28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/1

1.1

The European Economic and Social Committee welcomes the Commission proposal laying down rules on conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations in the form of a European regulation. This closes a gap which has hitherto significantly impeded the development of a single European legal area.

1.2

The Committee offers its encouragement to the Commission and urges it to complete its initiative as rapidly as possible, taking account of the suggested changes and corrections set out in point 9 below, so that the regulation can enter into force.

1.3

The Committee welcomes the Commission's efforts to remedy, through full harmonisation, the fragmentation of the important area of private international law relating to non-contractual obligations. This will bring inestimable benefits in terms of simpler application of the law. Instead of having to establish in each individual case which system of rules on conflict of laws will apply and familiarise themselves with these rules which, at least in detail, differ from one Member State to another, users of the law will in future be able to use a single set of rules which, as regulations are directly applicable, will be identical in all Member States.

2.1

With this regulation the Commission for the first time sets out to create a single set of rules on conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations in the European Union. A single set of rules on conflict of laws regarding contractual obligations has already existed since 1980, when the majority of western European states decided to conclude the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the Rome Convention). Other states subsequently acceded to the Convention. The vehicle of a multilateral convention was chosen because, at that time, the EEC Treaty did not provide a legal basis for the adoption of an appropriate legal instrument by the Community. Conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations is still governed by the rules of the Member States which, although often based on a common understanding of the subject matter, differ significantly, at least in their details, and have been differently shaped by national case law and academic interpretation. This results in many difficulties for users of the law, including problems in obtaining the relevant rules, language problems, and problems of familiarisation with a foreign legal culture and academic and case-law interpretation. Because these areas are closely interrelated, the law on obligations covers both the contractual and non-contractual kind, and the provisions of the Rome Convention, while representing a major improvement, have always been considered incomplete. The Convention has always lacked a section dealing with non-contractual obligations. The harmonisation of the rules on conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations promises considerable progress vis-à-vis the current situation in the Community in view of the greater certainty and predictability it will bring to the process of determining the applicable substantive law. It would of course be still more beneficial to users of the law if the Rome I and Rome II instruments were to be combined in a single legal instrument. However, the Committee recognises that the procedures regarding the two projects are at completely different stages and that this is therefore a remote prospect. Rather, the priority must be to establish a functioning system for non-contractual obligations. The Committee regrets that, because of the reservation expressed by Denmark on the basis of Title IV of the EC Treaty, the planned legal instrument will not be directly applicable in that Member State (although there will be an option for voluntary application), and the harmonisation effect will therefore be less than ideal. The Committee is glad that the United Kingdom and Ireland have expressed a willingness to apply the instrument.

2.2.1

The regulation should be seen against the backdrop of a broad range of Commission legislative activities, whether complete, planned or still in preparation. The Committee has on several occasions had the opportunity to comment on individual Commission proposals.

2.2.2

Attention should first be drawn to activities in the field of procedural civil law, in particular:

2.2.3

Attention should also be drawn to activities in the field of substantive civil law, in particular:

2.2.4

The initiative is particularly closely related to the Commission's work on conflict of substantive laws, which it began with the publication of a Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention into a Community instrument (10). The Rome II Regulation is complementary to, and a natural extension of, the Rome I Regulation proposed in the Green Paper.

2.2.5

All these activities are geared to the objectives of establishing a European area of justice, creating a legal framework which makes it easier for all economic operators to use the European internal market, increasing legal certainty and facilitating application of the law by the courts and European citizens' access to the law.

3.1

The purpose of the regulation is the unification of the rules on conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations. The harmonisation of conflict rules falls under Article 65(b) TEC. This means that the Commission is empowered to act where this is necessary for the smooth operation of the internal market. In the Committee's view, this is the case, as harmonisation will help to ensure equal treatment of economic operators in the Community in cross-border cases, increase legal certainty, simplify application of the law and thus promote willingness to enter into cross-border business, as well as promote the mutual recognition of legal acts of the Member States by making it easier for nationals of other Member States to check that they are legally correct.

4.1

The regulation is intended to apply to conflict of laws in civil and commercial matters (Article 1(1)). In order to avoid misunderstandings, this should be specifically stated. The Commission could use the terminology of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Article 1), as this is clearly defined. The exclusion of tax and customs matters is self-evident. There is no harm in specifically mentioning it, however.

4.2

The regulation does not set out to regulate the entire area of non-contractual obligations. The Commission would therefore be well advised not to aim too high and thereby make the project unwieldy. The exclusion of family, maintenance and succession issues (Article 1(2)) is therefore to be welcomed. In view of their social implications, these matters are traditionally dealt with in conflict rules by means of separate instruments.

4.3

The exclusion of obligations arising under the bills of exchange or cheques, as well as those arising out of nuclear damage (Article 1(2)), is justified by the fact that these matters are adequately dealt with in separate agreements (11), the scope of which extends beyond the Community and the continued existence of which should not be called into question.

4.4

The exclusion of company law matters in Article 1(2)(f) is unavoidable, as the issues in question are so closely bound up with the company statute as to require regulation in this context.

4.5

Trusts are a specific feature of Anglo-American law. They are a legal vehicle situated mid-way between company law and the law on foundations, functionally similar to the German Treuhand and without legal personality. Trusts are unknown in the legal systems of the continental European states. Because of these specific features and because of their proximity to company law they were excluded from the scope of the Rome Convention (Article 1(2)(g)). As the regulation excludes company law, it is logically consistent that trusts should also be excluded (Article 1(e)).

4.6

The regulation requires the specified law to be applied, whether it is the law of a Member State or of a third country (Article 2). In so doing it is following a generally recognised standard in conflict of laws, which in principle prohibits discrimination against other systems of law in conflict rules. The Committee wholeheartedly welcomes this. If the circumstances of a case require that a specific system of law be applied, it makes no difference whether or not it is that of a Member State.

5.1

Article 3, which deals with obligations arising out of a tort or delict, goes to the heart of the matter. Theoretically, a number of criteria, usually grouped together without distinction under the catch-all heading lex loci delicti (commissi) could be applied here, i.e. the law of the place where the event occurs, that of the place where the damage arises, that of the place in which the indirect consequences of the event arise or that of the place of habitual residence of the injured party. All these criteria have a basis in tradition and strong arguments in their favour. All are in fact used in various current systems of conflict rules. The priority task of the Commission is therefore to introduce a uniform set of rules in all Member States. This is the key task, and the question as to which of the existing solutions is adopted is secondary to this. With regard to subsequent practical application, it must be borne in mind that in most cases all or many of these criteria in practice coincide. The place of habitual residence of the injured party will generally be the same as the place where the event occurred, which will in turn be the same as the place where the damage arose. In practice, therefore, any dispute over the criterion to be applied will perhaps be rather theoretical. The Commission has opted for the law of the country in which the damage arises. It is perhaps questionable whether this is consistent with recent developments in legal consolidation in this area (12), but the Commission's choice is justifiable on the grounds that it gives priority to protection of the injured party, without however completely neglecting the interests of the party causing the damage. This would for example be the case if the law of the habitual place of residence of the injured party alone were to apply. Exclusive reliance on the law of the place where the event occurred would inappropriately favour the party causing the damage (13), as the injured party's legitimate claim to protection would not be met. The Commission's attempt to balance the interests of the various parties seems in every respect acceptable. The restriction placed on the general rule by Article 3(2) in cases where both parties have their habitual residence in the same country is realistic and prevents unnecessary recourse to foreign systems of law. Paragraph 3 is appropriate as a general corrective and corresponds functionally to Article 4(5) of the Rome Convention. In practice, however, care will have to be taken to ensure that this exception clause for individual cases is not used in those Member States which have hitherto applied the system of law of the place where the event occurred to circumvent the new approach intended by the Commission.

5.2

In cases involving product liability (Article 4), the applicable law is that of the place where the person sustaining damage has his habitual residence. The approach adopted can be seen as a compromise proposal, particularly in the light of the sometimes stormy debates preceding the hearing of 6 January 2003. Other possible criteria discussed seem less appropriate: the place of purchase may be purely fortuitous, and under certain circumstances may even be virtually impossible to establish (Internet purchases). In product liability cases the place in which the damage arises may also be fortuitous (if for example the purchaser suffers the damage when travelling). Finally, the place of manufacture might also not be a satisfactory criterion, as, against the background of globalisation, this may have little relevance to the issue. The criterion actually chosen, on the other hand, focuses on protecting the interests of the injured party. The choice of this criterion is all the more justified, given that, at the hearing held by the Commission on 1 January 2003, the representatives of industry, which is most directly affected by the proposal, and the insurance sector mainly came out in favour of that approach as a concession to the consumer representatives. The restriction to the general rule (marketing without consent) takes sufficient account of the legitimate interests of industry, as its representatives themselves conceded at the hearing.

5.3

The provisions of the regulation on unfair competition (Article 5) are based on the principle traditionally applied in this area, namely that the applicable law shall be that of the country in which competition is directly and substantially affected. This rule entails equal treatment of domestic and foreign competitors in relation to the rules which they are required to observe. The same subject is, however, dealt with differently in Article 4(1) of the draft Directive on unfair business practices (14), with reference being made to the Member State of establishment principle. Although the explanatory memoranda to these two legal instruments do not address this difference, the disparity in the application of general principles of Community and internal market law can be resolved as follows: Article 5 of the regulation refers to external Community law relating to non-Member States (or in areas not covered by the directive), whereas Article 4(1) of the directive deals with relations between Member States in the internal market. If this is in fact the intention, the Commission would do well to make it clear in the explanatory memoranda to the two legal instruments. However, this still leaves an unacceptable situation whereby the same rules apply to EU and non-EU competitors within a given Member State, whereas different rules may apply if the competitors in question are from different EU Member States (this is, however, a question of the degree of harmonisation of substantive competition law brought about by the directive).

The restriction on the general provision of Article 5(1) is intended to deal with a case which in practice is likely to occur only rarely, namely where an act of unfair competition exclusively affects the interests of a specific competitor. This justifies application of the general rules on torts and delicts. The Committee suggests that consideration be given to changing the title of this provision to ‘Competition and unfair trade practices’, to make it clearer that the regulation is intended to cover all infringements of competition comprehensively.

5.4

It might at first sight appear surprising to find rules on violations of privacy and rights relating to the personality (Article 6) in a legal instrument dealing with conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations, as in many systems of law these issues fall within the ambit of law relating to the person. Recently, however, a different approach has gained ground in many Member States, with this issue being brought into the ambit of torts and delicts. In this sense, it is reasonable to deal with it here. Moreover, there is an undeniable link with the issues dealt with in Articles 5 and 8. The rule laid down in Article 6(1) is worthy of support. The same is true of the rule on the right to reply in Article 6(2). The Committee wonders whether the exception in favour of the lex fori might not in certain circumstances be rendered superfluous by Article 22.

5.5

With regard to violation of the environment (Article 7), the basic rule is consistent with the reference to the tort and delict provisions of Article 3, although the person sustaining damage has the option to base his claim on the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred (which may be more favourable for him). Clearly, by providing an exception to the general rule which, disguised as a conflict of laws provision, allows the injured party the choice of applicable law, the Commission is pursuing objectives which actually have nothing to do with conflict of laws, but which are rather intended to encourage potential environmental polluters to take environmental protection very seriously by threatening them with the application of a more stringent system of substantive law. This is also made clear in the explanatory memorandum to Article 7.

5.6

The principle applicable to protection of intellectual property rights (Article 8), that the applicable law shall be that of the country for which protection is sought, is already generally accepted in this area. The consequent equal treatment of EU and foreign citizens in a given jurisdiction is welcome. A situation where a foreign citizen's intellectual property received either greater or lesser protection than those of an EU citizen would be difficult to justify. Article 8(2) is therefore merely stating the obvious.

6.1

Although the law on torts and delicts, dealt with in Chapter II, Section 1 of the regulation, forms the core of non-contractual obligations, rules dealing with unjust enrichment and actions performed without due authority are nonetheless also needed. Other non-contractual obligations, varying in number and scope, are recognised in the Member States, which could be regulated by a general clause, as the Commission rightly does in Article 9(1).

6.2

If a non-contractual obligation is based on an existing legal relationship between the parties (which would include contracts), it is self-evident that the law governing the existing legal relationship would apply (secondary connection). The Rome Convention, which lays down rules on application, should, however, be applied to contracts specifically referred to in the regulation. Article 9(1) is, however, worded sufficiently flexibly to permit its application in conjunction with the provisions of the Rome Convention without any conflict arising. The provisions of Article 9(2) correspond to the text of Article 3(2) of the regulation and are therefore justified for the same reasons.

