3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/1

1.1

The EESC approves of the content of the proposed regulation and welcomes the Community-level establishment of harmonised standards for the type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles. It endorses the choice of a single Community procedure to be valid in all Member States as this is simpler and much less burdensome than 27 different type-approval systems that would clearly pave the way for unfair competition and fragmentation in the internal market.

1.2

The importance of this measure is clear: despite expectations of considerable growth in the commercialisation of hydrogen-powered vehicles, there is no type-approval for them at national or European level. Where individual Member States have adopted provisional regulations, they differ significantly from one another.

1.3

The regulation must be approved rapidly as it will provide a definite frame of reference for the sector's companies, and thus pave the way for the major investment necessary to develop hydrogen-related technologies. The EESC has endorsed this strategic choice in recent opinions on the subject, stating that despite its continuing limitations, hydrogen is the challenge for the future.

1.4

The establishment of these Community standards on harmonisation is also an important element in guaranteeing safety for users. Building up their trust is essential in the light of the predicted increase in the use of this technology. According to Commission forecasts, the number of hydrogen-powered vehicles should reach the one million target by 2020.

1.5

An important example confirming the validity of this objective and the real possibility of reaching it is that of the steadily increasing number of taxis with hybrid fuel systems circulating in New York, where a positive urban policy has made it possible to marry environmental protection with market rules. This clearly demonstrates that attempts to build artificial barriers to the development of this technology often mask vested interests.

1.6

Reaching this target is essential, as only by making a decisive move to replace fossil fuels will it be possible to stay on track with the EU's policies on sustainable development and the fight against climate change. This goal can be achieved by means of a gradual shift to the use of hydrogen, second generation biofuels and other renewable fuels.

1.7

To provide the fundamental support this long-term strategy requires will involve specific commitments in the field of technological research. The EESC therefore calls for the implementation of targeted research programmes, starting with the rapid approval of the regulation proposed in COM(2007) 571, which provides for the establishment of a Joint Technological Initiative (JTI) based on the establishment of a Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (1). The Committee would welcome research programmes aimed at finding new means of producing and using hydrogen and echoes the calls from businesses and research bodies active in the hydrogen sector for the Council and Parliament to speed up the approval of the necessary proposals.

1.8

The EESC urges the Commission to start work now on examining the issue of distribution network coverage, as safe and efficient storage and adequate distribution systems are essential elements in the dissemination of vehicles powered by gas mixes.

1.9

Initially, action should focus on the distribution of LPG and methane throughout the Community, as though in many EU countries they are scarce or non-existent these offer the most immediate and realistic hope of reducing dependence on carbon-based fuels. This initial drive for newer, safer and more efficient technologies in the field of storage and distribution should, in the near future, facilitate an intermediate phase of supplying a mix of gas and hydrogen until the final move to hydrogen distribution.

1.10

Steps must be taken to restore the confidence of future users and dispel the doubts that still surround hydrogen use. Widespread information programmes should be planned, with a clearly argued message, to reassure the public that this technology has already reached the current safety levels of conventional vehicles.

1.11

The EESC agrees that the most appropriate legal instrument to use is a regulation, as this creates a level playing field for the sector's producers by ensuring that the standards it contains will be implemented simultaneously in all Member States.

1.12

The EESC approves of the proposal to prepare and implement basic standards by means of a committee procedure. It also welcomes the arrangements for a transition period for the full application of all the standards; this appears necessary for producers, given the complexity involved.

1.13

The EESC welcomes Europe's presence in the Global Coordination Group (GCG), which is seeking to establish type-approval standards at world level (GTR — Global Technological Regulation), and considers Europe's involvement important. However, it would also stress that the search for a global agreement must not obstruct the European legislative procedure. Having its own legislative instrument and experience of applying Community standards will strengthen Europe's presence on all global bodies, and ensure that the establishment of international regulations in the field of hydrogen-powered vehicles has more than one available point of reference to take into account (Japan).

1.14

The experience gained from having legislation at Community level and the important results that may stem from a solid ongoing commitment to technological research could help to boost the competitiveness of companies already operating in the vehicle sector, given that major shares of the future market are staked on the new technologies and fuels.

1.15

In the EESC's view, all this requires bold and timely decisions, together with a long-sighted strategic vision focusing on a future scenario where, in time, hydrogen is destined to play a major and decisive role.

1.16

The EESC would invite the Commission to reconsider its proposal to label hydrogen-powered cars, as this could be seen as criminalising them in some way, identifying them as ‘dangerous’, whereas their safety test results are on a par with those for cars powered by other fuels. As an alternative to that label, the EESC feels it would be more appropriate to identify the fuel-types of all cars, making them clearly recognisable.

1.17

In the absence of a distribution network, to facilitate the dissemination of hydrogen-powered vehicles, the EESC recommends that the Commission introduce type approval for small reforming units for the automatic production of hydrogen from methane (home energy stations or similar facilities). This could mark the first real step towards meeting the new demand for hydrogen in the early days, while the ultimate goal must continue to be that of producing hydrogen from renewable resources or biogas, by means of photolysis or electrolysis using electricity generated from renewable sources.

2.1

The starting-point for the regulation in question (COM(2007) 593 final) is that there are no European standards governing the type-approval of hydrogen powered vehicles, despite predictions that the market presence of such vehicles is set to increase.

2.2

Neither are there regulations governing this field in the EU's individual Member States.

None of the current legislation governing vehicle type approval includes any general standards for hydrogen powered vehicles, partly because of their differences compared with vehicles that run on traditional fuels.

2.3

A few Member States have adopted provisional regulations that differ significantly from one country to another. If this situation is allowed to continue, the type approval procedures developed in individual Member States will differ, with the inevitable consequences of internal market fragmentation and distorted competition rules, making the real possibility for this technology to contribute decisively to improving the environment remote.

2.4

This draft regulation is therefore intended to ensure that the internal market functions properly and to prevent vehicles from circulating in individual Member States under differing type approval standards, leading to imbalances between individual producers and paving the way for artificial barriers to trade in Europe.

2.5

The result would be to hinder rather than promote the practical development of hydrogen technologies and related initiatives in Europe, although it is one of the most significant available alternatives to fossil fuels. The latter still account for 98 % of public and private transport and 50 % of primary energy sources, a figure likely to increase to 73 % unless there is a definite decision to diversify.

2.6

This regulation, along with major research programmes in the sector as part of the 7FP, marks an important step towards bringing hydrogen use to the safety levels reached by traditional technologies and could also contribute towards gaining the support of potential users.

2.7

Harmonised standards at Community level for the type approval of hydrogen powered vehicles would doubtless constitute a decisive step towards securing the necessary consensus among users. The development of user confidence in the use of hydrogen is essential if the placing on the market of vehicles run on alternative low-greenhouse gas emission fuels is to be stepped up, something that is essential to protect the environment properly and practically.

3.1

The draft regulation aims to set standards valid throughout the EU for the type approval of hydrogen powered vehicles.

3.2

It amends Framework Directive 2007/46/EC by including category M1-M2-M3 and N1-N2-N3 (2) hydrogen powered vehicles fully within the EC vehicle type approval procedural framework and including hydrogen-powered vehicles in all type approval related directives and regulations.

3.3

The legal basis of the proposal is Article 95 of the Treaty.

The proposal fully respects the principle of subsidiarity as the political objectives agreed at Community level cannot be achieved by individual Member States. Furthermore, the procedure prevents the creation of barriers in the single market.

It also preserves the principle of proportionality, its objective being simply the smooth running of the single market and a high level of public safety and environmental protection.

3.4

The Commission proposes to use a regulation as this will ensure that the provisions enter into force in all Member States at the same time, without having to wait for them to be transposed into national legislation. It should also avoid delays in the adaptation of type-approval standards and prevent the risk of provisions being changed significantly during transposition.

3.5

The proposal has been carefully examined by means of a thorough consultation of all the stakeholders. Beginning with the ‘Hydrogen Working Group’, the survey involved national authorities, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle parts suppliers and industry associations.

3.6

The four options studied were:

3.7

A consultant was then appointed to collate the responses concerning safety, technology and the relative costs of the various options. The results were then assessed by the main companies in the automobile sector involved with hydrogen technology.

3.8

From this broad consultation process it clearly emerged that the best course of action would be legislation at Community level to establish a type-approval procedure for all hydrogen powered vehicles.

3.9

To back up this choice, the Commission has presented a study (3) that argues that introducing even a strict European type approval process is the simplest and least costly way ahead, given the theoretical cost of 27 different type-approvals for each of the individual Member States.

3.10

The consultant's assessment was submitted to the Commission, which produced the present proposal on the basis of the prior consultation work, thus starting the institutional process.

3.11

According to the Commission, the standards established in this regulation offer hydrogen powered vehicle users the necessary guarantees in terms of safety and will contribute decisively to environmental protection.

3.12

The concluding objective is that 36 months after the entry into force of the regulation, hydrogen systems, all components in contact with hydrogen and the related materials used must comply fully with the standards set out by the regulation.

4.1

The hearing, attended by the Commission, academics, vehicle manufacturers involved in developing hydrogen-powered cars, European associations, consumers and fuel cell producers, delivered valuable ideas and information on the latest technological developments.

4.2

It highlighted the importance of public information and of events such as the one that has been held for a number of years in Rome (H2 Roma), introducing the public to the producers, demonstrating technological developments and raising awareness of a technology still considered dangerous by most people. Those present were very interested in the part that the EESC could play as a cultural mediator.

4.3

Companies and consumers underlined the need to be able to rely on the safety of vehicles and storage and distribution facilities, as well as on the availability of hydrogen. Research should continue with better backing. They welcomed recent European initiatives promoting fuel cells, with the decision to finance a Joint Technological Initiative.

4.4

Autonomy tests have shown that hydrogen-powered cars already have a range of up to 600 km. Further tests are in the pipeline.

4.5

As the hearing showed, hydrogen-powered cars are now a technological reality. What are missing however are the economic and social conditions necessary to move into the marketing phase. The type approval regulation will do away with an initial obstacle.

5.1

The EESC approves of the content of this regulation and welcomes the adoption of harmonised standards for the type approval of hydrogen powered vehicles. This marks a step forwards from the present situation where the lack of legislation is clearly likely to distort competition and fragment the internal market. It is important that the regulation is approved rapidly, not least for reasons of safety and environmental protection.

5.2

In the EESC's opinion, the absence of a definite frame of reference inevitably tends to discourage the necessary significant investment in technological development for the use of hydrogen as a fuel for future cars.

5.3

The regulation appears to be in line with the EU's policies on sustainable development and with the fight against climate change, which underpin Community initiatives and make a vital contribution to the general objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

5.4

The EESC is firmly convinced that unless hydrogen powered vehicles are developed rapidly and on a grand scale and fossil fuels are gradually replaced the environmental benefits will be severely limited and thus negligible in quantitative terms. It would argue that the use of hydrogen, second generation biofuels and other renewable fuels could make it possible to further environmental sustainability and to make a strong stand against climate change.

5.5

The EESC maintains that the exciting path towards reversing the current trend whereby demand for energy is satisfied primarily by fossil fuels, which currently account for 85-90 % of world energy supply, will involve the use of hydrogen and a commitment to research in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells. Any studies of future prospects must take into account the fact that the future for fossil fuels is likely to involve shortages and constantly increasing prices.

5.6

The EESC recently adopted an opinion (4) fully supporting the Commission's proposal (COM(2007) 571 final) to earmark approximately EUR 470 million for a Joint Technological Initiative (JTI) for ‘fuel cells and hydrogen’, which will enable the Commission, Member States and the industry to pool their various resources in a vast research initiative in order to launch programmes targeting strategic sectors for the diversification and future availability of energy.

5.7

In a subsequent opinion on the energy mix in transport (5), the EESC ‘considers a sharp increase in funding for research into the production and use of hydrogen (…) to be vital’ and ‘echoes the calls from businesses and research centres engaged in developing hydrogen use for the Council and Parliament to speed up the process of adopting the proposal’.

5.8

Fuel cells are energy converters that reduce the production of greenhouse gas and other pollutants considerably. As for biomass processing, the EESC takes a careful look in the same opinion at recent progress in the field of new catalysts designed for fuel cells, which are a highly promising technology for the supply of clean energy for cars.

5.9

While stressing that the use of hydrogen in the gradual substitution of fossil fuels is necessary and desirable, the Committee points out that the aim of bringing hydrogen-powered vehicles into circulation cannot be achieved without significant investment in all related fields of research. For this reason, the EESC would like to see research programmes aimed at consolidating this strategy.

5.10

The Committee considers that although the high cost of this process is an issue, it must not be allowed to slow down technological development in this field. It is keenly watching all programmes aimed at seeking new eco-friendly ways to produce hydrogen, given that the current method, whereby over 90 % of hydrogen is produced from methane, is based on a major energy source that is significant but nonetheless finite.

5.11

The EESC would stress that when assessing the costs of each technological advance, the major sums necessary should be assessed not just in relation to the admittedly large private vehicle sector, but also from a strategic, forward-looking perspective, taking into account the future benefits that might arise from the wider use of hydrogen for instance in public and private transport, goods transport and in trains and water transport, going as far as the possible use of hydrogen in electricity power stations, though this is a more distant prospect.

5.12

The EESC is utterly convinced that if these major research programmes develop in the desired way and receive the necessary political and financial support from all the interested parties, there is a strong possibility of seeing partially or fully hydrogen powered cars on the roads relatively soon.

5.13

One concrete example of this positive trend is the steadily increasing use of hybrid taxis in New York, where a positive urban policy has made it possible to marry respect for the environment with market rules. This clearly demonstrates that attempts to place obstacles in the way of the development of this technology often mask vested interests.

5.14

In all its opinions on the subject, the EESC has supported the choice to use hydrogen, which, despite the currently known limitations, is the challenge for the future. The Committee is keeping a close eye on recently planned initiatives using various production and supply technologies and paving the way for the future use of hydrogen to power vehicles.

5.15

In this light, the EESC would once more urge the Commission to examine the issue of distribution network coverage for alternative fuel, starting by boosting the distribution of CNG (compressed natural gas), which in Europe is distributed on a small scale in a few Member States and is totally absent in others, with a few positive exceptions, including Poland.

5.16

The field of storage and distribution is a concrete example of targeted research in the sector. The need for innovative technology in the field of gas distribution is a fundamental and critical issue for the dissemination of new vehicles, both in the intermediate phase of a possible mix of different gases, and in the pursuit of the ultimate objective of hydrogen fuel.

5.17

There is an urgent need here for ever more efficient and safe distribution systems, using the experience garnered from the two plants currently operating in Europe, in Mantova (Italy) and Munich (Germany), directing research towards increasingly advanced systems that centre on meeting high standards of safety and environmental protection.

