aforementioned Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment (for a deeper insight, see opinion CESE/578/2003 on this Communication). The key points of the Communication are as follows:

4.2

The following points were raised in the EESC opinion:

4.3

In this context, the proposed Directive incorporates a number of points from the EESC opinion, which it interprets from its own angle, and establishes a methodology for action similar to that put forward by the WFD. However, there are clear differences regarding the role of the Commission and Member States and the organisation of various aspects of the methodology. The reasons for these differences, or their usefulness, are not clearly explained, and there are some sharp contradictions. For example:

4.4

The EESC believes that the proposal for a Directive:

4.5

Application of the Directive falls almost entirely upon the Member States; the Commission provides guidance for initiatives, is updated by Member States and approves or rejects the definitions of the environmental status, the environmental targets and indicators, the monitoring programme, and the programme of measures for special areas, mutatis mutandis.

4.6

The Directive does not establish new legislative or management instruments, but makes use of existing Community instruments and the international agreements signed by the European Union.

4.7

It clarifies the way in which the public and stakeholders will participate via the Member States.

5.1

Experience gained from the implementation of more ambitious European measures in Member States (WFD, IPPC) shows that the Commission must play an active role not only in monitoring but also in coordinating and centralising the initiatives undertaken in order to support Member States, while complying with the subsidiarity principle. To this end, the Commission should arrange and chair a forum of competent authorities for each marine sub-region and region, attended by interested parties from scientific institutions with proven experience in the field, and by the authorities responsible for fisheries and radio-nuclides policy.

5.2

As well as covering the information and approval requirements for the proposed initial assessment, good environmental status, environmental targets, the monitoring programme and the programme of measures (including ad hoc measures for special areas), the Directive should establish a procedure for action and a timeframe for processing any objections that might arise. This procedure should involve stakeholders and the general public, and include sufficient incentives.

5.3

The initial assessment is described in Annex II. In the table on pressures and impacts, it would be useful (in line with the criterion given in the Communication prior to the proposal for a Directive) to define the anthropogenic causes and their relation to the pressures and impacts, and to the criteria and targets for marine protection, in order to link these with the actions and policies of the strategy.

5.4

The definition of ‘good environmental status’ and ‘environmental status of the marine environment’ is based on ‘generic qualitative descriptors, detailed criteria and standards’. Quantitative descriptors should also be included, as they are necessary for certain variables relating both to the initial assessment and the good environmental status. Quantitative reference points are also needed for tracking certain variables in the monitoring programmes (e.g. phytoplankton density).

5.5

The environmental targets are defined in Article 9 and Annex III using overly general criteria. It would be useful to set minimum criteria and targets; at the very least, those contained in the 2002 Communication should be included:

5.6

The programme of measures (Article 12, Annex IV) should, at least, include the measures that are mandatory under EU law, particularly in relation to coastal waters, where the action programme aims to prevent damage caused by the abovementioned sources of pollution. It should also include the mandatory measures set down in international agreements and conventions, and the ‘ad hoc’ measures designed to alleviate the deterioration of the marine environment in ‘special areas’. This has the advantage of bringing together all the measures and initiatives spread between different provisions and regulations, thus making them easier to comply with.

5.6.1

However, it is important to ensure that these programmes of measures do not remain restricted to this minimum: as has been shown, it has not been sufficient to prevent the deterioration of the environment, and it is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve the desired good environmental status in the marine environment. In this context, it would be useful to circulate good eco-technology practices (eco-friendly toilets, phosphate-free detergents, buffer zones and restrictions applicable to coastal areas, etc.) throughout coastal countries, on a regular basis.

5.7

The proposal allows Member States to select special areas in which the environmental targets cannot be achieved for the following reasons:

5.7.1

This wording is so ambiguous that it could lead to misapplication. Therefore:

5.8

In terms of coordination and cooperation, it is important to consider the non-EU countries bordering EU waters, not just those countries that are parties to international agreements, so as to encourage them to cooperate and achieve good environmental results.

5.9

Lastly, the proposal channels stakeholder and public participation through the existing State systems. These are subject to doubt in many countries, sometimes because of a lack of transparency, sometimes due to delays in responding to queries, and sometimes because of the ambiguity surrounding ‘stakeholder’ organisations. The Commission should therefore establish a practical, effective procedure for collecting and managing complaints from stakeholders and the public, and guaranteeing the public's right to information, consultation and participation. The mutatis mutandis criterion should therefore be removed from the approval system, as stated above.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/24

1.1

Shortly before taking over the EU Presidency, the Austrian Government issued a formal request for the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI) to prepare an exploratory opinion on Industrial change and EU enlargement: Examining the effects in border regions. By definition, an exploratory opinion is issued prior to the adoption of a proposal or political decision by an EU decision-making body.

1.2

The transition to a market economy and the transposition of EU internal market and competition rules has created a new dynamic in many regions of Central and Eastern Europe. The accession of the new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe has brought border regions closer together, reviving, in many cases, former trade and business ties. However, this new dynamic has also brought problems, especially for labour market policy, and has revealed the infrastructure shortcomings of cooperating border regions.

1.3

In order to take a closer look at the industrial changes underway in the cross-border regions of the enlarged EU and to collect the data required to prepare an opinion, workshops were held by the CCMI and the European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) in Bratislava on 17 and 18 October 2005. Held in the CENTROPE cross-border region, the event was attended by members of the CCMI, representatives of the social partners from Austria, Slovakia and Hungary, and experts.

2.1

Presently around 33 % of the EU's population lives in border regions, which currently account for approximately 40 % of Europe's total surface area (1).

2.2

The EU's borders have been changing continuously since the signing of the ECSC Treaty. This process looks set to continue over the medium term. Given the changes this involves, the EU needs to systematically update its border region policy.

2.2.1

Border regions of candidate countries that border on the EU are already forging relations with more peripheral neighbouring EU regions even before their accession, as part of the harmonisation of their laws and socio-economic systems.

2.2.2

The ‘iron curtain’ was a rather special type of border. A large part of this frontier now lies within the borders of the EU-25. When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, nine years after the Solidarity revolution of 1980, the regions close to the border that had once divided the countries of the former Soviet Bloc from the rest of Europe, particularly the areas of ‘no-man's land’, had practically no infrastructure in place. Despite the substantial progress made in dealing with the aftermath of the political decisions that led to this situation, it is still a problem that is far from being resolved.

2.2.3

Another special border for the EU is the Mediterranean Sea. Though a policy of cooperation between the EU and the Mediterranean countries has existed for many years, international developments have meant that it has not recently been one of the EU's priorities.

2.3

A series of cross-border initiatives (e.g. Euroregions) were set up in the border regions of the new Member States prior to their accession as a new form of cross-border cooperation, based on agreements reached between neighbouring border areas. There was no requirement to regulate the functioning of the Euroregions with inter-governmental agreements. Such initiatives were based on the free choice of local government institutions and stakeholders. Cooperation through Euroregions was aimed at resolving problems jointly, regardless of political borders, and establishing economic cooperation in the field of communications and environmental action.

2.4

In practice, EU interregional cooperation has, since the 1990s, primarily taken place within the framework of the successive INTERREG programmes. The EESC has also been involved in certain aspects of this cooperation, and has prepared opinions on inter-regional cooperation, based on the experiences, inter alia, of the Mediterranean region and the Baltic Sea area (2), (3), (4).

2.4.1

The EESC has established that inter-regional cooperation promoted by the Community may be defined according to the:

2.4.2

In its opinions on INTERREG, the Committee has stated that in the 1990s the links between the various categories of cooperation were somewhat selective. For example, cooperation functioned only on certain levels and was restricted to certain spatial categories and geographical areas.

2.4.3

One significant EU achievement in the cross-border regions of France, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg, which all went underwent intensive restructuring, was the use of methods combating the depopulation of such areas and preventing their transformation into veritable ‘post-industrial’ deserts. Resources and action under the ECSC Treaty had a marked influence on the course of these restructuring processes.

2.5

At present, there are around 180 cross-border initiatives in place across Europe. Most of these initiatives are instruments for mitigating the negative effects of borders. Thirty-two Euroregions are located on the territory of the new Member States; it is thus clear that the new EU Member States have been very active in their support for the principle of cross-border cooperation.

2.6

Most of the 32 cross-border regions encompassing ‘new’ and ‘old’ EU Member States have yet to witness any joint initiatives directly concerned with industrial policy, despite the fact that many joint undertakings indirectly relate to this policy area.

2.7

New initiatives in the field of industrial policy have — as a rule — occurred in those cross-border regions that are located near to metropolitan areas (e.g. within the Vienna, Budapest, Bratislava triangle) or which represent an area containing centres of industry or a group of large towns that do not have metropolitan characteristics (Katowice, Ostrava region along the borders of the Czech Republic and Poland).

2.7.1

An interesting new example of industrial change is the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region on the Italian-Slovenian border, which saw a resurgence in manufacturing activity both prior to and after EU enlargement, particularly in the furniture sector.

3.1.1

The features of cross-border regions with a developing industrial policy outlined in this opinion have primarily been identified on the basis of observations made in the CENTROPE (5) region.

3.1.1.1

This region includes areas from three new Member States and one of the fifteen old ones (the Austrian provinces of Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland, the Southern Moravian district in the Czech Republic, the Bratislava and Trnava districts in Slovakia, and the counties of Győr-Moson-Sopron and Vas in Hungary. The region as a whole combines zones suffering from typical problems of peripheral areas and neighbouring economically dynamic urbanised central areas.

3.1.1.2

The area underwent intense restructuring in the 1990s, with investment in parts of the region following as a direct result. This also led to labour market shifts, with a significant number of older workers in particular exiting the market, subsequently resulting in demand for labour — in parallel with the investments made — although not always at the same location.

3.1.1.3

The enlargement of the EU has brought together diverse labour markets in the region where the borders of Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary meet; integrating those markets represents a challenge. Company relocation and emigration of the labour force to urban areas, as well as deficient (transport) infrastructure, continue to hamper the structure of the labour market, together with a marked gap between salaries in Austria and the new Member States and a forecast shortage of skilled labour.