6.3

The provision on unjust enrichment, which applies the law of the country in which the enrichment takes place (Article 9(3)), is consistent with the principles recognised in most Member States. If the enrichment takes place on the basis of an (ineffective) contractual relationship, the logic of Article 9 dictates that Article 9(1) shall apply (15). This should be stated more explicitly in the operative part of the text so as to leave no doubt in the minds of those less well versed in the law. The rule set out in Article 38(1) and (3) of the German civil law implementing law (EGBG), which follows the same principle, could serve as a model. According to information provided by the Commission representative, this would be the case only if no secondary connection could be established under Article 9(1) or (2). The Committee feels that this should be stated much more clearly in order to prevent misunderstandings on the part of users of the law.

6.4

With regard to actions performed without due authority, the regulation applies the law of the country in which the beneficiary has his habitual residence (with the exception of the special cases referred to in the second sentence of Article 9(4)). This rule confers an advantage on the beneficiary in relation to the conflict rules. If the law of the beneficiary's habitual place of residence were applied, this would place him at an advantage. One way, apparently not considered by the Commission, of achieving neutrality in the conflict rules would be to declare applicable the law of the place where the transaction occurs. The Commission is asked to consider whether a solution of this kind would not be more appropriate. Especially as, in the second sentence of Article 9(4), the Commission has already adopted a similar approach. According to information provided by the Commission representative, this would be the case only if no secondary connection could be established under Article 9(1) or (2). The Committee feels that this should be stated much more clearly in order to prevent misunderstandings on the part of users of the law.

6.5

The exception clause of Article 9(5), which invokes the law of another country if this is manifestly more closely connected with the obligation, is consistent with Article 3(3) of the regulation and is therefore justified. The question arises as to whether an overarching principle cannot be derived from this which would apply to all the provisions of the regulation, including those set out in Articles 4-8, to which it is not intended to apply. The Commission should consider this and, if appropriate, incorporate a corresponding rule into Section 3. In this case Article 3(3) and Article 9(5) should be deleted.

6.6

The Committee considers Article 9(6) to be superfluous, as the same effect is already achieved by the special rule contained in Article 8. It would do no harm to retain the provision, however.

7.1

The title of Section 3 of Chapter II is unnecessarily complicated and difficult to understand. The Committee recommends that the example of the Rome Convention be followed and that the section be entitled ‘Common Provisions’.

7.2

By granting the parties the freedom to choose the system of law after the dispute has arisen (Article 10), the regulation is rightly following a progressive trend which can, for example, also be seen in Article 42 of the German EGBG or Article 6 of the Dutch private international law. The Committee welcomes this. The reservation regarding non-applicable law in Article 10(2) and (3) is standard practice for preventing parties from circumventing the law and is therefore unexceptionable, although it does make practical application of the law more complicated.

7.3

The provisions regarding the scope of the regulation contained in Articles 3-10 are based in a modified form on the model of Article 10 of the Rome Convention. The considerable detail testifies to the Commission's commendable efforts to achieve a high level of legal certainty.

7.4

One potential problem area, however, is the provision of Article 11(d), in view of the fact that, in accordance with generally accepted principles, the procedural law will be subject to the lex fori. The Commission should leave this principle intact. Any procedural steps for enforcing and (in a preventive way) safeguarding material claims should be taken in accordance with the law of the competent jurisdiction. The question as to whether such a material claim exists should be dealt with in accordance with the law designated under Articles 3-10. The wording of the explanatory memorandum suggests that this may have been the Commission's intention. Where court procedures and material claims are inextricably linked, an exception from the lex fori rule would appear justified and the lex causae could be applied.

7.5

Article 12, which deals with the difficult subject of overriding mandatory rules, is based, mutatis mutandis, on Article 7 of the Rome Convention and is therefore in line with standard practice in conflict rules. The title, which differs from that used in the Rome Convention, reflects developments in terminology since 1980.

7.6

Article 13 provides for the automatic applicability of rules of safety and conduct, which is in principle justified. However, the Committee considers that the rules applied should be those in force at the place where the perpetrator acted, as he could be expected to observe them. The provisions of Article 7 of the Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents can, contrary to the assertions of the explanatory memorandum (p. 25), be interpreted in this way, as the article refers to the rules in force at the place and time of the accident. The Commission representative also interpreted Article 13 in this way. The Committee considers that this is not made sufficiently clear, at least in some language versions. The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to state unequivocally in Article 13 of the regulation that the applicable rules of safety and conduct shall be those in force at the place where the perpetrator acted.

7.7

The rule regarding direct action against the insurer of the person claimed to be liable is appropriate and is the substantive corollary to the procedural rule set out in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.

7.8

The rule regarding subrogation (Article 15) is consistent with Article 13 of the Rome Convention and poses no problem. The Commission will need to make sure that this remains true when the Rome Convention is reworked as a European regulation (Rome I Regulation). The same is true of Article 17 (Burden of proof), which is consistent with Article 14 of the Rome Convention. Article 16 is a successful adaptation of the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Rome Convention which, in the light of the different subject matter, can only serve as a starting point.

8.1

The matters dealt with in Chapters III and IV are predominantly technical rules consistent with general standards in conflict of laws; they therefore pose no problem and require no detailed comment. This applies in particular to Article 20 (Exclusion of renvoi), which is consistent with Article 15 of the Rome Convention, Article 21 (States with more than one legal system), which is consistent with Article 19 of the Rome Convention, Article 22 (Public policy of the forum), which is consistent with Article 16 of the Rome Convention and Article 25 (Relationship with existing international conventions), which is consistent with Article 21 of the Rome Convention.

8.2

For the purposes of the regulation, Article 18 assimilates to the territory of a state certain areas which do not normally fall within such territory. This has the effect of closing certain undesirable gaps in the law and preventing fortuitous application of systems of law. The Committee welcomes this.

8.3

The habitual place of residence of a person plays a central role in current private international law, and consequently in the regulation, when determining the applicable law. Although determining the habitual place of residence of a natural person is usually unproblematic, doubts may arise in relation to legal persons. The regulation disposes of such doubts in an appropriate way by declaring the main place of business to be the decisive criterion. It would not have been appropriate to model this provision on Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, as this regulation generally takes the place of permanent residence rather than that of habitual residence as the criterion, and also as the threefold solution adopted there would have meant less legal certainty.

8.4

Article 24 was incorporated into the text by the Commission only as a result of proposals made at the hearing of January 2003. It is based on Article 40(3) of the German EGBG, the purpose of which is to prevent, by means of substantive law, claims being lodged which are generally regarded in the Community as excessive, thus rendering superfluous any dispute or discussion as to whether such claims are incompatible with public policy. The Committee wholeheartedly endorses the Commission's intention. But would the interests of a party claiming compensation be served if (for otherwise perfectly sound legal reasons) he were to be denied compensation for damage suffered merely because, under a foreign system of law, provision was made both for damages which would be considered acceptable in the Member States but also for punitive (e.g. triple) damages which would not be considered acceptable? The Committee fears that the current wording of Article 24 might have exactly this effect. It therefore proposes that the provision be reworded as follows:

‘The application of a provision of the law designated by this Regulation shall give rise to no claim for damages only where such damages would clearly serve purposes other than the appropriate compensation of the injured party.’

8.5

Article 25 of the regulation contains a proviso on international conventions to which Member States are parties, giving these priority regarding conflict-of-law rules relating to non-contractual obligations. This provision broadly corresponds to Article 21 of the Rome Convention but, unlike the Rome Convention, does not exempt future treaty commitments which deviate from Community law. This difference arises from the intention that the regulation should be binding on national legislative authorities and from the need to prevent further fragmentation of the law in the Community in the future. The Committee welcomes this proviso, as it enables the Member States to continue to honour existing treaty commitments and to continue to be parties to important conventions, which in some cases are applied worldwide. In this context, the Committee would quote as examples the Berne Convention on the protection of literary and artistic works of 9 September 1896, the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), the International Convention for the unification of certain rules of law relating to assistance and salvage at sea of 23 September 1910 and the International Convention relating to the limitation of the liability of owners of sea-going ships.

—

clarify the relationship between the Article 5 of the regulation and Article 4(1) of the directive on unfair competition and adapt the explanatory memorandum accordingly;

—

reconsider whether giving the injured party the choice of applicable law in cases involving violation of the environment (Article 7) is really appropriate;

—

clarify the relationship between Article 9(3) and (4), on the one hand, and Article 9(1) and (2), on the other, in the text of the regulation;

—

consider whether, in Article 9(4), it would not be more appropriate to declare applicable the system of law of the place where the transaction takes place;

—

consider whether Article 9(5) should be made a general principle of the regulation and inserted in Section 3;

—

amend the title of Section 3 to read ‘Common Provisions’;

—

make it clear in Article 13 that the rules of safety and conduct applied shall be those in force at the place where the event occurred;

—

reword Article 24 to read as follows:

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/7

1.1

It has long been recognised that the European-based pharmaceutical industry plays a critical role in both the industrial and health sectors. Within European institutions there has been considerable emphasis on developing the various components which make up the industry and the consequent advantages to patients.

1.2

To this effect the Lisbon Council in 2000 set the EU a strategic goal of ‘building the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’, in which the pharmaceutical industry would play a vital role.

1.3

The Council of Ministers, in its conclusions on Medical Products and Public Health in June 2000, underlined the importance of innovative medicines, with significant added therapeutic value, to the attainment of both industrial and public health sector goals.

1.4

A report ‘Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals: a European perspective (1)’ (usually referred to as the Pammolli Report) was presented to the Commission in November 2000. The Report identified a number of issues that needed to be addressed and concluded ‘Europe was lagging behind the USA in its ability to generate, organise and sustain innovative processes that are increasingly expensive and organisationally complex’.

1.5

The background to the Communication from the Commission is to consider the issues identified both in the Pammolli Report and subsequent reports because the pharmaceutical industry is recognised as playing an important health, social and economic role in the European Union.

1.6

Important progress has been made with the establishment of the Community marketing authorisation procedures and the creation of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) in 1995.

1.7

In March 2000 a health policy advisory group to the Commission stated that the public health goal of the pharmaceutical sector is ‘to make readily accessible, efficacious, high quality safe medicines, including the more recent and innovative ones, to all those who need them, regardless of their income or social status’ (2).

1.8

The Commission remains committed to completing the single market in pharmaceuticals by encouraging research and development (3) through making the EU more attractive for investment and establishing systems which provide more patient choice through the affordability and availability of medicines.

1.9

In addition the Commission set up a new High Level Group on Innovation and the Provision of Medicines (G10 Medicines) (4) which was intended to take a fresh look at the problems facing the pharmaceutical sector in relation to national and community competencies which govern it and to come up with creative solutions.

1.10

The G10 Group published its report ‘High Level Group on innovation and provision of medicines’ in May 2002 and the consensus approach it adopted in the 14 recommendations made by the Group forms the basis of the Commission's ‘Call for Action’ on which the EESC is invited to provide an opinion (Appendix).

1.11

The position has been further reinforced by the Council Resolution on ‘Pharmaceuticals and Public Health Challenges — Focusing on Patients’ (5).

2.1

The purpose of the communication is to ‘set out how the Commission sees the G10 recommendations being taken forward in the current context’. In areas of national competence the Commission sets out a proposed direction it believes Member States could take and what the Commission can do to facilitate the process and in particular to have the important function of monitoring change and effectiveness.

2.2

In this context the Commission sets out in its communication five broad themes which encompass the issues within Europe:

3.1

The pharmaceutical industry is one which has complex inter-relationships with health care systems, research, patients, and competitor companies. It is a large employer within the European Union. The industry is required to be innovative and to function well with different systems in the USA and Japan. The emphasis of this Communication is to engender an integrated approach in order to build advantage for the industry and patients as well as to stimulate its continued development as a major contributor to a dynamic knowledge-based, competitive economy in Europe. The EESC acknowledges that this is a major task.

3.2

The competitiveness of the industry is a matter of considerable concern and comparisons are frequently made with the success of the industry in the USA. It is important to emphasise that this is not because of any intrinsic weakness on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, but is the consequence of the fragmentation of the markets, which remain highly differentiated at national level. This results in a fragmented approach to research, innovation and the classification of medicines into prescription and non-prescription categories. This arises because of dependence on the decision-making process of 25 national governments and the resulting differences in their social security and health policies. This affects investment in research and development, the availability of products and ultimately the benefit to patients in a consistent way across the Member States.

3.3

It is vitally important that the role of the industry is considered in relation to the established health care systems in the Member States, how and to what extent they are financed and how to ensure that patients in each of the Member States have access to every medicine authorised in the EU. Whilst this is a key objective for the Commission the EESC recognises the divergence that exists in ensuring the availability of medicines and the ability within the Member States to fund this aspiration and the EESC is particularly concerned about the potential impact on the accession States.

3.4

The EESC recognises the growing importance of involving patients in decision making and in developing partnerships between public, private and patient groups for mutual benefit. Whilst the EESC welcomes the inclusive approach proposed by the Commission it was disappointed that the G10 group on medicines did not have a wider representative base.