5.18

For these reasons, the EESC believes that achieving high levels of safety and efficiency in the storage and distribution of gaseous fuels is crucial in the current phase, requiring a major programme to disseminate LPG and methane plants throughout Europe. This is a more immediate realistic objective when it comes to reducing dependence on carbon-based fuels, as an intermediate phase before the definitive stage of distributing hydrogen. The technologies necessary for storing and distributing gas and hydrogen are very similar, so the development of the former will inevitably favour the development of hydrogen.

5.19

The EESC is aware that the use of hydrogen still poses definite problems when it comes to cost and certain elements of safety. The thorough tests carried out in various countries mean that the obstacles of the past should now be completely overcome, bringing hydrogen use to the safety levels achieved by conventional technologies. Achieving this objective, and launching major programmes to provide specific information, might help to build the confidence of future users, something that is essential for the definitive relaunch of the use of this technology.

5.20

For this reason, it is essential that this hydrogen-based strategy be backed up by a thorough information programme to address and overcome the current doubts of future consumers who consider hydrogen to be a highly risky product.

5.21

A well-disseminated information programme must send out a clear message: hydrogen technology has already reached the current safety levels of conventional vehicles, even in the event of accidents. This is key if the Commission's forecast of 1 million vehicles on the Community's roads by 2020 (Impact Assessment, p. 34) is to be considered credible.

5.22

This regulation setting Community-level harmonised standards for the type approval of hydrogen powered vehicles is the first step towards building such a consensus. It should be supported for the fundamental reason that use of this fuel makes a key contribution to environmental protection, as it does not emit greenhouse gases or release carbon-based pollutants.

5.23

The EESC agrees with the choice of regulation as the legal instrument for the proposal as it creates a level playing field for the sector's producers by means of the immediate application in all Member States of the standards it contains.

5.24

The EESC approves of the proposal to prepare and implement basic standards by means of the committee procedure. It also welcomes the arrangements for a transition period; this reflects the complexity of the technology, which producers will require some time to apply.

5.25

The EESC supports and considers important the presence of Europe alongside Japan and the USA on the Global Coordination Group (GCG) aimed at achieving a world-wide procedure for the type-approval of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

5.26

However, the search for a solution at this level must not be allowed to get in the way of the Community legislative process, as the time needed to reach an agreement at world level will be longer than the timeframe for the current regulation. Indeed, once the EU has a specific legislative instrument and its own experience of implementation, it will have greater clout at the GCG and will be able to prevent any attempts to adopt a regulation based on the only experience currently available, i.e. that of Japan.

5.27

A strong European presence on world decision-making bodies is also vital for safeguarding the competitive edge of major vehicle manufacturers operating at European level, which must not lose touch with developments in a market where a strong, timely and technologically-advanced presence is key to winning a major market share in the future.

5.28

Type-approval, though just one aspect of the overall process, marks a significant step towards the availability of alternative fuels that can release Europe from the grip of fossil fuels and bring major environmental benefits, preparing us for the time when, sooner or later, that resource will slowly but surely run out.

5.29

All this calls for bold decisions and a long-term, strategic outlook, setting sights on the present and also on a future scenario in which the use of hydrogen is destined to play a fundamental role.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/7

1.1

The EESC believes that the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE), which it had called for on numerous occasions, should make it possible to re-launch the European Charter for Small Enterprises; furthermore, it considers that the SBAE not only represents a remarkable opportunity for developing the potential of small businesses but will also gauge the extent to which the EU institutions and Member States wish to launch a genuine policy of voluntary and lasting support for SMEs and the smallest companies.

1.2

This policy should not be confined to periods of economic downturn, when politicians have a tendency to rediscover the benefits of SMEs and small business, especially their capacity for plugging employment gaps and reducing unemployment statistics, but should instead aspire to be a well-structured policy providing long-term support for small business competitiveness.

1.3

The EESC recommends 10 key measures to support and re-launch SME development by creating a truly favourable environment and effective Small Business Act for Europe, which will be more than just another political declaration:

1.4

the EESC requests the implementation of the SBAE at all levels in the form of a legally binding instrument.

1.5

Furthermore, it calls for the SBAE to encourage social dialogue between the social partners in SMEs so as to establish the best possible working environment for the promotion of creativity and innovation, including in the area of working conditions, with a particular emphasis on improving safety and risk assessment at the workplace.

2.1

The crucial role played by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU economy is universally recognised as a key factor for EU level growth and employment and for addressing the new challenges of globalisation. The results of the SME policies implemented during the years 2005-2007 show that significant progress has been made, both at EU and at national level, thanks to the application of the think small first principle.

2.2

The European Commission has stressed the need to unlock SMEs' potential for growth and job creation and to take full advantage of their capacity for innovation. This approach found its reflection in the report on the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment adopted on 11 December 2007, and provided the inspiration for the creation of a Small Business Act for Europe, whose principal objective is to identify concrete measures and principles for improving the European SME environment and for reaping the full benefit of their diversity. This initiative was endorsed by the European Council meeting in December 2007; the Commission aims to present a proposal by June 2008.

2.3

It is worth bearing in mind that the EESC has recently issued, or is currently preparing, a number of other opinions relating to SME policy, including:

2.4

The Slovenian presidency of the Council has asked the EESC for a series of political proposals promoting SME growth. The aim is not for the EESC to draw up a new list of technical measures focusing on the individual growth of SMEs but rather to put forward a more structured political framework and to innovate in favour of SMEs.

2.5

Two priorities in particular have been set out by the Slovenian presidency:

2.6

In addition, the Slovenian presidency requires the opinion of the EESC in connection with the preparation of the Small Business Act for Europe.

3.1

The EESC has, in its previous opinions, commented on the significant advances made by SMEs, especially in terms of access to funding or simplified administrative procedures. It is particularly satisfied with the approach of the European institutions, which has shown a clear move in favour of small business, and hopes that this is not solely due to the current difficult economic and social situation. However, in spite of these unquestionable achievements, the policies launched in recent years are nonetheless beset by a number of weaknesses.

3.2

The EESC considers, in particular, that the European Charter for Small Enterprises has failed to achieve its strategic objectives because it has no legal standing and has, for the most part, remained little more than a political declaration. There is a need to strengthen its implementation in the Member States and at regional level and to relaunch the annual evaluations and recommendations in the Member States.

3.3

Furthermore, mention has often been made of the need to further improve the dialogue with the various types of SMEs; the EESC believes that there is a need to introduce a new culture of dialogue at European, national and regional level making it possible to strengthen and institutionalise dialogue between the institutions and intermediary organisations representing SMEs.

4.2.1

To understand and convey the reality of the situation facing the different types of SMEs. All EU policies must be based on clear facts providing information on the subject. The definition of an SME covers a very broad range of business situations and types or forms of companies (sole traders or incorporated companies, companies with no workforce or up to 250 employees, companies engaged in craft, commercial or social activities, companies active in the professional world) operating in a variety of different sectors, each with their own very different situations and needs. Information about the various types of SMEs is often incomplete or non-existent. The analyses carried out by the previous Observatory of European SMEs often provided vital data. The EESC is delighted by DG Enterprise's decision to re-launch the Observatory and requests:

4.2.2

Include the SME dimension in all Community policies: The EESC has noted that beyond the political declarations in favour of small businesses, there is still a strong tendency among legislators at all levels to apply the large company model by rote and to follow the bonsai principle which holds that what is good for a large company is good for small companies too, either due to their lack of understanding of the real situation or their desire to keep things simple. This approach, based on a single economic model, is particularly ill-suited to the reality of a plethora of different types of companies and business cultures, leading to a situation where over 90 % of European companies feel that EU policy ignores or fails to understand their needs. The EESC draws the attention of the EU institutions and the Member States to the fact that while small and micro-enterprises represent the life blood of the EU economy and employment, they risk becoming its downfall, not through their own fault, but as a result of the insufficient attention paid to them by public authorities at all levels. The EESC requests that the SBAE finally provide an opportunity to put matters into practice and hopes that the needs and specific characteristics of the various types of SMEs be taken into account in all policies, programmes and negotiations, including social dialogue and international relations, at EU as well as national and regional level.

4.2.3

Pursue a policy of simplified administration: the EESC urges the Commission to increase its efforts to simplify EU legislation; however, above all it calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to engage in a more effective policy of simplification, based on the following five points:

4.2.4

Support the assistance and advisory activities of intermediary organisations: Intermediary organisations representing the various types of SMEs are a key element in the success of EU policies through the technical assistance services which they can provide to all SMEs requiring specific skills that cannot be ensured under the new EEN (Enterprise Europe Network) network. They play a vital role in providing companies with both information and support, in particular by tailoring legislation to the specific needs of each company on a case-by-case basis and transposing legislation to the micro-economic and local level, including as close as possible to the smallest companies. On the one hand, the EESC considers it vital that public authorities at all levels engage in a voluntary policy of supporting their activity and that Community programmes which cover SMEs expressly provide for support measures for such organisations. On the other hand, it calls on the Commission, the Member States and the regions to put into practice the conclusions of the 4th European conference of craft industries and small businesses in Stuttgart on this issue.

4.2.5

Relaunch business cooperation programmes and inter-organisational exchange programmes: The EESC urges the Commission to relaunch the inter-regional business cooperation programmes which have proved to be effective in the past; furthermore, support must be given to action taken by intermediary organisations or the creation of bodies which promote such cooperation should be made possible.

4.3.1

The EESC expresses its delight at the positive opinions of the Council and the Commission supporting the creation of a Small Business Act at European level, especially as the Committee has advocated the introduction of the SBAE on numerous occasions (1). It believes that, to be effective, the SBAE must fulfil the following conditions:

4.3.1.1

its aim must be to create the best possible environment for SMEs and micro-enterprises at all levels and to provide a concrete response to the various challenges that SMEs must face during their life cycle including, in particular, the transfer or take-up of business ownership; in the light of the above, the SBAE must not lead to a deterioration in the working conditions of SME employees; the initiatives launched should, on the contrary, make it possible to take better account of their situation;

4.3.1.2

it must bring real added value and not simply limit itself to combining existing programmes or coordinating the various measures currently underway;

4.3.1.3

it must not just constitute another declaration of intent, as was unfortunately the case for the European Charter for Small Enterprises and not be restricted to a simple political declaration on the part of the EU institutions and the Member States; European SMEs and micro enterprises deserve better and the EESC believes that giving the SBAE real legal standing will demonstrate and prove the EU's commitment to taking effective action in respect of SMEs and micro-enterprises;

4.3.1.4

it must be binding in its entirety and apply to all levels of European, national and regional decision-making by focusing on public authorities at all levels, whilst leaving the responsibility for its implementation to the Member States (2);

4.3.1.5

it must be applied to all EU policies by including SMEs in all these policies and by developing a holistic approach which takes proper account of all aspects of the policies and the impact of the new rules on the various types of SMEs.

4.3.2

The EESC requests that the SBAE include five key policy measures to ensure that the legislation does not restrict the development and competitiveness of the various types of SMEs;

4.3.2.1

Ensure that legislative texts at all levels are drawn up by taking into account the specific needs and situation of the various types of SME. To this end, the following basic rule should be established which will apply to all levels of the decision-making process: legislative proposals must be formulated taking account of the needs and expectations of SMEs, especially the smallest businesses, and by applying the think small first principle, with a particular focus on the self-employed, who account for over half of all European businesses. This approach envisages in particular the systematic consultation of SME representative organisations, and the involvement, at an appropriate level, of experts from these organisations in the work of those advisory committees which deal with issues at regional, national or European level which could have an impact on SMEs. This was in line with the request made by the Competitiveness Council of 13 March 2006.

In this vein, the EESC calls for the appointment of an SME envoy at each Commission DG who will be responsible for ensuring that the legislative measures and programmes managed by the DG take sufficient account of the priorities and expectations of SMEs and micro-enterprises.

4.3.2.2

Ensure that legislation complies with the fundamental principles. For the EESC, the effectiveness of legislation at all levels and of joint or individual SME programmes or measures is dependent on the inclusion of the following four principles in the SBAE and on their systematic application at regional, national and European level:

Furthermore, the EESC emphasises the need to put in place and to ensure complete transparency in administrative procedures by allowing SMEs to have access to all administrative data concerning them and to correct it, where appropriate.

4.3.2.3

Put in place a broader and consistent policy of innovation. The EESC asks that the Commission, the Member States and the regional authorities do not restrict themselves to supporting innovation in high technologies only and that they adopt a more proactive policy by including in their programmes specific measures to support the innovation of low and medium technology and non-technical innovation in SMEs, especially in the smallest businesses.

The new EBN advisory network will never, by itself, be able to intervene effectively on behalf of all those companies with a potential for innovation. The EESC therefore requests that the SBAE identify the following priorities:

4.3.2.4

Broaden access to Community programmes. The EESC believes that the complexity of administrative procedures and the existence of divergent requirements are making it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for small companies to take part in EU programmes, prompting the paradoxical situation where intermediary organisations are showing less and less interest in such programmes. To take but one example, current legal constraints do not allow innovative action such as support for experimental pilot projects, thereby depriving the EU of a whole raft of innovative proposals. The EESC believes there is a need for a review of the related rules and regulations: given the importance of this work, it is not the role of this opinion to identify the changes that need to be made; nevertheless, the EESC asks the Commission to launch a consultation with the SME representative organisations within the framework of the SBAE in order to lay down new conditions for organising and participating in programmes at various regional levels.

Against this background, structural funds must be able to promote SME participation in public contracts, especially in the most disadvantaged regions (3).

4.3.2.5

Simplifying and encouraging the transfer of business ownership. The EESC particularly stresses the importance of the transfer of business ownership, especially for small production and service-based businesses in urban and rural areas: their anticipated disappearance — which is, however, by no means inevitable — will have a huge negative impact on retaining businesses and jobs in these areas. On the one hand, the creation of systems for bringing together buyers and sellers, and the introduction of financial or tax indicators should be promoted, on the other, entrepreneurs should be encouraged to improve their capitalisation in order to maintain the value of their assets.

The specific situation of entrepreneurs in, for example, rural areas requires the development of innovative structures such as public-private partnerships.

4.4.1

In order to ensure that the SBAE is truly effective, the EESC asks that these measures be adopted by the Council and by the Parliament in the form of a legally binding act which will be applied at European, national and regional decision-making levels.

4.4.2

In this context, the EESC asks for an annual evaluation of the implementation of the SBAE and of all SME policies at EU and national level and that the Committee be kept informed of the progress made: this annual report must be covered by a separate specific chapter as part of the implementation of the Lisbon strategy.

4.4.3

Following these reports, the Commission must be able to issues its recommendations for implementation, both to the Member States and the regions, on which it plans to issue an opinion.

4.4.4

The EESC requests that these annual assessments lead to the modification or revision of the SBAE or SME policies, where appropriate.