3.1.1.4

We are seeing the first signs of the emergence of cross-border manufacturing networks. The development of transport infrastructure, requiring substantial investment, has played a part in this process. This in turn has led to existing gaps being filled and to the re-establishment of old ties.

3.1.2

Foreign and domestic investment provides a key stimulus for industrial change in such regions, also in small and medium-sized enterprises. In those countries where Special Economic Zones or Industrial Zones were created prior to accession most investment has been ‘drawn’ to zones that have rarely, coincided with a cross-border region (see EESC opinion CCMI/025). This helps explain the small number of cross-border cooperation regions in which a new industrial policy has been developed.

3.1.2.1

The main drivers of growth have been investment in brown and green-field developments and company relocation. This investment was motivated, among other things, by identifying new markets, differences in corporate taxation, significant differences in salaries and state aids. These factors have supported the restructuring process and contributed to economic growth.

3.1.2.2

They have helped attract employees with high and medium-level qualifications and brought about a reduction in labour as well as non-employee-related costs. There has been a significant increase in the demand for machine operators, fitters, machining experts, welders, mechanical engineers, IT specialists — and this is becoming ever more noticeable throughout the manufacturing sectors of the EU.

3.1.2.3

As a result, this action has improved management skills, and established a human resources policy and functioning industrial relations. It has also made it possible to obtain funds for investment and has helped forge links with supplier and customer markets.

3.1.2.4

This investment has involved not only large EU firms but also small and medium-sized enterprises and firms from outside the EU. These firms have clustered investment, created multiplier effects, established links with local businesses and formed ties with domestic businesses and foreign branches.

3.1.3

An analysis of the structural industrial changes underway in the cross-border regions under review shows that, in general, the approach used in these areas is the ‘step by step’ method.

3.1.3.1

In step one, the manufacturing activity undertaken has been labour-intensive, relying on low-skilled workers; step two has seen the use of better qualified workers and more sophisticated services. In cases where step one has been successful, attempts have been made to outsource certain activities outside firms — but still within the region — in the search for lower labour costs.

3.1.3.2

Two-way structural mergers have had a significant impact on the structural issues accompanying these industrial changes. Divided into upward mergers (foreign companies within a region and beyond) and downward mergers (within a local area), the aim has been to gain competitive advantages within a network or region.

3.1.3.3

Higher-risk approaches were also applied (based on the ‘snowball’ principle), which have led to the forging of stronger ties. The ‘enclaves’ of an expanding company created as a result of this process were marked by the ease with which they were transplanted to other new companies.

3.1.3.4

An increasingly common development in cross-border regions, also in the new Member States, is the establishment of new company branches by dynamic investors moving into step two of development in a given region. Industrial policy is also being stimulated in these regions by company networks, often international in nature, engaged, for example, in interactive human resource management across borders.

3.2.1

One such challenge for industrial policy is the use of direct incentives and the introduction of asymmetry between companies. Companies integrating small and medium-sized enterprises into their network encounter greater problems in applying such a symmetry.

3.2.1.1

As R. Pedersini states in his presentation (see footnote 5) the shortening of company operations to the medium term may occur in the near future, which will undoubtedly bring social repercussions and should be implemented using appropriate guarantee mechanisms established through social and economic dialogue.

3.2.2

One very important challenge for the development of the whole EU and the future of industrial policy across its whole range, but especially in cross-border regions, is the issue of disparities in the taxation of companies, particularly corporation tax (6).

3.2.2.1

It is very important to decide whether corporate tax should be harmonised and to establish how the tax base is to be determined — i.e. according to the location of the registered office (Home State Taxation — HST) or according to the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB).

3.2.2.2

The HST system eliminates the application in EU cross-border regions of different laws to establish the tax base. However, this system involves more risks (7).

3.2.2.3

Use of the CCCTB option will mean that all businesses operating across borders will apply uniform principles for assessing their tax base (8), irrespective of which country their registered office is based in. Furthermore, the CCCTB method will not require any changes to existing national regulations, merely consent for the establishment of new, additional pan-EU regulations for firms doing business in several countries.

3.2.2.4

One drawback of the CCCTB option is the risk that two businesses from a given country with similar prospects and a similar presence on the domestic market will use different methods to assess their tax base.

3.2.3

One of the most important factors affecting the development of industrial policy in these regions is the current state and rate of development of the transport infrastructure in the region and at its entry corridors. For this reason, in addition to heavy investment in the construction and modernisation of the region's transport network, joint transport projects need to be created and managed in a modern way drawing on innovations and scientific research.

4.1

The concept of a cross-border region with a new, operational industrial policy is highly complex in nature, both in general terms and with regard to specific cases and locations. For this reason, the Committee considers that, in the course of the next Presidency, it is important to establish a precise and distinct definition of what is meant by the term ‘REGION’ in a cross-border and industrial context. This definition should distinguish regions bordering non-EU Member States and take into account whether or not a given neighbouring state is a candidate country.

4.1.1

With regard to regions within new Member States and those which border on countries of the ‘old’ EU, it is important to establish how one can distinguish between the effects of the changes that occurred in these regions in the 1990s and those arising from EU accession, and to assess the effectiveness of Community instruments used in these areas before and after accession.

4.1.2

The work of the new Presidency, in cooperation with the EESC, should also provide answers to the following questions:

4.2

Given the approach that is typical of the cross-border regions of the enlarged EU, and which is characterised by:

the EESC considers that it is highly important to ensure social cohesion and to prevent the undercutting of employment law and social standards. It is therefore vital that these processes take place using instruments of modern industrial relations, established in the EU, particularly in the area of social dialogue or stakeholders' dialogue.

4.2.1

Given the difficulties on the labour market typical of cross-border regions caused by past neglect, restructuring and the dynamic changes produced by the implementation of a special industrial policy in such regions, the EESC proposes applying for specific periods employment promotion mechanisms, often used by the EU in the past, which involve subsidising companies creating permanent jobs.

4.2.2

This approach should be backed up by formal safeguards to prevent any misuse of public money and ensure that the jobs created in this manner are genuinely new and permanent. The details of such safeguards were outlined in the revised EU directives on public procurement.

4.2.3

In particular, businesses which have previously received support and then relocated jobs, or which have dismissed workers at their original location following relocation without complying with national and international legislation, should not be eligible for state aid or for support from the Structural Funds.

4.3

The Committee notes that a very important and possibly decisive factor which has affected the conduct and development of industrial policy in cross-border regions in the enlarged Europe, both now and in the past, is the ability of stakeholders in these regions to access EU Structural Fund resources. Increasing the role of Structural Funds in these regions is absolutely vital for both mitigating the effects of intensive transition processes and helping regions adapt to the dynamic nature of the policies used.

4.3.1

On this basis, the Committee, referring to its opinion (9) on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European grouping of cross-border cooperation (EGCC) places particular emphasis on the need to expand on those provisions of the regulation relating to the aim and composition of the EGCC by adding the words ‘and economic and social stakeholders, as well as other interested civil society organisations …’.

4.3.1.1

Legal entities created both under the EGCC and other Structural Funds should be responsible for coordinating the various sources of financing, and for the preparation and realisation of fund projects supporting industrial policy in the given region. This financing would be accessible to the representatives of the various parties involved in the regions. The establishment of such legal entities could create an incentive for cross-border cooperation and give such regions a greater sense of identity and increase their desire to harmonise their regulations.

4.3.2

When creating and implementing projects supported by the Structural Funds, the opportunity should be taken to combine sources of public funding with funds from private investors without classifying the public share as prohibited aid. The criterion would be the benefit not to the company but to the region — through the creation of jobs, infrastructure development, and the productivity of the economy.

4.4

The Committee believes that the development of labour markets in the regions concerned is a factor for industrial change which should not be underestimated. At present, there remain temporary obstacles to the cross-border mobility of workers within the EU. The Committee calls on the Member States to look seriously at whether the transition periods could be ended earlier. This requires appropriate involvement and consultation of the social partners at all relevant levels.

4.4.1

In encouraging better conditions for worker mobility in cross-border regions, one must not forget about the possible national and ethnic tensions that could arise. The specific situation and experience of regions where various cultures and nationalities have long interacted with one another mean that these difficult issues should be overcome and alleviated more effectively than in other areas. Social dialogue and civil society commitment can also play a particularly important role in overcoming problems of the mutual relations between various nationalities, ethnic and cultural groups (10).

4.5

Action relating to dynamic structural changes in cross-border regions should be the subject of expert assessment and academic study, undertaken under the auspices of successive EU presidencies, since spontaneous initiatives may turn out to be ineffective or even destabilising.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/31

1.1

In 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force. One of the objectives of this Treaty is the maintenance and development of ‘… the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the movement of persons is assured in conjunction with the appropriate measures, with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’ (1).

1.2

This signified a revolutionary milestone, in that migration policy was transferred from the third pillar of the European Union, based on intergovernmental cooperation to the first pillar, where policies are initiated by the European Commission. First May 2004 also marked the beginning of a new phase in the field of migration policy in the 25 Member States, as this gradual change from national policy to a collective policy was further extended.

1.3

On 17 December 2005 the British Presidency was successful in concluding an agreement on the financial perspective for 2007-2013, the framework for the Union's finances over the next period (2).

1.4

Under the heading, ‘Citizenship, Freedom, Security and Justice’, the security of the EU citizens in the 25 Member States is being seen to with an expected expenditure on various initiatives in such fields as border protection. The expenditure under this heading is expected to increase significantly in the next eight years. However, there are also initiatives in the field of social policies reflected in social projects such as the European Refugee Fund and the integration fund, aimed at improving the service provision to immigrant populations of Member States.

1.5

The Thessaloniki European Council of 2003 also urged the exploration of ‘legal means for third country nationals to migrate to the Union, taking into account the reception capacities of the Member States’ (3).