3.5

The EESC acknowledges that evidence shows the decline in the competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical industry. However, whilst weaknesses in the European model for the industry have been identified, it is important to focus on the available skills, established structures and achievements within Europe rather than assuming that the US model is necessarily the best or only way forward taking into account all the interests at stake. The key aim in the EU model is to achieve efficiency of the health-care systems that meets the needs of patients, whether medical, economic or social, whilst promoting the economic activities of the pharmaceutical industry.

3.6

The basis of the Communication from the Commission is very wide and the EESC would draw attention to its previously expressed concerns that the steps required to achieve progress in these areas have been slow to date and is concerned as to how the Commission will be able to achieve more rapid progress in the light of this communication (6).

3.7

The Commission emphasises the importance of monitoring and evaluating the achievements against defined performance indicators. The EESC echoes these concerns about the lack of consistent statistical information and evidence on which to judge progress and proposed development. Better processes are required with which to define what information should be collected and the EESC would wish to see a much more proactive and transparent system being established.

3.8

It is acknowledged that the pharmaceutical sector provides high quality employment that goes beyond the immediate industry employees as it involves other research sectors, allied companies, universities and the health sector. There is, however, concern that without a more coherent approach to research and innovation in Europe, accompanied by adequate investment, that skilled employees will be lost to the sector in Europe.

3.9

Whilst the EESC is aware of the difficulties in achieving the single market within existing and future Member States it wishes to see clear strategies in place to achieve this goal in the pharmaceutical industry because of the divergence between EU level and national competencies on the marketing of medicinal products and particularly because of the differing health care and funding systems in each Member State. The EESC would again emphasise the great importance it attaches to the fact that protection of human health should take precedence over all other areas of regulation as stated in previous opinions and because of the public health goal of the pharmaceutical sector to make high quality safe medicines, including innovative ones available to all who need them regardless of their income or social status (7).

4.1.1

The responsibility for health care is becoming increasingly shared with patients taking a more active interest in their own health and care options. The importance of involving patients has been recognised by the Commission and the EESC welcomes the emphasis on creating and supporting ways of ensuring patient involvement at all levels.

4.1.2

The recently formed European Patients Forum will provide a useful mechanism through which to channel patient views which can enhance the EU Health Forum established in 2001 to bring together a range of European health stakeholders which should include social organisations with health related interests. These initiatives recognise the respective roles of State and non-governmental organisations in public health which need to be supported.

4.1.3

In this context it is important that individual patients or patient groups involved in such decision-making processes should be well briefed on the processes involved and the extent to which influence needs to be exerted. It is essential that mutual trust be established between those who have professional and technical expertise and those whose role it is to ensure that the public receives accurate and comprehensible information on medicines.

4.1.4

The EESC views it as critically important that the quality and availability of information to patients and the public are strengthened particularly in relation to their objectivity and availability. This was acknowledged by the Council of Ministers in the conclusion on Medicinal Products and Public Health in June 2000. To this end the EESC would strongly support the proposal for the development of a ‘kite mark’ to establish ‘quality criteria for health-related websites’ and that this should also apply to the other forms of information provision. It is essential that information should be used to inform individuals and where appropriate encourage them to seek advice from health care professionals, as the avoidance of an over or inappropriate consumption of medicines must be a priority.

4.1.5

The proposal to establish a collaborative public private partnership involving a range of contributors to inform, advise and monitor information provision is welcomed and the EESC would encourage the bringing together of pharmaceutical companies, representatives of patients, academic, social, mutual and disabled persons' organisations, scientific and health professionals which can contribute to improved patient information and health education. Such partnerships could provide essential information to governments, the EU Parliament, Commission and Council of Ministers on a range of issues pertaining to the industry and the health care of individuals.

4.1.6

The use of information dissemination to enhance public health in the Member States will be one of the important elements to enable greater harmony and promote valid collection and analyses to be carried out more effectively.

4.1.7

The EESC strongly endorses the proposal that the prohibition on advertising prescription medicines to the public should remain. The issue of advertising non-prescription medicines needs to be handled with great care to ensure the appropriate use of medicines.

4.1.8

The EESC would endorse the view that responsible self-medication is best achieved when the potential user benefits from advice from a knowledgeable health professional. Inappropriate self-medication can lead to delays in starting treatment and in some cases adverse interactions with prescribed medicines.

4.2.1

The EESC strongly supports the definition of ‘relative effectiveness’ as adopted by the Commission in relation to health-care technologies such as medicines. This comprises the ‘added therapeutic value (ATV) being a composite of clinical effectiveness compared to other treatments and the cost effectiveness per se’. However, it is recognised that there might be some difficulties in Member States adopting this approach so it is important that sufficient time is allowed to encompass this effectively.

4.2.2

The EESC recognises the importance of ensuring the increasing availability of -effective (not least in terms of cost), new and safe medicines for the greatest number of people. The application of the relative effectiveness criteria in Member States will have a direct impact on prices and reimbursement that are the responsibilities of each Member State. The EESC wishes to draw attention to the impact on social care budgets which differ between Member States which prevent the prescription of the most efficacious medicine because of budgetary constraints.

4.2.3

It would be advisable to promote the exchange of experience in evaluating cost-effectiveness, in order to improve the evaluation techniques used in the various Member States.

4.3.1

The EESC is in agreement that a strong pharmacovigilence system is vital and believes that existing systems must be strengthened. All health professionals involved in the prescribing or dispensing processes, as well as patients, should participate in an effective post marketing surveillance system applied to all medicines. This spontaneous reporting system should be particularly stringent for newly marketed medicines. Additionally, should the move to more rapid licensing take place it would be necessary to complement this with careful pharmacovigilance using observational studies to seek evidence of the expected safety of the medicines in question, or any unexpected toxicity as rapidly as possible.

4.3.2

Whilst randomised controlled clinical trials are the accepted way to demonstrate efficacy of medicines, they are usually of insufficient size or are conducted on patients who are unrepresentative of all potential users of the drug. These trials are therefore unable to provide evidence of potential risks, especially in vulnerable categories of patients. Thus the observational studies add a different type of information to the controlled trials, and indeed complement them. Observational studies can only rarely give information about desired effects, although they can sometimes give details of when an anticipated (good) effect did not occur.

4.4.1

The EESC recognises the position of the pharmaceutical industry in its contribution to the European trade balance in high technology and in meeting social and public health goals. It is a key source of highly skilled jobs. It is therefore critically important that the legislative and regulatory frameworks operate smoothly to encourage and support the industry and that EU Member States act at national level to ensure that new medicines with added therapeutic value are available to their patients as quickly as possible. It is important to promote and support research to enhance the development of new treatments.

4.4.2

Whilst the EESC endorses the key actions proposed by the Commission it is of the view that:

4.4.3

The EESC would support the Pharmaceutical Review to improve the functioning of the Centralised and Mutual Recognition procedures in order to speed up the evaluation process and to shorten the time for the final decision to be taken. The fact that the Commission and the EMEA have already reduced the length of their own internal procedures is to be welcomed but further improvement is needed to bring new therapies to European patients in a timely manner, so that patients receiving healthcare in Europe are not in a less favourable position than those who are receiving treatment in the US.

4.4.4

Support for the development of innovative medicines through the 6th Framework Programme for Research (FP6) with its thematic priority of research into ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ is welcomed as a first step.

4.4.5

There would be additional benefits in moves towards reducing the time between the initial patenting of a potential medicine and submission of a request for marketing authorisation by avoiding unnecessary procedures.

4.4.6

Whilst the proposal to harmonise data protection at ten years is supported by the EESC, where additional information is provided for special sub-groups such as children, it is felt that the possibility of extending data exclusivity for one additional year could be subject to further debate.

4.5.1

The EESC is in agreement that the focus should be on ‘securing the most effective treatment for the patient within an effective health-care system’ particularly in the light of the costs of care rising. It should be noted that pharmaceuticals account for 15 % of health budgets on average (10). EU Member States also have an obligation to ensure that decisions on pricing and reimbursement are taken transparently in a non-discriminatory way within a precise framework (11).

4.5.2

It must be noted that Member States have clear competence to take national measures in order to control health-care expenditures. This leads to widely divergent prices between States that will be exacerbated with enlargement. However, the EESC would want to emphasise that whatever pricing system is established it should not create a barrier to ensuring that innovative good medicines go onto the market. The Committee calls on the Commission to take action to ensure the full application of the ‘Transparency’ Directive (Directive 89/105/EEC).

4.5.3

Such disparities in administratively fixed prices could be detrimental to a smooth running internal market. The EESC therefore welcomes the proposal from the Commission that a ‘reflection’ should be launched to consider alternative ways to control national pharmaceutical-related expenditure by Member States. The EESC is in agreement that more dynamic and competitive market mechanisms could facilitate the objective of creating a more integrated market. The ‘Reflection’ should include a review of private and public financing of medicines, and public health.

4.5.4.1

The EESC feels that when a new medicine has received marketing authorisation (confirming its effectiveness, safety and quality), it should be made available to patients without unnecessary delay when the state of their health requires it. The EESC supports the possibility of making new medicines available immediately after they have received marketing authorisation.

4.5.4.2

Funding and monitoring of health expenditure in Member States might constitute a barrier to simultaneous access by patients to new medicines across the European Union. The EESC can support the replacement of direct price controls by monitoring of health expenditure and would encourage the Commission to stimulate debate on possible methods for achieving this. In this context, it should be possible to consider abandoning price controls on manufacturers for medicines that are neither publicly purchased nor reimbursed under mandatory healthcare insurance.

4.6.1

The EESC would agree with the important role of generic medicines in containing health care costs, therefore assisting in improving the sustainability of financing health care, but it is important to balance the use of these medicines with the development of innovative products so that that the industry remains dynamic and patients have more choice.

4.6.2

The EESC supports the establishment of a clearer Community definition of generics, and in particular the need to consider the intellectual property rights in the light of enlargement.

4.7.1

Whilst it is acknowledged that non-prescription medicines which can be obtained through pharmacies or through general retail outlets have the advantage of developing competitiveness in the market and the public gets greater access to those medicines without the need for a medical consultation. The EESC believes that it is important to ensure that these medicines are used under conditions of absolute safety.

4.7.2

There are inconsistencies in the products that are classified as non-prescription amongst the Member States and the EESC would endorse the proposals that greater consistency of classification decisions should be developed in line with the principles of the single market.

4.7.3

In addition the EESC would support the proposal from the Commission that the same trademark should be used for both prescription and non-prescription medicines in the Member States that are confident that this presents no risk to public health.

4.7.4

However, the EESC reiterates the concern expressed about the availability of non-prescription oral antibiotics, anti-virals or anti-fungals which should be restricted to prescription only status. If such medicines are used for trivial indications, or inappropriately, there is a risk of creating wider problems of resistance that would impact in any subsequent illness particularly a more critical infection. It is therefore important that these medicines should be seen in the context of the wider public health agenda and their use controlled by prescription. It is critically important that there is accurate and easy to understand information provided to patients in this respect and that the use of such prescribed drugs are monitored and included in future research.

4.8.1

The EESC acknowledges the importance of developing and sustaining a dynamic research and development base in the pharmaceutical industry that draws on the expertise contained both in the industry and allied scientific institutions.

4.8.2

The EESC supports the objective of creating virtual institutes of health to stimulate and organise health and biotechnology research in Europe to bring together those with common research interests. The EESC believes that there should be a coherent structure to bring together the knowledge and expertise with appropriate methods of dissemination if it is to retain the scientific skills of professionals and to be a serious rival in terms of R & D and innovation to the US. The 6th Framework programme for Research (FP6) is a welcome first step.

4.8.3

The EESC in a previous opinion supported the introduction of a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (12) in order to create a stronger science base for public health in Europe.

4.8.4

In supporting the development of research and innovation the EESC would wish to emphasise that new sources of investment must be identified. To this end the EESC welcomes the proposal to examine a number of ideas in relation to the financing of research which include venture capital, low cost loans, tax credits, guaranteed markets and the extension of patent rights and or market exclusivity. It is important that the synergy between universities, research faculties and industry is better recognised and utilised.

4.9.1

The EESC welcomes the Directive relating to Clinical Trials (13) that stresses that the protection of patients is of paramount importance in the design of a trial. The Directive also stresses the need to simplify and harmonise the governing administrative procedures to allow for better coordination of trials within the Union. The provision to set up a European clinical trials database for the first time is also welcomed.

4.9.2

The EESC would wish to emphasise that the source of real innovation also comes from small individual companies or individuals who have a ‘bright idea’. There is a risk that the complex administrative procedures within the EU and Member States or the need within larger companies to operate a selection in research projects that can be progressed simultaneously might prevent the emergence of innovative ideas from these sources. Allowance should be made to support this potential and to promote collaborations between undertakings with a view to helping the development of such ideas into new treatments that have the potential of reaching the market.

4.9.3

In comparison with the US the EU and its Member States at national level frequently focus on the need to ‘avoid failure’ rather than taking the risk to achieve success which might result in some failures. There is an opportunity to push out the boundaries in this respect. The EESC supports the rapid implementation of the Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions by all Member States as soon as possible given that non-compliance will impede the development of the European Biotech industry.