4.4.5

The EESC strongly urges the Commission and the Council to involve the representative organisations of the various types of SMEs closely in the formulation and implementation of the SBAE.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/12

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes and commends the Commission communication entitled ‘Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism’. It supports the Commission's pledge to consolidate tourism policy and strategy for the next few years in a coherent manner by means of the Agenda, thereby enabling them to be put into practice on a daily basis. This new policy has already been set out previously, in the Commission communication entitled ‘A renewed EU Tourism Policy — Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism’.

1.2

The Committee appreciates the Commission's effort to summarise briefly a large number of documents, opinions and debates. The result is a satisfactory and clear description for the general public of the outcome of the work of the Tourism Sustainability Group, of the experts who drew up the report and the results of the ensuing public consultation exercise.

1.3

The Commission is correct to tie this new tourism policy in with the renewed Lisbon strategy and to set improving competitiveness and sustainability as its general objectives, as well as the more specific objectives of economic prosperity, social equity and cohesion, and environmental and cultural protection.

1.4

We also endorse the challenges identified in the Commission communication and the proposed means of addressing them. The proposed approach is for all players to be involved through various means of collaboration and competitive collaboration, and this involvement is considered the cornerstone of the new tourism policy and of its implementing Agenda. The scale of the challenges referred to in the Commission communication is clear and the ongoing study of greenhouse gases' implications for sustainability should in future be used as a key element for the Agenda.

1.5

The Committee considers the Commission's undertaking to implement this new policy through dialogue, collaboration, new support measures and coordination between stakeholders to be appropriate. The ‘Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism’ is the extension of the concrete approach and implementing measures proposed for all stakeholders in European tourism. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the Commission, in the shape of DG Enterprise, can and must play a more active role and must take the lead in introducing a large number of Europe-wide initiatives, such as social tourism, tourism for all and training in the field of tourism, for example. In particular, the Commission and the other institutions should make greater efforts to involve small, medium-sized and micro businesses in the task of making tourism sustainable and in the Agenda for implementing and achieving this goal. The EESC welcomes the Commission initiative to establish ‘European destinations of excellence’ as examples of good practice and of what can be achieved.

1.6

The Committee once again proposes and recommends boosting the European Tourism Forum and pushing forwards with discussions and a study on setting up a European Tourism Board and a European Tourism Agency. These two bodies could perhaps provide forums in which the tourism authorities and the different stakeholders in the tourism industry could come together to improve and distribute information on sustainable and competitive tourism, to monitor compliance with the policy and the European tourism agenda and in particular to attempt to discern trends in tourism and draw up the measures that need to be taken. In particular, climate change, its implications for tourism and the corresponding steps to be taken could form goals for the two bodies referred to above.

1.7

The Committee warmly welcomes the Commission's intention to improve use of the available financial instruments. One specific example is social tourism where the Committee feels that there is already sufficient scope for initiating some cross-border pooling of experience in the form of a pilot project. Examples of such measures include social tourism and ‘tourism for all’, better human resources, product development and market penetration. The Committee considers that there is already sufficient scope to bring together cross-border experiences in the form of pilot projects in these fields.

1.8

The EESC is pleased to note the culmination of the work carried out on Agenda 21 for tourism, the results of which, set out in the Commission communication entitled ‘Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism’, complete and consolidate the general policy of sustainability in European tourism. In fact, the technical document drawn up by the body created for this purpose forms the basis for and complements the Commission communication, and these two documents should, therefore, be considered in conjunction with one another.

1.9

With respect to statistics, the Committee welcomes the call for proposals launched by the Commission — and also requested by the European Economic and Social Committee — with regard to setting up a network of tourism observatories that would provide not only sectoral data, but also a strategic and forward-looking vision, anticipating and shaping future action.

1.10

The Committee is prepared to continue working on tourism along the lines set out in the Commission communication on the Agenda, and invites the other European institutions, the Member States, local and regional authorities, and sectoral stakeholders — businesses and trade unions — and the general public to be involved in understanding and supporting tourism as a universal right and economic activity with strategic importance for Europe's future. What is also needed is for stakeholders and consumers to act responsibly, in order to make tourism more sustainable and competitive.

1.11

Although the Commission communication takes account of the social factors that shape tourism, the Committee regrets the absence of any reference to the concept and reality of European citizenship; in fact tourism could go much further than it already does to help different cultures and social groups to cohere around the notion of European citizenship, which it is everyone's duty to promote and build on. The variety and diversity of cultures, languages and natural and cultural heritage in Europe's different Member States constitutes an enormous asset that can and should be used and enjoyed as a means of understanding one another and of acknowledging our rights as European citizens. Another aspect to which considerable importance should be attached in European-level discussions and documents on tourism is that of culture, given the synergies that can exist between tourism and culture, as was stated in an earlier EESC opinion.

1.12

In the process of making tourism more competitive and sustainable, account should be taken of destinations' specific features. The Committee recommends that attention be paid to the specific features of those Member States that are heavily dependent on tourism. Appropriate account should be taken of the needs of the different regions when drawing up tourism-related policies and proposals. It is recommended that that the Commission's impact assessments take into consideration the potential disproportionate impact on different regions and sectors, for example, on destinations such as islands, which are heavily dependent on air transport and have no other means of transport or depend almost exclusively on air transport.

1.13

The EESC considers that the set of principles and values detailed in the Commission communication, covering sustainability, social welfare, competitiveness, cooperation, partnership, profitability, security, quality of employment, etc., actually constitute a European Tourism Model, not because they form a set of rules but because these principles and values are widely implemented throughout the European Union.

1.14

The Committee wishes to encourage the Commission to forge ahead in conjunction with other organisations on the European-level certification of knowledge and skills in the field of tourism in order to improve the quantity and quality of jobs in the industry. Support should be given to the Europe-wide Europass (covering the EU, EFTA/EEA and the candidate countries), which is a means of presenting, in a simple and easy-to-understand way, the personal skills and qualities of hardworking job-seekers who are willing to move elsewhere in Europe for the purpose of work.

2.1.1

The challenge of striking a balance between sustainability and competitiveness. Section 1 of the Commission communication acknowledges first of all the key role of tourism in Europe's economy and its strategic importance, based not only on quantitative data but also on tourism's ability to create jobs and thus meet the objective of the renewed Lisbon strategy. It is worth mentioning the predicted growth rate of above 3 %, which clearly makes a sound contribution to the aims for employment, but which — in some cases and in the long term — could also lead to the limits imposed by sustainability requirements being exceeded.

2.1.2

Competitiveness and sustainability: two compatible requirements. The Commission communication clearly states that competitiveness depends on the sustainability and quality of the tourism experience and makes an explicit reference to the demands that climate change is making on the tourism industry. Corporate social responsibility can make a decisive contribution, by adopting measures to adapt to and combat climate change whilst promoting innovation and the value of tourism products for a world facing major challenges at the global level.

2.2

Substance of the Agenda. With its communication, the Commission proposes to strike a new balance between the welfare of tourists, the environment and the competitiveness of companies and destinations. This is a balance that needs to be achieved by all the stakeholders concerned.

2.2.1

Objectives and challenges. As a guideline for the action of all stakeholders concerned, the communication puts forward three basic objectives for the Agenda: economic prosperity, social equity and cohesion, and environmental protection.

The communication lists some of the major challenges that will have to be addressed if these aims are to be achieved:

This list of challenges is open and fluid and should be continually updated, prioritised and managed by the various stakeholders in a spirit of cooperation.

2.2.2

A framework for action. The communication suggests that coherent measures to meet the aims and challenges will involve securing the collaboration and responsible management of destinations, businesses and tourists and sets out the conditions for achieving this coherence.

2.2.3

Principles. The communication puts forward a total of nine principles that need to be complied with if this sustainable and competitive tourism is to be achieved. Three of them should be highlighted:

2.3

Moving forward together. In this section, the Commission underlines the need for all stakeholders in the sector to unite their efforts and work on a voluntary and continuous basis. The model proposed is based on respecting the principle of subsidiarity, with action ideally being taken by the destinations themselves but with support from the national and European levels. The communication therefore highlights both the role of the different stakeholders in the sector and that of the European Commission, in light of the Treaty.

2.3.1

The role of stakeholders. Following up the conclusions of the Tourism Sustainability Group, the communication assigns broad responsibilities and specific roles for the three areas of action: destinations, businesses and tourists. Particular reference is made to the need to express and convey to micro-businesses the core message of achieving a balance between sustainability and competitiveness.

2.3.2

The role of the European Commission. The Commission acknowledges its responsibilities to act in accordance with the Treaty and undertakes to launch and boost a number of different initiatives at Community level within the framework provided by the Agenda and beyond. Amongst these initiatives, four groups of action warrant special attention:

3.1

Tourism and its strategic importance for the European economy have been recognised by all the European institutions in both formal and informal statements on the subject, thus strengthening its role, conveying the message to all stakeholders and providing a major boost to the sector. Tourism's importance transcends purely economic considerations because it is central in social terms to constructing a citizens' Europe. Whilst recognising the boost provided by the communication, much remains to be done to ensure that tourism takes on this key role in European policy, both now and in the future.

3.2

It is particularly crucial to point out that the new Lisbon Treaty acknowledges tourism's importance to Europe and gives the European Union further options to help develop the sector. This Treaty confers on the EU the authority and the duty to support, coordinate or complement the action of the Member States and the objectives of encouraging the creation of a favourable environment for the development of undertakings in this sector and of promoting the exchange of good practice.

3.3

Tourism has been addressed in the different European institutions as follows.

3.4

The present EESC opinion is intended to be an evaluation of the communication's contributions to policy and the way in which it is managed; it also aims to make proposals that enrich if not the text itself, then at least the debate on it.

3.5

Similarly to the EESC opinion INT/317 on the Commission communication on the renewed tourism policy, this opinion wishes once again to state that:

4.1

The Commission communication gives a clear explanation of the proposal regarding the need for balance between sustainability and competitiveness and of how to achieve this in practice. Incorporating all this into a rather short communication certainly involved considerable work to summarise the material and required analysis of many documents, opinions and debates. It should be emphasised that the ultimate aim of clearly informing society about the Commission's basic views on the future of the sector and about the measures to be carried out in this complex industry has been achieved.

4.2

The arguments presented in the communication in support of the Agenda seem appropriate, in that they assess both the economic impact of tourism and its ability to create jobs for young people and also the necessary balance between sustainability and competitiveness which, in the long term, are of mutual benefit to one another. Impact assessments of matters such as the carbon footprint of different activities and regions or restrictions on carrying and reception capacity are key aspects of striking and maintaining a balance between these variables. Universal acceptance that there are limits to the scale and pace of tourism is essential to achieving balance between sustainability and competitiveness.

4.3

Perhaps it would have been useful for the communication also to analyse the new Lisbon Treaty in greater detail, trying to see how it ties in with the Agenda and what its significance for implementing the new European tourism policy is. It should not be forgotten that the Member States and the regions have repeatedly indicated that they wish to maintain their responsibility for tourism, but still allow the European Union to play a catalytic and coordinating role in certain areas of joint interest so as to improve the competitiveness of Europe's tourism sector. One example is the setting-up and management of an internet portal to promote Europe as a tourism destination, which has already become a valuable tool that can showcase all EU countries together as forming a diverse and special tourist destination.

4.4

The challenges and aims mentioned in the communication are certainly the most important ones that will be faced by tourism in the coming decades. Certainly the key challenges of sustainability and improving competitiveness are broad enough to serve as the basis for addressing other major challenges, such as enhancing quality, reducing seasonality or improving the skills of people working in the tourism industry. These challenges are also set out in the Agenda.

4.5

The communication repeatedly calls for collaboration, because, in line with the new tourism policy, strengthening collaboration is proposed as its linchpin and hallmark. It is particularly important to emphasise the role of the trades unions and employers' organisations, which must be included in cooperation arrangements, and asked to take part in all debates and forums, and in the implementation of general measures to improve the tourism sector. By the same token, it would be useful to promote permanent networks of tourist destinations and cities, motivated by the joint aim of improving competitiveness and sustainability. The Committee welcomes the promotion of the ‘European Destinations of Excellence’ and urges that this idea should include proper management of social and labour relations and participation of trades unions and employers' organisations at the selected destination, as a means of making tourist destinations more sustainable and competitive.

Within their remit, consumers' organisations have an extremely important role to play.

4.6

The Commission undertakes to implement this new policy on the basis of cooperation, specific new specific support measures and coordination between actors. The Agenda clearly wishes to see all stakeholders in the sector taking on greater responsibility. Into the Committee's view, the Enterprise DG has a key role to play in this task of coordinating all European policies that directly or indirectly affect tourism and which affect the different types of destination that also have their own specific features.

4.7

The Committee also considers that the Commission should play a more active role in introducing Europe-wide initiatives, including cross-border social tourism in Europe. Here in particular, the EESC has on several occasions proposed — and now proposes once again — boosting the European Tourism Forum and pushing forwards with discussions and, if necessary, a study on setting up a European Tourism Board and a European Tourism Agency, which would provide information and action on policies and measures adopted in the field of European tourism. It is also proposed that the Commission promote research into setting up technology platforms in the tourism sector, in order to improve the ways in which tourism is marketed, especially given the opportunities to boost internal tourism in Europe and potential sources of new tourists, such as China, Russia, India, etc.

4.8

The Committee considers that the communication does not pay adequate attention to the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the new scenario for tourism, both from the perspective of consumers and of businesses and stakeholders in the sector. Research and development work in the tourism industry to improve the use of such technologies must be a priority in the next few years. This work will undoubtedly lead to improved management of destinations, businesses and tourists, gradually achieving the sought-after balance.

4.9

The evident willingness to adopt concrete measures and in particular to improve the use of the available European financial instruments is important, but there is a need for a programme to be proposed for the precise purpose of implementing the major European tourism objectives, which the communication accurately identifies. It must be ensured that all the funds directly or indirectly allocated to tourism are used effectively and efficiently to achieve the objectives.

4.10

This communication should be viewed in the context of the major contributions made by the report by the Tourism Sustainability Group — a document that has provided significant ideas for the Agenda, in particular with regard to assigning roles to all of the sector's stakeholders. The efforts made by renowned experts over several months have clearly been very productive and provide complementary and practical approaches to a number of questions relating to sustainability and competitiveness.

4.11

The communication does not clearly indicate the role it assigns to tourism statistics. There is a need for clear collaboration on tourism statistics in order to monitor the Agenda's implementation and in particular for greater attention to be paid to the variables of sustainability, competitiveness and employment.

4.12

The communication clearly states the need to mainstream tourism policies for sustainability and competitiveness into all Commission and EU policies in order to ensure that the aims set out in the Agenda are met.

4.13

As already observed in the EESC opinion entitled the Katowice Declaration, and in the opinion on ‘Tourism and culture: two forces for growth’, in the opinion on ‘The renewed tourism policy’ and other EESC documents, communication campaigns are also called for to inform and motivate all European citizens, in particular young people.

