28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/1

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a European Advisory Committee on Community Statistical Information Policy

COM(2006) 653 final — 2006/0217 (COD)

(2007/C 97/01)

On 22 December 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Ms Florio as rapporteur-general at its 433rd plenary session, held on 15 and 16 February 2007 (meeting of 16 February 2007), and adopted the following opinion by 105 votes to none with two abstentions.

1. Background

1.1	In this opinion, the EESC expresses its view on the draft decision of the European Parliament and of the Council presented by the Commission (1), which aims to restructure the CEIES (European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres).

1.2	Since it was formed, the CEIES has acted as a consultative body, promoting dialogue between the producers and users of statistics at Community level.

1.3

In its explanatory memorandum, the Commission underlines that a number of commonly shared objectives emerged from the consultations carried out with a view to reforming the committee:

—	the need for a smaller and more efficient body;

—	a reformed CEIES continuing to raise the quality of Community statistics;

—	a reformed CEIES playing a more strategic role in assisting the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission in coordinating policy objectives and priorities for Community statistics;

—	a reformed CEIES whose membership reflects all those concerned with European statistics, including civil society players.

2. The Commission proposal

2.1

The Commission's proposal for a decision establishes a new CEIES, and in Article 1 renames it the ‘European Advisory Committee on Community Statistical Information Policy’. It states that the new committee shall assist the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission with the coordination of the priorities and strategic objectives of Community statistical information policy.

2.2

The committee is to play a decisive role in the preparation of the Community's statistical programme. The committee will be consulted by the Commission and will express an opinion on:

—	the relevance of the programme to the requirements of European integration and development and to the activities of the Community, taking into account economic, social and technical developments;

—	the resources needed to implement the programme, including the costs.

2.3	The CEIES will also have the task of drawing the Commission's attention to areas in which it may be necessary to develop new statistical activities and it will advise the Commission on how the quality needs of information users can be better met.

2.4

At the request of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the committee will deliver opinions on matters relating to:

—	user requirements for the development of the Community's statistical information policy;

—	priorities of the Community statistical programme;

—	the evaluation of existing statistics;

—	data quality and dissemination policy.

2.5	The committee may also present reports to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on user requirements and the costs borne by data providers.

2.5.1

The Commission will be required to report on a yearly basis on how it has taken account of the committee's opinions.

2.6

The Commission's draft decision reduces CEIES membership from 79 to 25. Article 4 states that 14 members of the committee shall be appointed by the Commission, after consultation of the European Parliament and the Council. Each Member State shall nominate two candidates with a well-established qualification in the field of statistics. The Commission, meanwhile, shall endeavour to ensure that its 14 appointees fairly reflect civil society, including the scientific community, and adequately cover the various statistical domains covered by the Community statistical programme.

2.6.1

Ten members shall be directly appointed by the bodies to which they belong, as follows:

—	one representative of the European Parliament;

—	one representative of the Council;

—	one representative of the European Economic and Social Committee;

—	one representative of the Committee of the Regions;

—	one representative of the ECB;

—	two representatives from the Statistical Programme Committee;

—	one representative of UNICE;

—	one representative of the ETUC;

—	one representative of the UEAPME.

2.6.2

The Director-General of Eurostat shall be an ex-officio member of the CEIES.

2.7	One of the new elements introduced by the reform is the possibility of setting up temporary working parties, chaired by a member of the CEIES, to prepare opinions on particularly complex statistical issues.

2.8	The Commission's proposal for a decision repeals the previous Council Decision 91/116/EEC.

3. Comments and conclusions

3.1

One of the issues raised by the enlargement of the European Union to 27 countries, and one that is recognised by the CEIES itself, has been the need for it to reform. A body of this kind needs to be as representative as possible of not just the various national situations, but also of European users' and producers' needs.

3.2	Strengthening the strategic role of the CEIES in choosing priorities and in evaluation, and giving it the option of setting up ad hoc working parties, goes a long way towards giving it the responsibilities and resources it deserves.

3.3

One can only applaud the objective of establishing a smaller and more efficient committee, but care must be taken to secure the independence, authority and neutrality of its members. For this reason, the EESC is perplexed by the new membership of the committee. If it is to promote dialogue between the users and producers of statistics, the EESC believes that the number of institutional representatives should be scaled down.

3.4	Furthermore, this membership cannot properly reflect the views of institutions such as the European Parliament, or indeed the European Economic and Social Committee, which represent a diverse range of political views and interest groups.

3.5

The European Economic and Social Committee is the European Union body responsible for representing the various economic and social milieux and civil society players. The fact that it, like the other European institutions, is to be represented on the new European Advisory Committee by just one member appears to downgrade its importance as a European advisory body.

3.6	With its role and unique membership the EESC ought to have more clout in the consultation phase, to reflect not just its institutional role but also its ability to express the viewpoints of European civil society.

3.7

In the draft decision, however, civil society appears to be represented by the 14 members appointed by the Commission, and no criteria are specified for choosing them from the variety of European associations. These are joined by ten representatives of the institutions, the social partners and Eurostat.

3.8	For this reason, while supporting the reform of the CEIES, the EESC calls for its own advisory role in the field of Community statistical information to be recognised and enhanced in the Commission's proposal.

Brussels, 16 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) COM(2006) 653 final — 2006/0217 (COD).

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/3

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC

COM(2006) 397 final — 2006/0129 (COD)

(2007/C 97/02)

On 15 September 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 January 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Buffetaut.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15 and 16 February 2007 (meeting of 15 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 188 votes to 1 with 9 abstentions.

1. The grounds for a directive on environmental quality standards

1.1

This proposal is actually for a ‘daughter directive ’stemming from the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC). The framework directive set out a strategy for dealing with the chemical pollution of water, which can disturb aquatic ecosystems, causing loss of habitats and biodiversity. Pollutants may accumulate in the food chain and humans can be exposed to pollutants through the aquatic environment not only by eating fish or seafood or drinking water but also during sporting and recreational activities.

1.2	It should also be pointed out that pollutants may be found in the environment many years after being banned; and some may be transported long distances and reach remote areas that might appear to be unaffected by pollution.

1.3	Lastly, these pollutants may be released into the environment from various sources (e.g. domestic activities, agriculture, incineration or industry).

1.4

The Commission's first step in this strategy was to produce a list of 33 substances of priority concern at Community level (Decision 2455/2001/EC). The present proposal aims to ensure ‘a high level of protection ’against risks to or via the aquatic environment stemming from these 33 priority substances and certain other pollutants.

1.5	To achieve this objective, the draft directive establishes environmental quality standards (EQS). It points out that a number of emission control procedures necessary to achieve these standards have already been adopted in various Community acts over recent years.

1.6	The proposal also entails the repeal of certain existing ‘daughter ’directives, in order in particular to take account of scientific and technical progress and pollutants not yet covered.

2. The method chosen to define the environmental quality standards

2.1

The Commission proposes a combination of two measurement criteria:

—	annual average concentrations;

—	and maximum allowable concentrations.

2.2

In this way, the environmental quality standard is defined not only on the basis of maximum allowable concentration, so as to avoid serious irreversible consequences in the short term for ecosystems owing to acute pollution, but also on the basis of annual average in order to avoid the long-term irreversible consequences of continued pollution that is not necessarily acute.

2.3

The Commission proposes that for most substances the standards should apply to the level of pollutants present in surface water. But for some substances which may accumulate up the food chain the Commission notes that limits applying only to surface water may be insufficient to avoid indirect effects and secondary poisoning. It therefore proposes that for three of these substances (hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorabutadiene and mercury) environmental quality standards for biota should be established by Member States.

3. The division of responsibilities between the European Union and the Member States

3.1

The Commission proposes that the environmental quality standards for water should be determined at Community level in order to ensure the same level of environmental protection in all Member States and to ensure a level playing field for economic operators. In general the Commission considers that existing pollution control regimes should be adequate to enable Member States to achieve the quality standards. If any additional measures are needed, it should be left to the Member States to include appropriate control measures in the programme of measures to be developed for each river basin in accordance with Article 11 of the Framework Directive.

4. The measures proposed

4.1

The directive's main components are:

—	the establishment of environmental quality standards with the introduction of transitional areas of exceedance;

—	the establishment of an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses so as to determine whether the reduction objectives have been reached;

—	the repeal of certain existing ‘daughter directives’;

—	the identification of the priority hazardous dangerous substances among the 14 substances proposed for review in Decision 2455/2001/EC.

5. General comments

5.1	The EESC naturally supports the objective of preventing hazardous substances that pose potentially serious risks with irreversible consequences from polluting water.

5.2

The EESC considers it important that the Commission should maintain a robust and scientifically based capacity for identifying promptly any substances that may cause harmful pollution in surface water and for establishing prudent quality standards for the maximum levels of such substances to be allowed either individually or in combination. The EESC notes and supports the initial list of priority substances and standards included in the present proposal. It suggests that arrangements should be made for an annual assessment to be made on a comprehensive, scientific and transparent basis to identify whether any new substances should be added to the list or new maximum permitted levels be applied for any of the substances. It should examine in particular other substances identified as priorities by OSPAR or other relevant international agreements.

5.3	The EESC is concerned that definitive standards have not yet been established for lead, nickel and their compounds. Work on this should be prioritised and appropriate limits established, if possible in time to be included in the present directive before it is finalised.

5.4

The ultimate purpose of improving water quality is to protect biota and the food chain up to and including humans. If it were possible to measure levels of all pollutants in biota reliably, consistently and efficiently it would in principle be better to set standards and monitor in this way. But in general this is still difficult, and for most of the priority substances it is more practicable at present and usually sufficiently reliable to set a standard for the maximum concentration allowable in surface water. (The proposal to base the monitoring of compliance on an annual average and maximum admissible concentration is realistic, well established and fully justified).

5.5

However there are some toxic substances which have a tendency to accumulate up the food chain. For these substances a surface water standard alone does not guarantee sufficient protection against toxic effects. For these substances it is desirable to set a standard based on the maximum concentration of the substance to be permitted in the prey tissue of fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other biota as the Commission proposes. These substances include hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and methyl-mercury. Others may be identified in the future. There is not yet a fully-agreed methodology for setting standards in this way so the Commission merely proposes to allow Member States to introduce such standards for the three substances so far explicitly identified.

5.6

In the present state of knowledge this may have to be accepted. Nevertheless the EESC urges the Commission to continue to support further scientific analysis of the phenomenon of bio-accumulation of some toxic substances, and to be ready to move towards a more widespread use of standards for maximum levels of toxic substances present in biota as soon as the science and the methodology for monitoring become more securely established. Meanwhile monitoring should also be designed to ensure that contamination levels in sediments and biota do not actually increase.

5.7

Establishing an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses resulting from human activity so as to determine whether the objectives of reducing or stopping pollution have been reached is sensible. Drawing up a complete list of natural sources of pollution is difficult. However, in certain cases it may be useful to determine the link between natural pollution and pollution of human origin.

5.8	As regards the inventory, care should be taken to avoid any inconsistencies or duplication vis-à-vis other existing instruments covering the protection of surface water.

5.9

The issue of transitional areas of exceedance has been looked at in a realistic manner, but cannot be said to be entirely satisfactory. It seems that it would be difficult to be able to guarantee that the environmental quality of the rest of the body of water will not be compromised. If the concept of transitional areas is applied, it will be necessary to develop a precise methodology for defining such areas and the location of the pollution measurement points.

5.10

Attention should be drawn to those non-EU neighbouring countries on whose territories are located the sources of a number of rivers whose courses continue within EU Member States and to countries bordering lakes whose other banks are on Member State territory. If countries situated outside the frontiers of the EU fail to protect their bodies of water, the efforts made by the Member States could be in vain and the goals set for 2015 might not be attained. This state of affairs should be considered when it comes to the implementation of the directive. The issue is mentioned in Article 12 of the Water Framework Directive.

6. Specific comments

6.1

Timetable: Article 4(5) of the proposed directive sets 2025 as the date when emissions must cease or the withdrawal from market of the dangerous priority substances must take effect. Conversely, in accordance with the water framework directive, the environmental quality objectives must be achieved by 2015. This target date might prove difficult to meet in some cases, all the more so because the adoption of this daughter directive has been delayed. Nevertheless, the Member States must do all within their power to reach this objective, in the knowledge that under certain limited circumstances recourse will be possible to provisional exemption measures. The EESC recommends that the Commission should monitor progress with implementation and stand ready to propose further measures to assist as widespread compliance by the due date as possible, with the minimum of derogations

6.2 The role of Member States

It is right that appropriate additional measures are left to the Member States because, in many cases, the situations that need to be addressed vary according to the local or regional context. Nevertheless, this flexibility must be counterbalanced by reliable reporting mechanisms as recommended by the Commission in Action 4 of its communication (1).

6.2.1

However, the Commission communication (point 3) seems rather optimistic in its assessment of the legal instruments that Member States can use to achieve the WFD objectives relating to priority substances, particularly because some significant sources of pollution are not covered by appropriate regulations, such as diffuse pollution emanating from household products or service industries, which would require new directives on products.

6.2.2

In these circumstances, it is unrealistic to suppose that each Member State could impose new measures that might not necessarily be consistent, particularly if they are likely to be overtaken by fresh European legislation.

6.3 Protection of drinking water supplies

6.3.1

Adopting the proposed directive will involve repealing Directive 75/440/EC on the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water. Coherence between the new directive and the drinking water directive (2) must be maintained as legislative changes are made.

6.4 Monitoring

6.4.1

Maintaining progress on the objectives of this directive and ensuring a level playing field across Europe will require more consistent and reliable standards of monitoring. The EESC looks forward to the new proposals for a ‘Reporting Water Information System for Europe ’that are shortly to be brought forward, and hopes that it will be possible to make use of these to keep close track of the implementation of the priority substances directive.

7. Coherence between the directive on environmental quality standards for water and the REACH regulation

7.1

Coherence between the provisions of the present directive and the REACH regulation must be guaranteed, even if in principle the Commission had anticipated the success of the negotiations on REACH and thus its implementation. At any event, the introduction of new chemicals onto the market must be taken into account when considering environmental quality standards for water.

8. Conclusion

8.1

The EESC agrees with the initial list of priority substances proposed and the standards proposed for them. But it urges action to complete the missing standards for lead and nickel and a robust process for keeping the list and the standards under regular review so as to be able to keep it up to date promptly and effectively when needed.

8.2	The EESC agrees with the broad thrust of the proposed directive.

8.3	Achieving the environmental quality objectives by 2015 will be challenging. Nevertheless, the EESC urges the Member States to step up their efforts in order to reach these objectives.