4.9.4

The EESC also supports the adoption of the Community patent legislation which will reduce costs to each Member State.

4.9.5

The EESC would wish to emphasise that at present 40-50 % of medicines for children are not licensed for children and nor has a licence been sought for paediatric use. The EESC would wish to recommend that targeted research to assess appropriate doses of medicines for children, older people, men and women be conducted. The key issue is the appropriate safe and effective dose of the medicine for the specific circumstance.

4.9.6

The correct dosage is particularly relevant in relation to older people who might be taking a number of different medications for several indications, whilst at the same time have mild organ failure (e.g. kidney or liver) so the issue is the appropriateness of medication in relation to that being prescribed for other conditions.

4.9.7

The EESC would also wish to point out that whilst there are conditions which are currently very rare in Europe they may well be common in the developing world and that the increased rate of travel combined with global warming could cause some ‘orphan (14)’ diseases to become more common and difficult to contain.

4.10.1

The EESC agrees that a major challenge will be the integration of the economies and health-care systems of the new member states into the existing Union. Most of the countries joining the Union have fewer resources to spend in their health-care sectors than existing Member States therefore the availability and affordability of pharmaceuticals in relation to their public health-care systems is of great importance. This has to be viewed in the context of rising health care costs, an ageing population and new emerging social and health care needs.

4.10.2

The challenge will also be to harmonise the intellectual property rights that could create significant differences in price levels and consequently lead to an increase in parallel imports. These occur when there are systematic price differentials between Member States. Individuals or organisations other than the market authorisation holder can then purchase a medicine in bulk in the less expensive country, import it to a more expensive country and sell it at a profit arising solely from the price differential. The EESC supports the measures proposed by the Commission to tackle this problem through a statutory requirement to inform the marketing authorisation holder, the competent authority in the Member State and the EMEA, of an intention to proceed with a parallel import in a particular Member State.

4.10.3

It is, however, noted that the legal responsibility for enforcing intellectual property rights will remain with the patent holder.

4.10.4

The EESC welcomes the steps taken by the Commission to ensure that the new member states have the opportunity for dialogue in relation to any difficulties they might experience in the implementation of the pharmaceutical legislative framework both before accession and following it.

4.11.1

Fundamental to progress on the development of the pharmaceutical sector in Europe is the ability to learn from each other. The EESC therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal to establish a set of EU indicators to cover the industry competitiveness and the public health objectives. The setting-up of a working group to develop these indicators is welcomed by the EESC.

4.11.2

The indicators will need to encompass the performance of the pharmaceutical product and also those related to health care provided in addition to:

5.1

The EESC welcomes the Communication from the Commission ‘to develop a stronger European-based Pharmaceutical Industry for the benefit of the patient’ and supports the comprehensive programme which is set out. It is recognised that the Communication is ambitious and that it will be challenging to fulfil the objectives.

5.2

The EESC is of the view that whilst the Communication fulfils the objectives of considering the benefits to patients, moving forward on a competitive European-based industry, taking steps to strengthen the EU science base, taking account of the enlarged European Union and ensuring that Member States learn from each other, it would wish the following issues to be noted.

5.3

The EESC would wish to emphasise that the dependence on the decision-making processes in the 25 national governments make the pharmaceutical industry appear weaker in comparison to the unified approaches that are possible in the US or Japan in relation to research, innovation, marketing and pricing. It is stressed that the process begun with the G10 recommendations to reach a genuine single market should be pursued and the impact on the health care systems and public health in Member States must be checked through the proposed benchmarking exercise.

5.4

The EESC would draw attention to the range of reviews, documents and policy proposals relating to the pharmaceutical sector over the past few years and is concerned as to how more rapid progress will be achieved as a result of the G10 recommendations, the Communication and commitments made by the Council of Ministers.

5.5

The EESC acknowledges the difficulties in achieving an integrated single market in respect of the pharmaceutical sector in view of its complexity and dependence on Member States competencies and differing systems. However, it stresses the importance of putting in place clear strategies to achieve this goal.

5.6

The EESC endorses the Commission's intention to establish performance indicators to enable the evaluation and monitoring of progress within the industry and again emphasises the importance of obtaining consistent statistical data and evidence on which to judge the progress of the programme set out in the Communication.

5.7

The EESC continues to emphasise the great importance it attaches to the protection of human health and that it should take precedence in all areas of regulation.

5.8

The EESC strongly supports the proposal for the development of a 'kite mark' to establish quality criteria for health-related websites and all other forms of information and stresses the importance of encouraging people to seek advice from health care professionals.

5.9

The EESC supports a strong pharmacovigilance system which must continue to be strengthened, and a more efficient use of epidemiological studies needs to be integrated.

5.10

The EESC believes that there is a real opportunity to develop a better coordinated approach to the research agenda with simpler and more harmonised administrative procedures. The potential for new sources of investment, which might include venture capital, low cost loans, tax credits, is welcomed and should urgently be pursued.

5.11

The EESC recommends continued dialogue and the simplification of systems to allow innovation and the sharing of knowledge both to strengthen the industry but also to sustain and develop the skills and employment capacity resulting from a competitive pharmaceutical industry.

5.12

The EESC also recommends investment by the EU and EU Member States in order to ensure that networks of excellence are established and to allow funding over a reasonably long period of time to foster innovation by providing a level of certainty and security to sustain continuity of research team work.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/15

1.1

By Decision 1999/784/EC (1), the Council adopted the proposal concerning Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory for a period ending on 31 December 2004.

1.2

On 22 September 1999, the European Economic and Social Committee endorsed the Commission proposal for Community participation.

1.3

The background to both the Commission proposal and the Committee's endorsement of it was the audiovisual industry's position as one of Europe's key strategic sectors, particularly radio and television broadcasting and film production.

2.1

The Commission is proposing:

2.2

The proposal is prompted in particular by the following considerations:

2.3

Taking into account the positive experience gained in the past, which was summarised in a mid-term report (2), the Commission feels it would be appropriate to extend the Community's participation in the observatory for a period of two years. This short extension will cover a critical period for the definition of the future patterns of the observatory's activity and can be lodged in the Community's present financial perspectives without any prejudice for future decisions, which will be taken in 2006 with the full knowledge of the features of the observatory's new remit and financial framework.

3.1

The European Economic and Social Committee originally backed the Commission's proposal for Community participation in the observatory, in the expectation that this would help make the European audiovisual industry more competitive by improving the transfer of economic and legal information, providing a clearer view of the market and promoting transparency and investments in infrastructure.

3.2

The Committee feels that the overall expectations and original reasons for endorsing the proposal remain valid, not least the audiovisual industry's key importance for the economy, culture and democracy. This view is substantiated, among other things, by the report on the observatory's activities (3).

4.1

The Committee feels it is important for the EU's own industry — and for consumers — to have access to reliable and up-to-date information of the kind produced by the observatory.

4.2

The Committee feels it is important that consumer protection and copyright law should remain priority issues for the observatory.

4.3

Given that other aspects — such as support for fields of particular interest or state aid — have already been tackled, the Committee also recommends that the observatory consider addressing the fiscal environment of the audiovisual sector (including films).

4.4

It is vital that the observatory should be able to operate on its current basis until a new strategy can be adopted and put into effect in 2006.

4.5

However, the Committee does feel that a new strategy may necessitate an increase in the budget beyond present levels, not least with a view to putting a stronger focus on multimedia and films.

5.1

The European Economic and Social Committee endorses the Commission's proposal to extend Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory for two years as this will help strengthen the competitiveness of the Community's audiovisual industry by improving the transfer of economic and legal information, providing a clearer view of the market and promoting transparency and investments in infrastructure.

5.2

The Committee would reiterate (4) the key strategic importance of the EU's audiovisual sector and its impact on job creation. The ongoing rapid advance of audiovisual industries and sectors across the world makes the availability of sound statistical information about this sector all the more important and strategic.

5.3

The Committee would also reiterate (5) that the Commission should set up a European Information Society Agency to help coordinate the various initiatives in the area of multimedia convergence and to improve scope for more practical action in the cultural sphere in order to defend and promote the European cultural identity and endow it with a political dimension.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/17

1.1

The Commission adopted in 2001 a Communication an European Energy Infrastructure. In order for the wider European electricity and gas market to function effectively it is not sufficient that common rules and standards apply. It is equally necessary that adequate infrastructure exists linking the Member States.

1.2

The Communication presented a number of measures, including a target of 10 % interconnection for electricity and a priority funding for trans-European network projects identified as Priority Projects of European interest. The Commission has also proposed an increase in the existing 10 % ceiling on contribution to the development stage of projects to 20 % for Priority Projects. The Barcelona Council endorsed the 10 % interconnection target, but the increase of the contribution ceiling still remains under discussion in the Council.

1.3

In order for the Accession countries to be a part of the internal market for electricity and gas, a revision of the trans-European network (TEN) guidelines needs to be revised. Many projects connecting the old Community with the new Member States already qualify for TEN funding, but the list needs to be completed. A similar approach is needed with respect to neighbouring countries. The medium-term objective is to progressively create an European electricity and gas market, including potentially more than 35 countries and a population over 600 million. This market should be based on common standards for market opening, environmental protection and safety.

1.4

The demand for natural gas is growing rapidly, and the Community is becoming increasingly dependent on gas imports. To ensure the effective functioning of the European energy market and the future supply of gas, diversifying gas supplies and construction of new infrastructure is necessary. Investment is needed both into new supply pipelines and, even with more flexible use of present infrastructures after market opening, into internal pipelines. Close collaboration is required with supply countries and transit regions.

2.1

The present revision of the TENs guidelines for electricity and gas will, in particular, integrate the new Member States into the framework of the internal electricity and gas market. The new text will:

The Communication puts obligations on Member States to give priority to Priority projects, facilitate and speed up completion of projects as well as to carry out assessments and report to the Commission.

2.2

Annexes to the Decision list projects of common interest eligible for Community financial aid (Annex III) under criteria laid down in Annex II, projects of common interest that shall have priority for the grant on Community aid (Annex I) and projects of European interest (Annex IV).

2.3

The estimated amount of investment required in the period of 2007-2013 for the construction of priority projects for electricity and gas networks is around EUR 28 billion, of which EUR 20 billion in the EU and EUR 8 billion in third countries. In addition come costs for completing other projects of common interest.

3.1

The EESC has in its opinions strongly supported the proposals from the Commission on developing and supporting TENs for electricity and gas as an integral part of creating effective internal electricity and gas markets as well as a comprehensive policy for security of energy supply. The Committee has also supported the Commission proposal of increasing the ceiling of financial contribution to the development stage to 20 %.

3.2

Unfortunately, as noted also in previous EESC opinions, the realisation of TEN projects has been very slow and unsatisfactory. Difficulties to finance extensive construction projects have been referred to as a serious obstacle. The EUR 20 million per year available to the Commission as contributions to the development stage of projects can hardly have a strong influence on their realisation. Public-private partnerships need to be developed.

3.2.1

Financing as such may not be the only obstacle to the slow progress of TEN project realisation. There may be other underlying reasons, like lack of commitment by Member States to cooperate on cross-border projects. The idea of a European coordinator may be have a role to play here. In some cases opting for potential public funding may also have delayed the start of a project, which would have normally been started without the delay of waiting for one or the other decision.

3.2.2

Long, cumbersome and as to the end result unsure planning and permit procedures are a significant obstacle to infrastructure investments presently. Priority status given to a project by EU institutions should serve as a clear signal of the importance of a timely execution of the project to local and other decision makers.

3.3

The EESC welcomes the Commission draft decision, noting that it should preferably have been presented earlier. When this opinion is approved by the EESC plenary, enlargement has taken place and the EU has 25 Member States. As to approaching the neighbouring countries, the need for this in terms of security of supply has been clearly visible for long, at the latest since the Green Paper on security of energy supply.

3.4

The EESC finds the analyses of the interconnection situation and prospects in the different parts of the Union and neighbouring areas informative and to the point.

3.5

The Commission does not, however, refer to any wider and longer term studies of the expected developments in the internal energy markets, which would provide the necessary background information for identifying key infrastructure projects. A long term vision or alternative scenarios are all the more important in a sector where the lifespan of investments is 50 years or more. This lack of reference is also surprising while such information is available, including material produced by the Commission itself.

3.5.1

The role of natural gas in the future energy scene of Europe is of particular interest. The trend is towards rapidly increasing use and growing dependence on imports from outside the EU. This trend highlights the importance of managing infrastructures as well as risks involved in dependence on a few sources and concentration of ownership. What medium and long term prospects for demand, use location and sources are behind the proposals for priority infrastructure projects? How is the use for heating, electricity generation and CHP expected to develop, as well as any potential plans for production of hydrogen from gas? What are the potentials of sources? Political decisions, starting from EU environment policy down to local planning decisions, influence strongly energy choices and markets. These should take into account the broader, long term picture.