4.14

The Committee considers it to be crucial that training, both formal and ‘on-the-job’, meets the needs of businesses and makes people more employable. European-level certification and recognition of knowledge and skills should be an instrument that helps to generate more jobs and better working conditions in the tourism industry.

4.15

In order to make tourism more competitive and sustainable, account should be taken of destinations' specific features. The EESC recommends that, when drawing up tourism-related policies and proposals, attention be paid to the specific features of those Member States that are heavily dependent on tourism and that appropriate account be taken of the needs of the different regions. At the same time it should be noted that tourism to remote destinations may have a particularly strong impact on climate change through the impacts and emissions from long distance travel. Greater emphasis may need to be placed in future on the advantages of seeking destinations nearer to one's starting point, which can be reached with less carbon emissions.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/18

1.1

Once again the Commission has asked our Committee to draw up an opinion on the integration of mortgage credit markets for the purchase of residential and other buildings, i.e. on the White paper on the integration of EU mortgage credit markets.

1.2

Usually White Papers are the outcome of a quasi-definitive and structured policy analysis of ‘what to do’. This is not the present case. Indeed, the Commission has to analyse many issues that are still uncertain, such as common investment funds, financial services providers, product tying, etc. In total, 14 aspects are considered.

1.3

As a result, the White Paper does not represent a completed process but, on the contrary, remains open due its effective and noticeable complexity. Why then has another opinion been requested, given that the White Paper adds nothing new to the Green Paper, and that the EESC has already adopted an opinion on the Green Paper?

1.4

This is an issue that, over the years, has been repeatedly tabled for discussion without the Commission finding a way forward and making a proper decision that overcomes the cultural, legal, administrative and other barriers, which the EESC considers to be the real obstacles to the Commission's objectives.

1.5

The EESC opinion on the Green Paper (1), adopted in plenary in December 2005 with only one abstention, remains entirely relevant.

1.6

The White Paper still paints a highly variegated picture of the sector due to the cultural, legal, legislative and socio-ethical specificities that purchasing property, and especially residential property, has in respective Member States.

1.7

Nevertheless, the EESC, albeit unsure about the real possibility of integrating and harmonising the EU mortgage credit market, which presents so many specificities and profoundly different characteristics (Burani opinion, 15.12.2005 (2)), endorses in principle the Commission's attempt to establish ‘rules’, whether optional codes of conduct (i.e. best practice) or binding.

1.8

Nevertheless, the measure may be considered as excessive if the intention is to reconsider the equally positive opportunities already inherent in the regulatory automatism of the mortgage credit market today.

1.9

In the meantime, the EESC recommends that the Commission should take steps to analyse in greater detail areas (e.g. credit registers, foreclosures, the dissemination of financial literacy) that do not present undue difficulty, always provided that this would be worthwhile.

1.10

The EESC believes that under the Commission's orientation, the measure still places undue focus on the possible short-term benefits of introducing new rules based on somewhat partial interpretative schemas of the mortgage credit market. A short-term approach serves to lower the cost of financing mortgages without, however, concerning itself with the effective benefit that EU citizens might derive from existing financial products and innovations affecting these products.

1.11

The EESC maintains (as also stated in the Burani opinion) that the framework proposed by the Commission is not properly aligned with continuous market developments; it is therefore concerned about the long-term consequences for more vulnerable contracting parties, i.e. those consumers most in need of protection.

1.12

The EESC welcomes the fact that a link has been established between the current mortgage credit rules and the need for consumer protection. These are laudable intentions worthy of encouragement provided that they are designed to foster greater financial literacy on the subject of mortgage credit. The Commission's intention to take steps to strengthen transparency rules in order to enhance consumer protection is therefore to be commended.

1.13

However, at the same time, imposing, at all costs, general rules for assessing the risk presented by prospective borrowers may prove to be a difficult and uncertain undertaking.

1.14

The EESC believes that consumers must be protected during mortgage negotiations but that borrowers must not lose sight of their responsibilities vis-à-vis the lender.

2.1

On 18 December 2007, the impact assessment {SEC(2007) 1683} accompanying the White Paper on the Integration of EU Mortgage Credit Markets was published. Three annexes were appended to the document: i) mortgage market characteristics ii) process iii) impact assessment on specific issues.

2.2

Although {SEC(2007) 1684} constitutes an excellent summary of the documents, in the interest of brevity, there are a few key points worth emphasising in the document in respect of which a new EESC opinion has been requested:

2.3

Thus, the Commission document takes up the points already studied in the earlier Green Paper on mortgage credit. It could not have been otherwise since the new document is about the integration of EU mortgage credit markets and the relevant impact assessments previously mentioned.

2.4

Nevertheless, the EESC adopted an opinion on the Green Paper on 15 December 2005 (rapporteur: Mr Burani), and to all intents and purposes, the EESC's position on the subject is set out in that opinion. In this opinion, the EESC will focus on two new points raised by the Commission:

3.1

The White Paper raises numerous issues to be solved, on which the EESC has been asked to give an opinion. These can be brought under eleven thematic headings:

3.2.1

Pre-contractual information . In order to reduce information imbalances during the pre-contractual stage, the EESC considers it important to circulate and disseminate information and raise awareness on specific mortgage credit issues. This should not incur further costs for citizens.

3.2.1.1

Increasing information and disseminating financial literacy are prerequisites for the efficient assessment of the cost-benefit ratio of a risk situation. Indeed, the best way to prevent contracting parties from assuming undue risk is to provide them with effective knowledge of these very risks.

3.2.1.2

The EESC believes that it is important to stress that the rules and binding provisions should cover methods for circulating information and provision of possible penalties for breaching them. Nevertheless, the EESC believes that imposing a sic et simpliciter obligation on one contracting party would merely have the effect of inciting that party to try to offset this obligation by shifting the burden onto the other party.

3.2.2

Codes of conduct . The EESC believes that incentives should be created to encourage adherence to the voluntary code of conduct.

3.2.2.1

This would give borrowers a clearer understanding of the risk they may be undertaking, and of their chances of obtaining favourable financing conditions.

3.2.2.2

The measure that springs to mind could involve making it compulsory for borrowers to answer a list of standard self-assessment queries on their medium to long term ability to meet the financial commitment.

3.2.3

Cost rate . The EESC believes that it is appropriate for lending institutions to disclose the total cost of the loan and provide a cost breakdown of its various components, including the fiscal variable.

3.2.4

Consultancy. The EESC believes that consultancy services strictly linked to mortgage credit should be enhanced via independent pricing mechanisms, albeit set out in the calculation of the total cost of the transaction.

3.2.5.1

Applicability . With regard to the issue of early repayment, a distinction should be made between (i) total or partial early repayment of the mortgage and (ii) early terminations relating to opportunities for negotiating more favourable conditions of cost with other financial institutions.

3.2.5.2

Cost . With regard to the issue of early repayment, the EESC believes that costs should be calculated according to the appropriate mathematical formulae and must, under law, be spelt out in contractual relations. Costs should only be charged to the client in case of voluntary repayment of the credit. In case of contract termination, costs should be charged to the successor financial institution.

3.2.6

Product tying . In order to be valid, product tying should depend above all on the ability to demonstrate the effective utility of tying the product. The EESC believes that this issue could be solved by obliging lenders to present cost-benefit calculations and giving borrowers a reasonable period of time to decide whether to accept the proposal, possibly even after the loan contract has been signed.

3.2.7

Credit registers . The EESC agrees on the need for a pan-European register, access to which would be regulated by specific privacy laws. Indeed, the EESC believes that setting up a pan-European credit register could also serve to heighten competition between mortgage lenders across Europe. In any case, cross-border access to the registers of all Member States should be facilitated by simplifying information procedures.

3.2.8

Property valuation . The basic premise is that property valuation is more complex than generic financial valuation. Indeed the specific nature of real property (notably, that it is immovable) determines its usefulness, and moreover, other external factors relating to its location influence its valuation. These factors include:

For this reason, it is pure idealism to believe that all these valuation factors can be summed up in a single formula.

3.2.8.1

Criteria for property valuations . The EESC therefore emphasises the complexity involved in real estate valuations arising from the abovementioned factors and does not consider it useful to define a specific blanket formula for property valuations. A better alternative would be to develop local best practice and strengthen the obligation for valuations to be carried out by operators accredited by the competent professional associations in their sector, who would also assume responsibility for the fairness of a given proposal.

3.2.8.2

Property risk valuations . The EESC is also of the opinion that property valuation should be accompanied by a volatility assessment vis-à-vis the identified value, in order to provide a more accurate evaluation of the guarantee offered by the property. The EESC also recommends applying instruments already in use by financial market operators and, for the most part, already established under other EU provisions such as, for instance, value-at-risk (5).

3.2.9

Foreclosures . If mortgage credit is split into an asset-backed loan and a personal loan, then we also need to distinguish between the financial beneficiary of the property and the owner providing formal guarantees.

3.2.10

Applicable law . The EESC believes that opportunities for profitable arbitrage between the different advantages offered by the civil and fiscal laws of individual EU countries would serve as a driver for otherwise unachievable market integration.

3.2.10.1

For this reason, the EESC is broadly in favour of leaving existing Member State legislation unchanged and allowing contracting parties to choose the one that cuts the loan transaction's overall costs, as already set out in the Rome Convention (6).

3.2.11

Usurious interest rates . The EESC reiterates its previously expressed views on this issue, especially with regard to the extreme difficulty involved in defining a usurious level of interest correctly by applying a regulatory framework set up for consumer credit. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that information remains the best defence against usury. The EESC therefore advocates setting up communication instruments on a vast scale to provide information about the risk premium bands applied to different categories of borrower risk.

3.2.12

Refinancing mortgage credit . The EESC believes that the White Paper's approach, which seeks to differentiate between refinancing rules on the basis of the subjective nature of the intermediaries (distinguishing between banking and non-banking institutions) is far too easy to circumvent.

3.2.12.1

Non-banking and service institutions . Mortgage lending should always be carried out by regulated and monitored banking institutions. Promotion and support from intermediaries (e.g. consultancies) are acceptable if provided by qualified institutions even if they are non-credit institutions.

4.1

The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States has revealed how the volatility of property prices combined with poor client-risk assessment practices with respect to non-payment of instalments that are out of proportion with the actual value of the mortgaged property itself, can generate a financial crisis serious enough to destabilise the entire system. For this reason, any EU action should draw on this experience as well as on the comments made under the previous point.

4.2

Introducing a twenty-eighth system for regulating mortgage credit to complement the ones that already exist in EU Member States, as suggested in the White Paper, could contribute to the integration of the EU mortgage credit market by increasing choice for the contracting parties without, however, creating the conditions for destabilising the financial system revealed by the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

4.3

It is common for real estate purchase choices, especially where homes are concerned, to be influenced in part by emotional (i.e. subjective) factors that have nothing to do with a proper and rational assessment of a property's value (i.e. objective factors). Thus, the effectiveness of any measures proposed by the Commission on mortgage credit cannot be separated from the reference context (objective as well as subjective).

4.4

It would therefore be interesting to develop a proposal, which the EESC could analyse further, and which would consist in adopting an interpretative schema for mortgage credit that subdivides each loan transaction into a portfolio of two passive components:

4.5

Adopting a twin-mortgage system could have a number of advantages to be verified during further analysis, including:

4.6

The EESC hopes that the Commission will bring this process to a conclusion as soon as possible, showing greater determination and creating conditions whereby the separation of the institutional aspects could be the basis for launching a twenty-eighth system.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/22

1.1

Contrary to what some might believe, the future of the construction industry will depend less on the public spending it receives (although greater continuity in programming would definitely not go amiss) than on the ability of the relevant authorities to work out a regulatory framework, applicable to all, that ensures maximum transparency in competition and the best use of the potential and know-how of businesses of every size.

1.2

In view of the above, the main recommendations of this opinion are as follows:

1.3

These are the only ways of preparing for the likely arrival in the near future of competitors from outside Europe.

2.1

In a letter dated 6 December 2007, European Commissioners Margot Wallström and Günter Verheugen requested the EESC to help advance the Lisbon Strategy by undertaking an exploratory opinion in order to examine whether legislation regulating the construction and the business services sector ‘form a coherent whole; whether they are geared towards change, both ongoing and forthcoming; and, finally, the extent to which it may be necessary to launch a process of simplification, streamlining and modernisation of the legislation in these areas. It should be clarified that the exercise could extend to any other legislation that has a bearing on the development of the sector (health and safety at work, environmental protection, etc.), and the legitimate interests at the heart of the sector should be integrated into the analysis’.

2.2

Consequently, all the points raised in the request for an opinion must be examined meticulously and systematically, since this is a vast topic and one which had earlier been the subject of several studies carried out by external consultants at the Commission's behest.

2.3

The present opinion, however, will confine itself to those aspects signalled by the requestor, namely changes or simplifications in legislation and rules governing the sector which should be made as part of an impartial and strategic inventory of the construction industry and serve to improve the conditions within which it operates and moves forward.

2.4

To this end, the opinion recaps a few useful facts about the sector to put the construction trades and constraints upon them into context.

3.1

Some figures for the construction industry, which comprises 2.7 million businesses, in the EU-27 in 2006:

3.2.1

Since the construction sector cannot be relocated, it is an integral part of Europe's future growth and its industrial fabric.

3.2.2

The very nature of what it produces and its need to have fixed bases — deeply rooted in local life — in every country means that it performs a social and civic role which should be kept in mind and fostered.

3.2.3

The construction sector must play an important role in all initiatives bearing on sustainable development:

3.2.4

No broad view of the sector as a whole would be complete without mentioning the sector's image, which is still to some extent poor despite the best efforts of the profession over more than thirty years. This is something the opinion should address, because it is reflected in:

3.2.5

The very nature of these trades, in terms of both the needs of clients and the diversity of skills involved, means that the market is extremely fragmented and will remain so for years to come. As a result, there will always be cohabitation between craftsmen, small, medium-sized and large companies.

The notion that this sector is all about big companies that only deal with large projects must be put into context: operations with a unit value over EUR 20 million account for no more than 2 % to 5 % of the total European construction market.

3.2.6

The large European groups that often feature prominently on the world stage are for the most part ‘federations’ of very locally based small and medium-sized organisations that operate in the same competitive environment as local independent SMEs.

3.2.7

Generally speaking, the large European players in this sector have not evolved on what might be termed the ‘American’ model, but have managed to sustain and develop their know-how by relying on their own acumen and participating in the conception of projects.

3.2.8

It is thanks to this approach that European businesses have carved out a place for themselves on the world markets. Nor is this model, based on integrating conception and execution, necessarily the prerogative of large groups: it can and must also be applied to companies of all sizes.

4.1

The challenge for this exploratory opinion requested by the European Commission must be to propose not only a streamlining of legislation, but also a course of action which:

4.2

Except in the case of fluctuations in the volume of markets (which is beyond the scope of this opinion), these various elements that should be incorporated into regulation should enable construction sector players to develop in an orthodox manner and so ensure that a coherent social policy (jobs — security — salaries) is followed and the sector is made more attractive for the various parties concerned (young parents, teachers, etc.).