8.4	The EESC emphasises the need to finalise a system for reporting information and monitoring the implementation by Member States of the directive and the achievement of its objectives. It welcomes the Commission's Water Information System for Europe (WISE) initiative.

8.5	It recommends ensuring the new proposal is consistent with legislation that is currently in force, and that appropriate European legislation be adopted in relation to certain sources of pollution that are not covered by existing legislation (such as diffuse pollution from household products).

Brussels, 15 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) COM(2006) 398 final.

(2) Directive 98/83/EC.

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/6

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission on Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 — and beyond — Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being

COM(2006) 216 final

(2007/C 97/03)

On 22 May 2006 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15 and 16 February 2007 (meeting of 15 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes to seven, with five abstentions:

1. Summary of the EESC's conclusions and recommendations

1.1

The EESC and the Commission are in agreement in defining the situation which we face: maintaining biodiversity is an essential, key task which does not only represent an ethical and moral obligation. There are also sufficient economic reasons why it is necessary to act more quickly and more effectively. The cost of the economic losses brought about by the decline in ecosystem services is already at the present time estimated at several hundred billion euros. This constitutes a waste of resources which our economies simply cannot afford to bear.

1.2

Species decline in Europe is the result of millions of individual value judgements which have been taken in recent decades; the absolutely overriding majority of these decisions have been taken in accordance with existing laws. The share of responsibility for species decline in Europe which can be attributed to illegal measures is marginal.

1.3

Despite the political promises which have been made, the trend as regards biodiversity regrettably continues to be negative; this cannot, however, be put down to a lack of knowledge about how to tackle species decline. What has been missing up to now is the political will also effectively to implement the measures which have long been acknowledged to be necessary. The experience gained with the Natura 2000 network speaks for itself.

1.4

The reasons which lie behind this situation are rightly identified by the Commission in its Communication and include ‘governance failures and the failure of conventional economics to recognise the economic values of natural capital and ecosystem services’. These elements, together with the fact that the ethical and moral reasons for maintaining biodiversity tend to be treated as matters of secondary importance in planning and political appraisal processes, have brought about the current critical development of the situation.

1.5	There are tremendous gaps between the action which needs to be taken and what is happening in reality; these gaps must be closed if we are to counteract the imminent danger of a loss of credibility.

1.6

The EESC welcomes the presentation of the action plan and recognises the advisability of the some 160 measures which it sets out; most of these measures are, however, by no means new — they have been on the agenda for years. What happens in future will thus demonstrate whether, with the presentation of this action programme, the world of politics will now really find the strength to bring about the ‘substantial changes’which are recognised as being necessary or whether, on the other hand, the fears of many nature conservationists will turn out to be true, namely that politicians are indeed once again discussing a highly-charged area of social policy but they go no further than paying lip service to the issues involved.

1.7

In the EESC's view, a key point of criticism of the Commission's Communication is the lack of a strategic debate over the question raised in the Committee's exploratory opinion of 18.5.2006 (1) as to how to explain the tremendous discrepancies between the action which should be taken, the action which has been announced and what actually happens in reality in respect of maintaining biodiversity. The EESC deplores the fact that this problem is almost completely disregarded in the Commission's Communication and action plan.

1.8	The EESC therefore attaches particular importance to prioritising policy area 4, namely ‘Improving the knowledge base’, so as to ensure that both the general public and politicians are aware of the real consequences of their actions.

1.9	Attention should be drawn to the need to help the EU's neighbouring countries improve their biodiversity conservation and to avoid situations where the EU and individual member states co-finance projects that could result in a more rapid loss of biodiversity in non-EU European countries.

1.10

The EESC endorses the concept of the ‘global responsibility ’of the EU, as defined by the Commission. Whilst the EU and its Member States devote less that 0.004 % of their economic resources towards funding the requisite global measures for developing and maintaining biodiversity, their responsibility for destroying biodiversity (e.g. in the tropical forests) continues to increase. In future, developments taking place on the market for biofuels may be responsible for a further worsening of the situation.

1.11

The EESC criticises the fact that the action plan itself is available only in the form of a ‘technical annex’, i.e. as a separate SEC document; furthermore, it is available only in English. The EESC calls upon the Commission to ensure that the action plan is translated into all official EU languages and that it is widely distributed, both via the Internet and in the form of a printed document.

1.12	Implementation of the objectives set out in the action plan is to be overseen by the existing Biodiversity Expert Group (BEG). In the EESC's view, there is a pressing need to involve civil society much more closely in this task.

2. Key elements of and background to the Commission's Communication

2.1

In its biodiversity strategy, set out in 1998, the EU pointed out that the scale of the loss of biodiversity had ‘accelerated dramatically’. At their meeting in 2001, the EU Heads of State or Government reached agreement on the goal of halting the ‘dramatic’ decline in biodiversity (in the EU) by 2010 (2). At this summit the European public was also promised that steps would be taken to ensure the restoration of habitats and natural systems.

2.2

In the Communication under review, in which the ‘Action Plan for Maintaining Biodiversity ’is presented, the Commission once again sets out a detailed and impressive description of the current situation with regard to the maintenance of biodiversity or, to be more accurate, the ongoing decline in biodiversity. This decline continues to give rise to the utmost anxiety, as demonstrated by all the studies drawn up by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and by the ‘Red Lists ’of threatened animal and plant species drawn up at national level. In its Communication, the Commission points out that we are still a long way from achieving the goal of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and notes that the only way in which the ongoing negative trend can be reversed is by means of ‘substantial changes in policy and practice’.

2.3	The Commission adds that ‘the pace and extent of implementation has been insufficient’ and calls for ‘accelerated implementation at both Community and Member State’ levels as, otherwise, ‘there is a real risk of failure to meet the global 2010 target’.

2.4

Such a failure to achieve our objective would, in the Commission's view, cause problems on two grounds. Maintaining biodiversity is not only an ethical and moral obligation, vis-à-vis creation, it is also both advisable and necessary on purely economic grounds. In its Communication, the Commission accurately points out that biodiversity provides the basis for ecosystem services including ‘the production of food, fuel, fibre and medicines, regulation of water, air and climate, maintenance of soil fertility and cycling of nutrients’. The Commission also draws attention to the fact that ‘that some two-thirds of ecosystem services worldwide are in decline’ and the attendant financial loss — which is, admittedly, difficult to ascertain — is estimated by the Commission to amount to ‘hundreds of billions of euros’.

2.5	In its Communication, the Commission goes on to analyse the measures which have been taken up to now and the degree to which they have proved successful. The Commission does not only focus on the EU itself but also describes the worldwide situation and defines the EU's global responsibility.

2.6

At the heart of the Communication lies the debate on the issue as to what action needs to be taken in future. With this aim in view, an EU action plan has been drawn up (only, however, in the form of an appended SEC document). The action plan comprises four key policy areas and also sets out ten priority objectives and a further four ‘key supporting measures’.

2.6.1

Policy area 1 covers ‘Biodiversity in the EU’. Five of the overall total of ten priority objectives are set out under this heading. The five priority objectives in question are as follows:

—	to safeguard the EU's most important habitats and species;

—	to conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU countryside;

—	to conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU marine environment;

—	to reinforce the compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity in the EU; and

—	to substantially reduce the impact on EU biodiversity of invasive alien species and alien genotypes.

2.6.2

Policy area 2 is entitled ‘The EU and global biodiversity’. This title has been selected for a number of reasons: the fact that the loss of biodiversity is, of course, not confined to the territory of the EU and the fact that both the EU and its Member States have entered into commitments under international law to participate in the world-wide conservation of biodiversity and bear joint responsibility for developments at global level by virtue of their trade relations. Three further priority objectives are set out under this heading, namely:

—	to substantially strengthen the effectiveness of international governance for biodiversity and ecosystem services;

—	to substantially strengthen support for biodiversity and ecosystem services in EU external assistance;

—	to substantially reduce the impact of international trade on global biodiversity and ecosystem services.

2.6.3

Policy area 3 covers ‘Biodiversity and climate change’. The following objective is set out under this heading:

—	to support biodiversity adaptation to climate change.

2.6.4

In Policy area 4, the Communication and the action plan address the issue of the ‘knowledge base’ and define the tenth and final priority objective, as follows:

—	to substantially strengthen the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally.

2.6.5

The four key support measures are defined as follows:

—	ensuring adequate financing;

—	strengthening EU decision-making;

—	building partnerships; and

—	building public education, awareness and participation.

3. General comments on the provisions set out in the Commission's Communication

3.1

The EESC welcomes the publication of the Commission's Communication and the drawing up of an action plan on 22 May 2006, four days after the adoption by the EESC of its exploratory opinion on the ‘EU campaign to conserve biodiversity — Position and contribution of civil society’. The EESC notes that the analysis of the current situation and the causes of this situation is practically identical in both documents.

3.2

The EESC draws attention to the fact that the individual causes of the decline in both species and biotopes, i.e. factors such as: more intensive land usage or the abandonment of previously extensively-used living areas; the sealing of land surfaces; and overdevelopment, have been well known for a number of years and have been widely scientifically documented. These factors are based on decisions and measures taken by economic players or on political decisions taken in accordance with existing laws. The extent of the threat to biodiversity brought about by illegal measures is relatively low. It is thus perfectly legal policy decisions, technical decisions and value judgements which are leading to the loss of biodiversity and such decisions are often backed up or initiated by decisions and aid instruments of the EU, the Member States or municipalities.

3.3

This consensus between the EESC and Commission's Communication in respect of both the situation and the analysis of the situation also applies with regard to the reasons why it is essential to maintain biodiversity. Whilst the Commission refers in its Communication to ethical and moral reasons, together with economic grounds, the EESC for its part refers, in its exploratory opinion, to the ‘practical and intrinsic value ’of countryside areas and biodiversity.

Biodiversity — the gap between political imperatives and reality

3.4

The Commission Communication under review joins a long list of political documents announcing measures to stem the loss of biodiversity. Political promises to this effect have been made repeatedly, most recently at the meeting of EU Environment Ministers held in December 2006, at which the present Communication was approved.

3.5

The EESC is, however, regrettably obliged to note that, all too often, there is a yawning gap between what needs to be done and the measures which are taken in reality. The public is, of course, aware of this fact. By way of example, at the end of December 2006 the EU fisheries ministers set catch quotas for cod which, in the opinion of all marine biologists, are much too high and will, in all probability, lead to the collapse of stocks of this species. Despite this, the outcome of the meeting was hailed as a ‘good result’. This is illustrative of either considerable differences in the appraisal of the issues involved and the relation between cause and effect or it points to the fact that, although the issue was discussed, in reality a policy is still being consciously pursued which will culminate in a loss of biodiversity.

3.6	The EESC has, in the meantime, highlighted these issues in a whole series of opinions dealing with this subject and has warned against an impending loss of credibility.

3.7

There are, quite clearly, differences between the Commission and the EESC in their respective appraisals of the question of the extent to which the importance of the problem of declining biodiversity has already been recognised and appraised by the public at large, persons exercising political responsibility and the most important economic players and the extent to which, in particular, political measures have been taken to counteract this decline. The EESC acknowledges that there is an awareness of the issue of loss of biodiversity. It also does not wish to imply that anyone — be they members of the public or politicians — consciously takes decisions designed to undermine biodiversity. Considerable difficulties do, however, appear to exist over the matter of being able, in reality, to gauge the long-term consequences of one's own decisions and, where appropriate, to draw the requisite conclusions. One example which further illustrates this situation is the irrigation activity undertaken in some new Member States, including Poland, as part of the Rural Development Programmes, during 2004-2006 and planned for 2007-2013. ‘Water resource management for agriculture ’activity, which is financed from EU funds, primarily involves the technical transformation of river basins. This in turn leads to a whole series of adverse effects, starting with the loss of biodiversity. Unfortunately, this action is also carried out and planned in potential Natura 2000 areas.

3.8

The Commission refers to the fact that issues relating to the maintenance of biodiversity would play a key role, inter alia, in respect of the Lisbon Strategy. The Committee of Regions also points out in its opinion on the Communication under review that it ‘welcomes the Council Conclusions of 23-24 March 2006 calling for the integration of the 2010 objectives into all relevant Lisbon agenda policies’. The EESC does, however, have the utmost doubt whether this will indeed be the case. It is rather obliged to conclude that the role and importance of biodiversity are given only marginal consideration in the context of ‘economic policy’. It is clear from making an appraisal of the documents relating to the Lisbon Strategy that terms such as ‘diversity ’and ‘nature conservation ’are referred to only in a marginal way, if at all, and the situation is also no different with regard to the national reform programmes.

3.9

The Commission is absolutely right when it refers in its Communication to ‘governance failures and the failure of conventional economies to recognise the economic values of natural capital and ecosystem services’. If these values were really recognised and if external costs were consequently internalised, the problem would not arise in this form.

3.10

In its abovementioned exploratory opinion, the EESC had already pointed out that the conflicts between, on the one hand, the various strategies designed to promote economic growth and, on the other hand, biodiversity were at that time tending to increase. Economic growth is, today, often identified in too unqualified a way with the promotion of growth measured by volume; economic growth of this nature can indeed be hampered or made more difficult to achieve by the drive to maintain biodiversity. In the great majority of cases, which concern, for example, technical and planning decisions, nature conservation and biodiversity are thus not seen as providing an opportunity for economic development but are regarded, often, as an impediment to such development or seen as preventing it. This is the only way to explain the ‘pressure ’which continues to be exerted, in some cases even more intensively than before, against the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and fauna and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’) and the Directive on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘Birds Directive’) and the resultant Natura 2000 network. Despite the fact that the European Commission with responsibility for the environment, Mr Dimas, is currently speaking out against amending the abovementioned Directives (3), there is no mistaking the fact that nature conservation is often regarded as representing a rival when it comes to determining land-use and seen as curbing development; it is regarded as providing a basis for economic development only in extremely rare cases. Furthermore, the financial expenditure and obligations arising from, for example, the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of sites are looked upon in terms of a burden, rather than as an investment for the future, or the requisite facilities are not made available.

3.11

In addition to this ‘economic ’perception of nature conservation and biodiversity, which is completely at odds with the economic justification for maintaining biodiversity referred to by the Commission, there is a second problem which has been brought about by the parties responsible for nature conservation themselves and which has intensified conflicts with landowners and land-users. The EESC has drawn attention on several occasions to the fact that the way which the Natura 2000 network was planned and implemented was a classic example of how certain nature conservation measures are doomed to failure. In the case of the Natura 2000 scheme, ministers at national and regional level suddenly started to criticise the very legal bases which they themselves had established a number of years earlier. Under the same scheme, funding was also not provided to cover the compensation payments to farmers which had been promised as part of the policy and decisions were taken over the heads of the landowners or land-users concerned, rather than enlisting their support. This type of nature conservation measure is not credible and generates mistrust.