3.6

One relevant question is whether there might be alternative solutions to some of the bottleneck problems that the proposed network projects are meant to solve. Would, for instance, in some cases investment in electricity generation, located close to extensive demand, be a more viable solution? When developing network proposals this should always be examined, taking also into account the potential of increased energy efficiency and distributed generation from renewable energy sources.

4.1

Recital 4 should be reworded so as to give equal preference to the efficient operation of the internal market and strategic goals like security of supply and universal service provision.

4.2

Projects within one Member State should qualify for the list of projects of European interest only in exceptional cases.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/19

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to codify the First Council Directive of 23 July 1962 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of carriage of goods by road (1).

2.

Simplifying and clarifying Community law is a matter of great importance in the context of a people's Europe. The European Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore underlined the need to codify legislative acts that have been frequently amended, and agreed by interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 that an accelerated procedure may be used. No substantive changes may be made to acts when they are codified.

3.

The Commission proposal complies with this requirement, and the EESC therefore has no objections to raise, although it notes that codification is being undertaken at the very last moment. All the same, it manages to satisfy the criteria set, even though the most recent amendment dates back to 1992.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/20

1.1

The purpose of the proposal is to address the problem of applying the legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste (1) to the acceding States. Legislation adopted after 1 November 2002 — in this case the amending legislation was only approved in February 2004 — is not covered by the Act of Accession. The Commission has concluded that the most sensible way to proceed was to submit this amending proposal, under Article 95 of the Treaty of Accession.

1.2

Various mechanisms for informing and consulting with acceding States on such legislation were agreed at the European Council in December 2002. All acceding States except Cyprus (2) informed the Commission in February 2003 that they would need a further transitional period before applying the original Directive. This proposal for an amending Directive follows subsequent extensive bilateral technical consultations with all ten acceding States.

1.3

The current Directive (3) aims to prevent or minimise the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment through recovery and recycling targets. The new targets agreed are substantially higher than those for 2001 and must be achieved by the end of 2008. The Directive contains specific targets for plastics, metals, paper/board and glass. The specific targets will improve the overall level of environmental protection in the EU. They will also reduce existing distortions of competition, lead to a higher degree of harmonisation within the internal market and give more planning security for investments in recycling infrastructure.

1.4

The proposal sets the date for acceding States to have achieved the targets as not later than 31 December 2012.

2.1

This proposed amending Directive is a necessary piece of legislation setting a realistic compliance date for acceding States.

2.2

In its opinion of 29 May 2002 (4) the EESC fully supported the original Directive as an important driving force in encouraging national legislation on recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

3.1

The EESC notes that the average volume of packaging waste produced by the acceding States is 87 kg per capita compared with 169 kg per capita in existing Member States. Although there might be an expectation that packaging consumption will increase in acceding States under the influence of the single market the EESC would urge that every effort is made to minimise packaging at source where consistent with safety and hygiene.

3.2

Each Member State will continue to be responsible for the systems under which the recycling targets are achieved. A wide range of requirements, processes, incentives and disincentives are in place across the Community and the EESC urges that work continues by the Commission on establishing best practice and the promulgation of exemplar case studies.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/21

1.1

The accession negotiations in December 2002 provided for accession in 2004 of eight of the countries currently benefiting from the provisions of this Regulation.

1.2

The Commission considers the Regulation should be modified in favour of beneficiary countries not due to join the European Union in 2004, to take account of experience with the instrument it set up, whilst respecting its underlying objectives.

1.3

Modifications are be made to align certain provisions on those applicable to new Member States. The proposed modifications are the following: (i) an inclusion of a new eligible measure which would enable the rural communities of Bulgaria and Romania to prepare and implement local rural development strategies; (ii) an adaptation of the aid intensities to levels similar to those granted to countries acceding to the Union in 2004 and (iii) further clarification of the limits on aid rates. The latter modification shall have retrospective effect vis-à-vis all beneficiary countries.

2.1

The Community contribution shall not exceed the ceiling of 75 % of the total eligible public expenditure. The Commission proposal will not involve additional spending from the Community budget as it will be financed from the allocations already made.

2.2

The Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 (1) as regards limits on aid rates will be clarified and amended.

2.3

This amendment will ensure that in all cases the ceilings laid down in the Europe Agreements are complied with.

2.4

The proposal also involves increased EU contribution level for certain measures on Article 2.

2.5

The aid intensities in hill and mountain regions of Bulgaria and Romania will be aligned from 1 January 2004 similar to Less-Favoured Areas of countries acceding to the Union on 1 May 2004.

3.1

The EESC supports the Commission proposal to implement local rural development strategies in order to strengthen rural economies.

3.2

The EESC endorses the increased aid intensities as a necessary support to agriculture development and to meet standards of food production and protection of the environment.

4.1

The EESC is conscious of the problems that beneficiaries may have in raising funds in advance of receiving investment aid.

4.2

The EESC would ask therefore the Commission to find procedures, which will allow those countries to maximise the draw-down of funding.

5.1

The EESC fully supports the Commission proposal amending the Regulation.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/23

1.1

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification Council Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

3.

It has been ensured that this compilation of provisions contains no changes of substance and serves only the purpose of presenting Community law in a clear and transparent way. The Committee expresses its total support for this objective and, in the light of these guarantees, welcomes the proposal.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/24

1.1

The purpose of this Communication is two-fold. It illustrates some of the early results of EQUAL, pointing to promising practices which can already contribute new ways of tackling discrimination and inequality in the labour market — ‘free movement of good ideas’. It also sets the scene for the second round of EQUAL, confirming the principles and architecture and introducing the technicalities of the programme.

1.2

At this early stage, the most visible success in EQUAL is partnership, the objective of which is to bring together actors who cooperate in a Development Partnership to develop an integrated approach to multi-dimensional problems.

1.3

The architecture of EQUAL has integrated essential features of good governance as it addresses cross-cutting policy issues, and works across and beyond institutional boundaries.

1.4

EQUAL adopts a thematic approach, and following consultation, Member States have agreed to retain the themes of EQUAL unchanged for the second round.

1.5

For the first time, in round 2, the EQUAL programme is taking European enlargement into account. As a result, support for the Roma population and for victims of human trafficking will be sought from all themes as the scale of these challenges significantly increases.

1.6

EQUAL provides a good opportunity for the new Member States to work with the existing Member States with a view to identifying good practice in relation to the social and vocational integration of asylum seekers.

1.7

Even though work is on-going, and validated results cannot yet be drawn, the first round of EQUAL which started in 2001 can already illustrate promising practices of new ways to tackle discrimination and inequality, inter alia as regards: disability and sexual orientation, moves to retain workers longer in employment, the setting-up of business by unemployed or inactive persons, the contribution of immigrants to employment and economic growth, steps to promote adaptability in the labour market, building blocks for lifelong learning strategies, eliminating gender segregation in sectors and occupations, share of care and household responsibilities, corporate social responsibility, re-integration to combat exclusion and the social economy to create more jobs and enhance their quality.

1.8

Whilst the thematic approach remains stable, EQUAL will nonetheless address emerging challenges in the second round, particularly after enlargement, such as the issue of discrimination faced by the Roma people and victims of trafficking.

1.9

Cooperation across Member States is a fundamental aspect of EQUAL and works well, manifesting itself at a number of levels: between Development Partnerships and Thematic networks.

1.10

Mainstreaming, i.e. the integration and incorporation of new ideas and approaches into policy and practice, is challenging, but in order to obtain the maximum impact from EQUAL, results must be analysed, benchmarked and disseminated in order to have an impact both within Member States and across the Union.

1.11

Evaluation comprises two parts: a mid-term review and on-going evaluation. The former is to be carried out by means of national mid-term evaluation reports which were submitted to the Commission in December 2003, building on which the European level evaluation was prepared. The EU-wide evaluators of EQUAL do not suggest any changes in the overall architecture for EQUAL. However, on the basis of the reports of the national evaluators, and on their own field work and analysis, a number of issues that may limit the effectiveness of EQUAL have been highlighted, and a set of recommendations to enhance effectiveness are made. Following this mid-term evaluation the existing Member States will continue to produce annual interim reports.

2.1

The enthusiasm for partnership (Section 3) is welcomed and recognition of the importance of encouraging partnership between groups that have not previously collaborated is endorsed. This is one of the most significant factors in the success of EQUAL and that administrative and support processes should be designed to uphold partnership working as the highest priority.

2.2

The intention of Action 1 (described in Section 3, paragraph 4) is well founded. Simplifying processes for progression to development work will help to maintain momentum and to ensure that the success of the programme does not rely too heavily on the people who originate it.

2.3

The very wide range of partners involved in EQUAL means that their active participation is likely to encourage development of good governance. Encouraging empowerment in the principles and architecture of EQUAL should be paramount to good governance and a useful opportunity to emphasise this was missed in Section 3.1. The continuation of networks created through EQUAL (Section 3.1, paragraph 4) will rely on empowerment of all parties to influence policy and practice of other stakeholders. Discussion of the inclusion of those directly affected by discrimination is welcomed but it should be recognised that implementation of EQUAL through European, national, regional and local levels is often hierarchical and can increase bureaucracy and reduce ownership unless such problems are foreseen and avoided. In particular, the control of funding should be highlighted as a mechanism that often effects empowerment.

2.4

Discussion of European Employment Strategy, Social Inclusion Process, the Treaty, European Refugee Fund and other policy instruments is welcomed as a means of providing context for EQUAL and provides an important opportunity for groups not normally involved in European policy-making to understand and connect with it. Additional reading or information sources and referencing could encourage further investigation by such parties. Discrimination and inequality are major factors in exclusion but familiarisation with the bureaucracy of change is important to the mainstreaming of EQUAL by groups and individuals that are inexperienced in influencing policy. These guidelines may be a first point of contact for some groups.

2.5

EQUAL's emphasis on innovation (Section 5) is discussed in relation to new approaches to policy delivery. EQUAL guidance on innovation (Section 11.4, point 17) also discusses new policy development processes. The potential of development partnerships to create empowerment and good governance in policy development as well as delivery should not be overlooked.

2.6

Reinforcement of the mainstreaming activities recognises its importance. Enabling creation of new projects by ‘multipliers’ could lead to greater innovation. It is important to recognise that the process of innovation undertaken in development partnerships does not necessarily involve the right people to mainstream the outcomes.

2.7

The evaluation process recommends greater focus on job retention, quality of employment and direct job creation. Attracting individuals working in SMEs to participate in activities such as life-long learning and career planning for people in their 30s and 40s might require innovative means of engagement. It is important to work with networking organisations (such as trades unions) and to manage the bureaucracy to centralise as much of the paperwork as is possible.

2.8

For SMEs and NGOs the bureaucratic challenges of EQUAL are recognised but the same challenges are also faced by local authorities and the new Member States already have concerns regarding administration of Structural Funds. Administrative problems amongst local authorities are likely to be passed on to SME and NGO partners and deter uptake by these groups. Finding solutions for SMEs and NGOs might be expected to benefit organisations throughout the system.

2.9

The timing of this initiative is good in regard to informing development of European policy and strategy. The Lisbon process has its mid-term review in July 2005 and the EU Employment Strategy is a key element of that. New Structural Funds are also due to be proposed in July 2004 and the European Cohesion report also provides some opportunity to mainstream outputs from EQUAL.

3.1

The concepts on which the EQUAL are founded are accepted. Specific comments therefore focus more on mechanisms.

3.2

In the first round of EQUAL, the transition between the partnership building Action 1 phase and development phase Action 2 caused a loss of momentum for some programmes. A new ‘confirmation step’ is proposed that will reduce the administration of approval for Action 2 and ensure that expenditure remains eligible throughout the transition.

3.3

The focus of the transition from Action 1 to Action 2 is the formation of the Development Partnership Agreement with its aim, objectives and action plan. Continuity is important and partnerships should understand how their empowerment activities, administration procedures and staffing could support that continuation. There is considerable inequality in the support provided by Managing Authorities to Development Partnership which are not always working adequately. Member States should learn from each other as to the type of support needed to develop effective Development Partnership. Continuity of staffing might be a particular problem in the new Member States where personnel might move more regularly as a result of the new opportunities opening up.

3.4

The development of transnational partnerships is a very beneficial part of EQUAL. Partnerships should be encouraged to be flexible, to react to and build on the inevitable changes in programme plans that result from innovations made. Flexibility in the budget is crucial to that.

3.5

Financial rules are the same for all Structural Funds but processes of accounting for finances and activities should be carefully managed so that the administrative burden does not deter those best placed to deliver empowerment opportunities.

3.6

Previous experience of the Commission indicates that only 85 % of allocated funding will be spent. Capturing under-spend and using it for further mainstreaming is suggested. Capturing under-spend should not undermine programmes suffering from slippage or change either by requiring excessive administration that detracts from delivery, or by reducing funding prematurely.