1.6

Deliberations in this regard, particularly the assessment of the reception capacity of individual Member States, must take into consideration not just the population, land area and economic size of the individual State but also the existing migrant population and current migration flows. These in turn cannot be correctly assessed without the harmonisation of statistical meta-data (data collection rules) across the Member States, to assure the internal consistency of EU-wide statistics.

1.7

The lack of harmonisation of statistics is partly the result of differences in definitions of migration, that may in turn be related to differences in legislation relating to migration. There are also inefficiencies and deficiencies in data collection which hinder the establishment and development of gradual harmonisation.

1.8

In addition, illegal immigration and undeclared work are common and on the increase, prompted in part by the restrictions on legal channels for legal migration. Such unrecorded migration is an area where statistical measurement is more likely to be inaccurate. Particularly in this case the extent and method of statistical calculation are likely to vary between different national statistical authorities, making meta-data harmonisation between the Member States all the more essential. In the United States, for example, the issue of the underreporting of illegal immigrants came up in the form of a discussion concerning whether census figures should be adjusted by use of data on unrecorded residents collected through sampling techniques. There are also other methods apart from sampling techniques that can be applied for statistical collection. In France, for example, the local authorities are involved in the area of data collection.

1.9

The draft of the Constitutional Treaty recognises ‘the right of Member States to determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed’ (4). The EESC has expressed the opinion that this constitutional constraint does not prevent the Union from reaching a high level of legislative harmonisation for the admission of migrants. The EESC has emphasised the need for an active EU policy on economic migration, and for harmonised legislation (5).

1.10

The further development of the legal framework for immigration is justified in part by demographic realities and the pursuit of the Lisbon strategy. The EESC has noted that ‘demographic trends in the EU and the Lisbon Strategy mean that Europe will need to adopt active policies for admitting economic migrants. Although each country has its own needs and specifics, the opening of channels for economic migration is a characteristic common to all Member States’ (6). The European Union and the Member States require legislation that allows labour migration through legal and transparent channels. The Committee acknowledges that although the emphasis here is on the economic aspect of migration, this is on its own a reductive approach and acknowledges that Member States also need to adopt active policies for the entry of non-economic migrants.

1.11

Large migratory flows also bring about adjustment difficulties in the receiving countries, as a result of the resulting pressure on public services and also possible consequences on labour market conditions. These consequences vary with the absorptive capacity of the receiving country. An informed public opinion on the implications of migration flows requires accurate statistical information that is consistent across the Member States. The presence of statistical accuracy can also contribute to challenging xenophobic tendencies which may exist as part of public opinion, such as attitudes like ‘immigrants are taking the jobs of locals’ and ‘they are invading us’.

1.12

Reliable statistical information can help promote a common legal framework, which would contribute to the protection of the rights of migrants. The Committee encourages the Commission to place an emphasis on the importance of the accurate collation and interpretation of statistical information so as to avoid mis-interpretation of data.

1.13

Since migrant workers constitute such an important part of the labour force, pursuit of the objective of labour market mobility across the EU has to take into consideration the implications of restrictions on intra-Member State movement and relocation of migrant workers who originate outside the EU. Moreover such intra-EU flows would alleviate the adjustment difficulties faced by migrant-receiving communities that have a lower absorptive capacity.

1.14

The Committee is proceeding from the position that in order to guarantee human rights respect and protection of human dignity of every individual, each process of personal data collection/processing for statistical reasons or/and any other official use of personal data, collected in this way, should be highly protected against any misuse of procedure or other violations.

2.1

Statistical information reflecting the political, social and economic position as well as the national attitude of EU countries in relation to the migration issue can influence and contribute to the formulation, analysis and review of migration policy in these countries.

2.2

Accurate statistical data is very important in mapping out the migrant populations of EU States, including size and other demographic characteristics, among others. The Committee urges the Commission to emphasise the need for accurate statistical data in this area, so that Member States recognise the importance of this subject and place more resources here.

3.1

The features of the migration scenario have to be kept in mind. First the east-west direction of migration in search of better living conditions prevails. Secondly, there are more immigrants to the new EU states from outside the European Union, obviously attracted by the potential advantages resulting from EU membership of these countries, with the added bonus of using these countries as a stepping stone to the West. Statistical information about the patterns of the migration is essential for Member States to analyze past and current migration flows, as well as forecast future ones; and analyze the impact upon and potential for demographic, social and economic aspects, which in turn will influence policies in these areas.

4.1

Most EU Member States have developed thorough statistics on the country of origin of the asylum seekers. However, there is still a great need for a more in-depth statistics based on consistent criteria between the members for future transnational comparisons.

4.2

The proposed regulation for a common framework for the collection and compilation of statistics is especially necessary in countries where not even a central data-base on migration and asylum is kept, with the various authorities keeping their own data-bases.

4.3

One of the fundamentally important roles that statistics play is the influence in the development and review of policies. For example, where statistics revealed that among the irregular immigrant population there were children, unaccompanied minors, pregnant women and disabled persons, this led to the development of national policies on the release of ‘vulnerable groups’ from detention and on ‘unaccompanied minors’. Hence, the further breakdown of statistics to gather more demographic and socio-economic information, including the language spoken, apart from just incoming numbers has an impact on policies. Also, the latter can have implications for the integration of migrants in the labour market.

4.4

More precise and comprehensive statistic keeping permits better projections to be made, and accordingly provides a platform on which to base future planning for resources, for example. Statistics also provide a solid tool to support the allocation of resources. For example, if yearly statistics show that a steady number of unaccompanied minor irregular immigrants are entering a country, then resources need to be planned/expanded to provide special accommodation facilities and support services for this group.

4.5

Good statistics keeping will contribute to ensuring that the services provided are meeting the needs of the service user; and that resource allocation between Member States can be carried out justly and proportionately.

4.6

Also, a comparative survey of all immigration laws practised in the EU-25 would definitely help the European Commission to better coordinate immigration policy at EU level. Although immigration falls under the pillar of Justice and Home Affairs, there is an ever-increasing pressure from European citizens, especially from countries hit by this human phenomenon, for this issue to be tackled at EU level. The aim of such a survey would be to work towards statistical harmonisation in order to aid EU policies on immigration become more coherent.

4.7

Reliable statistical information and surveys on the characteristics of illegal immigrants would help the EU Member States to analyse the underlying causes of irregular immigration. Such data could include the socio-economic background of these immigrants, their skills base, their aspirations and their reasons for emigrating. These surveys could lead to an improved standard of information being kept about immigrants and the organisation of resources such as educational programmes and training ones for them. The collection of statistics — e.g. on the number of immigrants informed about applying for international protection, the number of applications submitted, approved and rejected for the different types of status (Article 4) — is also crucial for drawing up a policy for the protection of immigrants. The collection and processing of data should be placed under the control of public authorities in the Member States, equipped with new resources in terms of manpower, skills and tools. These authorities would then be given the task of guaranteeing the confidentiality of the personal data collected and producing annual reports for their respective parliaments. The collation of such information and statistical data requires a joint effort among Member States in the recruitment of professional interpreters who could communicate with the immigrants in order to elicit all the data necessary for a successful survey. Such data collection would also assist Member States in implementing appropriate policies. The above-mentioned programmes contribute to the integration of immigrants into the societies of Member States, and funds are available for the collection of data on the social background of immigrants, among other criteria. Such statistical tools would also assist entities as the European observatory in the protection of human rights.

4.8

Statistics are also needed on detention centres and open centres hosting illegal immigrants so that the European Commission could propose some form of a common policy on this issue.

4.9

Member States should also cooperate on the collation of data regarding the jobs (legal and illegal) and housing of immigrants. This data will provide the EU-25 with trends that could lead to policies aimed at improving the life and conditions of these immigrant workers. Thus Member States would be required to ensure that the confidentiality of the personal data collected is respected in practice and set up appropriate bodies with the remit of drawing up annual reports for their respective parliaments.

4.10

Statistics could also be used in awareness campaigns and integration campaigns. Statistical data, especially on the social and educational background of immigrants, could further assist EU citizens to help integrate these immigrants. Hence, the Committee encourages the Commission regarding the adoption of the importance of social and educational data.

4.11

Statistics on expenses incurred by the recipient country in the control, detention, return and integration of immigrants are also of utmost importance so that the EU-25 would help in drafting some form of a common fund and policy on immigration based on solidarity. Statistics can also contribute to a better assessment of the need for funding.

4.12

The Committee encourages the Commission to introduce new criterion of arrivals, to include those by air, land or sea, in order for more comprehensive statistics on prevention of illegal entry and stay (Article 5) and improvement on data sources and standards (Article 9).

5.1

In recent years Europe has witnessed an influx of irregular immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and other African countries. Irregular immigrants and asylum seekers are often persons who have escaped from their country of origin to flee from persecutions based on religion, race and politics, among others, as well as from civil war, famine, poverty, natural disasters and economic reasons. Many have witnessed family members being killed, tortured, suffering other atrocities, and/or have been separated from them. Their experiences throughout their journeys often render them to being traumatised, vulnerable and in need of protection. Quality statistical information on the reasons for emigration can identify the causes of immigration and assist in further developing and evaluating policies on asylum and human trafficking.

5.2

Countries receiving irregular immigrants and all persons who will be working with them must comply with international human rights' obligations and domestic immigration and refugee legislation, in order to be able to offer them protection. The security forces (army and police) of the recipient countries are initially obliged to offer rescue and life-saving operations and EU minimum standards of reception. In the latter, medical treatment is offered where necessary, as well as establishing as far as possible the country of origin of the irregular immigrant and other demographic data. The immigrant also has a fundamental right to information about how to apply for asylum. The collection of statistics such as the number of immigrants informed about applications for international protection, about the number of applications submitted, the numbers of acceptance and rejections of the different types of status (Article 4), is also imperative in the formulation of policies regarding the protection of immigrants.