3.12	There are many examples which demonstrate that reasonable cooperation has been able to bring about perfectly respectable levels of success provided that politicians and administrations also honour their promises and on condition that the parties concerned enter into genuine partnerships.

Financial decisions by the EU provide an example of the kind of action which should be avoided.

3.13

At the EU Summit in December 2005, the financial decisions taken on the financial perspective for the period 2007-2013 involved cuts in funding for the second pillar of the CAP, which is of particular importance in the drive to safeguard biodiversity; this is clear evidence of the fact that, despite all the lofty declarations and goals which have been set out, when it comes to determining political priorities, the objective of conserving biodiversity is sacrificed. Six months after the abovementioned financial decisions were taken, in its action plan the Commission then describes the need for ‘ensuring adequate financing’for Natura 2000 as one of the ‘four key supporting measures’. Whilst this is a right and proper demand as regards its form and content, it is, however, regrettably out of step with political reality and tends rather to demonstrate the discrepancy between word and deed.

3.14

The EESC has on a number of occasions expressed the view that the second pillar of the CAP is completely underfunded now that additional tasks, such as the funding of the Natura 2000 network and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive have been assigned to it. What kind of opinion are members of the public to have of a policy which is so clearly contradictory and which gives rise to conflicts at local level?

3.15	The CoR is therefore perfectly right when, in its abovementioned opinion, it ‘argues …, in the framework of the 2008 review of the 2007-2013 financial perspective, for a substantial shift of funding towards sustainable forms of farming and landscape preservation’.

3.16

Similar observations apply in the case of the, fundamentally correct, call made by the Commission for steps to be taken to ensure ‘that Community funds for regional development benefit, and do not damage, biodiversity’ and to build up ‘partnerships between planners, developers and biodiversity interests’. The EESC also firmly supports this demand, which has since been reiterated on several occasions. Here, too, however there are clear discrepancies between (right and proper) announcements and day-to-day political practice, since nothing has changed in principle. Infrastructure projects (some of which are co-financed by the EU) continue to be constructed through areas which are of the greatest value in terms of nature conservation and, despite the fact that the necessary compensatory and replacement measures for the benefit of nature conservation are taken, the end result is — as indicated in the description of the situation in the EU — a loss of biodiversity.

3.17	Furthermore, the EESC takes the view that the demand set out in respect of the Structural Funds must also apply in the case of all EU expenditure if the Community is to live up to its self-established claim to operate a coherent policy.

3.18

The EESC is thus able to identify lines of approach in all areas for which the EU has responsibility by virtue of its remit. Agricultural policy would be a case in point. As the current situation demonstrates, the existing legal provisions are, however, not up to the task of ensuring widespread conservation of biodiversity. If agricultural payments are then linked ‘only ’to compliance with existing laws, it soon becomes clear that this situation is not conducive to promoting biodiversity.

3.19

As things stand at present, direct payments to farmers, which comprise the greater part of the agricultural budget, are not geared to promoting biodiversity, but are designed rather to prepare farmers to meet the challenges of world markets. The EESC has, however, drawn attention on a number of occasions to the fact that the European Agricultural model, which also numbers amongst its objectives the maintenance of biodiversity, is not compatible with world market conditions. Making farmers competitive on the world market whilst, at the same time, expecting them to promote biodiversity is not a feasible proposition.

3.20

In an earlier opinion, the EESC pointed out that ‘as long as world-market conditions tend to hinder the widespread adoption of farming practices which are in line with the goals of nature conservation, special policy measures will be required …’ which could, for example, mean that ‘agri-environmental aid should be increased to a level where all farmers in the EU are prompted to switch to green production measures’ (4). Here, too, what has been achieved in reality lags behind the goals which have been announced.

3.21

The political situation in respect of the protection of biodiversity clearly differs in a fundamental way from the situation which applies in other political fields, such as financial policy and stability policy. In the latter cases the Commission endeavours — sometimes in the face of the most tremendous opposition — to force through a clearly recognisable political line and instruments are available, c.f. the Maastricht Criteria, in order to require that the course of action deemed to be correct is pursued. In the case of the conservation of biodiversity, we have, as yet, barely gone beyond the stage of expressing political lip service to the pursuit of this goal.

3.22

For these very reasons, the EESC highlighted in its exploratory opinion the question of identifying the social background which gives rise to a situation in which everyone is speaking out in support of biodiversity but a dramatic decline in biodiversity is nonetheless occurring. It concluded that society (and large parts of the world of politics) were not sufficiently aware of both the intrinsic and practical value of biodiversity. If both reasons for maintaining biodiversity are not really taken on board and understood, no policy in this field can be effective. The EESC therefore called for political emphasis to be placed on communicating the need to maintain biodiversity. Although the EU action plan, proposed by the Commission addresses this issue in policy area 4 and under the four key supporting measures, it is not given the requisite detailed consideration.

3.23

The EESC does not wish to reiterate here the observations on this matter set out in its opinion of 18 May 2006. It can only request the Commission, Council and the European Parliament to take a fresh look at the views which it expressed in this earlier opinion. The dramatic situation with regard to the trend in biodiversity is well known and it has been brought about largely as a result of action which is, in each case, legal. Some measures have, indeed, been introduced by the EU to tackle this situation but one of the reasons why they have failed to be effective is because they have either not been taken up at all or only taken up in a half-hearted fashion. Furthermore, many decisions continue to be taken despite the fact that they are counter-productive.

4. Specific comments

4.1

The very fact that over 160 different proposals for improving the situation have been put forward in an action plan demonstrates, first of all, that there must hitherto have been shortcomings in very many policy areas and at the greatest possible variety of levels. At the same time, the question must, however, also be raised as to whether all the proposed measures are equally important and whether they should all be addressed simultaneously. The fact that these questions have been raised should not be taken to mean that the EESC regards even one of the listed measures as being erroneous. It merely doubts whether it is really the case that all of the measures have to be seriously pursued.

4.2

The EESC believes that addressing policy area 4 thoroughly and without delay is a matter of key importance. There is an urgent need to improve the knowledge base with regards the real importance of biodiversity and the real long-term consequences for biodiversity of the various decisions which are taken. It is a fact that only if the requisite knowledge base is actually available and really endorsed by both the world of politics and society at large, will it be possible to develop the sense of involvement which is politically essential if we are to bring about the ‘substantial changes in policy and practice’, which the Commission regards as being of vital importance. Whether what is lacking at the moment is rather the requisite knowledge and ideas or, on the other hand, rather the political will or ability to implement measures represents a question which is extremely difficult to answer.

4.3

The EU will undoubtedly have to let itself be judged by the criterion of whether it carries out the measures announced in its action plan, including its plan to reshape its policy for tackling loss of biodiversity and its expenditure policy. The financial decision taken in December 2005 prompt many of the parties concerned to express scepticism as to whether this reversal of policy is being taken up seriously. This scepticism is strengthened by the fact that, in the past, hardly any successes have been recorded even in areas where there were not even any economic interests standing in the way of more effective measures for the protection of biodiversity.

4.4

By way of example, one problem area may be highlighted which is not addressed at all at any point in the Commission's Communication, despite the fact that it is a matter of particular importance to many threatened species, namely the issue of hunting. Every year approximately 102 million birds, including some 37 million songbirds, are either shot or caught in the 27 EU Member States, Switzerland and Norway. These figures are based on hunting statistics. One thing is certain, the high losses suffered by migratory species of birds as a result of hunting represent a key mortality factor.

4.5

Species such as the lapwings, snipe, garganey, skylark, quail, turtle-doves and jacksnipe — all of which are in decline either throughout Europe or in parts of Europe — must, and could, therefore be exempted from hunting. It should be borne in mind in this context that in the majority of European countries hunting migratory species is pursued as a leisure activity by only a small minority of the population. There are no economic grounds for it; hunting is an activity which is carried out purely for pleasure. Nevertheless — or perhaps for this very reason — no success has been achieved in this field up to now. This underlines yet again how difficult it is to change even customs of this type and how much more difficult it is to implement ‘substantial changes in policy and practice ’accordingly.

4.6

The Greek island of Tilos provides a remarkably positive example of what can be achieved by introducing a ban on hunting. Therev has been no hunting on this island since 1993 and this has led to a tremendous increase in both the variety of species and the numbers of individuals within the various species. The EU has promoted this development using a number of instruments, including a project implemented under the LIFE programme.

4.7

The EESC would, in conclusion, also like to reiterate that it supports the concept of ‘global responsibility ’referred to by the Commission. The EU does, however, not yet win any laurel wreaths for its action in this field. The Commission itself notes in its Communication that, at present, only ‘1/100th of Community and Member States' total annual development aid budgets’, i.e. less than 0.004 % of all expenditure, is devoted to international projects designed to maintain biodiversity.

4.8

There is also the issue of the high level of joint responsibility for the destruction of biodiversity in other parts of the world. In its Communication, the Commission cites the example of the destruction of tropical forests. The EESC draws attention to the fact that this clearing of forests is counter-productive not only from the standpoint of the need to safeguard biodiversity but also on climate-protection grounds; 20 % of CO2 pollution worldwide is brought about by the destruction of forests.

4.9	The EESC highlights the clear risk faced by arable and livestock farmers due to the rapid erosion of genetic resources for food production.

4.10

The EESC wishes to express its grave concern over the fact that, for example, implementation of the EU's biofuel strategy could result in additional massive destruction of tropical forests if use is made of cheaper imports rather than domestic products produced in accordance with the principles of conservation of nature and the environment. Malaysia currently produces some 5 million tonnes of palm oil per year; the plantations which were established for this purpose were responsible for around 90 % of the total area of rain forest cleared in this country in the period 1985-2000. A further 6 million ha is now to be cleared — in Indonesia the figure is as high as 16.5 million ha — in order to establish palm-oil plantations. The palm oil produced is destined for export. A combined heat and power station in the German municipality of Schwäbisch-Hall, often referred to as an exemplary energy-policy development, will derive over 90 % of its fuel from palm oil!

4.11	In addition to the abovementioned divergent standpoints with regard to content and strategy, the EESC wishes to draw attention to two further key issues of a formal nature:

4.11.1

It is a source of considerable irritation to those concerned and interested parties when they have to search for several different EU documents together in order to obtain a complete overview of one and the same policy area. In order to satisfy the administrative requirement to ensure that Commission documents remain concise, the actual action plan — which, in the table of contents of the Commission's Communication, is listed as taking the form of Annex 1 to this document — is in fact not appended to this Communication. It can only be obtained in the form of a separate SEC document, the cover page of which does not even mention the term ‘action plan’. Reference is made solely to a ‘technical annex’. Furthermore, the action plan is available only in English (i.e. not in other official languages) and it is printed using a type face which is difficult to read. All of this is a source of irritation. The EESC therefore calls upon the Commission to have the action plan translated into all of the official languages and to ensure that the document is widely distributed, both via the Internet and in print form.

4.11.2

The Commission proposes that implementation of the objectives of the action plan should be overseen by the existing Biodiversity Expert Group (BEG). The EESC, for its part, would however propose that civil society be much more closely involved in this process, particularly in view of the abovementioned problem — described in detail in the EESC's exploratory opinion — that there is much too little awareness of the issues at stake and consequently also much too little feeling of ‘involvement’.

Brussels, 15 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) OJ C 195 of 18.8.2006, p. 96.

(2) See the Presidency Conclusions of the Göteborg European Council of 15-16 June 2001.

(3) A stance which is welcomed by the EESC.

(4) See the EESC opinion of 21.3.2002 on the future of the CAP (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, pp. 87-99).

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/16

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the European logistics policy

(2007/C 97/08)

On 17 November 2005, in connection with the activities of the Finnish Presidency of the European Union, H.E. Mari Kiviniemi, Minister for Foreign Trade and Development of Finland, requested by letter an opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the: European Logistics Policy.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 January 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15-16 February 2007 (meeting of 15 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 82 votes to five with 10 abstentions.

1. Recommendations and conclusions

1.1

Efficient transport is an essential element in maintaining and enhancing European competitiveness. Managing the complexity of transport flows in a modern society requires highly efficient modes of transport and seamless cooperation between them. Advanced and integrated logistics solutions can help optimise freight transport operations and thereby favour growth and make Europe globally more competitive.

1.2

The Finnish Presidency initiative and the communication published by the Commission in June of this year (1) show how logistics efficiency can be a tool to reinforce and exploit the positive synergies between environmental protection and competitiveness. This can be accomplished by optimising the rational use of vehicles and infrastructure in order to reduce unnecessary transport. This is why the EESC believes it is important to secure a development effort that can capitalise on input from all players: logistics firms and their employees; user undertakings and their employees; public authorities and organisations.

1.3

This effort should be underpinned by a strategic plan for growth and competitiveness through logistics, established by the Commission. The plan must clearly define the duties of the authorities and of the business world. It must take a multimodal approach to transport and be based on economic, transport policy, social and environmental interests and regional factors.

1.4

Logistics is a labour-intensive activity that requires skilled, well-educated staff and management. The plan must therefore illustrate in detail the situation for logistics studies in compulsory education and post-school education. It must also look into the options for providing support for research and infrastructure development.

1.5

In this framework jobs markets could play an important role in maintaining and developing the logistic services that serve the needs of competitiveness and industry. The social partners can promote the procedures and functioning of the logistic employment market through ongoing dialogue. Ensuring permanent jobs and occupational well-being, as well as improving productivity can be seen as joint goals.

1.6	The Commission's previous approach to solving the congestion problem on certain roads within the EU by regulating for a return of transport mode share to 1998 levels seems not to be in tune with current developments in the transport market.

1.7

The main task is to achieve coordination between modes of transport where possible and where the individual mode's efficiency and suitability can be exploited to the full. This will be achieved when the technical, practical and economic conditions are present. The challenge for the EU is to agree on a common policy to create or develop these conditions. The future policy will also have to focus on ensuring safe, environmentally clean and efficient transport systems.

2. Background

2.1	Finland has asked the EESC to draw up an exploratory opinion on A European logistics policy, citing a number of reasons why development in this area is so important to European competitiveness. These include the following:

2.2

The global economy is in a period of transition. The most recent phase in globalisation started in the 1990s, when the growing economies in Asia opened up the international market economy. This resulted in a relocation of both industrial production and provision of services. In Europe, EU enlargement, economic growth in the Union's neighbouring countries and Russia's economic recovery are changing the structures of the European industrial production and services markets. The EU has to swiftly and determinedly respond to these challenges as outlined in the Lisbon Strategy.