3.7

The list of mainstreaming activities in Section 9a is not exhaustive but it is felt to be particularly important to recognise the role of business support alongside mentoring. Actors such as social partners, including trades unions, are particularly important. Development of Round 2 EQUAL proposals is also an important part of developing the outcomes from Round 1 where appropriate.

3.8

Mainstreaming is an approach or strategy and should not be regarded as a goal in itself. Mainstreaming does add value but must be supported by underlying equality instruments such as the new equal treatment legislation or positive action policies. It is unacceptable that a number of Member States have yet to comply with the anti-discrimination directives by enacting laws to establish a common standard of equality in these countries.

3.9

The guidance identifies ‘Equal opportunities’ as having a low take-up (Section 10.1, para. 3) and being understood in a limited or traditional way (Section 10.1, para 6). Communication of the different ways of perceiving and dealing with Equal Opportunities in the Member States would greatly benefit development of new programmes. For example, gender inequalities are addressed in one theme by a small number of groups but across the programme most groups are working on this.

3.10

The negative impact of different timing/processes between Member States (Section 10.1, paragraph 5) goes beyond the setting-up of transnational partnerships where it has been addressed for Round 2. The setting-up of administrative and monitoring procedures, timing of Action 3, and overall project duration can all differ between countries and can therefore be counter-productive in transnational working.

3.11

Selection procedures for Round 2 programmes would benefit from access to advice from the two lead countries for each theme so that the managing authorities can benefit from some coordination between Member States.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/27

1.1

On 28 September 2000, the Council adopted Decision No 2000/596 establishing a European Refugee Fund for the 2000-2005 period (ERF I). It was allocated a budget of EUR 36 million over the five-year period. The programme represented the first step in the necessary rationalisation and structuring for actions which had been successively based on annual budget headings since 1997, principally at the behest of the European Parliament (1). The EESC welcomed the proposal for a decision at the time (2).

1.2

Little more than a year from the 31 December 2004 deadline (the end of the period covered by ERF I), the Commission has analysed the experience gained by the Member States and the Community under ERF I, organised a review conference (3), and has had an impact assessment (4) drawn up in preparation for the proposal for a new stage in the programme. The review also took account of the effects of, and synergies with, other Community actions and programmes (5).

1.3

In the light of the accumulated experience, on 12 February 2004 the Commission published a Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010, the subject of the present opinion.

2.1

The Commission proposes the establishment of a fund (ERF II) with a budget of EUR 687 million over a six-year period to support Member State action for the reception, integration and voluntary repatriation of third-country nationals or stateless persons having refugee status (6), requiring international protection (within the framework of a resettlement scheme), enjoying a form of subsidiary protection, having applied for one of the abovementioned forms of protection or enjoying temporary protection (7).

2.2

Eligible actions. Actions eligible for ERF II co-financing in the Member States cover a broad spectrum relating to reception, integration and voluntary repatriation schemes. Co-financing may more specifically be available for: reception infrastructure; material aid and medical and psychological care; social and administrative assistance; language assistance, education and training as well as help with finding work; improvements to reception procedures; sharing of the values enshrined in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights; promoting information for the local host population and participation of beneficiaries in civil and cultural life; promoting self-sufficiency of beneficiaries; actions to promote the involvement of local authorities, NGOs and the general public; information and advice on repatriation and help with reintegration in the country of origin.

2.2.1

Emergency measures in the event of implementation of temporary protection mechanisms may also be co-financed (up to 80 % of cost), for reception, accommodation, subsistence, medical and psychological assistance, staff and administration costs and logistical and transport costs.

2.2.2

10 % of the ERF II budget is set aside for Community actions, managed directly by the Commission and intended to finance Community cooperation, pooling of experience, innovative pilot projects, research and the application of new technologies to refugees and management of actions geared to them.

2.3

ERF II implementation. The Member States and the Commission are jointly responsible for implementing ERF II.

2.3.1

The Commission lays down guidelines for the multiannual programmes, ensures that management and control systems are in place in the Member States and operate smoothly, and implements Community measures. The Commission is assisted by a committee under the terms of Decision 1999/468/EC.

2.3.2

The Member States are responsible for implementing national actions, setting up a ‘Responsible Authority’ with legal personality and management capacity; they are responsible in the first instance for the financial control of actions, and cooperate with the Commission in collecting statistics.

2.3.3

The Member States and the Commission work together to ensure that results are disseminated, transparency is guaranteed and actions are cohesive with and complementary to other relevant instruments and initiatives.

2.4

Programmes. Two multiannual programme phases are planned (2005-2007 and 2008-2010). The Member States submit the draft three-year programme to the Commission, which approves them within three months, after checking for compatibility with the guidelines through the committee procedure. The multiannual programmes are implemented by means of annual work programmes.

2.5

Distribution of resources. Each Member State receives a fixed annual amount of EUR 300 000; for the new Member States, the sum is EUR 500 000 per annum for the first three years.

2.5.1

The remainder of the available annual resources is broken down between the Member States as follows: 35 % in proportion to the number of persons who, over the three previous years, have benefited from refugee status, international protection under a resettlement scheme or subsidiary protection; 65 % in proportion to the number of persons who, over the three previous years, have requested asylum or enjoyed temporary protection. Part of the annual allocation may be used for technical and administrative assistance. The Fund's financial contribution takes the form of a non-refundable grant; however, if an irregularity is ascertained, repayment is demanded with interest for any default at the rate applied by the ECB plus 3,5 %. In order to obtain co-financing segments subsequent to the first one of the programme, Member States must submit a report and declarations of expenditure certified by a service independent of the responsible authority.

2.5.2

The Community contribution to Member State actions may not exceed 50 % of the total cost; it may rise to 60 % for innovative or transnational actions and up to 75 % for Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund.

2.6

Evaluation. The Commission will submit an initial intermediate report by 30 April 2007, and a second intermediate report by 31 December 2009. Lastly, there will be an ex-post evaluation report by 31 December 2012.

3.1

The EESC's overall appraisal of the Commission's proposal is highly positive, seeing it as a potentially significant step towards putting into practice both the part of Title IV of the Treaty regarding the right of asylum and the decisions of the Tampere and other European Councils which laid down guidelines and implementing methods for visa, asylum and immigration policy. Failure to implement these decisions or agreements reached by the Council on matters which weaken the original proposal and enable wide legislative discrepancies between Member State laws to persist would probably make the Fund less effective than it could be. The EESC is disappointed to see that the content of the directive on refugee status, as recently adopted by the Council (8), falls far short of both the Commission's proposals (9) and what the EESC had called for in its opinion (10).

3.1.1

The programme's importance is self-evident, purely in view of the fact that there are some 400 000 new asylum seekers each year (11); they bring with them a burden of human suffering which must be met with solidarity, material, moral and psychological support, decent reception conditions, proper services, transparent and efficient procedures, an opportunity for active integration into the community by means of a socially-oriented job or activity and, in the event of a freely expressed desire to return, risk-free repatriation.

3.2

The budget (EUR 687 million over six years as against EUR 36 million over the five years of the previous programme) appears substantial, but the EESC would point out that ERF I's resources were very limited compared with the real needs of refugees. It welcomes the fact that with the proposal for the 2007-2013 financial perspectives, priority is given to the chapter concerning security, justice, migration and asylum, and that progressively greater resources are to be allocated to this area. The budget for ERF II is consistent with this approach.

3.2.1

ERF II firstly represents the necessary mutual effort to carry out an important policy and secondly, it shows that the Community institutions are aware that the problems connected with Title IV of the Treaty cannot be resolved without a major shift towards responsibility shared between all the players: actions which are strategically well-conceived, efficiently implemented and backed by civil society and local administration also have the effect of consolidating rights, instruments and mechanisms geared to implementing a common policy on asylum. The EESC points out that the effect of ERF II must be to complete and strengthen existing national measures; it cannot be a substitute for what has been achieved so far. In particular, the involvement of the social partners and civil society actors must not be reduced: on the contrary, it should be stepped up and improved.

3.2.2

The share of the budget resources earmarked for Community actions rises from 5 % for ERF I to 10 % for ERF II. The EESC would point out that in its opinion on ERF I, it called for 10 % to be set aside for Community actions. It would emphasise the need to stand by this percentage, if the actions undertaken are to achieve two essential objectives: supporting the development of transnational and innovative initiatives (including from organised civil society); and providing financial backing for studies, research and experience-sharing between all the Member States.

3.3

The breakdown of resources between the various actions (reception, integration and voluntary repatriation) is also balanced and reflects both current circumstances in the Member States and foreseeable future flows of asylum seekers or others eligible for different forms of protection. Co-financing is set in part in accordance with the five target groups of individuals, and reflects the present situation in the Member States, whereas the multiannual programmes, broken down into annual management periods, will enable adjustments to be made in the event of any unexpected developments. The committee procedure will also provide for collective monitoring of the implementation process, and will facilitate the circulation of good practices and innovative actions. The EESC considers that a substantial portion of the resources needs to be channelled to reception and integration work, and hopes that the Member States will not put excessive emphasis, within the multiannual programmes, on repatriation efforts.

3.3.1

The EESC warmly welcomes the fact that help with finding work is included among the integration measures, since the ability to provide for one's needs — or at least go a significant way towards doing so — boosts confidence and a feeling of having a place in society. It also helps to avoid lengthy periods of unemployment and scarce resources pushing young people into marginal or possibly illegal activities. The EESC would, however, emphasise the need to offer working conditions enabling the final beneficiaries of ERF II to take an active part in the procedures and activities which concern them. The EESC expresses its disappointment that the Council's recent decision on refugee status leaves it up to the Member States to decide if refugees may or may not work, and recalls that in its opinions (12), it has always emphasised the importance of facilitating their employment: the EESC considers work to be a right admitting no form of discrimination.

3.3.2

The EESC also suggests that a degree of priority be attached to cultural and psychological awareness training for administrative or police officials coming into contact with refugees, asylum-seekers and people enjoying other forms of protection. This is also needed in order to counter the all too often negative image and stereotypes of refugees conveyed by the press and media. Initiatives to promote dialogue and mutual understanding between the cultures of such people and host country citizens also represent a major contribution to integration and the social consensus necessary if ERF II is to be effective in practice.

3.4

The EESC agrees with the overall strategic approach to the implementation of the programme through guidelines, multiannual programmes managed year-by-year, two intermediate Commission reports and an ex-post report: this approach reflects the thinking behind other implementation mechanisms previously put into motion by the Member States and the Community, demonstrating the effectiveness of a method which facilitates proper sharing of responsibilities between the Community and the Member States, in application of the principle of subsidiarity understood as a shared responsibility. ERF II must be more than simply an instrument for sharing out resources between Member States; as argued in point 3.1, it should seek to take a step in the direction of a common asylum policy. Given that not all the legislative instruments proposed in order to create such a policy have been adopted, implementing ERF II may also help the Member States to take the outstanding decisions with greater awareness and clarity.

3.4.1

Setting up a responsible authority in every Member State will contribute greatly to increasing the unity and cohesiveness of national programmes, ensuring that their implementation is transparent and correct, and fostering the necessary links with the general public and civil society. The EESC highlights the importance the proposal attaches to consultation, participation and joint responsibility of the relevant players from the outset, when multiannual programmes are drawn up. This accent on involving civil society organisations and local authorities is crucial if the necessary account is to be taken of the experience built up in the field, if a social debate is to be held, and if consensus and the consequent governance in this sphere are to be achieved. This is an aspect which the EESC has repeatedly stressed in its opinions, and which it is pleased to see figuring in the Commission's text.

3.4.1.1

The Committee considers it particularly important that NGOs should be guaranteed easy access to reception and transit centres so that they can provide assistance at the point of initial arrival. The scope of their work in this regard could be usefully enhanced by including it under a specific Community action.

3.4.2

The accumulated experience in all the Member States over the years clearly shows the effectiveness of partnerships between national and local authorities on the one hand, and civil society organisations on the other. The EESC hopes that this wealth of cooperation will not be wasted when ERF II is implemented, but rather will be given new and better designed tools.

3.5

ERF II addresses the issue of different circumstances in the various Member States and upholds the central criterion for the distribution of resources according to the numbers of persons in the target groups in the Member States. The EESC points out that careful attention will have to be paid to these differences — especially the varying stages of development of the relevant Member State policies — when proposing the guidelines for the multiannual programmes.

3.5.1

It is of at least symbolic significance that the fixed annual amounts allocated to the new Member States for the first three years of the programme are greater than those reserved for the existing EU 15. It is true that these countries have not yet built up much experience in this area, and some of them will be situated on the EU's external borders. Fitting into the general flow of existing asylum policies in the current 15 Member States, and the ability to make use of the relevant Community instruments, is therefore crucial. It will be particularly important to make the experience of the EU 15 available to the new Member States and provide them with special support, in part by giving priority to Community actions designed to help them develop the administrative and managerial capacities required in connection with asylum.