5.3

Receiving countries must observe the international human rights' obligations undertaken by them when they became signatories to international and or regional Conventions/ Declarations/Treaties. The European Union requires as part of the core requisites of the Acquis, that Member States are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, 1967 Protocol and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The fundamental document underpinning these Conventions was the Universal declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UNHR), which includes the right to claim asylum. The Refugee Convention is a vital part of the framework of international human rights. Other conventions have subsequently followed, including the Convention against Torture 1984, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (7). Member States must also observe EU directives, notably 2003/9/CE on minimum standards on reception (8), 2004/83/CE on minimum standards for the qualification and status (9) and 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (10).

5.4

Therefore, it is essential that receiving countries abide by these conventions to firstly ensure that asylum seekers are offered basic protection, and should not be ‘refouled’ before their application for asylum has been assessed and humanitarian, refugee status or otherwise has been established.

5.5

Comparative surveys of Member States' application of definitions related to immigration as set out in Article 2 and application of Article 4 as above-mentioned (both Articles from the above-mentioned source), greatly contribute to ensuring the international protection of immigrants.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/35

1.1

The subject matter covered by this proposal for a regulation falls within the ambit of Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, while the legal basis is Article 61(c) of the same treaty. Given the specific features of maintenance claims — and the cross-border recovery of such claims — the proposal duly reflects the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, both in relation to the courts and national law, and in respect of the litigants concerned.

1.2

This issue relates both to family law and to the recovery of claims; from a social angle, it involves poverty risks that also need to be addressed.

1.3

The draft also meets the requirements of clarity and legal certainty for the litigants, for any third parties involved and for the relevant administrative bodies. In addition, it protects personal data from being used for any purpose other than to settle the dispute and secure the debtor's compliance with the maintenance obligations.

1.4

The Committee endorses the Commission's legislative initiative — subject to some specific observations — and welcomes the efforts made to secure sound legislation, including the upstream consultation and preliminary impact assessment carried out ahead of the excellent legal drafting. The Committee is also pleased that a regulation has been selected as the appropriate instrument and endorses the legal basis that has been chosen, which is better suited to securing harmonisation in cases that have a European element, despite the differences — that are set to continue — between the various national legal provisions.

1.5

While few Member States have ratified the Hague Convention on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, most (17 out of 25) have done so for the Convention on the enforcement of decisions in this field. However, given the reservations expressed and the possibility of opposing a priori, on the basis of domestic public policy provisions, a judgement delivered in another Member State, it may prove impossible to secure application of such a decision even though it originates in another contracting state. This creates barriers to the free circulation of court judgements within the Community and these should be removed.

1.6

The Committee would therefore ask the Council to approve the proposed regulation, which will provide legal certainty and give maintenance creditors practical enforcement measures in cross-border cases, with concomitant benefits for men and women across Europe.

1.7

Furthermore, the Committee would ask the UK and Irish governments to consider opting into this regulation. It would also ask the Danish government to facilitate enforcement of maintenance decisions in line with the Hague Convention on the enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations — which that country has ratified — and, when an application is made to it, to consider working together, on an ad-hoc basis, with the other Member States.

2.1.1

The Mutual Recognition Programme in Civil Matters, adopted on 30 November 2000, calls for the elimination of the exequatur procedure in matters related to maintenance obligations, which would then be covered by the ‘Brussels I’ regulation (1) on the mutual recognition of judgements in civil and commercial matters. This programme also states that it may be necessary to lay down a number of common procedural rules in a bid to harmonise procedures and to seek to make more efficient the enforcement, in the requested state, of judgments delivered in another Member State, in particular through the identification of a debtor's assets.

2.1.2

Mutual recognition must also operate in the context of judicial cooperation between Member States and requires harmonised conflict-of-law rules.

2.1.3

The Hague Conference of Private International Law is working to modernise the existing conventions and the Commission feels that the Community approach dovetails with that being pursued at an international level. Thanks to the Hague initiative, it will be possible, at a later stage, to develop cooperation with countries outside the Union, and the initiative could produce results that might subsequently prove suitable for transposition within the European Union.

2.2.1

The proposal seeks to eliminate all obstacles that prevent the recovery of maintenance claims in one EU Member State by a maintenance creditor domiciled in another Member State.

2.2.2

Creditors must be able to obtain, free of charge, a direct enforcement order valid across the European area of justice enabling them to secure regular payment of the amounts due.

2.2.3

A single, ambitious instrument covering all the relevant fields of judicial cooperation in civil matters is proving absolutely essential in this area given the absence of any uniform set of rules. The concepts of maintenance and maintenance creditor vary from one country to the next and non-enforcement of a decision is also a possibility under the reservations set out in Article 26 of the 1973 Hague Convention which currently takes precedence over Community law. The proposal is to abolish this exception — provided for in Article 71 of the Brussels I regulation — through an ad-hoc instrument for the recovery of maintenance claims.

2.3.1

Harmonisation of conflict-of-law rules; using harmonised rules to determine applicable law facilitates the free movement of the decision concerned, which will be delivered under a system of law that has a sufficient and indisputable connection with the family relationship of the creditor and debtor.

2.3.2

Recognition and direct enforceability of the decision across the European Union.

2.3.3

Specific enforcement measures to be taken by the debtor's country of residence, including access to information about the debtor's financial situation and the introduction of legal provisions enabling maintenance to be deducted directly from wages or bank accounts.

2.3.4

Strengthening of the ranking of maintenance claims; enhanced judicial cooperation in civil matters: standard forms are appended to the regulation for this purpose.

3.1

The Committee considers the proposal for a specific regulation on the cross-border recovery of maintenance claims to be both necessary and proportionate. As a lex specialis, it takes precedence over the other general arrangements governing judicial cooperation in civil matters. It restores the primacy of Community law in an area which Member States have so far wanted excluded, without, however, modifying Member States' domestic law.

3.2

The arrangements for determining the debtor's assets and for payment procedures guarantee respect for privacy and data confidentiality. However, the debtor is required to inform the creditor and the court of origin of any changes of employer or bank account.

3.3

The regulation provides remedies for the maintenance creditor without neglecting the debtor's right to contest the claim or to ask for a review of the amount before the court of origin; an application for a review suspends any enforcement measures.

3.4

The enforcement procedure is that of the Member State of enforcement, regardless of the Member State in which the judgement was delivered.

3.5

Thanks to a number of factors — the initial Green Paper (2) that had been published, the consultations and expert meetings that were held and the study of the situation in each Member State — the proposal on the table is coherent, clear and practical and should, as such, eliminate the persistent obstacles to the cross-border recovery of maintenance claims.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/37

1.1

The EESC welcomes and endorses the Commission's proposed objectives, although it has mixed feelings about some of the means used to achieve them.

1.2

In particular, it is questionable whether exemptions contribute to what the Commission is really trying to achieve. This applies both to exemptions from transferability and to the long transition periods for reducing the requirements for definitive acquisition of pension rights.

1.3

But above all, the objectives of facilitating mobility and ensuring effective supplementary retirement income protection can only be achieved if differing taxation systems in Member States are also adjusted.

1.4

Future work on the draft directive should therefore take the following points into account:

2.1

The Commission goes on to list the obstacles which need to be overcome in the following areas:

The Commission also feels that mobility can be enhanced if employees are given (better) information on how a change of employer may affect supplementary pension rights.

2.2

The Commission sees its proposal as the logical next step to the exchange of information and experience at European level that has been going on for a number of years. No negotiations were launched on an agreement between the social partners due to divergent views on the thrust of Community-level action and on the instruments.

2.3

On the basis of Articles 42 and 94 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is seeking in its proposal to flesh out the laws of the Member States in this area. Among other things, this is to ensure that the establishment of enterprises in other Member States is not held back by problems in recruiting qualified staff, due to such staff being tied to other companies by rules on supplementary pension schemes.

2.4

The Commission justifies its choice of a Directive as a legal instrument by pointing out this is the only way to strike a balance between the necessary rights of employees with regard to free movement and the requisite flexibility on the part of national legislative authorities when transposing the Directive, while taking account of the particular circumstances of supplementary pension schemes in that country.

3.1

The Directive defines the concepts used in this area in accordance with the definitions given in Directive 98/49/EC.

3.2

The proposal establishes the principle that contributions to a supplementary pension scheme paid by an employee or by an employer on behalf of an employee must not be lost after the termination of employment, even if these contributions do not yet confer any rights to subsequent pension payments. Provisions must therefore be in place for contributions to be either reimbursed or transferred.

3.3

To ensure that young workers in particular do not lose pension rights after a change of employer, the Commission suggests that the minimum age at which a worker can start acquiring supplementary pension rights should not exceed 21 in any Member State.

In addition, the waiting period, i.e. the length of time after the beginning of an employment relationship before an employee can become a member of the supplementary pension scheme, should not exceed one year.

Likewise, the period after which contributions definitively confer pensions rights, measured from the beginning of contributions, should be no longer than two years.

3.4

The Commission advocates steps to ensure a fair adjustment of dormant rights; it is left up to Member States to decide on the form that this should take and the means used to achieve it. Besides, if pension rights only represent a small amount, a supplementary pension scheme should also have the option not only of transferring pension rights to a new employer but also of reimbursing them, provided that such rights do not exceed a certain threshold set by Member States.

3.5

To promote mobility and to avoid penalising employees who change jobs, the transfer of acquired rights from the supplementary pension scheme of one employer to that of a new employer should be made easier. For example, transfers must not penalise employees financially as a result of differing calculating methods or excessive administrative charges.

3.6

Employees are to always have a choice between transferring rights and leaving them in the previous scheme.

3.7

The proposal also provides for employees to be given information on request and within a reasonable period as to the implications of a change of job for supplementary pension rights.

3.9

Possible exemptions from transferability for an unlimited period are granted for support relief funds, companies which constitute book reserves for pension payments and pay-as-you-go supplementary pension schemes. The Commission must be informed of the specific reasons. The Member State concerned must disclose which measures have been taken or are planned in order to ensure transferability. The question of whether additional measures are needed to improve the transferability of these systems as well will be considered by 2018 at the latest.

4.1

The views of the social partners as to the scope and content of any European legislation, are too disparate for an agreement to be reached among them, as provided for in Article 139 of the EC Treaty.