5.1

The key areas where we think the relevant authorities should focus their efforts are these:

5.2.1

Action could be taken in the following areas:

With regard to this list, it should be made clear that the response to calls for regulatory change should not be to impose ready-made solutions but to provide contracting entities with a complete toolbox which they can use in line with their needs.

5.2.2

Taken as a whole, these modifications or adaptations should encourage transparency and a level playing field between private, public and quasi-public entities and make it quite clear that any funding is conditional on a tender and a formal contract.

5.3.1

What sets the construction sector apart is that everything it produces is a ‘one-off’. This is why we should have European legislation that protects intellectual property and recognises the special nature of the ideas to be protected, namely that they are conceived for a particular tender and will not necessarily be systematically reproduced. Specific legislation should be put in place at European level to protect technical ideas in the competition process and establish rights to protect tenderers.

5.4.1

A point commonly made by construction professionals in most Member States is that in general the needs of the sector are only very poorly met by most national educational systems, at all levels of training. In view of this, while relations need to be improved between the trades and education systems at national level, there should also be an impetus at European level, for instance by:

5.5.1

Current regulations have had a very beneficial and very profound influence on working methods in the construction sector. Nevertheless, it would be good to:

5.6.1

As suggested above, those in the construction sector have a very considerable role to play in meeting the challenges that face the world today, including climate change. They are ready, within an appropriate framework of regulations and incentives, to assume this responsibility and bring their added value to the European market. They are also prepared to pass on their know-how in the field to other corners of the world where, as we know, the efforts that need to be made are both enormous and crucial if all their benefits are to be felt by everyone.

5.6.2

To achieve this, it would be good to:

5.6.3

In both the construction and the transport sectors, if construction businesses are given a chance to participate throughout the ‘concept-implementation-maintenance’ process, they can make a decisive contribution, particularly in terms of ensuring financing for the requisite activities, in their capacity to manage overall costs and finance investments for future energy-saving measures.

5.7.1

The problem of SMEs in the construction sector — unlike in others (see point 3.2.5 above) — is not really one of access to this or that kind of market.

5.7.2

This is why those in the sector quite rightly see no justification in the quota approach thought up by some and rejected by the European authorities. Moreover, the figures mentioned by the various parties are in reality far exceeded in all European countries.

5.7.3

The issue of SMEs, other than matters covered by the Small Business Act, should, rather, be regulated with:

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/26

1.1

Ms Margot Wallström, Vice President of the European Commission for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy and Günter Verheugen, Vice President for Enterprise and Industry, asked the EESC to draw up an exploratory opinion on business services by undertaking a follow-up and further analysis on a previous opinion (1) that considered business services and industry.

1.1.1

This study should keep in mind the great importance attached by the European Commission to the Lisbon Agenda to preserve and increase European industry's competitiveness by managing the process of change in line with the European strategy for sustainable development and on the social level by encouraging the emergence of representative social partners to negotiate at the appropriate level.

1.1.2

The achievement of such objectives must move in parallel with the simplification of the regulatory framework for industry, a political priority constituting one of the key planks of the Commission's industrial policy.

1.1.3

Moreover, this industrial policy is characterised by an integrated approach that takes into account the needs of the different sectors.

—

Action on Business Services Policies and a High Level Group. It is recommended that a High Level Group on Business Services be set up to undertake deeper analysis of the sector, to screen existing policies in order to identify and assess the more effective and successful of these in regard to business services, and to design concrete policy actions to address major gaps and needs. Particular attention should be paid to the very diverse nature of the different business services subsectors in order to identify which ones deserve major policy attention and at which level (regional, national, EU) policy action is justified.

—

Labour Market Policies in Business Services. From a social perspective an in-depth examination is required at sectoral level of the challenges being created by the new types of employment generated by interactions between business services and manufacturing industry. This analysis needs to encompass education, training and life-long learning, as well as the employment conditions of workers, including those involved in outsourcing processes. To achieve this objective social dialogue at a sectoral level should be encouraged. In this context, an agenda should be drawn up to discuss specific changes in labour conditions and job opportunities resulting from structural changes affecting the business services sector.

—

Business Services in Innovation Policies. R&D and innovation programmes and actions for service innovation should be strongly promoted. Areas such as organisational innovation, Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) and innovation management deserve more attention.

—

Business Services Standards Development. Enterprises should be encouraged to help establish standards through self-regulation after thorough consultation with users of business services. The support of CEN and its Associates (open platform) is important to disseminate the fruits of successful innovation, especially through rapid informal consensus-building

—

Promoting Service Science as a new discipline in education and training.

—

The Internal Market and Regulation affecting Business Services. The EESC has identified a list of areas that need to be tackled in order to bring about simplification, clarification and a reduction of regulatory burdens, obviously without weakening existing health and safety at work requirements and worker representation obligations. Amongst other things, attention is drawn to the fact that no impact assessment has been carried out of the Services Directive on business services and that this deserves a major effort, especially once the directive has been transposed into national legislation. This should include the identification of possible further actions concerning more open trade and competition in the enlarged EU Internal Market.

—

Further Improvements in Business Services Statistics. Member States are recommended to collaborate more in order to improve statistics on business services and, in particular, to have better information on their performance and their effects on the economy of Member States — a necessary tool for governments if they are to help the sector develop its potential. Recent amendments to Chapter 74 of NACE will still not be enough to provide the necessary details required to capture meaningful data on business services.

3.1

Background. The EESC own-initiative opinion adopted in September 2006 — CCMI/035 — proposed that more serious attention be paid to business services because of the contribution they make to the performance of European manufacturing industries. That opinion explained the interactions between services and manufacturing and the impact on social and economic performance in terms of employment, productivity and competitiveness. That was taken as the starting point for this follow-up and further analysis of business services. It would be well to start the present opinion by defining business services as a set of service activities that — through their use as intermediary inputs — affect the quality and efficiency of production activities, by complementing or substituting in-house service functions (Rubalcaba and Kox, 2007). This definition has some equivalence with NACE rev. 1 (codes 72-74) and with the new version of NACE (codes 69-74, 77-78, 80-82) and the aggregation of different categories of services. There are two major categories within business services:

The aim of this opinion is to help this sector earn more recognition, to enable it to develop without hindrance and to help European economies in their efforts to become more competitive in the global market.

3.2

Importance of Services and Business Services. Services have an increasing place in the mindset of citizens, professionals, companies, regions and countries. Services to a large extent dominate the new demands and supplies of economic and social systems. Although they are present in most aspects of economic and social life, much of their activity is not captured by statistics. The traditional breakdown among productive sectors, even if it is incomplete and hides the strong interrelations among economic sectors, allows us to estimate the importance of major economic activities (see chart 1). Services as an economic sector are of increasing importance in Europe, with a share in total employment smaller (at 70 %) than in the United States (80 %) and larger than in Japan (67 %). In all these three areas, the particular subsector of business services has grown at a very dynamic pace, leading to similar increases in the share of total employment. Enterprises that provide business services as their main activity account for 10-12 % of total employment and value added. If one considers the business services produced as a secondary activity, the percentage employment would be much larger. In Europe in 2004 (see chart 3), the countries leading the business services economy were the Benelux area, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. In the period 1995-2004, some countries — Hungary, Poland, Austria, Latvia and Malta, among others — increased their business service sector quite substantially. This suggests a certain convergence process between some EU countries. These country positions only represent employment in companies that have business services as their main activity. Most of them are SMEs.

3.3

Assessment of Developments. The EESC has now re-assessed the situation in the light of developments since its previous opinion of September 2006 (CCMI/035) and noted with satisfaction how the importance of business services in manufacturing has acquired greater weight in decisions taken by the Commission:

3.4

Supportive Actions to benefit Business Services. On top of the major on-going EU actions promoting business services in industrial and innovation policies, and the potential spillovers generated by the internal market directive, there are other Commission actions that indirectly support the role of business services in manufacturing:

3.5

Major Needs of the Business Services Sector. Despite the current progress in actions related to services, major gaps and needs have to be considered. The current European policy framework is heavily biased towards the manufacturing industry, although services constitute by far the largest segment of the economy and contribute to growth in any aspect of business and social life.

3.5.1

Most of the horizontal and sectoral initiatives under the EU Industrial Policy, both at national and EU levels, focus on manufacturing industry regardless of the intrinsic supportive role that business services play in it. There is therefore an urgent need to establish a balanced EU policy that does not underestimate the importance of business services to the global competitiveness of European manufacturing itself and to the economy as a whole. Horizontal policies targeted at any economic sector must be truly horizontal and match the needs of firms and workers in the new service economy, where industrial and service sectors are inextricably linked, by create new opportunities for the European economy in the global market place as a direct result of synergies between them. Many of the EU policy initiatives that make up industrial policy must be adapted and applied to services. This involves matters such as: a fully effective internal market for services, international trade, state aid rules, labour market, social measures, training and regional policy, R&D, innovation, standardisation, entrepreneurship, and better statistics and information, taking into consideration, where appropriate, the specific needs of services. This should not be taken to mean that all policies should be vertical-specific to services. It should rather mean that the implications of all these policies in services should be screened and, when appropriate, specific actions should be taken.

3.5.2

Some major needs can be identified in the following areas:

3.6

Interactions between business services activities and targeted policies. Chart 4 attached to this report shows how tentative comprehensive actions could interact and enable business services to develop forcefully to face the challenges ahead. Synergies and interactions between different types of policies should be taken into account.

3.7

Economic rationale is needed when designing specific EU policies to boost the operations of business services, as Kox and Rubalcaba have recently demonstrated (Business services in European Economic Growth, 2007). In support of their arguments they mostly highlighted market and systemic failures such as information asymmetry and externalities.

3.8

Lisbon Agenda 2008-2010. Policies related to business services could be helpful in the context of the proposals for the Community Lisbon Programme 2008-2010 (COM(2007) 804 final). Most of the ten key objectives to be accomplished by 2010 affect services either directly or indirectly.

3.8.1

The Commission will propose a renewed Social Agenda by mid-2008 and will help to address the skills gap. Important deficits and needs may be identified in most business services, which are very labour intensive. In its opinion on ‘Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)’ (9), the EESC noted that the ambitious Lisbon employment objectives had only been achieved to a limited extent and that many of the new jobs created in recent years, particularly in the case of women, were part-time. Older workers were still faced with a manifest shortage of suitable vacancies, and young people in particular were mostly finding atypical (non-standard) forms of employment, in some cases without proper legal and social safeguards. The EESC opinion stressed that in the context of flexicurity there should be a high degree of social security, active labour-market policies, and education, further education and training.

3.8.2

Earlier this year, the Commission put forward proposals for a common policy on immigration. This may affect the immigration of highly qualified workers in areas such as knowledge-intensive business services and less qualified workers in activities such as cleaning or security services.

3.8.3

The Community will adopt a Small Business Act to unlock the growth potential of SMEs throughout their life cycle. Business services is the sector with the highest start-up and wind-up rates, so particular attention to new SMEs is deemed to be appropriate. In its opinion on ‘Business potential, especially of SMEs’ (10), the EESC advocated better targeted and streamlined integrated guidelines on SMEs for growth and jobs for the years 2008-10. SMEs will also benefit from the reduction of EU administrative burdens by 25 % by 2012.

3.8.4

The Community will strengthen the single market and increase competition in services. The same EESC opinion (INT/324, quoted above) complains of the incomplete single market, especially slow implementation of directives by Member States, administrative burdens and lack of labour mobility. These are huge barriers for SMEs to surmount.

3.8.5

The Community will turn the fifth freedom (the free movement of knowledge) into reality and create a genuine European Research Area. Knowledge-intensive business services may have a role to play in this Lisbon priority.

3.8.6

The Community will improve the framework conditions for innovation. The EESC has also produced an opinion on ‘Investment and Innovation’ (11). The main thrust was that Europe has to stay ahead in research, technological development and innovation and that more funding from the EU budget, improvement of education facilities and a general raising of standards were necessary. Also needed were: a social climate that is open to progress and innovation; the creation of the necessary conditions and the taking of decisions that give enough business confidence and optimism for investors to put their capital into new ventures in Europe; raising awareness of the fundamental significance of basic research and instilling an entrepreneurial spirit for those who are willing to innovate and take risks; and accepting a certain level of failure and losses that inevitably comes with risk. The EESC also looked at the legal and social environment for innovative entrepreneurship and an innovation-friendly market.

3.8.7

The Community will promote an industrial policy geared towards more sustainable production and consumption. The role of environmental business services in industrial policy may be placed under this priority.

3.8.8

The Community will negotiate bilaterally with key trading partners to open up new opportunities for international trade and investment and create a common space of regulatory provisions and standards.

4.1

Priority 1: A High Level Group on business services should be set up by the European Commission in the context of enterprise and industrial policy to ensure that policy actions take the broader view of services in their interactions with industry and economic activity as a whole. The following could be the main objectives of such a High Level Group:

4.2

Priority 2: A social dialogue dedicated specifically to the business services sector should be encouraged to discuss and formulate recommendations concerning:

In practice, the viability and effectiveness of such sector-based social dialogue (e.g. recognition of agreements, organisational support) will depend on the identification and recognition of representative European organisations of employers and employees.

4.3

Priority 3: R&D and innovation in services:

4.4

Priority 4: Development of Standards. Standards in services have been slow to develop. They are generally demand driven. On the side of business service providers there are structural problems. For the most part, these are small enterprises that do not belong to representative organisations in their country and this is also reflected at European level, where the category is not well represented in any European organisations. The only way to improve the situation, then, is for users to be mobilised to express their requirements. The market for business services stands to gain immensely from clear standards in this area. The development of standards can be useful to:

4.5

Priority 5: Further improvements in business services statistics. Policy actions depend on analysis of ongoing trends that can only be gauged from clear and meaningful statistics. The apparent lack of satisfactory productivity increases in relation to the USA could be partly due to unreliable statistics based on a methodology used to measure manufacturing performance. Further refinement of business services statistics demands not just a decision from Eurostat, but collaboration from national governments to change their methods of gathering statistics. Particular attention should be paid to measuring the role of business services within other industrial and service sectors.

4.6

Priority 6: Service Science

Service science (or Service Science, Management and Engineering, SSME) is a new emerging discipline covering the diverse and fragmented approaches towards services: service economics, service management, service marketing and service engineering, among others. The need for promotion and better integration of all these areas is being recognised by service researchers and businesses. Service engineering provides a good example within Service Science. It is a specific technical discipline concerned with the systematic development and design of service products using suitable models, methods and tools. Although service engineering also embraces aspects of service operations management, one of its key focuses is the development of new service products. At the same time, service engineering is also concerned with the design of development systems, in other words with service-related questions of general R&D and innovation management. Integrated approaches for co-engineering physical goods, software and services will become an established feature.