2.3

These developments are also reflected in the European transport sector. Firstly, transport markets in all Member States must be successfully integrated into Community transport markets. Special attention must be given to the countries that are still technically integrated in the transport system of the former USSR. Secondly, remaining mobility constraints in the EU must be removed and transport operations effectively organised. Thirdly, in order to capitalise fully on the economic opportunities of the EU's neighbouring countries, transport connections to these countries must be developed. The existing bottlenecks on the borders with non-EU countries prove the need for work to be done to solve these problems. Freight transport in many cases crosses the frontiers of the EU, therefore attention to the development of appropriate infrastructure and technologies on both the EU and non-EU country sides is becoming extremely important.

2.4

One of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy is to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world. A modern, operational and efficient transport system is vital for sustainable economic development. However, improvement, in the competitiveness of EU enterprises requires ever higher quality, punctuality and efficiency in transport. At the same time, a rapid increase in goods transport — especially on roads — causes saturation of transport in many parts of Europe. This means additional costs for European industry. Such undesired development also has negative repercussions on the natural living environment.

2.5

Considerable efforts have been made in the EU to open the markets of logistics services and to integrate the transport networks in Europe. However the results are not yet satisfactory and many barriers to progress still remain. In the EU transport policy, logistics has not received the attention it deserves although logistic costs in industry and trade are considerable. In fact, they form a significant part of enterprises' total turnover. The European logistic sector is also an important employer.

2.6	Logistic efficiency is a tool to reinforce and exploit the positive synergies between environmental protection and competitiveness. This can be accomplished by optimising the rational use of vehicles and infrastructure in order to reduce unnecessary transport.

2.7	Improved logistics may also have positive effects on the EU's regional development, because it decreases the importance of geographical locations and thus promotes regional economic growth and competitiveness.

3. Introduction

3.1	Contacts between Finland and the Commission have resulted in the Commission's publication in June 2006 of a communication on Freight Transport Logistics in Europe — the key to sustainable mobility (2). The communication looks at the scope for bringing logistics and transport policy closer together.

3.2

In its March 2006 consultation document (3) on this communication, the Commission addresses a number of issues regarding the future development of logistics and its importance for an efficient transport sector in the EU, with a clear emphasis on intermodality and cooperation between modes of transport.

3.3

The document indicates that when comparing GDP and logistics expenditure, including transportation between Europe (EU-15) and North America, the logistics percentage of GDP has grown in Europe from 12.2 % in 1998 to 13.3 % in 2002. During the same period, logistics expenditure in North America has decreased from 11 % to 9.9 %.

3.4

The Commission's consultation document also refers to previous measures adopted by the Commission. Research and Technological Development (RTD) efforts over the last few years have seen a number of projects deal with intermodality on the one hand, and logistics on the other. The aim of these projects is to develop a better understanding of the interrelation between logistics decisions and transport services (4).

3.5

The 2001 Commission White Paper (5) contains basic information about the EU transport system and puts forward a number of ideas, approaches and proposals for improving the transport situation by 2010. It sets quantitative objectives for different modes of transport. By 2010 the market share between the various transport systems will be restored to 1998 levels. There is strong emphasis on the importance of intermodality, i.e. how the various modes of transport can be integrated, especially as regards long distance haulage within Europe. The aim is to switch more freight to rail and maritime transport. The Marco Polo programme is part of this effort. However, this will require favourable technical and logistical solutions that enable a door-to-door concept to be pursued. The White Paper states that the delays and additional costs associated with reloading are obstructing competitiveness, to the benefit of road haulage, whose highly developed network makes it possible to transport goods to more or less any destination. The above comments on developed road infrastructure apply primarily to the EU 15 countries. The road network in the new Member States is poorly developed and often of low quality. There is huge potential for developing rail transport in these countries; this should be exploited, e.g. by supporting investment in rail infrastructure.

3.6	The Commission's Communication (6) on the mid-term review of the White Paper confirming the importance of intermodality, seems to be more pragmatic as regards the balance between different modes of transport.

4. Finland's focus on a future European logistics policy and logistic trends

4.1

The preparatory work that Finland has submitted to the Commission includes a study of new trends in the field of logistics and an account of the so-called EULOG project. The main objective of the project was to create a discussion paper that comprehensively represents the best global knowledge about the desired future of European logistics and transport logistics and the necessary policies for its achievement.

4.2

The production will grow especially in the developing economies of China, India, Brazil and Russia. The amount of transported goods and the transport distances will grow. The control of global supply chains is demanding and it is possible that the decision making moves to Asia. The competition between the economic areas will intensify which makes the capacity of the infrastructure an increasingly critical competitiveness factor. The growth of production and consumption in Eastern parts of Europe forces to shift part of the goods transport away from roads. The development of intermodal freight distribution centres in the frontier EU countries of that region is thus becoming extremely important. This will mean optimising the EU transport system's operating costs. The EU institutions should support this positive trend and promote environmentally friendly modes of transport as part of sustainable development.

4.3

In production and services customer orientation defines the structures of supply chains. The chains are differentiated not only by the characteristics of the product but also by the needs and expectations of the customers. The system integration is both technological and organisational and it is knowledge oriented. Supply network engineering requires innovation both in products and processes. In western countries the services will increase while the production is moving to other parts of the network. There is a demand for accurate information about the environmental impacts of products and services. This will increase the importance of tracing and tracking in efficiency development and waste avoidance. The importance of reverse logistic will grow when the used products must be utilised or abolished in a controlled fashion.

4.4

Information and communication systems enable to control the vital information flows between planning, managing and executing supply chains. ICT enables to improve the security and service level of logistics at the same time as costs are reduced. New intelligent technologies and standardised interfaces are required. As radio frequency identification becomes common it gives significant possibilities to improve the tracking, tracing and security of deliveries.

4.5

Cost efficiency is always important. The transport cost will grow because of increased labour cost and oil price, congestion and infrastructure charges and tightening security demands. Also reverse logistics will influence cost efficiency. The logistic costs are not sufficiently known and thus decisions are based on partial information. The modelling of true costs must be developed. Logistic costs should be included in key performance indicators of companies. Against this background, the cost calculation model prepared by the European Commission as part of the implementation of the Euro-vignette Directive, which, inter alia, takes into account external costs and the costs of infrastructure utilisation, will be useful for calculating the actual costs of logistics operations.

4.6

Public policies aim to create an operating environment that fosters the competitiveness of trade and industry. Regulation is a necessary part of European mixed economies but it must be intelligent and further development and competitiveness. The harmonisation of policies and regulations and the investments in infrastructure are precondition for abolishing the barriers of common market. Although the importance of regional authorities will grow in the regulation and investments of transport they must consider also the development of the global operating environment.

4.7

The authorities will promote innovations and their exploitation. From logistics point of view the main development areas are the supply chain management and new business models. In the supply chain further development is required e.g. in safety and security, tracing and tracking and intermodal operations. On the logistics business new abilities are needed e.g. in collaboration and risk sharing.

5. General comments

5.1

When the term ‘logistics ’is used, its detailed content and meaning is generally not specified. There is no uniform definition of the expression. Logistics is a term originally used in a military context. Freight logistics (or transport logistics) can be defined as the process of planning, implementing, controlling and synchronising the efficient, cost-effective forward and reverse flow and storage of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information from point of origin to point of consumption for the purpose of meeting customers' requirements. This definition covers the ones the Commission uses in its consultation document.

5.2

By way of introduction, the EESC notes that the Finnish presidency gives a long list of reasons for the importance of a fully operational European logistics market and argues convincingly for logistics to be given a significantly higher profile in European transport policy. The Committee realises the importance of this and is therefore ready to give this initiative its full support.

5.3	The renewed Lisbon Strategy is a major challenge and its delivery depends upon economic growth in Europe. Economic growth requires increased trade and continued streamlining and innovation in industry. It is increasingly affected by international influences and competitiveness factors.

5.4

In almost all areas of society, passenger and goods transport are essential to economic activity, manufacturing and trade. Time and cost factors are crucial to business localisation decisions, but also to individual choices. Just as structural changes in society impact on transport needs, changes are driven by the introduction — or otherwise — of new transport facilities.

5.5

The EESC believes that in an increasingly internationalised economy, logistics and logistics costs will be increasingly important factors in competitiveness and streamlining, and increasingly important for environmental protection. Delivering access to markets, employment, education, services, etc. via increased mobility is dependent on one essential criterion: the existence of efficient transport systems.

5.6

The EESC therefore endorses the Commission's view that transport is an essential element in maintaining and enhancing European competitiveness. Managing the complexity of transport flows in a modern society requires highly efficient modes of transport and seamless cooperation between them. Advanced and integrated logistics solutions can help optimise freight transport operations and thereby favour growth and make Europe globally more competitive.

5.7

It is important to remind in this context that logistics is an enterprise-based, customer-driven activity which the market has a duty to deliver. This means that consumer transport requirements are the main driver in this area. For example, the transport needs of manufacturing industry are continually increasing in order to reduce storage of manufacturing components and finished products. The increase in internet commerce and a liberalised postal market are other areas where the demand for fast, punctual transport — and consequently logistics — will increase. It is also important to stress that such a development must be carried out in a sustainable way, providing for specific rules in order to safe-guard social and environmental requirements.

5.8

Customer transport choices are influenced by a large number of factors and depend, of course, on the type of goods to be transported. Valuable, fragile or easily damaged goods are usually transported by road or by air. Low value, heavy or bulky goods are often transported by sea or by rail. Time factors (just in time) and the number of reloads are other factors affecting the choice of mode of transport.

5.9

This approach also permeates the communication on mid- term review of the White Paper, and which the EESC endorses. The EESC intends to discuss the communication in a separate opinion, but wishes nevertheless to make some comments here. The consultation document that preceded the communication focused exclusively on intermodality as set out in the 2001 White Paper, i.e. transferring transport volumes from the road haulage sector to the shipping and rail sectors.

5.10	The EESC is pleased to note that the Commission no longer sees intermodality as an end in itself, but rather as a means to coordinate different modes of transport.

5.11

In the Commission consultation document on the 2001 mid-term review of the White Paper, the Commission stood by its view that the balance between modes of transport must be restored to 1998 levels. The 2001 White Paper stressed that the European Union must act to address the increasing imbalance between modes of transport. The growing popularity of car and air transport brings with it increased network congestion. At the same time, alternatives to road haulage are hindered owing to a failure to capitalise adequately on the potential offered by rail and short range shipping. However, traffic congestion within certain parts of the EU should not be allowed to hide the fact that peripheral areas have inadequate access to centrally located markets.

5.12

According to the Commission, over time this has lead to a transport imbalance resulting in increased congestion, particularly on the trans-European transport routes and in cities. The Commission believes that in order to solve this problem, two overarching objectives will have to be achieved by 2010:

—	regulated competition between the different modes of transport;

—	coordinated development of the different modes of transport in order to achieve successful intermodality.

5.13

The EESC criticised this position in its 2002 opinion on the White Paper (7). With regard to the first bullet point above, the Committee emphasised the following: ‘The problem of congestion is one of the central themes of the document. But there is no recognition that this problem really affects only a small part of the territory of the Community, specifically areas with very high population density (which is one of the causes of the problem) … It is thus inappropriate to draw up a general, uniform transport policy for the Community as a whole … What is really needed is a specific policy for each of these areas. ’The EESC maintains this view.

5.14

It is misleading to have distribution of market share as a quantitative objective for the different modes of transport. Total goods transport volumes within the EU via separate transport modes do not account for a significant market in which road, railways, short sea shipping, inland waterways and pipelines compete with each other. The statistics currently used, where the market shares of the various modes of transport are compared on the basis of goods transport volumes, does not accurately reflect the actual situation on the transport market. The development of more advanced statistical methods should be encouraged, which distinguish between long-distance and short-haul transport.

5.15

The main task is to achieve coordination between modes of transport where possible and where the individual mode's efficiency and suitability can be exploited to the full. Generally speaking, this requires advanced logistics solutions. In the long run, the result of these efforts could provide for a significantly more rational and environmentally-friendly exploitation of global transport capacity, which could reduce congestion to some extent on certain roads. The Committee takes the view that this must not be allowed to obscure the fact that a modern, efficient infrastructure is needed to achieve the objectives.

5.16

The EESC notes that in its Communication on the mid-term review of the 2001 white paper, published while this opinion was under preparation, the focus now is shifted toward a holistic approach in which each mode of transport has its proper place in order to create a transport policy that can boost the international competitiveness of combined transport and offer solutions integrating several modes, the main aim being to remove bottlenecks and weak links in the logistics chain.

6. The importance of an efficient logistics market

6.1	Transport — regardless of mode — is physically the most visible part of the logistics chain. Transport will therefore inevitably be in focus when logistics is addressed.

6.2	Logistics govern the industrial product and information supply chain, and the distribution of end products. This activity chain must meet customer demands and expectations, while being environmentally and socially sustainable.

6.3

Coordination and integration are two key concepts for the transport sector. Physical coordination involves reloading that makes transport more expensive while putting the goods at risk. If this coordination is to work, freight carrier reloading needs to be easy. This is a technical issue, but also an organisational one.

6.4

In order to achieve coordination, work is required in several areas. Organisational coordination is needed between different modes of transport, as is a holistic approach to the development of transport nodes, intermodal freight carriers and multimodal systems. This approach must be developed in order to achieve effective, competitive logistics systems and sustainable transport.

6.5

Logistics is thus a component in industrial and trade activity. The trend is to move away from capacity-governed delivery towards order-governed delivery. Products are adapted to customers. Great demands are placed on short lead times and short advance planning, and on precision and flexibility. Trade is being globalised. Many subcontractors are involved in the supply chain. Goods values increase as businesses limit their stocks in order to reduce capital tie-up.

6.6

This requires fast, punctual deliveries during both the production process and during distribution to end customers, and in return flows. There is greater demand for efficient logistics. The ability to exploit and intermesh transport chains to the full is key to success in controlling and managing material and product flows.

6.7	All modes of transport are needed and the interplay between them should be promoted. This intermodal transport calls for some new thinking in order to link the different modes together.

6.8	The creation of terminals, networks, electronic information management and good mutual confidence create new opportunities for cooperation between transport market operators.

6.9	Every mode of transport has its own history but the change in a more liberal direction has been driven by external technical, economic and trade conditions. The EU has had and continues to have a major role to play in this ongoing change.

6.10	All firms realise the prime importance of efficient logistics in the production and transport chains. Many sectors are working hard to make progress in this area; this work should be supported and encouraged, as it could also be helpful in a broader context of sustainable mobility.

6.11	This is the background to the European Economic and Social Committee's support for the Finnish presidency's initiative to put European logistics on the agenda.

Brussels, 15 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) Freight Transport Logistics in Europe — the key to sustainable mobility COM(2006) 336 final of 28.6.2006.

(2) Freight Transport Logistics in Europe — the key to sustainable mobility COM(2006) 336 final of 28.6.2006.