4.2

However, in the preamble to their framework agreement on fixed-term work, the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP acknowledged that ‘innovations in occupational social protection systems are necessary in order to adapt them to current conditions, and in particular to provide for the transferability of rights’.

4.3

This clearly reflects the general willingness to take a fundamental look at the need to bring the legal bases for the acquisition and retention of supplementary pension rights into line. Although fixed-term employment is a different issue from that of the free movement of workers, the parties to this agreement acknowledge that employment conditions are changing in ways that also require changes to occupational social protection schemes.

4.4

Besides, this also reflects the important role played by the social partners in shaping supplementary pensions schemes in most Member States. However, as the scope of measures by the social partners is restricted to the national level, the Commission's plan to adopt a Directive still makes sense.

4.4.1

The detailed content of supplementary pension schemes should be decided at Member State level, including through collective agreements by the social partners. On the European level, rules on conditions for acquisition should therefore focus on principles and provide direction for measures at national level, thereby leaving the social partners sufficient room for collective bargaining.

4.4.2

Article 4 of the directive should be replaced by the following: ‘where conditions for acquisition are stipulated, such as minimum age, waiting periods and/or vesting periods, such conditions should be fair and justified on objective (and non discriminatory) grounds.’

4.5

A change of employer can have a negative impact on the acquisition and level of supplementary pension rights.

This negative impact may influence employees' decisions whether or not to change employer, although obviously such a decision is contingent on many other factors as well.

4.6

Especially as a result of demographic change, statutory pensions will no longer suffice in future to maintain living standards, even in countries where statutory social security schemes are the main source of retirement income. Supplementary pension schemes are therefore becoming increasingly important, even though such systems are also exposed to the repercussions of demographic change.

4.7

Insofar as it ties in with the fundamental Single Market goal of guaranteeing the free movement of persons, and also in view of the need to improve conditions for supplementary pension schemes, the Commission's approach to removing barriers to mobility created by supplementary pension schemes is welcome.

4.8

Moreover, Article 40 of the EC Treaty obliges the Council to ‘issue Directives or make regulations setting out the measures required to bring about freedom of movement for workers’. The basis of the proposal — Article 42 — is thus given additional backing through Article 40.

4.9

The elimination of barriers to mobility is also of particular importance for achieving the fundamental goal of the Lisbon strategy, i.e. strengthening the European economy by creating a knowledge-based society. A knowledge-based society is not only a precondition for social development; it is also the most important factor in productivity. Such a society is based on the capacity of its citizens to generate new ideas and innovation. To build up such a society requires a continuous exchange of knowledge and experience. Employee mobility can make a significant contribution here. Moreover, preserving social cohesion is part of the Lisbon strategy. This is another reason for supporting the objectives of the Commission's draft directive.

4.10

It should also be noted that Council Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community also tackled the issue (among others) of avoiding penalising pension provision. This was one of the first social policy instruments and its aim was to reduce obstacles to free movement, and negative consequences arising therefrom. The Commission's proposal thus follows on logically from this policy, particularly in view of the legal loophole that exists for supplementary pension schemes and which will have to be closed, given the growing importance of such schemes for maintaining living standards in old age.

4.11

Measures to break down barriers to mobility are timely, given that 2006 has been designated by the Commission as Year of Workers' Mobility.

4.12

Supplementary pension schemes vary from Member State to Member State. Logically, therefore, a European framework is the only way to gradually bring the various systems into line in order to make it easier to transfer from one supplementary pension scheme to another.

4.13

This certainly applies at European level; at the same time, however, bringing arrangements for cross-border transfers into line while neglecting transfers within a Member State would hardly be in the interests of securing equal living and working conditions. The Commission's approach, which involves eliminating both cross-border and internal obstacles to workers' mobility, is therefore the right one.

4.14

However, the draft directive does not cover one important area, i.e. the alignment of taxation on supplementary pension schemes, even though differences in this area between tax treatment in Member States represent a substantial obstacle to mobility since workers can be taxed twice (on contributions and on benefits). This is because inclusion of taxation would require unanimous approval at Council with the risk that this could lead to the directive being blocked. The Commission has sought therefore to deal with taxation through its Communication of 19 April 2001 and is currently taking infringement proceedings against a number of Member States. The Committee believes that without this action by the Commission the aim of improving portability of supplementary pensions will not be achieved.

5.1

There is strong evidence that long waiting periods and a long deadline for the definitive acquisition of pension rights, coupled with a high minimum age may indeed deter employees from changing their jobs.

The Commission's approach to cutting waiting periods and deadlines for the acquisition of definitive pension rights and also to reducing the minimum age is therefore a step in the right direction. The chosen measures might thus be seen as the first step towards complete dismantlement of such obstacles.

5.2

However, the potential implications of the proposal for voluntary employer-funded supplementary pension schemes must also be considered; it must be borne in mind that these measures may lead to greater expenditure, potentially undermining willingness on the part of employers to continue funding such schemes.

5.3

Voluntary employer-funded contributions are also an important HR policy tool. Thus, in the drive to attract the best brains, and given changing demographic trends and the increasing demand for skilled labour, it could well be in the interests of employers to grant pension rights at an early stage and after a short period of employment. Besides, supplementary pension provision is only one of many HR tools, and one in which the welfare aspect is always dominant. On the other hand, long waiting and vesting periods reward employees' loyalty to the company and thus increase length of service.

5.4

As part of a general approach, variations between Member States in the relationship between supplementary pension schemes financed (solely) by employers and those financed by an employee's own contributions must also be taken into account. In order to reflect these differences, giving Member States options for differentiating between schemes on the basis of financing could be considered.

5.5

The Commission's approach to removing barriers to competition for companies intending to become established in other Member States must be clearly stressed, as long waiting periods and a high entry age tie down employees and therefore inhibit mobility.

5.6

The Commission has also taken the need for gradual adjustment into account through the option of an extended transition period for transposing the provisions on entitlement periods.

5.7

With regard to the preservation of dormant pension rights, it cannot be denied that adjustment could potentially result in greater expenditure within supplementary pension schemes.

However, this largely depends on the type of contributions involved. In the case of defined-contribution schemes, adjustment of dormant pension rights makes little sense since the value of the accrued capital depends on developments in capital markets and returns. However, this could have potential negative implications for defined benefit schemes because contributions are no longer being made.

5.8

Nevertheless, given the role of supplementary pensions in complementing state pension schemes, it does seem that there is a need for adjustments. Admittedly, the wording of the proposal does not impose a strong obligation on Member States to take measures of this kind, and the examples set out in recital 7 can only be seen as suggestions. It is also unclear whether differentiated adjustment on the basis of employee loyalty and the obligation to adjust payments rather than pension rights are consistent with the Commission's notion of fair adjustment.

5.9

The option of reimbursing entitlements below a certain ceiling — established on the basis of national practice — instead of transferring them seems reasonable.

5.10

However, the choice whether to reimburse entitlements or retain them is to be left entirely to supplementary pension schemes. But, even entitlements which the general rules classify as low-value could very well be of importance to individual employees as regular additional retirement income. Unwanted reimbursement might therefore stand in the way of a change of employer.

5.11

The EESC endorses the objectives of the Commission's proposal on the portability of pension rights. In particular, the EESC appreciates the fact that the Commission, rather than limiting itself to simply submitting proposals to enhance the portability of supplementary pension rights, is pursuing a comprehensive approach aimed at dismantling barriers to mobility in supplementary pension schemes.

5.12

A particularly positive point concerning the rules on transfer is that they will not penalise employees financially, according to the Commission's plans. This is consistent with the aim of the Directive, since, if in doubt, employees will opt to transfer their pension rights and thus change employer only if such a transfer does not penalise them financially.

5.13

Specific proposals concerning tighter requirements for the provision of information may also serve the purposes of the Directive, although it must be borne in mind that these requirements should be proportionate to actual resources, particularly in the case of smaller undertakings.

5.14

However, one criticism is that Article 6(1) could be interpreted in conjunction with the definition in Article 3f to mean that only employees who change jobs by choice are entitled to transfer supplementary pension rights; this would seriously disadvantage individuals leaving employment as a result of dismissal. Partly in view of the necessary objective of providing protection from poverty in old age, it therefore seems appropriate to include all forms of job change within the scope of Article 3(1).

5.15

Besides, the theoretical option of exempting particular supplementary pension schemes from transferability could clash with the fundamental goal of the Directive. Although Member States are supposed to inform the Commission about measures taken by them to extend transferability to such schemes, this may not be enough, given the long-standing debate on and the urgent need for the development of a stable second pension pillar. On the other hand, given the diversity of schemes in Member States, the Commission's proposals are only likely to meet with acceptance if adequate transition periods are provided for. Specific timescales and conditions could therefore be included.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/42

—

to promote intercultural dialogue as an instrument enabling European citizens and all those living permanently or temporarily in the European Union to obtain knowledge, qualifications and aptitudes which can help them to adapt to a more open but also more complex environment, and to overcome any difficulties in order to benefit from the opportunities provided by a pluralistic and dynamic society in Europe and all over the world;

—

to raise the awareness of European citizens and all those living in the European Union of the importance of developing active European citizenship which is open to the world, respectful of cultural diversity and based on the common values in the European Union of respect for human dignity, liberty, equality, non-discrimination, solidarity, the principles of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

—

to raise the profile of all Community programmes and actions contributing to intercultural dialogue;

—

to highlight the contribution of different cultures to our heritage and ways of life; to raise the awareness of European citizens and all those living in the European Union, particularly young people, of the importance of seeking the means to affirm through intercultural dialogue an active European citizenship which is open to the world, respectful of cultural diversity and based on the common values in the European Union;

—

to contribute to innovation and to the horizontal and trans-sectoral dimension of the initiatives aiming at promoting intercultural dialogue, in particular to young people.

2.1

The EESC is pleased to note that the proposal for a decision includes not only citizens of the European Union as defined in Article 17 of the EC Treaty, but any individual living permanently or temporarily in the European Union in the notion of ‘active European citizenship’.