Fundamental research into new business models, methods and tools will give service science a valuable boost. Finally, the growing harmonisation of service standards will encourage the specification and efficient development of new services (12).

Service engineering is one of the few fields in the service sector that has been substantially shaped by European research. Closer integration in international networks and the systematic development of an independent service engineering community are essential in order to sustain a leadership role in this field in the future (13).

4.7

Priority 7: The Internal Market and regulation of Business Services

Reduction and simplification of the regulatory burden. There are several restrictive factors that work against enterprises in business services and neutralise their efforts to increase their productivity and to seek business in other Member States. These include problems of labour mobility and recognition of education qualifications. The volume and complexity of regulation has grown in recent years and this has increased the burden on small service providers. The most relevant points requiring attention are:

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/34

1.1

The Committee endorses the aims and objectives of the draft regulation as well as the recasting of Directive 76/768/EEC as a regulation.

1.2

The Committee draws attention to the fact that considerable costs are liable to be incurred, particularly by SMEs, in meeting the new requirements for manufacturing practices, safety assessment and product information file preparation, not to mention all the relevant tests.

1.3

The Committee considers it advisable to minimise this negative financial impact on SMEs, for instance by specifying that the product information file and safety assessment be prepared in accordance with the new requirements for products placed on the market for the very first time.

1.3.1

The Committee endorses the 36-month period for the entry into force of the regulation. However, with regard to updating the product information files and safety assessment of cosmetic products already on the market, the Committee recommends a further transition period of 24 months after entry into force.

1.4

The Committee welcomes the introduction of a differentiated regime based on the risk assessment of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (‘CMR’). The ban on the use of such substances should be maintained.

2.1

The main aim of the directive (Directive 76/768/EEC) is to protect consumer health while harmonising legal provisions on cosmetic products within the common market. An assessment of the current market situation shows that the amendments to Directive 76/768/EEC and their inconsistent transpositions by Member States have led to numerous legal uncertainties and discrepancies. For this reason, it has resulted in an administrative burden and unnecessary costs for the competent authorities as well as the industry without contributing to the safety of cosmetic products.

2.2

Simplification of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (the ‘Cosmetics Directive’) was announced in the Commission Communication ‘Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’ and in the Commission's Annual Policy Strategy for 2007 and in the Commission's Legislative and Work Program 2007. The Commission proposed to simplify the Cosmetics Directive in the form of a recast, i.e. a legislative technique which makes it possible to codify a legislative text and its amendments and to introduce substantial improvements.

2.3

On the basis of feedback from a public consultation launched in 2006, as well as several Commission studies, the Commission prepared an extensive impact assessment prior to drafting the proposal for a regulation (recast) (1).

2.4

The EU cosmetics sector is characterised by SMEs. 97 % of all EU cosmetic companies are SMEs and 80 % of them have less than 19 employees. SMEs account for approximately two thirds of all people directly employed in the cosmetics sector in the EU.

2.5

In terms of employment, there are approximately 150 000 people employed in the cosmetics industry in Europe. Since 1999, the European sector has been steadily creating new jobs (an increase of 1.2 % per year).

2.6

Apart from direct employment, the cosmetics sector has a strong indirect impact on employment such as retail, distribution and transport. It can be estimated that approximately 350 000 jobs are created indirectly by the cosmetics industry.

2.7

That is why the interests and views of SMEs in the cosmetic sector in the EU should be taken into consideration when analysing the impact of the present proposal.

2.8

Intra-community cosmetics exports have increased year-on-year since 1999 by an average of 5 % a year in terms of volume, and by 6.5 % a year in terms of value.

2.9

The cosmetics industry is an international business in which Europe is a very important player. The global nature of this sector is particularly relevant to the EU as a net exporter. In 2005, the export of cosmetic products outside the EU stood at EUR 16 billion, with imports at EUR 4.4 billion.

2.10

The situation varies from one Member State to another. Poland is an example of one such a situation. A considerable part of the Polish cosmetics sector is still independent with more than 400 enterprises, mostly SMEs, operating. The Polish cosmetics market, which experienced a growth of 8.2 % in 2006 and 7.2 % in 2007 and which still has strong growth potential, is a good example of steady growth, which is no longer being experienced in the EU's 5 largest developed economies (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain).

3.1

The proposed recast of Council Directive 76/768/EEC has the following key objectives:

3.2

The Commission proposal maintains the scope of Directive 76/768/EEC, and the definition of ‘cosmetic product’ remains unchanged. During the public consultation carried out by the European Commission most parties were in favour of recasting Directive 76/768/EEC in the form of a regulation.

3.3

A set of new definitions has been proposed for terms such as: manufacturer, importer, making available on the market, placing on the market, harmonised standards, traces, preservatives, colorants, UV-filters, undesirable effects, serious undesirable effects, withdrawal and recall. However, no definition has been proposed for the actual term ‘cosmetic product’.

3.4

The concept of a responsible person who is established within the Community has been introduced. Responsibility in cases of products supplied to the consumer from outside the EU, for example via internet was described.

3.5

‘New approach’ principles have been introduced: the reference to the harmonised standards in legal acts in the field of good manufacturing practices, sampling and analysis as well as claims relating to cosmetic products.

3.6

The minimum requirements for the safety assessment and the product information file (a product dossier) have been established. The Cosmetic Product Safety Report has been proposed as Annex I to the draft regulation. The safety assessment of the cosmetic product is based on the toxicological profile of its ingredients.

3.7

A differentiated regime based on a risk (but not a hazard) assessment of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (‘CMR’) has been proposed instead of the recent regime based on hazard. In general, the ban of CMR categories 1 and 2 has been maintained. However, the new approach allows, subject to rigid conditions, the use of CMR 1 and 2 substances if they have been found to be safe to use in cosmetics.

3.8

The overall strategy to ban the animal testing of finished products as well as timetables of deadlines for the prohibition of the marketing of cosmetic products containing ingredients or combinations of ingredients which have been tested on animals has been maintained.

3.9

The uniform approach to the management of undesirable effects and serious undesirable effects has been established. Data on undesirable effects and serious undesirable effects shall become a part of the Cosmetics Product Safety Report and will be communicated to the public. Additionally, serious undesirable effects shall be actively reported to the competent authorities.

3.10

The simplified, centralised, electronic notification in a ‘one-stop-shop’ has been proposed. Until now, prior to placing a cosmetic product on the market, notification had to be made separately in each Member State. The scope of information differs from one Member State to another. Moreover, the separate notification to poison control centres is currently required in several Member States.

3.11

The administrative collaboration between competent authorities and the application of good administrative practices have been strengthened.

4.1

The Committee endorses the aims and objectives of the draft regulation — the simplification and unification of certain administrative procedures — while ensuring a high level of consumer safety. The proposed regulation is undoubtedly transparent. The legal provisions it sets out clarify previous legal ambiguities that had led to divergent interpretations and applications.

4.2

Recasting Directive 76/768/EEC as a regulation will ensure the uniform application of legal provisions enhancing the free movement of products within the common market and simplify administrative procedures on EU markets.

4.3

While the simplification of administrative procedures could reduce certain costs (i.e. notification of products and notification to the poison control centres), considerable costs are liable to be incurred by SMEs in meeting the new requirements on the content of the product information file and compliance with harmonised standard EN ISO 22716 (GMP). It should be emphasised that current legal provisions do not require as high a level of detailed toxicological data as the proposed regulation.

4.4

It is to be expected that the additional costs incurred by the requirements set out in the regulation will depend heavily on the size of the enterprise. The costs pertaining to the preparation of the product information files and safety assessment will be borne, first and foremost, by small and medium-sized enterprises, which formerly used to prepare rudimentary data as specified in existing legal provisions.

In the case of large international corporations, one should not expect a considerable increase in costs due to their longstanding experience, expertise, human resources, technical background and access to third-party know-how. In the case of large enterprises manufacturing products on several EU markets, the centralised European notification system will definitely simplify former administrative procedures. This will partly reduce notification costs. Moreover, international enterprises have already implemented notification systems for their frame formulations (formulas).

4.5

In the case of SMEs, one can expect a considerable increase in costs relating to good manufacturing practices, safety assessment and product information file preparation, not to mention all relevant tests.

For research and the dossier and safety assessment alone, the costs of SMEs may increase by as much as 100 % for every new formula placed on the market. This will considerably increase production costs for SMEs and affect the retail price of products, thus impacting on consumer interests.

One should bear in mind that in the case of SMEs, product series are manufactured in considerably smaller volumes than those of large international concerns selling large quantities of products. As a result, the costs of research and the dossier and safety assessment per product are much higher for SMEs.

According to this impact assessment prepared by the Commission, this could be inadequate in the case of Member States with a high number of small and medium-sized enterprises, such as Spain, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria.

4.6

It seems advisable to minimise the negative financial impact on SMEs, for instance by specifying that the product information file and safety assessment are to be prepared in accordance with the new requirements for products that are being placed on the market for the very first time. It would appear necessary to extend the transition period for updating the product information files and safety assessment for products already on the market.

4.6.1

The Committee endorses the 36-month period for the entry into force of the regulation. However, with regard to updating the product information files and safety assessment of cosmetic products already on the market, the Committee recommends a further transition period of 24 months after entry into force.

4.7

The Committee welcomes the introduction of a set of definitions. This will facilitate the interpretation of the provisions of the regulation and help to remove legal uncertainties and inconsistencies. However, a new definition for cosmetic products has not been proposed. The cosmetics industry is highly innovative and new efficacies and product categories are introduced to the market each year. This may generate problems concerning product qualification (cosmetics, pharmaceutical products etc.) and ‘borderline products’. It is therefore necessary to undertake educational and information campaigns as well as strengthen market surveillance in this field.

4.8

The Committee welcomes the introduction of the concept of ‘a responsible person’. Establishing a responsible person — who may be an entrepreneur other than the manufacturer — is useful and consistent with existing market practices such as outsourcing and private labelling. Provisions concerning the responsible person establish responsibility in cases where products are made available on the market from outside the EU, for example via internet.

4.9

Furthermore, the Committee considers that other concepts should also be defined, so as to ensure legal certainty, especially since the instrument is in the form of a regulation. This applies in particular to the concepts of ‘fragrance’ and ‘active ingredient’.

4.10

The Committee welcomes the introduction of the electronic notification of cosmetics and frame formulas to poison control centres. It will certainly unify administrative procedures on the EU market.

4.11

The Committee endorses the introduction of new approach principles to legislation on cosmetic products. The application of harmonised standards, which can be voluntarily applied by the manufacturers and competent authorities, enables the unification of applied methodologies. Harmonised standards are a good example of self-regulation tools that are both useful and willingly used by the cosmetics industry. However, the Committee has reservations about the uncritical application of new approach principles. Consumer health and safety issues must be regulated by the relevant regulations.

4.12

The Committee welcomes the reference to harmonised standards for product claims. However, harmonised standards should address methods of efficacy assessment applied to prove the claims, not to the claims themselves. Claimed effects can be measured by reliable and reproducible methods. Moreover, harmonised standards should take into consideration scientific and technological progress and the vastness of the subject.

4.13

The Committee welcomes the introduction of a differentiated regime based on the risk assessment of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (‘CMR’) referred to in Directive 67/548/EEC (Article 12(2)). The ban on the use of such substances should be maintained. However, the current system is based on hazard (i.e. intrinsic properties of the substance) and does not take into consideration the dose and route of exposure. It could lead to the automatic ban of ethanol (i.e. alcohol) in case of its re-classification in CMR categories 1 or 2, despite the fact that the use of the substance in cosmetics is safe. The draft regulation provides that substances in CMR categories 1 and 2 may be used as compounds in cosmetics only subject to the simultaneous fulfilment of three conditions (Article 12(2)). However, one of these conditions assumes that the substance has to be legally used in food and nutritional products. But there may very well be cases where CMR 1 or 2 substances are considered safe for use in cosmetics but are not allowed for food (i.e. formaldehyde, boric acid etc.). The drafted provisions exclude any application of such substances in the cosmetics industry.

4.14

The Committee is aware of the transition periods for adapting the products dossier and safety assessment for products already on the market (Article 34). The draft does not specify whether the transitional period is only applicable to products being placed on the market, or also to products already on the market. Specifying the same transitional period (36 months) for all products — including those already on the market — may lead to a situation where products already legally on the market will have to be withdrawn because their labelling or their product information files has not been updated. The Committee endorses the 36 month-period for the entry into force of the regulation. However, with regard to updating the product information files and safety assessment of cosmetic products already on the market, the Committee recommends a further transition period of 24 months after entry into force.

In document SEC(2008) 117, the impact assessment report, the European Commission states: ‘All available statistics suggest that the number of adverse reactions to cosmetic products is very low. (…) Moreover, since the Cosmetics Directive entered into force the cosmetics industry has had no major safety crisis, unlike, for example, the feed sector’.

5.1

The Committee is aware of certain provisions included in the proposal of the Commission which could be difficult to fulfil. The most crucial ones include the scope of data required for the product information files and safety assessment (Article 7 and Annex I).

5.2

The safety assessment under Article 7 must be carried out by an independent third party, i.e. from outside the company in question.

5.3

In Article 7(3), the term ‘non-clinical safety studies’ is unclear. Available information reveals that this term is interpreted differently by various EU Member States. According to the interpretation of the competent authorities in Poland, clinical tests are tests for medicinal products. Research studies on volunteers used in the assessment of cosmetics (dermatological tests, compatibility tests, instrumental tests) cannot therefore be understood as clinical tests. However, they could not be regarded as non-clinical studies within the meaning of Article 7(3) of the drafted Regulation, either. According to Directive 2004/10/EC, the provisions on good laboratory practices are not applicable to the tests involving the participation of humans.

5.4

Moreover, a requirement that all toxicological tests and analysis necessary for safety assessment be performed in accordance with the principles of good laboratory practice prevents the use of most data included in toxicological databases and scientific publications, which are a valuable source of information. Even in recent scientific publications, one can very rarely find a declaration of compliance (or non-compliance) with good laboratory practice by the laboratories carrying out the relevant tests.

5.5

The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 4 of Annex I concerning the assessment of the purity and stability of packaging material, the evaluation of interactions between the compounds and the evaluation of the influence of product stability on its safety, and the specification of the ‘period-after-opening’ may be difficult to fulfil because there is no commonly available and recognised methodology, for instance in the form of international or European standards, or scientific publications. Hence, this data is not readily available.

5.5.1

The Committee welcomes the content of Annex I (Cosmetic Product Safety Report) with regards to minimum requirements for data and tests to be performed when preparing a product dossier. It will improve the quality of the dossier, facilitate market surveillance and therefore contribute to consumer safety.

5.6

The NOAEL value (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) which is necessary for calculating the MoS (Margin of Safety) is not available for many substances. The obligation to determine the NOAEL value will result in animal tests that violate the EU policy to promote alternative methods. It also contravenes the provisions of Article 14 (Animal testing).