(3) Communication document on logistics for promoting freight intermodality.

(4) I.e. projects as: SULOGTA, PROTRANS, EUTRALOG, FREIGHTWISE, POLLOCO, etc.

(5) White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide, COM(2001) 370 of 12.9.2001.

(6) See footnote No 2.

(7) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide ’(COM(2001) 370 final) — OJ C 241, 7 October 2002.

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/21

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A strategy for a Secure Information Society — Dialogue, partnership and empowerment

COM(2006) 251 final

(2007/C 97/09)

On 31 May 2006 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15-16 February 2007 (meeting of 16 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 132 votes, nem. con. with two abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1	The EESC firmly believes that information security is of growing concern for businesses, administrations, public and private bodies and individuals.

1.2	In general, the EESC agrees with the analyses and considerations calling for a new strategy, to increase network and information security against attacks and intrusion, which have no geographical boundaries.

1.3	The EESC believes that the Commission should make further endeavours to achieve an innovative, coordinated strategy, given the scale of the issue and its economic implications and impact on privacy.

1.3.1

Moreover, the EESC points out that the Commission has recently adopted a new Communication on information security and that another document is due to be issued in the near future on the same subject. The EESC reserves the right to issue a more comprehensive Opinion in the future which takes all the Communications into account.

1.4	The EESC stresses that the issue of information security cannot in any way be separated from the need to increase protection of personal data and to protect freedoms, as safeguarded by the European Convention on Human Rights.

1.5	The EESC wonders, as things stand, what the proposal's added value is over the integrated approach adopted in 2001, whose aim was the same as that specified in this Communication (1).

1.5.1

The Impact Assessment (2) appended to the proposal is an improvement on the 2001 position in a number of respects, but it has only been published in one language and is therefore inaccessible to many European citizens, who form their opinion from the official document, which is in the Community languages.

1.6

The EESC draws attention to the conclusions of the 2005 Tunis World Summit relating to the information society, endorsed by the UN Assembly of 27 March 2006:

—	principles of non-discrimination regarding access;

—	promotion of ICTs as a tool for peace;

—	instruments to enhance democracy, cohesion and good governance;

—	prevention of abuse, with due regard for human rights (3).

1.7

The EESC stresses that a dynamic, integrated Community strategy should tackle, in addition to dialogue, partnership and responsibility:

—	prevention measures;

—	the need to move beyond information security to information assurance (4);

—	provision of a clear, recognised EU framework of laws, regulations and penalties;

—	strengthening of technical standardisation;

—	digital identification of users;

—	launching of European foresight exercises on information security, in conditions of multimodal technological convergence;

—	strengthening of European and national risk-assessment mechanisms;

—	measures to avoid the emergence of information monocultures;

—	increased Community coordination at European and international level;

—	setting up of an ICT Security Focal Point between Directorates-General;

—	creation of a European Network and Information Security Network;

—	optimisation of the role of European research into information security;

—	launch of a ‘European Secure Computer Day’;

—	Community pilot measures in schools of various kinds and levels, on information security issues.

1.8	Lastly, the EESC believes that in order to ensure a dynamic, integrated Community strategy, relevant budgetary appropriations need to be allocated and enhanced-cooperation initiatives and measures planned at Community level which can present Europe to the world with a unified voice.

2. Reasons

2.1	Security in the information society is a fundamental issue in terms of ensuring reliable communication networks and services inspiring confidence, which are key factors in economic and social development.

2.2	Information networks and systems need to be protected to preserve competitive and trade capacities, ensure the integrity and continuity of electronic communications, prevent fraud and guarantee protection of privacy by the law.

2.3

Electronic communications and related services are the largest segment in the entire telecommunications sector: in 2004 approximately 90 % of European businesses actively used the Internet, with 65 % of them creating their own website, while an estimated 50 % of European people regularly use the Internet and 25 % of households use broadband access on an ongoing basis (5).

2.4

Despite faster investment growth, only 5-13 % of total investment in information technologies is spent on security. This is too little. Recent studies have revealed that out of an average of 30 protocols that share key structures, 23 are vulnerable to multi-protocol attacks (6). In addition, on average, an estimated 25 million spam (7) emails are sent every day and so the EESC welcomes the Commission's recent proposal on the subject.

2.5

As regards computer viruses (8), worms (9) and spyware (10) have mushroomed with the increasingly rapid development of electronic communication networks and systems, which have become increasingly complex and, at the same time, vulnerable, thanks, not least, to the convergence of multimedia, mobile telephony and GRID infoware (11): extortion, DDoS (distributed denial of service), Internet ID theft, phishing (12), piracy (13) etc. are security problems for the information society, which the European Community addressed in a Communication in 2001 (14). The EESC commented on the Communication (15), identifying three lines of action:

—	specific security measures;

—	legal framework, including the protection of data and privacy;

—	combating cyber-crime.

2.6

Finding adequate solutions is a challenge when it comes to recording, identifying and preventing information attacks concerning a network system, given the constant configuration changes, the variety of network protocols and services provided and developed and the extremely complex, asynchronous nature of attacks (16).

2.7	Regrettably, however, the poor visibility of the return on investments in security and the fact that few users assume responsibility have resulted in risks being underestimated and little focus on developing a security culture.

3. The Commission proposal

3.1

The Commission's Communication on a Strategy for a Secure Information Society (17) attempts to improve information security through a dynamic, integrated strategy based on:

a)	enhancing dialogue between public authorities and the Commission, benchmarking national policies and identifying best electronic communication practices in the field of security;

b)	more campaigns to raise awareness among the public and SMEs of the need for effective security systems. The Commission should promote these campaigns and the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) should be more involved;

c)	dialogue on instruments and rules to achieve a balanced relationship between security and fundamental rights, including the protection of privacy.

3.2

Furthermore, the Communication envisages a trusted partnership with ENISA to develop a suitable framework for collecting data on breaches of security, user confidence and developments in the security industry:

a)	with Member States;

b)	with consumers and users;

c)	with the information security industry;

d)	with the private sector,

setting up a multilingual EU information and risk alert portal, with a view to a strategic partnership between the private sector, Member States and researchers.

3.2.1

The Communication also provides for greater empowerment of stakeholders with regard to security needs and risks.

3.2.2

As regards international cooperation with third countries, the Commission states that ‘the global dimension of network and information security challenges the Commission, both at international level and in coordination with Member States, to increase its efforts to promote global cooperation on NIS’ (18). However, this recommendation is not reflected in the dialogue, partnership and empowerment actions.

4. Comments

4.1

The EESC agrees with the analyses and arguments in favour of a dynamic, integrated European strategy for secure networks and information; it believes that the issue of security is essential to fostering a more favourable attitude towards using information technologies, and to boosting trust in them. The EESC's views have been stressed in numerous opinions (19).

4.1.1

The EESC reiterates (20) that: ‘… the Internet and new technologies for online communication (for example, mobile telephones and palmtop computers with Internet and multimedia functions, currently undergoing rapid growth) are of fundamental importance for the development of the knowledge economy, the eeconomy and egovernment.’

4.2 Strengthening the Commission's proposals

4.2.1

The Commission proposes to base this dynamic, integrated strategy on an open, inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue which includes users in particular, together with enhanced partnership and empowerment. The EESC feels that the approach could be made even wider.

4.2.2

This view has been stressed in previous opinions: ‘… to be effective, this programme should directly involve all Internet users, who need to be trained and informed of the precautions to take and the resources to use in order to protect themselves from being sent harmful or unwanted content, or from being used to forward such content. In the view of the EESC, one of the priorities of the action plan in regard to information and training should be to gain the support of users …’ (21).

4.2.3

However, the EESC feels that users' and citizens' support must be gained in such a way as to reconcile the necessary protection of information and networks with civil liberties and users' right to secure, reasonably-priced access.

4.2.4

It should be borne in mind that information security entails cost for the consumer, not least in terms of the time wasted in removing or circumnavigating obstacles. The EESC believes that a requirement should be introduced for automatic bundling of anti-virus software with every computer; the user could decide whether or not to activate it but it would be included in the product at manufacture.

4.3 Towards a more dynamic, innovative Community strategy

4.3.1

In addition to this, the EESC feels that the EU should set itself more ambitious goals and launch an innovative, integrated, dynamic strategy with new initiatives such as:

—	Mechanisms allowing digital identification of individual users, who are too often asked to give their personal data.

—	Measures implemented through ETSI (22), necessary to ensure secure use of ITCs, providing rapid ad-hoc solutions, defined as a common security threshold throughout the EU.

—	Prevention measures incorporating minimum security requirements into information and network systems, and the launch of pilot measures in the form of courses on security in schools of all kinds and levels.

—	Setting-up at European level of a clear, recognised legal and regulatory framework. Applied to information technology and networks, this framework would make it possible to move beyond information security to information assurance.

—	Strengthening of European and national risk-assessment measures and greater ability to implement laws and regulations, to crack down on information crimes attacking privacy and data archives.

—	Measures to avoid the emergence of information monocultures with products and solutions that are more easily pirated. Support for new, diversified multicultural innovations with a view to the creation of a Single European Information Space (SEIS).

4.3.2

The EESC advocates the creation of an inter-DG ICT-Security Focal Point (23). The Focal Point would allow action:

—	within the Commission;

—	at the level of the individual Member States, by means of horizontal solutions for interoperability, identity management, protection of privacy, freedom of access to information and services, and minimum security requirements;

—	at international level, to ensure a unified European voice in different contexts such as the UN, G8, OECD, ISO.

4.4 Towards enhanced responsible-coordination measures at EU level

4.4.1

The EESC also attaches great importance to the creation of a European Network and Information Security Network, which could act as a channel for the promotion of surveys, research and workshops on security mechanisms and the interoperability thereof, advanced cryptography and the protection of privacy.

4.4.2

The EESC believes that the role of European research in this very sensitive sector would be optimised by a useful synthesis of the provisions of:

—	the European Security Research Programme (ESRP) (24) included in the 7th RTD Framework Programme;

—	the Safer Internet Plus Programme;

—	the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) (25).

4.4.3

Another suggestion is to launch a ‘European Secure Computer Day’, supported by national education campaigns in schools and information campaigns targeting consumers, on IT information protection procedures. This would, of course, be in addition to information on the technological progress made in the huge, ever-changing field of computers.

4.4.4

The EESC has pointed out on a number of occasions that ‘The perceived security of and trust in digital transactions determines the speed with which enterprises are likely to exploit ICT in their business. Consumers' willingness to provide credit card numbers on a web page is greatly influenced by the perceived safety of the action’ (26).

4.4.5

The EESC firmly believes that, given the sector's huge growth potential, specific policies must be introduced and existing policies brought into line with new developments. An integrated information security strategy linking European initiatives is needed, breaking down the borders between sectors and ensuring uniform, secure dissemination of ICTs throughout society.

4.4.6

In the EESC's view, a number of major strategies, including the one in question, are progressing too slowly because of bureaucratic and cultural hindrances, introduced by Member States, to the essential decisions which have to be taken at Community level.

4.4.7

The EESC also believes that Community resources are insufficient to achieve numerous, urgent projects which can only provide practical responses to the new challenges of globalisation if implemented at Community level.

4.5 Towards a greater EU guarantee of consumer protection

4.5.1

The EESC is aware that the technological security measures and security management procedures introduced by Member States are geared to their individual needs and tend to focus on different aspects. That is another reason why it is difficult to provide a single, effective response to security issues. With the exception of some administrative networks, there is no systematic cross-border cooperation between Member States, despite the fact that security issues cannot be addressed by each individual country on its own.

4.5.2

The EESC notes, moreover, that Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA introduced a framework for cooperation between judicial and other competent authorities to ensure, by approximating Member States' criminal law on attacks against information systems, that their approaches are coherent in the following areas:

—	illegal access to information systems;

—	illegal system interference, i.e. intentional serious hindering or interruption of the functioning of an information system;

—	illegal data interference, i.e. the intentional deletion, damaging, deterioration, alteration, suppression or rendering inaccessible of computer data on an information system;

—	instigation, aiding and abetting with regard to the above offences.

4.5.3

The Framework Decision also lays down criteria for establishing the liability of legal persons and any penalties that may be applied once their liability has been ascertained.

4.5.4

As regards dialogue with Member States' public authorities, the EESC supports the Commission's proposal that these authorities should initiate an exercise to benchmark national NIS-related policies, including specific policies for the public sector. This suggestion was made in an EESC Opinion in 2001 (27).

4.6 Towards a more widespread security culture

4.6.1

With regard to involvement of the information security industry, the industry must protect its customers' right to privacy and confidentiality by providing effective guarantees that the tools used for the material surveillance of their installations — and for commercial encryption — are in line with technological developments (28).

4.6.2

As regards awareness-raising campaigns, the EESC believes that a genuine ‘security culture ’must be created, in such a way as to be fully compatible with freedom of information, communication and expression. Numerous users are unaware of all the risks related to computer piracy, while many service providers, sellers and operators are unable to assess the existence and extent of vulnerable aspects.

4.6.3

Although the main aim is to protect privacy and personal data, consumers also have the right to genuinely effective protection against improper personal profiling by spyware and web bugs, or other means. Effective measures are also needed to curb spamming (29) (mass sending of unsolicited mail) which often also arises out of such misuse. Intrusion of this kind is damaging to those concerned (30).

4.7 Towards a stronger, more active EU Agency

4.7.1

The EESC is in favour of a greater, more effective role for the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), as regards both awareness-raising campaigns and, most importantly, information and training schemes for operators and users. This has already been recommended by the EESC in a recent opinion (31) on the provision of public electronic communication services.

4.7.2

Lastly, as regards the proposed initiatives to empower each stakeholder group, these appear to entail strict observance of the subsidiarity principle. Indeed, they are to be the responsibility of the Member States and the private sector, in accordance with their specific remits.

4.7.3

ENISA should be able to use contributions from the European Network and Information Security Network to organise joint activities, as well as the multilingual Community information-security alert web portal for personalised, interactive, user-friendly information targeted particularly at individual users of all ages and small and medium-sized businesses.

Brussels, 16 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) Cf. EESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on network and information security: Proposal for a European policy approach, OJ C 48 of 21.2.2002, page 33.

(2) The Impact Assessment does not carry as much weight as a strategy paper.

(3) UN, 27.03.2006, Recommendations Nos 57 and 58. Tunis Final Document No 15.

(4) Cf. Emerging strategies in the context of security, JRC — Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, strategic research dossier, September 2005, European Commission,

http://serac.jrc.it.

(5) i2010: a strategy for a secure information society — Factsheet 8 (June 2006), EC Information Society and Media

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/doc/factsheets/001-dg-glance-it.pdf.