2.2

The EESC welcomes the fact that the proposal for a decision is intended to strengthen cooperation with countries outside the borders of the European Union through intercultural dialogue.

2.3

The EESC is pleased to note that intercultural dialogue is considered to be an instrument for cooperation to strengthen stability and democracy, not only within the Union but also, through partnership, beyond its borders.

2.4

The EESC is pleased to note that the proposal for a decision promotes or strengthens coordination and harmonisation of measures and programmes to implement joint strategies of the European institutions, given that the activities and cooperation of the various institutions at Community, national, regional and local levels lack uniformity and consistency, and that their outcomes and effectiveness are uneven, due to cultural differences. If European cultures really engaged in continuous dialogue with each other, enabling them to express their own identities, this might help to enhance and mobilise the operation, outcomes and effectiveness of various European, national, regional and local institutions.

2.5

The EESC is pleased to note that, thanks to education, innovation, equal opportunities for all, Community-level support for intercultural dialogue and coordination of such dialogue at national level, European cultural heritage is becoming something that individuals can not only recognise but also use and experience.

2.6

The EESC is pleased to note that cooperation between the Member States during the year of intercultural dialogue will facilitate implementation of Community goals. It therefore supports designating 2008 as the European Year of intercultural dialogue.

2.7

The EESC proposes that the year of intercultural dialogue should be used to ensure that differences, inequalities, contradictions and conflicts which are apparently due to economic, social, environmental and political causes should not only be seen in ethnic or cultural terms; rather, by becoming familiar with and accepting the diversity of our cultures and using intercultural dialogue as an instrument we should avoid conflicts by identifying the causes underpinning them.

2.8

To this end, and in line with our opinion and additional opinion on the social dimension of culture, ‘the EESC is […] in favour of the European Union becoming a forum for reflection and discussion on the cultural policies of each Member State — a forum for a new process of cultural reflection on culture. Preparations for the year of intercultural dialogue (2008) should be an opportunity for the Commission to present a very detailed document on the actual breadth of such dialogue, the persistent or new obstacles which it encounters, and new ideas which could help genuinely deepen it. The EESC is willing to play a role in the drafting of such a report, for example from the perspective of the social dimension of culture’ (1).

3.1

Thanks to its structure as a consultative body to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the EESC has forged special links between European cultures. Its members are genuine Europeans, given that they respect and give balanced consideration to the interests of the various social partners and the values of each other's cultures in the drafting of opinions, and reach consensus on opinions benefiting European citizens (2).

3.2

Through active cooperation and activity not only at Community level but also at national, regional and local levels, EESC members embody intercultural dialogue, while promoting it and putting it into practice in civil society.

3.3

The EESC would point out to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission that the Commission's proposal does not explicitly refer to respect for the cultures and diversities of third countries, given that in defining its objectives it refers to Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Member States' obligation of mutual respect). Although any kind of legislative interference by the European Union must be ruled out, the European Commission and other institutions must call on the Member States to support respect for cultural diversity and to promote peaceful dialogue between the various cultures.

3.4

Unfortunately, tensions arising from conflicts between various cultures and religions are increasingly becoming a feature of our age; the existence of such tensions raises the question of whether the European Union needs to enshrine mutual respect for different cultures in the Treaties. These conflicts and tensions highlight the need for the European Union to set itself the consistent objective of mutual respect for the various cultures. In the current period of intercultural conflict and of crisis for European identity, support for European cultural values could be seen as a sign of optimism and confidence in the future of the European Union. The European Union should therefore be involved in developing cultural and religious dialogue with other nations, for example by promoting cultural tourism (3).

3.5

The main basis for intercultural dialogue should be promoting respect for the various cultures, customs and traditions of citizens living in Europe.

3.6

The growing mobility of EU citizens and the increasing number of migrant workers, often followed by their families or other relatives, suggest the need for an effort to promote respect for cultures and traditions different from those which have developed in Europe: this task should be carried out by the European institutions and the Member States, as part of their coordination functions.

3.7

On the basis of the UNESCO documents mentioned earlier, the EESC recommends strengthening the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, making it a coordinating body at Community level to facilitate the cultural integration of tens of millions of immigrant citizens in order to further mutual awareness and respect between the various cultures.

3.8

The EESC is disappointed that the proposal for a decision does not mention the creation of a Community-level medium, such as a TV or radio channel broadcasting in all the languages of European citizens, as an instrument for achieving its objectives. However, since then, following on from its Action Plan on improving communication and Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate, the Commission has drafted a White Paper on a European communication policy. Each of these documents focuses on dialogue with European citizens. Community objectives cannot be fully conveyed through privately owned electronic or written media.

3.9

In several of its opinions, the EESC has already voiced its concerns with regard to funding for projects, the pursuit of objectives laid down as part of a European Year — which is a very useful concept — and the balanced implementation of these objectives on an ongoing basis (4).

The very launch of the European Year initiative calls for evaluation of means to attract and retain the attention of the public while ensuring that a balance between considerations of sustainability is struck and maintained; it is indeed impossible to monitor the launch and subsequent progress of programmes established for a single year — the requisite funds are not guaranteed for subsequent years and there are also disparities in implementation of the objectives. For this reason, the question arises of how the proposal under review can ensure mutual cultural awareness and acceptance for all citizens and institutions on the basis of objectives that have been set for only one year.

3.10

There can be no doubt that individual one-year programmes will not suffice to achieve the objectives of the European Years of equal opportunities for all or of intercultural dialogue, or active citizenship and participatory democracy, as envisaged by the Commission's communication strategy; hence, a coordinated programme and use of funds is needed to ensure that objectives can be implemented in the long term or even on an ongoing basis.

3.11

The EESC is doubtful whether priority objectives can be implemented on the basis of the proposed budget. Most of the proposed budget is allocated to support for Community-level activity, and it is questionable whether the eight events are not disproportionate to the achievement of the proposed objectives. Support for local citizens' initiatives is also uncertain.

3.12

In view of considerable variations in intercultural dialogue, the EESC recommends that the Commission should develop qualitative as well as quantitative indicators to evaluate implementation of the objectives of the European Year. In view of its role as representative of civil society, the EESC undertakes to participate in this work.

3.13

The EESC proposes that an encyclopaedia of European culture be compiled on the basis of events and measures under the European Year of intercultural dialogue in 2008; this could in turn be used to compile a handbook of European cultures, which could become a basic text for developing European citizenship. Together with a compilation of best practice, the handbook would be indispensable in promoting the integration of immigrant workers and their families.

4.1

The EESC endorses UNESCO's universal declaration that ‘the cultural wealth of the world is its diversity in dialogue’ (5) and the objectives set out in the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (6); of these, the EESC would emphasise the goal of fostering ‘interculturality in order to develop cultural interaction in the spirit of building bridges among people …’.

4.2

The objectives of the European Year of intercultural dialogue include the various forms of artistic expression of human emotions as one of the key values of European cultural heritage. Awareness and acceptance of various cultures can only happen if we understand, recognise and accept each other's feelings and values. Given that young people are a key target group, it is especially important to pay attention to healthy emotional development, and hence to support initiatives to develop multicultural awareness.

4.3

The EESC supports the proposal for establishing a Day of Intercultural Dialogue, to coincide with Cultural Development Day, which has already been introduced by UNESCO and takes place on 21 May. On this occasion, the European institutions could award symbolic prizes to educational institutions and civil society organisations which have played a leading role in initiating and implementing intercultural dialogue. The day could serve as an opportunity for organising ceremonial events.

4.4

Involvement of civil society organisations, educational institutions and European citizens is crucial to support for intercultural dialogue. For this reason, the EESC would particularly welcome the introduction of a prize, even one of symbolic value (whose award would, among other things, entitle the winning European citizen, civil society organisation or institution to make use of the logo of the Day of Intercultural Dialogue); this prize could be awarded to European citizens, civil society organisations and educational institutions which play a leading role in mobilising intercultural dialogue through initiatives aimed at helping young people to understand that members of society should mutually respect each other's traditions and cultural values, not only at local, regional and national levels, but also at European level.

4.5

The EESC concurs with the Commission and the European Parliament that initiatives to promote intercultural dialogue should be primarily targeted at young people. However, it would also remind the European institutions not to neglect older age groups.

5.1

To ensure more effective implementation of the objectives set out in the proposal for a decision, the EESC would recommend that they should be harmonised and aligned with the objectives and instruments of the European Year of equal opportunities for all (2007) and of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate.

5.2

Given the diversity of initiatives launched by the different Member States to promote intercultural dialogue, the EESC suggests that the European institutions establish a coordinating body with responsibility for harmonising, promoting and disseminating such initiatives.

5.3

Successful intercultural initiatives include the Leonardo programme, which promotes the European dimension of training by supporting the development of innovative initiatives in the field and projects involving international partnerships (7), as well as the Anna Lindh Foundation (8) and EuromedCafé (9), which aims to facilitate dialogue between European and Mediterranean countries.

5.4

The proposal for a decision aims at promoting harmony and coordinating cultural diversity, while taking into account economic globalisation; it therefore offers added value and a new impetus for achieving the objectives of the renewed Lisbon strategy.

5.5

The EESC would like to take part in the following in cooperation with the NGOs:

On the basis of the above mentioned it shall make an appropriate supplementary proposal.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/46

1.1

The EESC supports the actions proposed by the European Commission in the DAP 2006-2007.

1.2

The EESC considers that the monitoring of the Equal Treatment directive in Employment and Occupation should continue to be a priority in the period covered by the DAP.

1.3

The EESC calls on the Commission to propose a Disability Specific Directive following the process of the feasibility study on developing non-discrimination legislation at European level.

1.4

A visible lack of concrete actions in the European Employment Strategy is a major sign of insufficient commitment by the EU. The EES was one of the major landmarks to test the commitment of the EU and Member States towards DAP. All of them have failed this test. The revised objectives of the European Employment Strategy should reinforce the mainstreaming of disability in the Employment Guidelines and the National Reform Programmes.