5.6.1

New legislation should therefore clearly specify which tests manufacturers are to carry out on substances used in cosmetics in order to identify potential hazards for consumers.

5.7

The Committee does not accept that the list of ingredients may be indicated on the packaging alone (Article 15(g)); rather, if possible, it should be indicated on the product (container).

5.8

The Committee considers that cosmetic products must carry special warnings regarding their use by children, clearly and very visibly stating a minimum age and that they must be kept out of the reach of children.

5.9

The Committee is also of the view that the regulation should clearly stipulate that, in the case of distance-selling of cosmetic products, exactly the same type of information that must be displayed on labels and packaging when sold in shops must be clearly set out in distance sales offers.

5.10

The Committee endorses the increased pressure for administrative collaboration between the competent authorities and the application of the good administrative practices.

5.11

The Committee endorses rectifying the former Annexes containing lists of prohibited and allowed substances with restrictions to be used in cosmetic products, by adding the CAS and EINECS numbers and INCI names as well as establishing an electronic inventory of cosmetic ingredients.

5.12

Withdrawing former Annex I of Directive 76/768/EEC seems appropriate. The division of categories in the former list was rather arbitrary, and there were numerous repetitions of category groups, for example: ‘make-up powders’ and ‘products for making up and removing make-up’. Moreover, the former list is already out of date — there are new product categories available on the market, such as anti-cellulite adhesives, and make-up remover cleanser tissues with active substances.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/39

1.1

The EESC approves the Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC (COM (2008)123 final), recognising that these amendments ensure the harmonisation of the rules regulating all medicinal products regardless of the procedure under which marketing authorisation has been granted.

1.2

Applying the same criteria to all medicinal products ensures, in addition to the same quality, safety and efficacy criteria, a high level of public health protection, the efficient functioning of the internal market, and eliminates an unnecessary administrative and financial burden on businesses.

1.3

The EESC has always supported and continues to support the Commission's efforts to improve the safety of medicinal products, a fundamentally important factor in safeguarding human and animal health.

1.4

The EESC agrees that the Commission should be empowered to extend the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2003 to post-authorisation variations, regardless of the procedure applied, thus avoiding any obstacles to the free movement of medicinal products; and emphasises the importance of future provisions the Commission will have to adopt.

1.5

The EESC once again emphasises its conviction that we must waste no time in completing the single market also in those sectors where this has not occurred or is only partial.

2.1

In November 2001, the Commission presented sweeping regulatory reforms on medicinal products via two instruments, i.e. Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, and Directive 2001/83/EEC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1).

2.2

The abovementioned legislation was an extension of a profound reform initiated in 1993 through the creation of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), as set out in Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, and the implementation of new marketing authorisation procedures for pharmaceuticals (2).

2.3

Based on the principle of the free movement of goods, this regulation foresaw two procedures for marketing authorisation for medicinal products as of 1 January 1995:

2.4

The purpose of these marketing authorisation procedures was to ensure a proper assessment of the benefit/risk ratio and to define high quality, safety and efficacy criteria for the precise purpose of safeguarding human and animal health in the EU.

2.5

Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC strengthen these essential guarantees, setting out specific provisions for pharmacovigilance in order to achieve a high level of public health protection, with more frequent monitoring as well as enhanced and more targeted notification criteria for undesirable side effects.

2.6

During the course of periodic checks on the functioning of the authorisation system for pharmaceutical products, the Commission identified problems relating to variations that could occur downstream of Member State authorisations, which account for over 80 % of total marketing authorisations for medicinal products.

2.7

These variations coming after national authorisation are addressed by Regulation (EC) No 1084/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1085/2003, but the latter only cover manufacturing procedures, pharmaceutical packaging and intellectual property. They do not address fundamental issues such as, for instance, the inclusion of new therapeutic indications or methods of administration.

2.8

As a result, the post-authorisation procedures may in some cases vary in individual Member States, which can lead to different rules and classifications being applied to the same product. This may result in different levels of health protection being applied due to differences in the therapeutic classification or use of the same product, not to mention the fact that it could constitute a sometimes artificial obstacle to the intended freedom of movement of medicinal products within the EU.

3.1

In order to avoid the emergence of different conditions for the same pharmaceutical products, the Commission has decided to submit a proposal to amend Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC by requesting that the application of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2003, currently applicable to pharmaceuticals under the centralised procedure, be extended to all medicinal products regardless of the procedure under which they have been authorised.

3.2

The proposal under consideration falls within the scope of the simplification initiatives foreseen under Annex 2 of the Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2008. It consists solely in a legislative amendment to a number of articles in Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2003, which is thus extended to all medicinal products.

3.3

Prolonging the present situation would result in unnecessary administrative and financial burdens for businesses wishing to trade in several EU countries. These businesses are faced with the different rules applied by individual Member States and their respective administrative requirements, which, moreover, can create a de facto artificial obstacle to the principle of free trade.

3.4

The proposal is purely legal in nature and sets out to amend the legal basis of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2003 by empowering the Commission to amend the regulation's scope in order to ensure an effective harmonisation of authorisation rules.

3.5

The Commission emphasises that this legislative amendment was based on broad consultation with all stakeholders; and that the choice of a legal amendment — one of many options — was the one identified as best suited to achieving harmonisation in the post-authorisation phase, in keeping with high public health standards and legal consistency.

3.6

The proposed amendments to a set of articles are based on Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which provides for the use of the co-decision procedure, and is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality.

4.1

The EESC approves the proposal to amend Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC, recognising that these amendments ensure the harmonisation of the rules regulating all medicinal products, a high level of public health protection and the efficient functioning of the internal market, whilst also eliminating unnecessary administrative and financial burdens for businesses.

4.2

As in previous opinions on this issue, the EESC supports and even encourages the Commission's efforts to improve the safety of medicinal products, a fundamentally important factor in safeguarding human and animal health.

4.3

The EESC is therefore in favour of harmonising the rules regulating all medicinal products regardless of authorisation procedures through a simple legislative amendment, thereby simultaneously eliminating any future obstacles to free trade in such products.

4.4

The EESC, while in favour of modifying the legal basis, awaits the legislative proposal currently being drafted, believing it to be of greater significance to the future of the pharmaceutical sector.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/41

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/41

1.1

The EESC agrees with the Commission's diagnosis of the rail freight situation in the European Union and believes that its proposals are a move in the right direction, though modest compared with the scale of the challenge.

1.2

It believes that to improve the situation will require:

1.4.1

To achieve lower costs will involve pursuing interoperability and technical harmonisation in Europe. Historically, each network has made its own rules and regulatory and safety systems. Gradually, all the systems must be aligned and implementation of the ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) must be made a top priority.

1.4.2

Whenever realistically possible, by means of appropriate investment, the characteristics of the rail infrastructure should gradually be changed in terms of gauge, train length, gradients and axle load, in order to gear them to the needs of freight transport, as is the case for instance in the United States.

1.4.3

Real progress in competition and the opening up of the market would necessarily lead to greater efficiency and productivity. This raises the issue of rail staff training. New operators entering the market may find that there is a shortage of skilled workers. Care must be taken therefore to ensure that adequate training courses are set up so that this demand can be met and new highly-skilled jobs can be created.

1.4.4

The allocation of costs by infrastructure managers among the various operators must be reviewed and, similarly, the external costs of competing modes of transport should be better allocated so as to create the conditions for free, undistorted competition.

1.4.5

Initiatives such as the Betuwe line, the New OPERA project or FERRMED should be studied and supported so as to learn lessons while sharing experiences and good practice.

1.5.1

Binding contractual rules on compensation for customers who receive a poor quality service would provide a good incentive to improve the service provided.

1.5.2

There is a need to work at the quality and reliability of the various elements of the service. This concerns rolling stock and also signals, track and information systems.

1.5.3

A more reliable service also means reserving good train paths for freight, for instance by laying down priority rules to favour freight in cases of traffic clashes on those paths, while obviously bearing in mind the interests of all users. There would for instance be room for manoeuvre regarding traffic timetabling.

1.6.1

One of the complaints generally made about rail freight transport is the length and slowness of journeys. To resolve this issue, the freight paths mapped out should have a limited number of stops (or none) and should be designed to ensure there is little danger of traffic clashes with other trains; furthermore, when it comes to operational management in the event of traffic clashes, freight should be given priority wherever possible. High-speed night freight trains should also be developed.

1.6.2

Investment is also needed to prepare infrastructure for higher speed trains, while bearing in mind that greater speeds mean lower authorised axle loads. While something must be done about the current low speed of rail freight, it should be stressed that the most important factor is constancy in speed. Moderate but constant speed is better than the stop/start phenomenon that results in accumulating delays.

1.7.1

Longstanding traffic management principles and methods, which systematically give priority to passenger trains on preset theoretical paths, have an unintended but real knock-on effect: for a freight train, a short delay on leaving (for instance ten minutes) almost always results in a major delay on arrival (of a number of hours or even a whole day).

1.7.2

The development of technology in the medium to long term will increase real time fluidity in freight train traffic without using a preset theoretical path as the only reference point. The ‘moving block’ concept, built into the latest stage of the ERTMS, enables more trains to travel on the same infrastructure and better reactions in the event of disturbances. For this to work, all Member States must invest in the ERTMS so as to secure interoperability and continuity in the use of the various national networks as soon as possible.

1.7.3

Investment in capacity is nonetheless necessary for bottlenecks and loading/unloading platforms enabling transport system interoperability.

1.7.4

The issue of marshalling, loading and unloading yards is important but cannot be divorced from that of the secondary networks that serve the regions. The fact is that to be genuinely competitive, maximum proximity of rail freight transport to the client is essential.

1.8.1

Although it may not be very realistic to recommend setting up a trans-European freight-dedicated network, there is no doubt that a separate network would be the best way to promote rail freight transport, making it more reliable, more punctual, less expensive and faster. In the immediate future the option of freight-oriented corridors is more realistic, but in the absence of major transcontinental freight-dedicated networks, it may be possible to include in freight-oriented corridors an increasing number of freight-dedicated sections of line in order to link particularly active economic centres, as demonstrated by the success of the Betuwe line between the port of Rotterdam and Germany. All the Member States must become genuinely involved in implementing policies and regulations with a view to making the railways more competitive.

2.1.1

Whereas freight transport grew by 2.8 % a year between 1995 and 2005, rail freight's market share fell steadily, levelling off at approximately 10 % in 2005, its lowest level since 1945.

2.1.2

According to the Commission, the reasons for this poor performance are a lack of reliability, insufficient capacity, defective information management, slowness and a lack of flexibility. However, despite these shortcomings, new opportunities may arise in the current economic context, marked as it is by an increase in trade, road congestion, increasing fuel prices, and an ever growing concern for environmental conservation.

2.1.3

In the past, the Community has attempted to boost rail transport by means of a three-pronged policy approach:

2.1.4

It cannot be denied that the results have been disappointing when it comes to transnational transport.

2.2.1

The White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010 aimed to generate a shift from road to rail and already envisaged the establishment of ‘multimodal corridors giving priority to freight’. For the sake of practicality, the 2006 revised white paper scaled down its ambitions regarding the shift from road to rail and developed the idea of ‘co-modality’, though not without recalling the need to encourage the development of a rail network giving priority to freight.

2.2.2

It is this idea that is developed in the Commission's communication, setting the triple objective of improving speed, reliability and capacity for traffic on a network based on the existing trans-European networks.

3.1

The Commission recalls the initiatives already taken to encourage, improve or promote rail freight: developing interoperability and information (Europtirails), building infrastructure (Betuwe line) and establishing corridor structures. However, these have proved insufficient.

3.2

Three options are envisaged for form's sake: maintaining the status quo, bringing in new measures to set up a freight-oriented network, or running a specific programme to set up a European rail network dedicated to freight.

3.3

In accordance with the principles of ancient philosophy, the Commission considers that ‘in medio stat virtus’ and rejects the first and third options, one for lacking ambition and the other for being unrealistic.

3.4.1

The Commission hopes to develop transnational corridors so as to establish a freight-oriented network. This would involve identifying those corridors with an appropriate infrastructure while implementing an effective management and operating system. This cannot come about, however, unless the Member States sign up to the project as infrastructure managers.

3.4.2

In order to achieve this, the Commission envisages a series of legislative measures to tie in with the recasting of the first railway package planned for 2008, together with incentives and funding, the latter to be released from existing appropriations.

3.4.3

In this way, the Commission's plan is to give freight-oriented corridors legal definition, so as to encourage Member States and infrastructure managers to establish freight-oriented transnational corridors and to seek out financing for these structures, within the framework of existing financing packages.

3.4.4

One of the criticisms made of rail freight is the poor quality of service and a lack of client information. For this reason, the Commission hopes to implement a genuine quality and transparency policy and will propose a legislative measure on the publication of quality indicators. It also intends to publish a report on steps taken by operators to improve the rail service.

3.4.5

Certain sections of the network are saturated, particularly in central regions of the European Union, and this situation is likely to worsen in the years ahead. The key therefore is to invest in infrastructure capacity, particularly in terms of train length, gauge, axle load and maximum speed. The investment will clearly have to be targeted and coordinated. The Commission recommends that corridor management structures draw up investment plans and leaves open the issue of financing, which will have to be found within existing programmes.

3.4.6

The issue of traffic flow and rail freight efficiency ties in with that of the allocation of train paths to freight. At present, the allocation of train paths is decided by individual managers, according to rules that differ from one Member State to another. It would therefore be useful to harmonise the rules for allocating train paths so as to secure reliable, high performance paths.

3.4.7

To achieve this, the Commission plans to propose legislative measures for the international allocation of paths and on the priority given to freight, particularly in the event of network disturbances.

3.4.8

Freight traffic also requires terminals and marshalling yards. However, pressure on real estate in past years led to a tendency to reduce the number of these stations and terminals in urban areas.

3.4.9

On reading the Commission's proposals, it is clear that their success will depend on the measures taken and motivation shown by the Member States and rail sector players.

3.5.1

The observations made by the Commission on the state of rail freight require no particular comment and only confirm what was already known about the weakness of the sector. To improve the situation will mean mobilising those responsible in the public and private sectors, not only in terms of political willingness and business dynamism, but also in terms of financing.

3.5.2

This is definitely the weak point of the plan. The Commission is proposing a number of legislative measures, but no new allocation of resources. The legal approach may be useful, but is certainly not sufficient. The appropriations needed to implement the plan will have to be found from existing programmes. This will require delicate choices and will be difficult to manage, with measures in one area inevitably affecting another.

3.5.3

Lastly, the success of the plan presupposes strong commitment on the part of the Member States and managing companies, but the former are often short of funds and may have other rail priorities and the latter, which have nonetheless benefited from the separation of expensive-to-maintain networks from operation, are not always in the best financial state.