(6) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES'06) — Volume 00 ARES 2006 Publisher: IEEE Computer Society.

(7) SPAM = Unsolicited commercial email. The original meaning of spam is ‘spiced pork and ham ’and describes canned meat which was very popular during World War II when it became the primary source of food for the US troops as well as the residents of the United Kingdom. After years of eating spam, as it was not rationed, people were fed up with it.

(8) Computer virus: specific software belonging to the malware category which, once executed, can infect files so that they reproduce, making copies of themselves, usually without discovery by the user. Viruses can cause varying degrees of damage to the host operating system and, at the very least, result in resources being wasted in terms of RAM, CPU and hard disk space.

(www.wikipedia.org/wiki/virus_informatico).

(9) Worm = self propagating malware: an email worm is a disruptive network attack that collects all email addresses from a client email programme (e.g. MS Outlook) and then sends hundreds of emails to those email addresses with the worm programme itself as an attachment.

(10) Spyware = software programmes that track a user's Internet surfing, which install themselves without informing the user and without their knowledge, authorisation or control.

(11) GRID infoware = enables the sharing, selection, and aggregation of a wide variety of geographically distributed computational resources (such as supercomputers, compute clusters, storage systems, data sources, instruments, people) and presents them as a single, unified resource for large-scale computing and data intensive computing applications.

(12) Phishing = in information technology, a cracking technique used to gain access to personal and confidential data for the purpose of ID theft by means of fake emails created in such a way as to appear genuine.

(13) Piracy = a term used by software ‘pirates ’to describe software that has been stripped of its copy-protection and made available on the Internet for downloading.

(14) COM(2001) 298 final.

(15) See footnote 1.

(16) Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Network Attacks Detection. Guangzhi Qu, Salim Hariri* — 2005 US, Arizona

Internet Technology Laboratory, ECE Department, The University of Arizona, http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~hpdc

Mazin Yousif, Intel Corporation, USA. — Work supported in part by a grant from Intel Corporation IT R&D Council.

(17) COM(2006) 251 of 31.05.06.

(18) Cf. COM(2006) 251, penultimate paragraph of chapter 3.

(19) See:

—	EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC — OJ C 69 of 21.3.2006, page 16 ;

—	EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on i2010 — A European Information Society for growth and employment — OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006, page 83;

—	EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a multi-annual Community programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies — OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005, page 136;

—	EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on network and information security: proposal for a European policy approach — OJ C 48 of 21.2.2002, page 33.

(20) See footnote 19, third bullet point.

(21) See footnote 19, third bullet point.

(22) ETSI, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, cf. in particular the Workshop of 16-17 January 2006. ETSI has drawn up, inter alia, specifications on unlawful interception (TS 102 232; 102 233; 102 234), Wireless Lan Internet access (TR 102 519) and electronic signatures, and has developed security algorithms for GSM, GPRS and UMTS.

(23) This inter-DG Focal Point could be financed under the IST Priority of the FP7 — RTD Cooperation Programme, or by the European Security Research Programme (ESRP).

(24) Cf. EU FP7 — RTD Framework Programme, Cooperation Programme; Security Research Thematic Priority with a budget of EUR 1.35 billion for the 2007-2013 period.

(25) COM(2005) 576 of 17.11.2005.

(26) See footnote 19, second bullet point.

(27) See footnote 19, fourth bullet point.

(28) See Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998).

(29) Pollupostage, in French.

(30) See EESC opinions on (i) electronic communications networks (OJ C 123 of 25.4.2001, p. 50), (ii) electronic commerce (OJ C 169 of 16.6.1999, p. 36) and (iii) the effects of e-commerce on the single market (OJ C 123 of 25.4.2001, p. 1).

(31) See footnote 19, first bullet point.

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/27

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services

(2007/C 97/10)

On 29 June 2006 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 January 2007. The rapporteur was Mr McDonogh.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15 and 16 February 2007 (meeting of 16 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 139 votes in favour with 1 abstention.

1. Background

1.1 Summary

The communication reports on the functioning of the directives of the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (1). It explains how the framework has delivered on its objectives, and identifies areas for change. The proposed changes are discussed in the associated Commission Staff Working Document (2). The associated Impact Assessment (3) captures the broader range of options considered prior to drawing the conclusions presented in the communication.

1.2 Structure of the framework

Creating a single European information space with an open and competitive internal market is one of the key challenges for Europe (4), within the broader strategy for growth and jobs. Electronic communications underpins the whole of the economy, and at EU level is supported by a regulatory framework that entered into force in 2003.

The framework provides a single, common set of rules for all communications that are transmitted electronically, whether wireless or fixed, data or voice, Internet-based or circuit switched, broadcast or personal (5). Its objectives are to encourage competition in the electronic communications markets, to improve the functioning of the Internal Market and to protect the interests of European citizens (6).

The main elements of the framework's legislative instruments can be summarised as follows:

—	Framework Directive setting out the main principles, objectives and procedures for an EU regulatory policy regarding the provision of electronic communications services and networks.

—	Access and Interconnection Directive stipulating procedures and principles for imposing pro-competitive obligations regarding access to and interconnection of networks on operators with significant market power.

—	Authorisation Directive introducing a system of general authorisation, instead of individual or class licences, to facilitate entry in the market and reduce administrative burdens on operators.

—	Universal Service Directive requiring a minimum level of availability and affordability of basic electronic communications services and guaranteeing a set of basic rights for users and consumers of electronic communications services.

—	e-Privacy Directive setting out rules for the protection of privacy and of personal data processed in relation to communications over public communication networks.

—	Commission Competition Directive consolidating the legal measures based on Article 86 of the Treaty that have liberalised the telecommunications sector over the years (not covered by this review).

—	The Commission recommendation on relevant markets defining a list of 18 sub-markets to be examined by national regulatory authorities.

In addition, the Commission has adopted Radio Spectrum Decision (622/2002/EC) that seeks to ensure availability and efficient use of spectrum within the Internal Market.

1.3 Assessment of the framework — achievement of objectives

Market development

Since markets were fully opened up to competition in 1998, users and consumers have benefited from more choice, lower prices and innovative products and services. In 2005 the ICT sector was valued at EUR 614bn (7). ICT also contributes macro-economically to productivity growth and increased competitiveness of the European economy as a whole, and thus is a factor in growth and job creation.

Stakeholder consultation

Responses to the Commission's ‘Call for Input’ (8) were generally positive about the impact of the regulatory framework. Consumers and industry groups supported the framework's approach, albeit with criticisms concerning its implementation. Many called for a simplification of the market review procedures and generally welcomed the new institutional arrangements for spectrum harmonisation (9).

Innovation, investment and competition

European investment in this sector over recent years has been higher than in other world regions (EUR 45bn in 2005) (10). Competition remains the main driving force. Countries that have applied the EU regulatory framework in an effective and pro-competitive manner have attracted most investment (11). Countries with strong competition between incumbents and cable operators tend to have the highest broadband penetration (12).

Summary

The Commission considers that more effective management of spectrum would release its full potential to contribute to offering innovative, diverse and affordable services to the European citizen and to strengthen the competitiveness of European ICT industries. In other respects, the Commission considers that the principles and flexible tools in the regulatory framework, when applied fully and effectively, offer the most appropriate means of encouraging investment, innovation and market development.

1.4 Changes proposed overall

The current regulatory framework has produced considerable benefits, but it needs attention in a number of areas in order to remain effective for the coming decade. The two main areas for change are:

—	application to electronic communications of the Commission's policy approach on spectrum management, as set out in the Communication of September 2005 (13);

—	reduction of the procedural burden associated with the reviews of markets susceptible to ex-ante regulation.

In addition to these two, the Communication identifies other changes that seek to:

—	consolidate the single market,

—	strengthen consumers and user interests,

—	improve security and

—	remove outdated provisions.

This Communication, and the staff working paper which accompanies it (14), set out the Commission's analysis and current ideas for change.

2. Introduction

2.1

The Committee is mostly supportive of the Commission's proposals on the review of the Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services. The Committee also recognises the comprehensive work carried-out by the Commission in the review process, where expert studies and the input of consultations with all vested interests have been synthesised to arrive at the recommendations in the Communication COM(2006) 334 ‘Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services’ and the associated Staff Working Document SEC(206) 816. However, the Committee would like the Commission to take note of the reservations in this opinion and the recommendations listed below.

2.2

The Regulatory Framework must be aligned with the strategy for development of the ICT sector and support the critical contribution that electronic communications make to the economic and social life of the Union. Therefore, the Committee strongly endorses the objectives of the Framework review to further the ‘i2010 Initiative: European Information Society 2010’ (15), which sets out the contribution of the ICT sector to the Lisbon strategy to stimulate growth, competitiveness and employment. Specifically, we recognise the importance of the Regulatory Framework to the creation of a Single European Information Space offering affordable and secure high bandwidth communications with rich and diverse content and digital services; world class performance in research and innovation in ICT by closing the gap with Europe's leading competitors; and an Information Society that is inclusive, provides high quality public services and promotes quality of life.

2.3

The Committee recognises the success of the framework since its introduction. We note the emergence of a pan-European telecom industry; increased competition for services in many markets; high levels of innovation; and reductions in the real costs of EU telecommunications services. We also note the growth in investment in the market in recent years and that the level of investment in Europe has overtaken investment in the US and the Asia Pacific Region. The fact that the highest rates of investment have occurred in those countries that have applied the framework in a timely and efficient manner is testament to its beneficial effect. Notwithstanding these positive effects, the Committee also notes that, across Europe, the problem of the Digital Divide has continued to grow.

2.4

The Committee directs the attention of the Commission to previous Opinions by the EESC which support the Regulatory Framework and make recommendations on how the policies for development and growth of the electronic communications sector could be improved (16) to advance the i2010 strategy.

In this opinion, the Committee wants to comment on areas of specific concern and to make some recommendations.

3. Recommendations

3.1

As a general principle of regulation, the public interest — the ‘public good ’— should have primacy over private and business interests. The Committee also believes that the market alone cannot properly regulate itself for the benefit of the public good. Therefore, a strong regulatory framework is needed to promote the interests of the greater number of citizens, as intended by the Lisbon strategy.

3.2

Taking due account of the caveat at 3.1, Europe should move as quickly as possible towards a more market-based approach to spectrum management, with more empowerment of market players and the introduction of more widespread spectrum trading, and with less national bureaucratic prescription on bandwidth allocation.

3.3	A European Spectrum Agency should be established to create a coherent and integrated regime for pan-European spectrum management.

3.4	In tandem with relaxing the notification requirements under the Article 7 procedure, the Commission should increase its vigilance re the regulatory measures enforced by National Regulatory Authorities (NRA) to encourage the diversity of supply.

3.5

The Commission should respect the differences in conditions that apply in the various national markets and the special expertise to deal with those conditions within the NRAs. Therefore, the Committee has serious reservations about the proposed veto power for the Commission under the Article 7 procedure, and it stresses the need for extreme caution before exercising such power.

3.6	The Committee is concerned that undue bias in the Regulatory Framework towards large multinational service and network providers could eventually lead to oligopoly. The Regulatory Framework should take due cognizance of this concern and should not unfairly favour pan-national companies.

3.7	To advance the development of the Internal Market, the harmonisation of policy and consistency in the regulatory approach, the Commission should make greater use of the Communications Committee and the Radio Spectrum Committee, as well as the European Regulators Group and the Radio Spectrum Group.

3.8

To provide consumers with good information on the choice of services available to them, the Committee proposes that NRAs be encouraged to publish web-based tools to facilitate consumer comparisons of the electronic communication offerings (services and pricing) available from competing providers in their market.

3.9

The proposed Green Paper in 2007 on universal service should recognise the need to bridge the widening gap in infrastructure and services between the most developed and least developed regions of the EU. If an analysis — based on tools and an actually specified schedule — shows that this gap is not addressed by the Universal Service Obligation, then alternative means must be found; perhaps through national investment programmes, supported by EU structural funds.

3.10	The Committee believes that because of the growing importance of broadband service to economic and social development, broadband connectivity should be included within the scope of the universal service definition (17).

3.11	Furthermore, repeating the recommendation in the Opinion of the Committee on ‘Bridging the Broadband Gap’ (18), the Commission should specify the minimum transmission speeds and quality of service which should apply to the definition of ‘broadband’.

3.12

The Committee urges the Commission to work with the NRAs on the formulation of a Community-wide penalty regime for electronic communication security crimes. Consideration should also be given to mechanisms which would facilitate a fast-track, EU-wide ‘right of action ’by consumers (an individual or collective action) against individual perpetrators.

3.13	Beyond the scope of the Regulatory Framework, the Committee urges the Commission to systematically investigate security offences — such as spam, phishing and hacking — perpetrated by wrongdoers outside of the EU, and to pursue remedies at inter-government level.

4. Comments

4.1 Support for the Framework and the Review

4.1.1

The creation of a coherent, pan-European market for electronic communications networks and services requires a good regulatory framework to knit together the complex political, and socio-economic factors that must be harmonised. The current framework has proven to be effective at creating a competitive, innovative and high growth market for communications services in Europe, while at the same time it has declared its intention to balance the needs of service providers, consumers and national interests.

4.1.2

The current framework entered into force 3 years ago and it is time to review its terms in the light of experience and consideration of future challenges. The expert studies (19) considered by the Commission and the extensive process of consultation with all interested parties, have comprehensively informed the review process and the Commission's proposals show that a considered view has been taken of all factors.

4.1.3

The proposals contained in the Communication and the associated Staff Working Document introduces well-balanced and appropriate changes to the current framework.

4.1.4

The Committee notes the proposals to remove certain obsolete provisions in the Framework.

4.2 Spectrum management

4.2.1

The importance of radio spectrum as a production factor for electronic communications services and networks (such as mobile, wireless and satellite communications, TV and radio broadcasting) and other applications (short range devices, defence, transport, radio location and GPS/Galileo satellite system) has increased dramatically during the last decade. It is estimated that the total value of radio spectrum dependent services in the EU is in excess of EUR 200 billion, i.e. between 2 % and 2.5 % of annual European gross product.

4.2.2

Since most spectrum in the EU is already allocated to some usage or users, any new allocation can only be made at the expense of existing users. Spectrum policy must take into account not only the needs of electronic communications, but all other spectrum uses, including research, aeronautical, maritime, space, audio visual (content), defence industry, earth observation, medical, inclusion, road safety, scientific, etc. Policies competing for radio spectrum are increasingly developed and agreed for the European Union as a whole.

4.2.3

Rapid technological development in combination with the digitalisation of transmission as well as the convergence of communication services has blurred the link between radio access platforms and the services on which spectrum management was traditionally based.