1.5

The EU must commit itself to the principle of mainstreaming in initiatives such as:

1.6

The EESC regrets that there is a lack of interest in the efforts made by EU Member States in mainstreaming disability in national policy making. The strength of DAP relies on the interest of the national states to assume the principles of the Action Plan.

1.7

The EESC also encourages the European Institutions to take on board and assume the objectives of the DAP at European level. The efforts in internal communication and raising awareness should result in a better visibility of disability in European policy making.

1.8

Organizations at European level such as the European Disability Forum and other representative NGOs should continue their work being supported under the framework of the new Progress programme.

1.9

For the future agenda, the EESC urges the Commission to pay attention to the following specific issues:

2.1

The EESC has received the Communication with great interest (2).

2.2

The European Action Plan (DAP) (3), adopted in 2003 as a multi-annual Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, aims to mainstream disability in all relevant policies of the European Union as well as to develop concrete actions to reinforce the inclusion of people with disabilities in European societies.

2.2.1

The priority of the first phase of the DAP was focused on access of disabled people to the labour market, the use of ITC, and accessibility to public buildings.

2.2.2

The priority actions for the second phase of the DAP are focused on active participation of disabled people in society, access to quality support, care and health services, fostering accessibility of goods and services and increasing the analysis capacity.

2.3

The DAP foresees a Biennial Report on the situation of people with disabilities to revise the objectives as well as to analyse the situation of people with disabilities in the period of reference.

2.4

The EESC regrets that the Biennial Report has in the final event been transformed into a short Communication instead; the first part of the Communication is the biennial report covering the period 2004-2005, and the second part is the Action Plan for its second phase 2006-2007.

2.4.1

The information provided in the annexes of the Communication is of high interest for the evaluation. Nevertheless the EESC regrets that the information provided is limited, since the analysis does not consider all the initiatives that are taking place in the EU. The states should have provided more information on the questionnaire produced by the European Commission for the report.

2.4.2

The EESC regrets that the information provided in the annexes has not been yet translated into all European Union official languages besides English.

2.5

Disabled people constitute 10 % of the population, a percentage that increases with ageing of our societies. This means that there are more than 50 million disabled people in the enlarged European Union (4).

2.6

Disabled people — men and women, boys and girls — represent a diverse, non-homogenous group. This diversity should be taken into account at all levels of policy development.

2.7

The EESC has regularly expressed strong support for the full integration of people with disabilities and has called for a Specific Directive on Disability (5).

2.8

It made some specific recommendations in the opinion for the Action Plan 2004-2006 (6). The EESC acknowledges that some of the recommendations issued where taken on board, but unfortunately many others where not, in particular the call for a disability Specific directive and the mainstreaming of disability in the European Employment Strategy.

2.9

The EESC analyses this Action Plan on the light of the current negotiations of the UN Convention on the rights of disabled people (7).

3.1

The EESC agrees with the importance of the objectives chosen for the second phase of DAP.

3.2

The EESC believes that the European Commission should apply the social approach to disability when tackling this issue in different documents of the Commission, which would enable to promote the use of more neutral and inclusive language in the wider area of disability. The translation from English of some of the documents produced by the Commission uses a language which is not fully in accordance with the social approach to disability.

3.3

The EESC shares the concern of the Commission with regard to the lack of relevant statistical data on disabled persons, which is necessary for future policy development in the field. The existing research is now only covering disabled people, who are active/employed, and does not cover the majority of disabled citizens (people who live in institutions, children).

3.4

The EESC is concerned by the fact that there is a gap in employment rate between non-disabled and disabled persons. The Eurostat confirmed in 2003 that ‘Labour force participation is indeed much lower for the disabled: 78 % of the severely disabled aged 16-64 are outside of the labour force as compared to 27 % for those without LSHPD. Even among those in the labour force, the unemployment rate is nearly twice as high among the severely disabled as compared to the non-disabled. Only 16 % of those who face work restrictions are provided with some assistance to work’ (8).

3.5

In some aspects the EESC is inclined not fully to agree with some of the reasons given in the Commission's Report to explain the twice as high inactivity rate among people with disabilities, compared to the rest of population. The argument of s. c. ‘benefit traps’ (9) is an incomplete reason that puts all the responsibility on the part of disabled people.

3.5.1

Behind negative statistics there are more complex obstacles, such as reluctance of employers, un-adjusted working places, unequal access to labour market, lack of assistance for independent living (either by personal assistance or assistive devices), discrimination faced in transport, education, access to goods and services, ICT, and so on. Although 43.7 % of disabled respondents believe that they could work with adequate assistance, in reality only 15.9 % of them actually receive such assistance (10).

3.5.2

The EESC consequently believes that any revision of the social security systems as well as employment schemes should take on board the complexity of reasons why a disabled person cannot access and remain in the employment market (11).

3.6.1

The EESC welcomes that the European Commission has taken serious steps to monitor the transposition and implementation of the Employment directive (12). The monitoring should be done in cooperation with Social partners and representative NGOs. The EESC is convinced that the Employment directive, which prohibits discrimination in employment on a number of grounds, including disability, is a lawful obligation not merely a right to ‘challenge’, and that the Commission has a key role as the guardian of the directive in its effective implementation.

3.6.2

The EESC does not share the statement of the European Commission on the visibility of disability in the European Employment Strategy (EES) (13). The mainstreaming of disability in the EES was quite reduced and this has been the case since this dimension has been forgotten in the National Reform Programmes.

3.6.3

The Committee has already supported the Commission Regulation on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC treaty to State Aid for Employment  (14) and the exemptions for the state aid for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the mainstream labour market.

3.6.4

The EESC strongly encourages the social partners to give further steps concerning the employment of people with disabilities. In 2004, the social partners reported about their initiatives undertaken in this area (15).

3.6.5

The EESC also supports the European Social Fund initiatives for integration of disabled people into the labour market. The EQUAL initiative has been very useful to promote equality for people with disabilities. The new framework of the European Social Funds should take into account some principles forgotten in the current legislation such as the principle of accessibility and design for all in the projects funded through the ESF.

3.6.6

The EESC is glad to know that the European Commission has launched a Community Action Plan Against Discrimination  (16).

3.6.7

The EESC considers that other initiatives such as the Equality summit and the European Year of Equal Opportunities 2007 have to be followed by significant political decisions or policies and legislation.

3.6.8

The EESC regrets that disabled people organizations at national level have been generally excluded in the creation of the National Reform Programmes. The reviewed Lisbon Agenda should reinforce the participation of civil society to better achieve its objectives.

3.6.9

The EESC believes that the dialogue with civil society — the social partners and relevant NGOs — at both, European and national level — is important to ensure the efficiency of the employment strategies. The involvement of representatives of disability NGOs is of vital importance.

3.7.1

The EESC recently expressed its opinion on the EYPD and invited the European Commission to assess in its future biennial report on the situation of disabled people the follow-up to political commitments made during the European Year, and in particular the follow-up to the Council resolutions on employment, education, eAccessibility, and culture, and to provide recommendations for the integration of disability concerns in the open method of coordination within the Lisbon Strategy  (17) .

3.7.2

The EESC welcomes the best practice of the air passenger's regulation where the benefits of mainstreaming processes are clear.

3.7.3

The Committee welcomes the achievements (18) in the frame of the accessibility of the ICT for people with disabilities, and its further initiatives (19). There are other areas where some progress could be done, areas such as telecommunication with a regulatory framework and television broadcasting.

3.7.4

The EESC considers that the European Structural Funds are an instrument for the European Union to promote its principles, and should include non-discrimination and accessibility in the legislation and programming of the Funds. Disability should be a cross-cutting issue in the Funds.

3.7.5

The EESC is concerned about the different levels of protection of rights for disabled people in the EU. The scope of protection and the rights of an individual person depend on the place of their residence.

3.7.6

The Committee is also concerned that some aspects of discrimination of disabled people are being neglected or are not efficiently addressed in the report of the first phase DAP, for example: the impact of discrimination towards people with disabilities should be analyzed on numerous grounds such as gender, racial, ethnic origin, religion or belie, age or sexual orientation  (20); the right of disabled people to independent living.

The EESC considers that disability is not the exclusive determination factor of disabled people and that the other circumstances may also affect and have consequences for their quality of everyday life.

4.1

The European Commission has adopted a new set of objectives for the second phase. The EESC is glad that the objectives continue to address the main problems faced by disabled people.

4.2

EESC does not share the statement that ‘mainstreaming of disability has succeeded in some areas, notably employment, ICT and Education’. This is in contradiction with some of the statements of the Joint Inclusion Reports where it is recognized that ‘…against the background of an economic performance which is at best mixed, no significant improvement in the situation. They show clear evidence of the finding in the Lisbon review of an implementation gap between what Member States commit to in common objectives and the policy effort to implement them’ (21).

4.3

The EESC believes that the EU High Level Group on Disability is very important on the implementation of the DAP and should be strengthened; the Group should produce concrete outcomes and recommendations to be adopted by the Council of the European Union.

4.3.1

The EESC strongly supports the inclusion of the European Disability Forum and other specific European impairment organisations in the discussions of the High Level Group to ensure the participation of the disability movement in the definition of policies tackling European disabled citizens.

4.4

The EESC is glad to know that the European Commission is taking action to open an infringement procedure against the states that have not yet transposed the Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation 2000/78 into their national system or have not implemented it properly (22).

4.5.1

The second phase of DAP focuses on active inclusion of people with disabilities, and builds on citizens' concept of disability (23). It means that disabled people have the same individual choices and control in their everyday life as non-disabled people.

4.6.1

The EESC noted in its previous opinion that people with disabilities are not mentioned in the new streamlined Lisbon Strategy  (24) .

4.6.2

The EESC warns that raising employment and activity rates of disabled people is not possible without improving working conditions and combating discrimination in areas such as education, transport, ICT, access to goods and services, and so on.

4.6.3

The EESC considers that the revision of the objectives of the European Employment Strategy has to take into account the mainstreaming of disability. If this is not the case the protection of disability will continue to be much reduced.