3.6.1

Establishing transnational corridors is clearly a prerequisite for freight development, but it is common knowledge that freight has up to now been sacrificed in favour of passenger transport. What is needed therefore amounts to a cultural revolution, with inevitable constraints to be accepted by the Member States, and dedicated funding, all the while bearing in mind that as far as the public is concerned the need to give priority to passenger trains goes without saying. The issue is therefore more that of optimal network management and the definition of freight-oriented networks that do not reduce the quality and punctuality of passenger transport. In establishing transnational corridors, account needs to be taken of track gauges in both the old and new Member States, the existing rolling stock employed by railway companies, freight movements in candidate and third countries, and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

3.6.2

The issues of information and transparency are certainly important, but it is clear that customers base their choices primarily on the criteria of price, reliability, speed, and facility of access to terminals and loading and unloading. The key factor is therefore service quality, which depends firstly on the mechanisms for organising rail traffic and secondly on considerable investment.

3.6.3

As regards rail freight competitiveness, it appears to be generally accepted that this type of transport is reserved for a certain type of merchandise, in particular large quantities of heavy goods. There is a need to increase client diversity, in particular through the use of containers, thus expanding the market and making it more competitive, in a context of increased fuel prices and a growing concern to promote sustainable development.

3.6.4

The Commission communication appears weak on the issue of financing, as it offers nothing in the way of specific financing and the solution proposed is founded on delicate choices within the bounds of existing funds.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/45

1.1

The EESC welcomes the European Commission's new ports policy communication which mainly proposes measures of a ‘soft law’ nature. The EESC furthermore supports the general focus on the establishment of a stable investment climate, the sustainable development of ports, a good social climate in ports and the consistent application of Treaty rules.

1.2

The European port scene is becoming more diverse in terms of the number of ports involved and the scope of port functions and services. The EESC recommends that EU ports policy should support this market-driven process by ensuring that all European ports are able to use their full potential in a sustainable manner.

1.3

The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to develop a rail-freight oriented network and urges Member States to give priority, without going to the detriment of rail passenger transport, to the implementation of major cross-border rail infrastructure projects connecting to ports.

1.4

The EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to issue guidelines to solve the ambiguities related to the application of Community environment legislation to port development and recommends that these are published before the end of 2008.

1.5

The European Commission should step up measures to ensure administrative facilitation in ports. The EESC therefore welcomes the Commission's intention to present a European Maritime Transport Space without Barriers in 2008. The Commission and, in particular, Member States should make further progress with the modernisation of customs and give this higher political priority.

1.6

The EESC agrees with the Commission that a level playing field among ports can be enhanced through the development of State aid guidelines and transparency of financial accounts. Equally, the guidance included in the Communication on the use of concessions, technical-nautical services and labour pools is felt to be generally helpful and clear. Finally, the Commission should take further initiatives to ensure fair competition between EU and neighbouring non-EU ports.

1.7

The EESC welcomes the Commission's aim to promote and enhance co-operation between cities and their ports. In particular, it invites the Commission to organise a proper study on the socio-economic impact of ports.

1.8

The EESC welcomes the Commission's decision to encourage European social partners to create a European sectoral social dialogue committee in ports.

2.1

Throughout the last ten years the EESC actively participated in the debate on a common EU ports policy. Given the key role seaports play for the socio-economic development, welfare and cohesion of the European Union such a common policy has significant added value.

2.2

The EESC adopted opinions on the Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure COM (1997) 678 (1) as well as on the two legislative proposals of the European Commission to open up markets for port services in European seaports (2). On 26 April 2007, the EESC furthermore adopted an own-initiative opinion on a common EU ports policy (3). Taking into account the confrontational climate which characterised the debate on the port services' Directive, this opinion focused on those aspects of a European seaport policy on which stakeholders in the port sector could reach consensus.

3.1

The European Commission published on 18 October 2007 its communication on a European Ports Policy. This communication is the result of a year-long stakeholder consultation process which consisted of two conferences and six thematic workshops. The communication resorts under the Commission's overall maritime policy strategy and is part of its new freight transport agenda.

3.2

The objective of the new European ports policy is to promote a performing EU port system able to cope with the future challenges of EU transport needs. According to the Commission, these challenges include the demand for international transport, technological change, emissions and climate change, dialogue between ports, cities and stakeholders and, finally, reconciliation with transparency, competition and in general the Community set of rules.

3.3

The communication's actual policy proposals generally consist of a mixture of interpretation of Treaty rules and an action plan with further measures, which are mostly of a ‘soft law’ nature.

3.4

These are:

4.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's communication as it recognises the strategic importance of seaports for Europe's external and internal trade as well as their contribution to economic development and employment.

4.2

The EESC particularly welcomes the fact that the Commission does not propose interventionist measures but focuses — within the scope of EU Treaty rules — on the establishment of a stable investment climate, the sustainable development of ports, a good social climate in ports.

4.3

The EESC is also pleased to see that the Commission is using ‘soft law’ as an alternative to legislation on the one hand and a case-by-case approach on the other.

4.4

The EESC nevertheless has a number of specific comments and recommendations on the different chapters of the Commission's communication.

5.1.1

The EESC takes note of the Commission's conclusion that movement of containerised cargo is currently concentrated in a handful of north-west European ports. It should however also be recognised that there is a trend towards participation of an increased number of ports in the European container market rather than a channelling of traffic through only a few ports. The strongest growing container ports in 2006 were mostly small and medium-sized ports located in various port ranges in Europe. Port ranges located at substantial distance are thus increasingly competing with each other (4). EU ports policy can support this process by ensuring that all European ports are able to use their full potential in a sustainable manner.

5.1.2

The EESC highlights in addition to the list of challenges identified by the Commission those of globalisation and consolidation which characterise the European port and shipping sector. This phenomenon is especially visible in the container market but also occurs in other markets such as ro-ro, general cargo and bulk. European seaports deal with international shipping groups and large terminal operator groups have emerged which now provide services in several European ports. The challenge for a port authority is to ensure commitment from these global operators as well as compliance with the development objectives of the port in respect of relevant European policies.

5.2.1

The EESC agrees with the Commission that the first option to cope with increased demand for port and port-related capacity should be an optimisation of the use of existing port facilities and access routes. The EESC further agrees that a full societal cost-benefit analysis should be made before new infrastructural developments are envisaged. These should take into account economic, social and environmental considerations as these form the pillars of the EU Lisbon agenda.

5.2.2

As explained above, market processes are already driving towards a more diverse European port scene. The bottom-up principle should be fostered whereby project proposals are designated by the managing body of a port in conjunction with regional or national authorities where applicable. This does not, of course, alter the fact that the EU shall continue to formulate objectives and to provide guidelines.

5.2.3

The Commission can however use the 2010 mid-term review of the Trans-European Transport Network to help resolving bottlenecks with regard to hinterland connections to ports. This should however be done on the basis of objective criteria.

5.2.4

The EESC furthermore repeats its request to the Commission to step up efforts to solve remaining bottlenecks in the hinterland through its general transport policy instruments, in particular with regard to inland navigation and rail freight. Especially rail remains a serious bottleneck for the optimal performance of ports and their integration in logistics chains. In this respect, the EESC welcomes the Commission's initiative to develop a rail-freight oriented network and urges Member States to give priority, without going to the detriment of rail passenger transport, to the implementation of major cross-border rail infrastructure projects connecting to ports.

5.3.1

The EESC very much welcomes the Commission's initiative to issue guidelines on the application of Community environment legislation to port development. This will mean an important step forward in solving some of the ambiguities created by EU legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Water Framework Directive. Given the urgency of the matter, the EESC recommends that these guidelines are published before the end of 2008.

5.3.2

The EESC further also invites the Commission to consider additional measures to reinforce the legal status of port development projects and simplify existing legislation, as outlined in more detail in the EESC's own-initiative opinion (5).

5.3.3

Clearly stating that contaminated sediment has to be subject to appropriate treatment, the EESC further recommends that pending legislative proposals which will affect the management of water bodies and sediments, such as the Waste Directive and the ‘Daughter Directive’ of the Water Framework Directive (6), must recognise that non-contaminated sediment is not to be regarded as waste and does not have to follow the treatment of contaminated sediment because dredging operations of non-contaminated sediment do not introduce nor add any substances of pollution into a water body.

5.3.4

Finally, the EESC agrees with the Commission's proposals regarding the provision of ship's waste reception facilities in ports and the improvement of air emissions. The EESC recommends that economic incentives through harbour dues are best left to the discretion of each individual managing body of the port since such measures would affect the financial structure of ports which differs greatly in Europe.

5.4.1

The EESC welcomes the intention to present a legislative proposal on the creation of a European Maritime Transport Space without Barriers in 2008 and refers to the specific comments which it has already expressed in several earlier opinions (7).

5.4.2

The EESC further repeats its recommendation that the EU should make further progress with the modernisation of customs and ensure that its policies on customs, maritime safety, security, public health and environmental quality are properly coordinated and harmonised and do not unduly transfer government responsibilities to ports.

5.4.3

The EESC supports the development of single windows and the deployment of ‘e-maritime’, ‘e-customs’ and ‘e-freight’ initiatives. At the same time it believes that ITC-based solutions should be cost-effective, also for smaller and medium-sized ports.

5.4.4

Finally, on efficiency improvement, the EESC supports the Commission's proposal to develop a set of generic European indicators by the end of 2009 provided these respect commercially sensitive data. These indicators, based on the ones existing in the fields of air-, coastal-, and combined rail transport, are to be developed accordingly for elements relevant to ports, such as performance of ports installations, collaboration between ports and the pooling of hinterland activities.

5.5.1

The EESC endorses the Commission's view on the role of port authorities and the diversity of port management systems in Europe. It particularly subscribes to the recognition that the important tasks of port authorities can be better fulfilled if they enjoy a sufficient degree of autonomy and, especially, full financial autonomy.

5.5.2

The EESC equally welcomes the Commission's announcement to adopt guidelines on State aid in 2008. In this respect, the EESC refers to the basic principles on the use of public funding in ports it has elaborated in its own-initiative opinion of 26 April 2007.

5.5.3

The EESC is also pleased to see that the Commission has adopted its recommendation to extend the provisions on transparency of Directive 2006/111/EC to all merchant ports, irrespective of their annual turnover.

5.5.4

In its own-initiative opinion the EESC recommended guidance on the use of selection procedures, such as tenders or other acceptable instruments, conditions for concessions and land-lease agreements as well as guidance on the legal status of those port services which service as a public service, for example for the overall safety in ports.

5.5.5

The Commission has met this request by providing guidance in its ports policy communication on the use of concessions and technical-nautical services. The EESC finds that the Commission's interpretation of Treaty rules and case-law is generally helpful and clear. The EESC however underlines that technical-nautical services have the common characteristic of being related to safety of navigation which should justify their qualification as services of general economic interest.

5.5.6

An intelligent concession policy should ensure intra-port competition as well as optimal performance and commitment of terminal operators. The EESC recommends that the Commission regularly reviews the guidance it has provided on concessions to ensure that it effectively matches the above objectives and contains sufficient common elements so as to guarantee a level playing field among port authorities. The latter is particularly relevant given the ongoing consolidation process in the cargo handling market as outlined above.

5.5.7

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal to help disseminating best practices on transparency in port charges. The EESC firmly believes that port charges should be set at the local level of the port so that they can optimally match the requirements of port users and the overall interest of the port.

5.5.8

Finally, the EESC is pleased to see that the Commission has taken up its recommendation to address cases of unfair competition by neighbouring non-EU ports. Through its accession and external relations policies, the Commission should also step up actions to address politically-inspired distortions such as the Turkish embargo on Cypriot-flag ships and ships emanating form Cypriot ports, the Aegean Sea Turkish-Greek problems as well as the Baltic-Russian border crossing problems.

5.6.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's aim to promote and enhance co-operation between cities and their ports. Integration of ports into cities and city life combined with a strong awareness, interest and even pride of citizens in port activities are vital for the sustainable development of ports. In this respect, the EESC particularly supports synergies with tourism, recreation, heritage and culture generally.

5.6.2

The EESC also emphasises the lack of reliable data on direct and indirect employment and added value generated by European ports. It has for instance the impression that the employment data used in the Communication largely underestimate the actual situation. The EESC therefore invites the Commission to organise a proper study into this field.

5.6.3

Finally, the EESC supports the Commission's intention to assess the impact of security measures on accessibility of ports and to provide guidance on how both can be reconciled.

5.7.1

The EESC emphasised the need to promote good and safe working conditions and surroundings as well as constructive labour relations in ports. The EESC notes with satisfaction that the Commission devotes considerable attention to this theme in is ports policy communication.

5.7.2

The EESC repeats its view that the efficiency of operations in ports depends both on a reliability and safety component which are, despite technological progress, to a large extent determined by the human factor. This explains the need for a qualified and well-trained workforce in ports, both landside and on board ships. The EESC has recommended that social partners should play an important role in creating and maintaining these conditions and that, at European level, the Commission should support their input by facilitating social dialogue.

5.7.3

The EESC is therefore pleased that the Commission's has decided to encourage European social partners to create a European sectoral social dialogue committee in ports within the meaning of Commission Decision 98/500/EC.

5.7.4

The EESC supports the Commission's intention to set up a mutually recognisable framework on training of port workers but proposes to first compare the different existing systems of professional qualifications for port workers. This could usefully be done in the context of the European social dialogue.

5.7.5

Finally, the EESC agrees with the Commission that the implementation of rules on safety and health of workers in ports, be these Community rules or rules established by the International Labour Organisation, need to be closely monitored and statistics on accidents improved. However, the EESC also urges that initiatives be taken at all levels within the adequate forums to secure a further improvement of safety and heath.

3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/49

1.1

The EESC believes that all self-employed drivers should be included in the scope of Directive 2002/15/EC (as of 23 March 2009), as provided for by Article 2 thereof.

1.2

This requires Member States to have transposed the directive correctly, particularly the definition of self-employed driver.

1.3

The EESC feels that inclusion of these drivers is necessary in order to promote road safety, foster fair competition and improve the working conditions of mobile and self-employed workers — particularly their physical and mental health. It is understood the general administrative tasks as defined in the directive (Article 3, a-2) are not included in the definition of working time.

1.4

The EESC considers that an internal market in European road transport requires a level playing field, based on the effective practical implementation of social legislation for the industry. Making a distinction as regards the implementation of legislation on working time between mobile and self-employed workers helps to create unfair competition. For this reason the EESC cannot accept the option of only including ‘false self-employed’ drivers in the scope of the directive.

1.5

To counter the potential difficulties in implementing the inclusion of these drivers the EESC recommends co-liability between the various operators in the transport chain, as per the regulation on driving time and rest periods.

1.6

The EESC points out that promoting cooperation at European level between the different national administrations is essential if the directive is to be implemented effectively.

1.7

The EESC believes that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the directive must not result in them being burdened with unnecessary administrative tasks.