4.2.4

Technological innovation is significantly reducing the risk of interference between different spectrum users, reducing the need for granting exclusive access to spectrum resources and allowing a more extensive application of general authorisations incorporating light technical spectrum usage constraints. The application of these innovative technologies could thereby lower access barriers to spectrum and increase its efficient use.

4.2.5

The critical need to provide for the huge demand for pan-European spectrum by emerging electronic communication service technologies, and the equally important need to protect spectrum required for other critical applications, necessitates a comprehensive overhaul of the spectrum management mechanisms in the EU.

4.2.6

It is impractical to expect all the different regulatory authorities in Europe who currently manage spectrum allocation to deliver a unified spectrum regime for Europe. It makes sense to authorise a central authority — a European spectrum Agency — to coordinate, steer and control the management of this critical resource. Since the activities of this agency would touch closely upon the basic public freedoms, it would have to report on its activities to the European Parliament and to the Council.

4.2.7

Commercial interests should be given greater freedom to trade spectrum, in a regulated way, so that commercial spectrum in the field of electronic communications is efficiently used for the most economically productive purposes.

4.3 Internal Market and Competition

4.3.1

The creation of the Internal Market is one of the main driving forces of the growth in prosperity and improving quality of life in Europe. Through a blending of guidance, direction and enforcement, the regulatory framework has provided the policy backbone for the advancement of the Internal Market electronic communications networks and services. This has been achieved while simultaneously respecting the different circumstances and challenges facing each national state; and encouraging both increasing competition and investment in networks and services.

4.3.2

The process of creating the Internal Market should always ensure that the public interest — the ‘public good ’— will have primacy over private and business interests. The market alone cannot properly regulate itself for the benefit of the public good. This is particularly true when dealing with service quality and in circumstances where competition is weak. Therefore, a strong regulatory framework is needed to promote the interests of the greater number of citizens, as intended by the Lisbon strategy, by providing them with the best technology at the best price.

4.3.3

The majority of service and network providers operate within a single national market. But the Committee is concerned that undue bias in the Regulatory Framework towards large multinational service and network providers could eventually lead to oligopoly, with a few large companies dominating the EU market. The Regulatory Framework should take due cognizance of this concern and should not unfairly favour pan-national companies at the expense of the national operators.

4.3.4

Whereas a centralised European Regulator, similar to that which operates for banking, would possibly be a quicker and more direct way to bring about the completion of the Internal Market for electronic communications; it is also possible that the loss of expertise and judgement currently provided by the National Regulatory Authorities (NRA) would be to the detriment of some countries, and national resistance might actually hinder progress towards the completion of the Internal Market.

4.3.5

For the moment, it is best if the current regime of decentralised regulation is strengthened by greater use by the Commission of the committee and policy advisory structures that currently exist. Better to agree on a common approach than to try to enforce a ‘one-size-fits-all’.

4.3.6

Although it is beyond the scope of the Regulatory Framework, the Committee is concerned that rapid growth in the availability of international media services through electronic communications networks could lead to an undesirable proliferation of low quality media content. The Commission should consider how EU policy might support the production and dissemination of high quality media content, and especially content which respects the rich cultural diversity of the EU.

4.4 Consumer rights

4.4.1

As the complexity of available services increases, and new pan-European services emerge, it is important that consumers are properly informed about their choices. Good information on competing offers must be made available to consumers to provide service quality and price transparency. Also, consumer rights legislation must be kept up-to-date to cope with the new dynamics of the market. The Committee proposes that NRAs be encouraged to publish web-based tools with standardised benchmarks to facilitate consumer comparisons of the electronic communication offerings (services and pricing) available from competing providers in their market.

4.4.2

It is recognised that the Universal Service Directive must be updated and the Commission's proposal to introduce a Green Paper discussion document next year is welcomed. However, it is important that citizens living in less developed regions are not further disadvantaged by the removal of Universal Service Obligations (USO) from dominant service providers. The problem of the Digital Divide will become even more acute when new business models will drive the growth of WebTV services for those citizens who have high-speed broadband connectivity.

4.4.3

In the event that it is decided that USO is no longer a fair or practical way to guarantee the provision of essential 21st Century electronic communications services, like broadband, then alternative funding mechanisms must be found to bridge the digital divide — perhaps through EU structural funds

4.5 Security

4.5.1

The Committee refers to the Opinion of the EESC on COM(2006) 251 re the Strategy for a Secure Information Society, and the Committee's call for an integrated information security strategy linking European initiatives.

4.5.2

Breaches of security on electronic communications networks greatly undermine consumer confidence and enjoyment of the services. In addition, security breaches can attack the rights of EU citizen's to privacy. It is vital to the Commission act forcibly to protect the security of networks and the rights of citizens. We welcome measures proposed in the review of the framework to address these concerns.

4.5.3

The security of electronic communications is vital to the adoption and growth of information technologies and services. Strong penalties are needed across the EU to prevent this type of crime from undermining consumer confidence and retarding the development of the Information society. The Committee urges the Commission to work with the NRAs on the formulation of a Community-wide penalty regime for electronic communication security crimes. Consideration should also be given to mechanisms which would facilitate a ‘right of action ’by consumers against perpetrators.

4.5.4

In addition to security problems caused by persons inside the EU, the security of European networks and citizen's are subject to daily attack from outside the Union. Every step should be taken to pursue the perpetrators of these attacks, including holding the states from which the attacks occur accountable for the damage they do.

Brussels, 16 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC, 2002/22/EC (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7) and 2002/58/EC (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

(2) SEC(2006) 816.

(3) SEC(2006) 817.

(4) COM(2005) 24, 2.2.2005.

(5) Regulation of commercial content services — such as Information Society Services and broadcasting — that may be offered over transmission infrastructures are covered by other Community instruments (such as the e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC and the TV Without Frontiers Directive 89/552/EEC). Information society services are defined in Directive 2000/31/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations as ‘any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service’ (Art. 17).

(6) COM(2003) 784 final.

(7) COM(2006) 68, 20.2.2006.

(8) The responses are available at

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/info_centre/documentation/public_consult/review/index_en.htm.

(9) The Radio Spectrum Decision 676/2002/EC allows for technical harmonisation of spectrum usage condition (via the Radio Spectrum Committee); strategic advice on radio spectrum policy via the Radio Spectrum Policy Group.

(10) See footnote 6.

(11) London Economics in association with PricewaterhouseCoopers, study for DG Information Society and Media of the European Commission on ‘An assessment of the Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications — Growth and Investment in the EU e-communications sector ’(to be published).

(12) See associated Commission Staff Working Document, section 2.

(13) COM(2005) 411, 6.9.2005.

(14) SEC(2006) 816.

(15) COM(2005) 229 final, see

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/i2010/index_en.htm.

(16) Including EESC opinions on:

—

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Adapting e-Business policies in a changing environment: The lessons of the Go Digital initiative and the challenges ahead — OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004 p. 23.

—	Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a multi-annual Community programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies — OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005 p. 136.

—	Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Connecting Europe at high speed: recent developments in the sector of electronic communications — OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005 p. 22.

—	Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the Regions: i2010 — A European Information Society for growth and employment — OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006 p. 83.

—	Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — eAccessibility — OJ C 110 of 9.5.2006 p. 26.

—	Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Bridging the Broadband Gap — CESE 1181/2006.

—	Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A strategy for a Secure Information Society — Dialogue, partnership and empowerment — R/CESE 1474/2006 still ongoing.

(17) COM(2005) 203, and EP and Council Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services.

(18) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Bridging the Broadband Gap — CESE 1181/2006.

(19) Including Preparing the next steps in regulation of electronic communications, Analysis (2006); An assessment of the regulatory framework for electronic communications — growth and investment in the EU e-communications sector, London Economics in association with Price Waterhouse (2006).

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/34

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU-Japan Relations: The role of Civil Society

(2007/C 97/12)

At its Plenary Session of 17 January 2007, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on EU-Japan Relations: The role of Civil Society.

By letter dated 6 April 2006, Ms Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy of the European Commission, encouraged such an initiative.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 January 2007. The rapporteur was Ms Päärendson.

At its 433rd plenary session, held on 15-16 February 2007 (meeting of 16 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes to 3 with 28 abstentions.

1. Executive Summary and Recommendations

1.1	The Committee has been encouraged by the European Commission to examine developments in civil society in Japan and to consider ways in which the European Union (EU) could cooperate with it to further strengthen EU-Japan relations.

1.2	The EU and Japan share many common values and interests. There are many areas where cooperation on an official level are established and working well.

1.3	Japanese interest in regional cooperation on the model of ‘functional integration ’is growing in importance.

1.4	The role of civil society in Japan is of steadily increasing importance although most often it still focuses on local and regional issues.

1.5	There are currently relatively few areas of strong contact between the EU and Japanese civil societies although the increasing recognition of shared challenges shows that the time is ripe for more contact.

1.6	It will take significant time to establish more and stronger contacts and identifying the best partners will be crucial.

1.7	An important initial step could be to hold a meeting to identify common problems and to consider how to start to tackle these.

1.8	Appropriate civil society organisations from both partners should routinely be considered for inclusion in relevant seminars and similar events.

1.9	Over time a more structured dialogue on the model of a round table could be envisaged.

1.10	The two European Institutes (hereinafter EU Centres) in Japan already offer a basis for networking and partnership.

1.11	Funding requirements should be reduced by making increasing use of techniques such as video conferences and voice over internet protocol.

2. Introduction

2.1

Following growing earlier cooperation, in 2001 the EU and Japan decided to launch a decade of EU-Japan cooperation under the title ‘Shaping our Common Future’ (1). This action plan contained four sections (‘objectives’). The final objective (Objective IV) was titled ‘Bringing together peoples and cultures ’and included ‘developing civil society links and encouraging inter-regional exchanges’. Objective III (Coping with Global and Societal Challenges) is also of relevance.

2.2

Recent events involving civil society links have been the very successful ‘Year of people-to-people exchanges ’in 2005, the establishment of two EU Centres in Japan (2) in the Tokyo (3) area and in Kansai (4) and a joint symposium in Brussels in April 2006 to discuss progress made in the ‘Shaping our common future ’action plan so far and to discuss possible changes needed to it to allow for the changing situations in Japan, the EU and elsewhere.

2.3	The aim of this opinion is to consider developments in civil society in Japan and to explore ways in which EU civil society, and notably the EESC, could cooperate with it to further strengthen EU relations with Japan (5).

2.4	‘Civil Society ’is defined by EESC as ‘all organisational structures whose members have objectives and responsibilities that are of general interest and who also act as mediators between the public authorities and citizens’ (6).

3. Background

3.1

Japan is a major player in East Asia, a region of growing importance economically, where regional cooperation is improving fast but also where security concerns are growing. As the East Asian region, including China, becomes more important to the EU, a closer relationship with Japan will provide balance and will include increased cooperation on regional issues (7).

3.2

Japan is also one of the EU's strategic partners. Although Europe and Japan are on opposite sides of the globe, and although both have complex and very distinctive cultures, we share much. Both are major economic entities who wish to play a wider international role. We share much the same fundamental values and share many common interests and concerns. Both are democratic societies. It is in our mutual interest to consolidate and deepen our relationship and our mutual understanding.

3.3

In economic terms, Japan is the EU's fifth largest export market at 6.6 % and the EU is Japan's second largest export market. Its current GDP growth rate is about 2.7 % per annum and its unemployment rate is about 4.5 %. Japan provides some 14 % of the world's GNP (China has 3.4 %) and has an average per capita income of $32 230 (China has $780).

3.4

In the earlier stages of cooperation the main subjects of common concern were those involving trade and other economic factors, which included significant foreign investment in both directions. Economic reforms are important for both parties to improve competitiveness in a globalised world while sustaining their own social models and having regard to sustainable growth.

3.5

There are now many sectors where EU-Japan cooperation is well established. For example, there are standing forums for discussions on industrial policy, science and technology, information technology, employment, social questions, electronic commerce, research, development aid and environmental protection. In 2006 the Japanese social partners showed a growing interest in the practice of corporate social responsibility. Further, the EU-Japan Regulatory Reform Dialogue (established some 12 years ago) is addressing all regulatory issues in a coherent way. Details of some programmes are at Appendix I. Many Directorates General in the European Commission, as well as EU Member States are involved in this dialogue.

3.6	There is a gradual increase in Japan of what can be described as ‘a sense of closeness ’with Europe. The more recently joined Member States are, however, still little known there.

4. Civil society development

4.1

Japan has, as said above, a very different culture from the EU (8) and also different social conditions. It is thus no surprise that Japanese civil society organisations are different. The most obvious difference is that until quite recently the state played a rather dominant role in shaping civil society; apart from social partners, organisations had to be approved by the authorities and were then subject to supervision by them.

4.2

This was accepted by the public because the combination of an elite central bureaucracy coupled with major industrial interests (supported by parliamentarians) allowed for quick and effective policy decisions and their implementation; all this assisted economic growth (9). Under these circumstances the role of civil society in governance was very restricted. Indeed concepts of civil society, governance and accountability were not even in popular vocabularies at the time.

4.3

In the late 1980s the so called ‘economic bubble ’burst; this led to a period of deflation and economic stagnation, only recently overcome. Then, in the 1990s, there were several scandals involving senior bureaucrats which started to undermine the public's confidence in this dominance of the state and major industrial interests. This, and the mishandling of the rescue and recovery work following the ‘Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake ’in Kobe in 1995 showed the public the effectiveness (and potential) of some civil society organisations. This led in 1998 to the adoption of a new law on ‘Not for Profit Organisations ’(NPOs) which acknowledged that civil society organisations could play an important role in good governance (10). This law removed many of the barriers to NPO development and removed most of the very burdensome bureaucratic supervision. It was one of the changes that brought less regulation and centralisation into Japanese society and politics.

4.4

Since these events civil society has started to change; organisations are proliferating quite fast with the greatest growth concerning those groups that emphasise their independence from the authorities. The question now being discussed in Japan is how it is possible to use more fully the totality of the assets available to Japanese society. This will lead to an increase in the importance and influence of civil society organisations. The democratic participatory process is starting to be better understood and all draft legislation is now available for comment on the internet; however, according to civil society organisations the views of civil society (apart from the social partners) do not often enough influence final decisions.

4.5

Discussion on Japanese civil society normally considers them under two main headings. First, there are the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) which primarily provide services overseas for development and humanitarian work. These are largely funded by the Government (Ministry of Foreign Affairs — MOFA); they work in close partnership with the authorities for its Official Development Assistance (ODA) programmes and have regular meetings with the Government to promote close dialogue and collaboration. However, their financial and human resources remain limited.