3.6

The EESC would draw particular attention to the need to make the ERF II financial implementing procedures as streamlined and efficient as possible and to prevent irregularities arising from complex or unclear procedures; civil society organisations working with refugees and those receiving various types of protection must not be weighed down by procedures which are complicated and/or difficult to put into practice. This applies to both Member State and Community actions. An NGO, however properly subject to strict transparency conditions, has an operating method and flexibility requirements quite distinct from those of a construction company which wins a tender to build a reception centre. The EESC is concerned that the contracts signed by the responsible authorities with civil society organisations may not make the obligations and responsibilities sufficiently clear, compelling these organisations to focus more on administrative niceties and certification of expenditure than on the action's effectiveness in ensuring that the target group's rights are upheld and its needs met.

3.6.1

The EESC also considers that the interest applied to overdue sums to be recovered in the event of improper use should be purely symbolic to avoid the danger of Member States, in order to protect their own interests, imposing excessively restrictive procedures on tenders, again to the detriment of NGO efficacy and involvement. The EESC points out that in none of the Member States is asylum policy operated by public bodies alone, and that in some of them refugees and other protected persons would be in a hopeless situation except for the action and assistance of NGOs. The EESC therefore calls for the ERF II implementing provisions to reflect these concerns.

3.7

The EESC asks the Commission to press the Member States to define common criteria for collecting data. The quantitative aspect of ERF II is as important as the qualitative one, since under ERF II co-financing resources are determined by the figures for the different categories of persons having refugee status, enjoying some other form of protection, or seeking them.

3.8

The Member States should consult NGOs and the social partners when carrying out the evaluations under Article 26(2).

4.1

The EESC considers that the proposal for a European Refugee Fund (ERF) for the period 2005-2010 is justified, is equipped with significant resources and is organised in such a way as to facilitate the joint responsibility of the Member States and the Community. It also stresses that reception and integration must continue to be seen as the cornerstone of a sound asylum policy.

4.2

The EESC appreciates the fact that, under the proposal, the Member States and the responsible authorities they are to set up will have the task of involving all relevant players in an ever-more effective partnership, especially civil society organisations and regional and local authorities. However, it stresses that ERF II implementing provisions must ensure effective action and straightforward, transparent procedures for actors other than the Member States.

4.3

The EESC underlines the need to define common criteria for compiling data on refugees, in part in order to ensure a fair balance between actions undertaken in different countries and comparability between them, and urges that Community actions focus primarily on enhancing and sustaining the administrative and managerial capabilities of the new Member States.

4.4

The EESC hopes that a decision on the ERF II proposal will be taken without delay and will be backed by appropriate and transparent implementing provisions.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/31

1.1

The second gas-market Directive, adopted in June 2003, is expected to provide the necessary structural changes in the regulatory framework to tackle remaining barriers to the completion of the internal market for natural gas. The Directive provides for the right for all non-household gas consumers to freely choose their supplier by 1 July 2004 and all customers to have the same right by 1 July 2007. It also provides for third-party access to transmission and distribution networks on the basis of published and regulated tariffs, access to storage facilities on a negotiated or regulated basis, legal unbundling of transmission and large and medium-sized distribution companies and the establishment of a regulatory authority on each Member State.

1.2

In order to meet the objective of an internal gas market, additional detailed measures are needed regarding the manner in which transmission systems are operated. For electricity, similar measures have been set in place by a Regulation adopted in June 2003. This Regulation provides for common tariff structures, including for cross-border trade, the provision of information on interconnection capacities and rules regarding congestion management.

1.3

The European Gas Regulatory Forum, with the aim to develop practical rules for transmission in the gas market, meets bi-annually in Madrid. The Forum consists of the Commission, Member States, national regulatory authorities and the gas industry and network users. The Forum agreed in February 2002 on Guidelines for Good TPA (Third Party Access) Practice, and on a revised, more detailed set of the Guidelines in September 2003. These guidelines are non-binding and agreed on a voluntary basis, but the transmission-system operators and other parties pledged to respect them.

1.4

The Commission has monitored compliance with the Guidelines by transmission system operators, and reports that there remains an important and unacceptable level of non-compliance. According to the Commission, a level playing field in terms of access conditions to the gas-transmission network is far from being achieved.

2.1

The aim of the Commission proposal is to strengthen the internal gas market by establishing a new regulatory framework for gas transmission at European level based on the conclusions of the most recent Madrid Forum. The proposed rules draw on the existing legislation for cross-border electricity exchanges, but go beyond the scope of that legislation in that they also cover network access and charging on gas-transmission networks within the individual Member States.

2.2

The Regulation on Conditions for access to the gas-transmission networks provides for the adoption of detailed binding guidelines, based on the current Guidelines for Good Practice agreed at the Madrid Forum (except presently tariff questions) and covering:

2.3

The regulation also provides a method for the evolution of these Guidelines through Comitology. It requires national Regulators to ensure that the agreed guidelines are implemented.

3.1

The aim of the proposed Regulation is to set fair rules for access to natural gas-transmission networks. The fundamental objectives for this is enhancing competition within the internal gas market and ensuring security of supply to all users, and hence observing the need to encourage investment in transmission infrastructure. Presently there is sufficient capacity in the gas-transmission networks in the EU, but this may change soon as gas demand is growing rapidly. The EU's growing dependence on gas supplies from non-EU countries, with the resultant supply and safety issues, makes it essential to manage and regulate gas-transport infrastructure.

3.2

The Guidelines of the Madrid Forum have existed since February 2002, and in their present amended form for more than half a year. Representatives of the gas-transmission business claim that this time span is too short to draw any conclusions concerning implementation, and would prefer to stay with a voluntary approach and national legislation based on the subsidiarity provided for in the second gas-market Directive. They underline the need for a reliable, stable and incentive-based regulatory framework in order to make investments possible and minimize risks for investors.

3.2.1

A relevant question is whether a main reason for delays in implementation is genuine inability of the operators to adjust. To this the Commission observes that in several Member States the adjustment has been made within the given time frame.

3.2.2

Another observation regarding the pace of adjustment is that a Regulation on access to electricity transmission cross-border networks was approved in mid 2003, complementing the electricity market Directive approved at the same time as the gas market Directive.

3.3

Taking these arguments into account, the EESC welcomes the Commission proposal for a Regulation on conditions for access to gas-transmission networks. The Committee has, however, some comments to make concerning the contents of the draft Regulation.

3.4

The scope of the draft Regulation is one issue for discussion: Should it cover all transmission within the EU or only cross-border transmission? Should it also include storage facilities? The EESC would like the regulation to permit the completion of a stable, effective and harmonised regulatory framework for the internal gas market, including compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and the development of exchanges. With this in mind, and in accordance with the political agreement on which the directive is based, guidelines on the access to storage facilities should be negotiated as soon as possible in the Madrid Forum.

3.5

A key issue is how to prepare and decide on modifications to the rules provided for in the Regulation. The Commission proposes that it shall be assisted by the Committee set up by Article 13 of the Regulation on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity. The present rules have been agreed upon in the Madrid Forum, where the transmission system operators and network users are represented. Their involvement should be guaranteed also in the future by recognising in the Regulation that future modifications will be based on agreements at the Madrid Forum by making, for instance, an addition to Article 14 or the recitals.

4.1

With a view to facilitating amendments to the guidelines and avoid the need to soon amend the text of the Regulation itself, the Definitions (Article 2) could be complemented so as to take account of foreseeable changes in the guidelines.

4.3

Article 14 should be amended by adding the involvement of stakeholders to the proposed comitology procedure.

4.4

When monitoring the implementation of the Regulation the Commission should also bring in the views of all stakeholders. This should be taken into account in Article 15.

4.5

The relevant networks points, on which information must be published, are now defined in the Annex (3.2.) of the draft Regulation. These definitions, which are vital for transparency, should be included as an Article into the body of the Regulation text in order to make amendments to them possible only by co-decision.

4.6

The Committee stresses the sensitive, strategic nature of gas infrastructure: balancing of networks, pressure thresholds at nodes, development of infrastructure for transporting gas by pipeline or liquefaction, consideration of saturation thresholds. The Community regulation should provide means and measures to facilitate forward planning and proper regulation by operators in this area.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/34

1.1

This opinion is intended as a contribution towards identifying the basic elements of a working framework through which European regional development policies, as framed through intergovernmental and regional agreements and development programmes, can incorporate the concept of sustainable development. On this basis, the added value of the opinion lies in the proposals it puts forward for making the incorporation of the concept of sustainable development in regional integration measures a key point on the agenda of working discussions between the EESC delegations and the representatives of developing countries and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership countries. The opinion also aims to serve as a warning to the developing and least developed countries (LDCs) not to repeat the mistakes made by European countries during the long process of economic development they have ahead of them. Such mistakes have weighed heavily on Europe's efforts to walk the path of sustainability.

1.2

This opinion concerns the EU's external relations with the developing countries and LDCs and with the Euro-Med countries with which it has special ties.

1.3

This opinion adopts the definition of sustainable development given in previous EESC opinions (1), which in turn is based on the Brundtland report and the Gothenburg summit. Particularly important is the breakdown of the definition of sustainable development into three pillars, namely economic development, environmental compatibility and social justice.

1.4

None of these three pillars can fully convey the sense and importance of sustainable development on its own, but together they provide a satisfactory basis for identifying the operational features of sustainable development. These features are necessary for transforming sustainable development from a general theoretical concept into a practical tool.

1.5

It is of course essential to identify the functional features of sustainable development for all policies in which it is supposed to be a basic component. In particular, there must be recognition of the need to identify functional characteristics in efforts to make sustainable development an inherent and integral element of regional integration. This is because regional integration is mainly realised through specific intergovernmental agreements and programmes involving clear actions.

1.6

Regional integration is one of the six key areas of EU development cooperation agreed on between the Member States and the Commission in 2000. Together with support for macroeconomic policies, trade and development, transport, food safety, sustainable agricultural development and institutional capacity building, it makes up the EU's strategy for securing productive and constructive cooperation with the developing countries and LDCs. This fact was also stressed at the 6th EU-ACP Regional Seminar of Economic and Social Interest Groups.

1.7

Regional integration and cooperation help to integrate the developing countries into the global economy and play a crucial role in consolidating peace and preventing conflict. They also enable the countries involved to address cross-border differences, particularly concerning the environment and the use and management of natural resources.

1.8

This link between regional integration and the use and management of natural resources gives a clear indication of the direct connection and relationship that efforts towards regional integration must have with action for sustainable development. Particular emphasis must be placed on this link, which must also be manifest in subregional cooperation between the developing countries and LDCs and the Euro-Med countries.

1.9

On a conceptual level, sustainable development is a much broader term than regional integration. While sustainable development refers across the board to all areas of economic and social activity, regional integration focuses more on economic cooperation through specific trade agreements and policies. Nevertheless, both terms are directly relevant to the new globalised environment which has begun to take shape over recent decades and which is dramatically changing economic, social and environmental conditions all over the planet.

1.10

It is also worth pointing out that the term sustainable development mainly occurs in strategy documents, while regional integration comes up in documents outlining programmes of economic action and policy. That is to say, sustainable development is, and should be treated as, an overarching, rather than complementary, dimension of regional integration.

1.11

It is clear that the EU's efforts to promote regional integration in the developing countries and LDCs and the Euro-Med countries are guided by the basic principles, philosophy and priorities which the EU has applied within its own borders. Sustainable development is a top priority for the EU. Even though it has been declared a main strategic goal of the EU (2), it can hardly be considered fully operational, mainly owing to the small number of both quantitative and qualitative indicators proposed for monitoring it. This fact must be addressed as a challenge and the EESC has clearly stated its intention in previous opinions to support moves to fully incorporate sustainable development in the Lisbon strategy at a practical level. Particular reference is made to the opinion issued in May 2002 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards a global partnership for sustainable development.

1.11.1

That opinion notes: ‘Global sustainable development is an area for which the EU can furnish a very particular contribution based on experience within the Union itself.’ (3) This experience must therefore be applied as effectively as possible to the LDCs and Euro-Med countries.

1.12

Another key parameter in the EU's efforts to promote the strategy of sustainable development through regional integration must be to recognise the principle that peace, security and strong democratic principles are the basic prerequisite for sustainable development in areas where regional integration is being pursued.

2.1

The project to create a working framework referred to in 1.1 cannot fail to take account of the globalised environment of recent decades and particularly the connection between regional integration agreements or regional trade agreements and the World Trade Organisation.

2.2

A basic duty of the WTO is the liberalisation of international trade: the abolition of tariffs and distorting subsidies, and removal of non-tariff barriers to trade. Regional development agreements must be compatible with this objective and go one step further, giving equal weighting to issues related to restructuring at national level with a view to reducing internal trade barriers. Thus, regional development agreements should concern matters of fiscal restructuring, reducing political instability and corruption, creating and supporting new institutions and other domestic issues. Thus they are seen as more in keeping with efforts to achieve sustainable development as they create a ripple effect in areas of social and environmental policy.