4.6.4

The European Structural Funds will be significantly assist integration if taking the principle of non-discrimination and accessibility for people with disabilities. The new programming period of the Structural Funds has to prevent the creation of newly built environment barriers as well as the promotion of a more inclusive use of Funds.

4.6.5

The new regulation of the European Commission block exemption on employment and training aids has to create a fair system to encourage the participation of people with disabilities in the labour market. The new revision should simplify procedures in order to facilitate employers' access to support their disabled employees.

4.6.6

Social economy enterprises can contribute valuably to the integration of people with disabilities into labour market.

4.7.1

EESC agrees with the European Commission on the importance of this issue.

4.7.2

The EESC considers that any action promoting the lives of disabled people in European Societies should be based in fundamental Human Rights such as:

4.7.3

Therefore the EESC welcomes the Commission's assurance to support independent living, deinstitutionalization and desegregation of people placed in large residential institutions.

4.7.3.1

The EESC calls on the Commission to ensure that all stakeholders in Independent Living, such as public authorities at national level, organizations representing disabled people and the EU, actively participate in the process.

4.7.3.2

Independent Living is not only about actually living in society, but also about being an equal part of society. Independent living means full participation in all aspects of society.

4.7.3.3

The EESC considers that any action for the revision of care services should promote independent living for people with disabilities. A specific objective on de-institutionalisation and development of community-based alternatives should be part of the new strategy on long term care, as well as part of the new social protection strategy. The alternatives should include initiatives such as personal assistants, assistive devices, support services, information, coaching, inclusion of disabled people in their own care provision, etc.

4.7.4

The EESC calls for improvement of the standards on the quality of services that are offered for disabled people. These standards should be developed in cooperation with the organizations of disabled people. Any model of support and care services should be based on quality, continuity, accessibility and financial sustainability.

4.7.5

The Open Method of Coordination on Health should also take into account the needs of disabled people and their Fundamental rights in access to services.

4.8.1

The EESC welcomes the regulation on air passengers with reduced mobility and initiatives in the wider frame of transport (railway traffic, coaches, and maritime traffic) and tourism, which will enable free movement of people with disabilities.

4.8.2

Access to new technologies is essential to bridge the gap of the digital divide in European societies. The EU has to ensure that projects under the 7th Framework Programme improve the research for new technologies, assistive devises and design for all goods and services.

4.8.3

The EESC believes that, in the current negotiations of the Directive on Services of the Internal Market, the needs of disabled consumers should be taken on board when speaking about the access to goods and services in the EU.

4.8.4

The EESC advises the European Commission that the future Communication on Social Services of General Interest should take into account the principles of continuity, accessibility and European quality standards as well as financial sustainability.

4.9.1

The European Union must be able to measure the situation of people with disabilities.

4.9.2

The EESC believes that more reliable and comparable data should be produced for people with disabilities. The current EU statistics include analysis based on gender and age. It is of vital importance for the analysis of the status of disabled persons and future policy development that a comprehensive breakdown of statistics be produced at EU level.

4.9.3

Further academic research with special attention to the needs expressed by disabled persons themselves, plus better analysis of multiple discrimination, are needed.

8.8.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/52

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee deplores the fact that the cohesion policy strategic guidelines 2007-2013 were presented one year after the proposals for budgetary programming and Structural Funds regulations for that period, instead of being presented jointly or earlier. In these circumstances, the guidelines are more like supplementary provisions than the real guidance documents which they should be.

1.2

This time-lag is all the more regrettable given the urgent need for such guidelines in the face of cohesion issues which are as varied as they are complex for 2007-2013: measures to accompany enlargements, consolidation of the euro, making up the delays to the Lisbon strategy against the background of accelerating globalisation. Faced with the difficulties of insufficient growth, considerable disparities between Member States and a Community budget which is too limited, the Union has its strong points but they remain more potential than established (consolidation of the enlarged single market, infrastructure designed for the future, reforms for adaptation).

1.3

The EESC takes the view that the links between the priorities of the strategic guidelines and the objectives of the Structural Funds are not explained, and that the conditions for their implementation should be clarified. Thus, the first priority, seeking to make investments more attractive, raises the central question of the necessary strengthening of confidence in the development of the Union itself. The second priority, of support for innovation and entrepreneurship, raises the question of the continuing unsuitability of Community resources (lack of progress on the Community patent, gaps in the legal status of the European company, measures under the Funds too limited to subsidies). The third priority, seeking to create more jobs, raises the question of making up the delays to the Lisbon strategy and a still distant optimisation of the economic and social operation of the single market in the face of the pressures of globalisation.

1.4

Like the European Parliament, the EESC is preoccupied by the limited scale of the Community budget programmed by the European Council of December 2005 for 2007-2013: its fixed ceiling of 1.045 % of the gross national income (only 0.36 % for the cohesion budget) places it at a lower level than before the enlargement from 15 to 25 members, at a time when the challenges of internal disparities and international competition have considerably increased. Thus the central question which the 2007-2013 strategic guidelines for cohesion policy should answer is: how to do better with less? As an answer, the EESC recommends diversifying the resources of cohesion policy, concentrating its measures more and modernising its management methods.

1.5

The EESC recommends diversifying the resources of cohesion policy through an innovative machinery in the Union's financial measures.

1.5.1

The Structural Funds should be able to use instruments other than subsidies and develop, in direct contact with the EIB and the EIF, loans, interest relief, loan guarantees and support in the form of investment capital and risk capital.

1.5.2

A redeployment of this kind, on a much larger scale than the JEREMIE programme alone, would have a multiplier effect on under the Funds which would better complement investment of public and private capital, making up for the modest scale of the budget.

1.5.3

To this end, the EESC is in favour of a substantial increase in the Union's loan and guarantee capacities, of a strengthened partnership with the banking and financial sector, and of corresponding adjustments to the new regulations of the Structural Funds. These three conditions would require urgent proposals on these lines on the part of the European Commission.

1.6

The EESC recommends that measures under the Structural Funds should be more concentrated according to the priority interests of Europe.

1.6.1

Going beyond direct support for the most disadvantaged states and regions, which must be continued and intensified, this implies strengthening the financing of trans-European infrastructure networks and aid to border regions, partly through public/private partnerships.

1.6.2

To this end, the EESC calls for a significant reassessment of the budget of the trans-European networks, which has been ignored in the December 2005 programming despite the objectives of the Lisbon strategy.

1.6.3

It also assumes that Community aid is used more to help Member States better to implement Community guidelines, decisions and commitments, whether this involves transposing directives or implementing the Lisbon strategy. In particular, the training aid budget, also minimised in December 2005, should be reassessed.

1.7

Finally, the EESC recommends modernising the management methods of cohesion policy in order to promote more transparency and interactivity.

1.7.1

This assumes that Community aid, like state aid, can be shown to be fully compatible with European competition policy.

1.7.2

This also requires greater involvement of the actors of organised civil society, primarily the social partners, in the formulation, management and follow-up of European cohesion policy.

1.7.3

The EESC therefore asks that the involvement of the socio-occupational actors should be made the subject of explicit provisions integrated with the strategic guidelines. The conditions for their implementation in each of the Member States should be specified in annexes to the programming and review documents.

2.1

The Communication from the Commission on the Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013, adopted on 5 July 2005, follows on from a series of previous proposals.

2.1.1

The Community budget guidelines for 2007-2013, presented on 17 February 2004, were drawn up on the basis of a rate of 1.14 % of Gross National Income (GNI).

2.1.2

The draft Regulations amending the provisions of the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund) for 2007-2013, which were presented on 14 July 2004 (1): The Commission decided to set three objectives for those Funds:

2.1.2.1

a convergence objective, the successor of the current Objective 1, which would benefit less developed regions in the Union, especially those where GDP is lower than 75 % of the EU average: 78.54 % of funds would be allocated to this objective;

2.1.2.2

a regional competitiveness and employment objective, to succeed the current Objective 2, which would benefit other regions in the EU. This targets, in particular, the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and improving employment: 17.22 % of Fund resources would be allocated to this objective;

2.1.2.3

a European territorial cooperation objective, to succeed the current Interreg programme: 3.94 % of Fund resources would be allocated to this objective.

2.1.3

On 14 July 2004 the Commission also presented a draft statute for European groupings of cross-border cooperation, aimed at facilitating such intra-Community initiatives (2)

2.2

The Strategic Guidelines on cohesion policy 2007-2013, presented by the Commission on 5 July 2005, set out three priorities. These are different from the abovementioned Structural Fund objectives, but tie in with them:

2.2.1

the first priority of the strategic guidelines is to improve Europe's attractiveness to investment;

2.2.2

the second priority is to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship;

2.2.3

the third priority is to support job creation.

2.3

These strategic guidelines are to be implemented by means of National Strategic Reference Frameworks to be prepared by the Commission, Member States and regions at a later date.

2.4

The presentation of the strategic guidelines represents the final missing element in the discussions on an overall package for cohesion policy 2007-2013. However, it would have been more logical if the Commission had initiated the discussion on cohesion policy by presenting these strategic guidelines, which are intended to establish an overall policy framework. Instead it first presented the draft Regulations on the Funds, which contain the implementing provisions. Without better coordination between the strategic guidelines and the Fund Regulations, ensuring that it is the former which clearly play the guiding role and are not just an adjunct to the latter, there is a risk of diluting the added value of European cohesion policy and encouraging a ‘renationalisation’ of development strategies. This would be detrimental to coherence, competitiveness and economic and social efficiency in the Union.

2.5

The discussions on the budget guidelines and the Fund Regulations for 2007-2013 began under difficult circumstances, marked by obvious differences in opinion between the 25 Member States as to what the sums involved should be and how they should be allocated. After an initial setback in June 2005, the European Council reached a budgetary agreement on 17 December 2005 on a much more modest basis: it placed a ceiling of 1.045 % of the GNI, with 252 billion euro (82 %) allocated to the convergence objective, 48.5 billion (15.5 %) allocated to the competitiveness and employment objective, and 7.5 billion (less than 2.5 %) allocated to the European territorial cooperation objective.