4.6

Then there are NPOs, covering a very wide range of activities; the social partners, trade and professional associations and those active in the environmental, consumer, agriculture, cultural and other sectors are included. These stakeholders will play an increasing role in the dialogue that is beginning to take place within Japanese and foreign-owned companies about their social responsibility, while respecting the voluntary nature of this. Furthermore, organisations in the health sector play a very important role. Funding from the authorities is sometimes available for them. A very significant proportion of these are concerned primarily with finding local and regional solutions for local and regional issues; work is for the benefit of local communities. As a result there are fewer national NPOs.

4.7	Youth is also well represented by student and other organisations.

5. Current contacts between Japanese and EU civil organisations

5.1

While there are numerous and regular contacts between the EU and Japanese authorities (see 3.5 above and Appendices) whose importance is regularly stressed by political leaders from both parties, the links between most civil society organisations are far more limited. However, in some areas there are already strong and active links.

5.2 Social Partners

Employers — Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) is a comprehensive economic organisation born in May 2002 by amalgamation of Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organisations) and Nikkeiren (Japan Federation of Employers' Associations). Its membership of 1,662 is comprised of 1,351 companies, 130 industrial associations, and 47 regional economic organisations (as of 20 June, 2006).

Trade Unions are relatively weak, both in numbers and in resources. About 20 % of workers are members of trade unions. The main Trade Union organisation (RENGO (11)) accounts for about two thirds of this total. RENGO has an office in Brussels. It has access to much information from ETUC and often sends representatives to meetings of labour organisations in Member States (MS).

5.3

The EU-Japan Business Dialogue Roundtable (employers) has been meeting annually for the last ten years to discuss ways to improve economic and trade relations and, increasingly, to consider global issues, such as energy. Their recommendations are presented at the annual EU-Japan bilateral summit to political leaders, who are prepared to take them into account. Further, EU and Japanese business organisations have long been in dialogue over a wide range of matters.

5.4

In the face of worldwide challenges such as food safety and labelling, EU and Japanese consumer organisations have been meeting for six years now. Other examples of cooperation are the annual dialogues between journalists, citizens' movements, NGOs and environmentalists. And there is also the academic cooperation that already exists between universities, colleges and research institutes and that will be strengthened after the recent establishment of two EU Institutes in Japan. The academic institutions in Japan have particularly close links with each other within Japan and with other such institutions in the EU.

5.5

Recognising the need for personal contacts if better understanding is to be developed, EU and Japan agreed that 2005 should be the ‘Year of People to People Exchange’. This was a successful programme with some 1900 events being organised and a follow-up programme is now under discussion. The challenge is to maintain and build on what was achieved.

5.6

These current contacts are very useful and show that it is possible to establish lasting contacts where there is a clear background of shared challenges to be faced in the context of a changing world with globalised practices and standards and an increased need to be competitive. These include sustainable development (notably energy security ‘green purchasing’ (12) and natural resources), development aid (where the EU and Japan are the major donors worldwide), ageing populations (with the consequent effects on pensions, health services and social help), immigration, working in multi-ethnic societies, work/family balance and employment challenges. Corporate Social Responsibility is an area where common interests are becoming clearer, as is gender balance. Exchanging views on the above subjects would be helpful.

5.7	EESC has some informal links with the EU Centre in Kansai. These are its only links currently although many EESC members have some experience of working with Japanese organisations.

6. Possible action to build and sustain relations between EU and Japan civil societies

6.1

In dealing with common challenges it is clear that civil society has a significant role to play both within the EU and Japan, in common undertakings and in the relationship between us. Through bilateral discussions and by making their positions clear civil society organisations will contribute to the ongoing political process between EU and Japan. It is clear that there is plenty of scope to do far more towards developing the relevant sections the EU-Japan Action Plan (13) involving civil society; and that such work can be an important element in adding value to EU-Japan relations.

6.2

The first aim of building contacts between organised civil society in Japan and in the EU must be to know and to understand each other; this will lead to the development of networking. Only then can we start to cooperate properly to add our contributions to the strong existing links between our respective authorities. This will not be a quick process but it would be helpful to seek support from the Commission and from the Japanese authorities for an initial meeting to identify common problems and to discuss the way ahead, including which organisations could most usefully represent both parties (14); focussed work, including joint action, should follow this initial meeting. The participants for this meeting should be representatives of EU and Japanese civil society who could provide a basis for further networking. For the EU, the EESC and the EU level social partners should provide the majority of the delegates.

6.3

The Commission should consider the inclusion of both EU and Japanese civil society organisations (CSOs) at all relevant seminars and similar events; they should also encourage the Japanese authorities to do likewise. Over time this would build up understanding between the partners as well as building a network that can then be used for all sorts of contacts. The identification of such events should be a regular agenda item on meetings between the Commission and their Japanese collocutors.

6.4

The selection of suitable topics for discussions involving CSOs will be crucial. Where meetings at the official level identify subjects that would benefit from the inclusion of CSO input, the Commission and the Japanese authorities should consider tasking the EESC to provide this in conjunction with Japanese counterparts. In such joint meetings the trade unions could, for example, discuss ILO core standards. Initially this work could be put to groups formed on an ad hoc basis; where appropriate setting up small ad hoc advisory groups should be considered (15).

6.5

Recognising the growing importance to Japan of regional cooperation, EU CSOs could also offer their experience in helping States at different stages of development to become more integrated, in accordance with the doctrine of ‘functional integration’. The experience of some of the newer member states in establishing viable civil society organisations and encouraging the authorities to include them in consultation and decision making could offer some examples of interest. The success of the EU in containing and reducing the potential for rivalries and conflict could also offer a useful model that might help in regional security concerns.

6.6

The establishment of the two EU Centres in Japan (EU Centre in Tokyo and EU Centre in Kansai) offer possibilities for networking and for building understanding. For example:

—	the EESC could act as a point of contact for assistance and information;

—	this could include facilitating the bringing together of those who seek contacts (for a particular purpose) in each other's home area;

—	it could also include offering places to each other for appropriate seminars (or other work) both as speakers and as participants;

—

the EESC could also offer to speak on EU related subjects in which they are involved; decision-making processes in the EU, the roles of civil society organisations at both EU and national levels, the role of the social partners, the way in which businesses handle the discussion and the implementation phases of EU legislation;

—	the EESC could offer regular internships for the EU Centres to bid for.

The EU Centre in Kansai is already considering the possibility of co-organising a series of seminars/workshops focussing on specific issues. In this context food labelling, environmental protection and the ageing society are likely to be early key issues.

6.7	It is also important to note that universities (and similar bodies) are of great importance in Japanese society and offer another route to help in understanding between CSOs. They can also help to involve youth, which will be a key factor in building long-term contacts.

6.8

The EESC should also consider setting up a small contact group to help keep up to date and to offer a point of contact for Japanese partners. As the civil societies come to understand each other better on the longer term, some sort of standing body, on the model of a Round Table, should be considered.

6.9	Contact should be maintained with the EU-Japan Joint Parliamentary Committee to ensure that the civil society role and potential is understood and, where appropriate, used to the common benefit.

6.10

Funding will, as always, be crucial. However, the costs of such arrangements should not be great and newer techniques, such as video-conferences and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP — conference calls), could help keep costs down in many cases, most obviously for contacts between any small ad hoc groups that may be established.

Brussels, 16 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(1) ‘Shaping our common future’, An Action Plan for EU-Japan Cooperation; European Union-Japan Summit, Brussels, 2001.

(2) EU Centres are funded by the EU and have the role of bridging the awareness gap between Japan and the EU to allow students in all faculties to learn about the European Union.

(3) Participating institutions: Hitotsubashi University, International Christian University, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies and Tsuda College

http://www.euij-tc.or.

(4) Participating institutions: Kobe University, Kwansei Gakuin University and Osaka University

http://euij-kansai.jp/index_en.html.

(5) See letter from Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner D/06/468 dated 6 April 2006.

(6) See COM(2005) 290 for a fuller definition.

(7) There are already a considerable number of regional bodies, some of which include European participation. Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) are important examples. Involvement in such bodies could further increase the value of EU-Japan civil society cooperation.

(8) Japanese culture has a very long history and has been much affected by the fact that the country was cut off from the rest of the world for centuries.

(9) This success led to ‘output legitimacy’, where legitimacy was based on performance in realising its goals, to the detriment of ‘input legitimacy’, based on the democratic participatory process.

(10) From the Japanese point of view the EU also had crises, such as the events leading to the resignation of the Santer Commission, at about the same time which led to rethinking EU governance, leading to a greater involvement of EU civil society in the policy process.

(11) 6 500 000 employees are member of RENGO (as of June 2006).

(12) ‘Green purchasing ’is the system where public procurement must include a significant percentage of ecologically friendly products.

(13) See paragraph 2.1 above.

(14) While some Japanese partners such as the Japanese Center for International Exchange (JCIE) and the EUIJs could help, there will initially also be a need to seek advice from the Japanese authorities.

(15) Language will, as elsewhere, cause some problems.

28.4.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/39

Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on The implementation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy

(2007/C 97/13)

On 23-24 March 2006 in its Presidency Conclusions (point 12) the European Council welcomed the initiative taken up by the European Economic and Social Committee to increase ownership of the Lisbon Strategy at Community level. It encouraged the European Economic and Social Committee to continue its work and asked it to prepare a summary report in support of the Partnership for growth and employment by early 2008. This resolution sets out the EESC's position on the renewed Lisbon Strategy and its work on this issue.

The implementation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy

At its Bureau meeting of 14 February 2007, the European Economic and Social Committee decided to present a resolution to the Spring Summit. At its plenary session on 15 and 16 February 2007 (meeting of 15 February 2007), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted this resolution by 125 votes for with 10 abstentions

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the European Commission's follow-up of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) presented by the Member States. However, the EESC fears that the relaunch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2005 has still not succeeded in ensuring popular knowledge of, and support for, the Strategy. The EESC stresses that political ownership by Member States of commitments jointly agreed in the Council is key. In addition to the above responsibilities of Member States, efficient partnerships and new alliances with social partners and civil society are needed. Effective multi-level governance, including stakeholder consultation, which is to be closely monitored by the European Commission, must be guaranteed.

1.1

The EESC believes that the current method of assessment should be complemented by transparent benchmarking of Member States' performances with regard to implementation of the Strategy. To this end, tailor-made recommendations for each Member State should lead to focused discussion and, possibly, review in the Council, so that key areas for future action can be identified.

1.2

The EESC is of the opinion that in defining and implementing the NRPs, timely consultations with organised civil society must be carried out at national level so that all parties concerned take responsibility for the process in pursuit of genuine partnership and involvement. National Economic and Social Councils, and similar bodies, should have an important role to play in the countries where they exist.

1.3

The EESC fully endorses greater focus on the renewed strategy. This summer, the EESC will present four information reports on Investment in knowledge and innovation, Business potential, especially with regard to SMEs, Employment of priority categories and An Energy Policy for Europe as a basis for its 2008 Summary Report to the European Council. These reports will be drafted in close cooperation with National Economic and Social Councils and similar bodies representing civil society.

1.4

The EESC stresses that full implementation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy implies a coordinated macroeconomic policy which actively promotes growth and employment. The current positive economic outlook should not undermine the ambitions of the Council regarding the implementation of the Strategy. Interdependence between national economies means that structural reforms should be implemented from a European perspective. The NRPs should, therefore, be incorporated into a pan-European macroeconomic policy framework to which all concerned parties should contribute. The global context must continuously be taken into consideration.

1.5

The EESC stresses that continued industrial change, quality of work and quality of life should be ensured in parallel. The aim should be a symbiosis of competitiveness, social cohesion and sustainable development. In working towards this aim, Europe and Member States must decode the message of the renewed Lisbon Strategy in such a way that the grassroots level can obtain a clear understanding of the objectives. This requires effective communication, which, so far, has been lacking.

2.	The EESC considers the whole strategy to be a dynamic process which requires constant fine-tuning within the Member States and the Council, and with the European Commission. In order to achieve this, the following issues need to be addressed:

2.1

At national and regional levels:

—	Lisbon-related priorities, including accompanying resources, should be identified more clearly in the national budgets;

—

the whole chain of educational and training systems should be scrutinised and the contents, in terms of general education and scientific and technical training, should be of the highest possible level so as to enable people to adjust to changes in the environment and to foster citizens's participation, higher quality jobs, entrepreneurship and innovation;

—	demographic change, and its effects on finances, the labour market and health care, need to be addressed;

—	innovative labour market reform should be guided by flexicurity provisions which promote competitiveness and at the same time provide adequate social security;

—	the Barcelona targets for R&D investment should be met;

—	Member States need to make efficient use of exchanges of best practice, which also have the benefit of fostering convergence of goals across Europe.

2.2

At European level:

—	the Council and the Commission should set timetables and deadlines for agreed priorities;

—	a common energy policy is needed;

—	addressing climate change is of great importance;

—	the European Funds (the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the 7th Research Framework Programme) and other EU financial tools, such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, should target the Lisbon Strategy's priorities;

2.3

All levels require:

—	more specific and concrete cooperation with social partners and other stakeholders in the formulation of policies and follow-up related to the Lisbon Strategy;

—	a better regulation agenda and a well-functioning internal market, addressing economic, social and environmental development objectives in the context of global changes.

3.	The EESC urges the European Council to give its full support to the approach outlined above and to involve organised civil society as a more active player in the implementation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy.

Brussels, 15 February 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

		ISSN 1725-2423
Official Journal of the European Union		C 97

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 50 28 April 2007

Notice No	Contents	page
	III Preparatory Acts
	European Economic and Social Committee
	433rd plenary session held on 15 and 16 February 2007
2007/C 097/01	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a European Advisory Committee on Community Statistical Information Policy COM(2006) 653 final — 2006/0217 (COD)	1

2007/C 097/02	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC COM(2006) 397 final — 2006/0129 (COD)	3

2007/C 097/03	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission on Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 — and beyond — Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being COM(2006) 216 final	6

2007/C 097/04	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) COM(2006) 543 final — 2006/0170 (COD)	12

2007/C 097/05	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (codified version) COM(2006) 749 final — 2006/0250 (CNS)	13

2007/C 097/06	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (Codified version) COM(2006) 652 final — 2006/0214 (COD)	14

2007/C 097/07	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (Codified version) COM(2006) 664 final — 2006/0222 (COD)	15

2007/C 097/08	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the European logistics policy	16

2007/C 097/09	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A strategy for a Secure Information Society — Dialogue, partnership and empowerment COM(2006) 251 final	21

2007/C 097/10	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services	27

2007/C 097/11	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission under Article 138(2) of the EC Treaty on the strengthening of maritime labour standards COM(2006) 287 final	33

2007/C 097/12	Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on EU-Japan Relations: The role of Civil Society	34

2007/C 097/13	Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on The implementation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy	39