2.3

While it is not a given that this ripple effect is always positive, the potential of regional development agreements to function in a more integrated way than agreements formalised through the WTO should be acknowledged.

2.4

Another question linked to sustainable development and regional development is that of foreign direct investment in the developing countries and LDCs.

2.5

In the recent past, foreign direct investment provided the focus of increased interest from developing countries. The influx of foreign direct investment increased eightfold in the decade 1990-2000, but was concentrated to a large extent on a limited number of developing countries.

2.6

Foreign direct investment can play an important role in economic development and consequently in reducing poverty by creating jobs (a basic requirement of sustainable development). It is a fact that creating jobs can really help to improve people's standard of living in the LDCs and Euro-Mediterranean countries. The production process can therefore be expected to bring about growth in national wealth and an improvement in basic infrastructure through the resulting public investment.

2.7

It is, however, a fact that, in very many cases, foreign direct investment in the developing countries and LDCs is mainly based on the low cost of labour in those countries. Numerous studies claim that, in many instances, such investment is very likely to be detrimental in the long term both to sustainable development and to regional integration. This is because the jobs created are not underpinned by products and services based on a comprehensive strategy that includes the three pillars of sustainable development (economic viability, respect for the environment and social justice). Thus while low labour costs help companies to be economically viable, there is no corresponding guarantee that investment will be environmentally responsible or socially equitable.

2.8

It is possible, at least in theory, that a country involved in a regional development agreement and at the same time receiving a much larger amount of foreign direct investment (compared with other countries involved in regional cooperation) may have difficulty realising the processes of regional integration. This may happen if foreign direct investment is not fully compatible with certain principles of regional cooperation with the other countries.

2.9

It is therefore appropriate to carry out further research and as far as possible to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative impact of foreign direct investment on sustainable development and regional integration in the developing countries. Foreign direct investment must therefore be evaluated not just in terms of its productivity on the basis of strict economic criteria but also in terms of its impact on the environment and social structures. Particular attention must be paid to the role of businesses and especially to promoting Corporate Social Responsibility.

3.1

There is no doubting the EU's intention to frame efforts to achieve regional integration with the concept of sustainable development. Since regional integration has been recognised as a key force for development, it makes sense, particularly for the developing countries and LDCs, to seek to incorporate the concept of sustainability into the development model being created in these countries so that it does not subsequently become necessary to adjust a model which has not taken this dimension into account. However, it is especially important and necessary for this intention to be translated into concrete action in the developing countries and LDCs. On this point, the role of sectoral policies is crucial.

3.2

The concept of sustainable development can only be incorporated effectively into action on regional integration through concrete sectoral policies. It is sectoral policies which determine the measures to achieve certain objectives at an operational level. It is therefore necessary to create a checklist of issues to be addressed by specific sectoral policies in regional integration and sustainable development. This reasoning is also supported by the results of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, where the EU endeavoured — though perhaps less successfully than expected owing to resistance from other countries — to commit the international community to a series of operational measures helping to promote sustainable development.

3.3

This checklist must be the result of an exhaustive process of dialogue with civil society organisations. The timeframe for drawing up this checklist must on the one hand allow full coverage of the issues while on the other hand ensuring that the whole undertaking produces results. In other words, it should be neither uncomfortably short nor unnecessarily long. The whole process could be significantly facilitated by promoting the development of Local Agendas 21 in the developing countries, LDCs and the Euro-Med countries. Local Agendas 21 are action programmes at local level (municipalities, rural communities, etc.) to promote sustainable development. The Agendas are designed principally by local authorities, working in close cooperation with all parties concerned, and with civil society organisations playing an important role. Development of the Local Agendas 21 is backed by the UN Environment Programme and was launched after the Earth Summit in Rio (1992). When drawing up the agendas, priority must be given to sustainable rural development, which is also supported by the EU in the context of implementing national development strategies.

3.4

With this in mind, the following issues are proposed. This must be seen as a preliminary set of key items on the agenda referred to above, which may well be added to as a result of exchanges of views with civil society, as indeed provided for in the 2003-2004 work programme of the EESC's Section for External Relations. The items proposed as comprising the basic agenda are presented in terms of the three pillars of sustainability, namely economic development, social justice and environmental compliance.

4.1.1

The developing countries and LDCs are dependent on agriculture for a large proportion of their GDP. In this context, the EESC would point out that the European Union has already taken many initiatives in favour of trade with these countries (‘all except weapons’ initiative). Indeed, the European Union is the main importer of agricultural and food products from the LDCs. However, regional integration is to a large extent based on agreements concerning agricultural products. Given that the prevailing methods by which agriculture is practised around the world are far from what could be described as sustainable, all the necessary measures will have to be taken to promote the use of sustainable farming practices meaning first and foremost security of food supply, better control of water use and soil fertility management, in the countries involved in processes of regional integration. Moreover, agricultural production in the developing countries and LDCs will have to show substantial qualitative improvement if the goal of reducing the number of people below the poverty line is to be achieved. Therefore agricultural methods that are to be used to increase production must be supported by proven techniques that ensure the sustainability of the operation.

4.1.2

It should be pointed out in this connection that the indigenous knowledge of local populations concerning farming practices can be valuable in regional integration processes. This knowledge is usually associated with sustainable practices as it derives from the long-established relationship between man and his natural environment. In many cases, this knowledge is in danger of being lost, the practices based on it having been almost entirely replaced by less sustainable practices. This has been the result of the rash decision by many developing countries and LDCs to follow the Western model for modernising agriculture and of pressure by Western countries on the former to open their markets to practices which are not in keeping with the sustainable development of agriculture. Regional integration can therefore be an excellent opportunity for transferring technical expertise on sustainable farming practices between the countries involved in it. One example of ‘indigenous knowledge’ would be the use of processed remains from agricultural production as fertiliser, which has been almost entirely replaced by chemical fertilisers. Admittedly, the available technology means that producing chemical fertilisers is more cost-effective than recycling, but it is possible to solve these problems by applying innovative methods.

4.1.3

Current agricultural production practices in the developed countries have shown their limits. Organic farming and reduced use of fertilisers and phytochemicals are becoming more and more important. This has to do not just with the need to reduce the environmental impact of farming but also clearly with cost factors. For example, it has been shown that the high cost of inappropriate use of nitrate fertilisers significantly reduces any benefits they have in terms of increasing agricultural production. For this reason the developing countries and LDCs must be given the message that traditional farming practices should not automatically be replaced with modern practices that have proved incompatible with both environmental and economic objectives.

4.1.4

The limitations of the practices currently used in agricultural production in the developed countries have become apparent. Organic farming and the reduction in the use of fertilisers and pesticides are ever more prevalent. This is not only due to the need to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, but also purely to cost factors. It has been proven for example that the high cost of excessive use of nitrate fertilisers in farming significantly reduces any profits which might accrue from the resulting increase in agricultural productivity. It is therefore essential to convey the message to the developing countries and LDCs that traditional farming practices should not necessarily be replaced by modern methods which have been shown to be disadvantageous both from an environmental and economic point of view.

4.1.5

In the field of rural development, the EESC wishes to draw attention to the negative effects of the rural exodus going on in many of these countries. It would therefore be advisable to support any measures to keep the existing population in rural areas by creating new activities to complement farming and through exchanges of experience.

4.2.1

Forestry plays an important role in both the economic and social life of many developing countries and LDCs. On this issue, regional integration has to address the cross-border nature of forests and therefore the need for sustainable management of forestry resources, which, it should be noted, are a prime example of renewable natural resources.

4.2.2

Particular emphasis should be given to developing national and regional certification schemes for the sustainable production of forestry products (especially wood). These must comply with international certification standards in these matters.

4.3.1

International transport networks are an essential requirement for regional integration. However, transport infrastructure also brings with it major risks of damaging or even destroying important natural resources. For this reason, policies are required, but also monitoring systems to ensure that the benefits for regional integration resulting from international transport networks are not cancelled out by environmental damage.

4.4.1

Tourism is a direct example of international exchanges of all kinds, from economic to social and cultural. The developing countries and LDCs taking part in regional integration schemes can benefit enormously from the development of tourism. It is important to achieve the sustainable development of tourism through regional integration schemes. Something approaching this can be achieved with coordinated international programmes to diversify tourist facilities on offer and to develop new forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, cultural tourism, etc.

4.4.2

It should be stressed in this respect that the diversification of tourist facilities and new forms of tourism should be based on best practice adapted to the local conditions in each country. The EU should also be more active in supporting projects to develop new forms of tourism in the developing countries and LDCs, as well as the Euro-Med countries, involving public-private collaborations to develop know-how in these sectors. The need for this is born out of the fact that the diversification of tourist facilities and the development of new forms of tourism does not constitute direct competition with conventional tourist activities and therefore cannot be regarded as an area which is not eligible for assistance and incentives.

4.5.1

After long deliberations the EU has managed to frame a common policy in the area of fisheries. However, the wealth of the sea is not subject to physical boundaries. Both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic are exploited by a whole host of countries outside the EU. Many of these are developing or least developed countries that are not obliged to follow sustainable practices.

4.5.2

The value cycle of marine products involves many countries and forms of regional cooperation. For this reason, compliance with sustainable fishing practices should be ensured by implementing initiatives and programmes aimed at regional integration, especially through North-South agreements, but also through South-South agreements.

4.6.1

The EU has published a Green Paper on security of energy supply, in which particular attention is paid to environmental protection issues. Since the EU directly links energy supply policy to sustainable development, regional integration strategies must provide for policies and measures in the sphere of energy. This is quite a tricky issue because many of the developing countries, LDCs and Euro-Med countries have substantial reserves of oil, which is currently the main source of energy for the EU; optimistic targets have been set for reducing oil consumption, also based on commitments in relation to greenhouse gas emissions (Kyoto Protocol).

4.6.2

One topic highlighted as being of key importance for sustainable development in the developing countries, LDCs and Euro-Med countries is the development of energy infrastructures in rural areas. Given the importance of this issue, and the EU's strategic goal of improving energy management and making it consistent with the objectives of sustainability, energy infrastructure must be developed in such a way that the economic gains from such infrastructure are compatible with environmental protection and social development.

4.7

These are not the only areas of economic activity where regional integration schemes must be based on the rationale of sustainable development. They should simply be thought of as the basic areas which will serve as examples for other economic activities. Trade agreements and programmes to promote them in these areas must show the way ahead, based on participatory planning procedures.

5.1

It is impossible to ensure the long-term success of any regional development effort unless it is based on education and training. Sustainable development in education must be a fundamental goal of regional integration schemes. It is the educated citizens of the future who will ensure that the achievements of regional integration continue to be built upon in a sustainable way.

5.2

Given that, in many developing countries and LDCs, the position of women is not that required for a policy of sustainable development, regional integration schemes must not only eliminate any cases of social exclusion of women, but also provide for the particular role women have to play in international exchanges. Regional integration schemes must inter alia support changes in the way the sexes are treated, as well as structures and mechanisms on a political, legal and family level to help do away with possible discrimination on the basis of gender.

5.3

Under no circumstances must regional integration alter the cultural identity of developing countries. On the contrary, regional integration schemes must respect specific cultural features, seek to promote cultural exchanges and support the rights of cultural minorities. Preserving the cultural identity of developing countries should of course always go hand in hand with respect for individual rights and the principles of democracy, equal opportunities and the eradication of social or racial discrimination.

5.4

It is also very important that employees be involved on an equal footing in decisions relating to regional integration and sustainable development. Obviously job creation is one of the major goals of the regional integration programmes. Active participation of employees and their representative organisations in the process of organising these programmes can be very helpful both in terms of achieving the objective of creating new jobs and of reducing the possible negative impact of job creation on the environment. Since workers themselves are informed citizens of the communities in which regional integration programmes are intended to promote growth, their opinion must be of key importance and they must be directly represented, since they are consumers as well as producers of the products and services concerned by the programmes.

5.5

Several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from the LDCs and Euro-Med countries have indicated their interest in actively supporting measures to promote sustainable development. Many have also taken measures relating to the above issues. This means that they must be closely involved in the processes of incorporating sustainable development into the regional development programmes through the formal channels of organised civil society.

5.6

Developing effective and accountable institutions with the powers required to promote the necessary strategies and policies for sustainable development and regional integration is a basic prerequisite for the success of this effort. For this reason, developing capacity building programmes at local and regional level in the developing countries, LDCs and Euro-Med countries must be a political priority.

6.1

The geographical areas where regional integration is sought include countries which share important water resources. The management of water resources is also a major cause of friction between a number of countries. Securing the sustainable management of transnational water resources must be considered a top priority in regional integration processes. There can be no question of any type of trade, economic or other regional integration agreement between countries which do not respect the right of all to access to good quality water in sufficient quantities.

6.2

It goes without saying that the management of transnational water resources must go hand in hand with rational management at national level. On this point, the Commission directive 60/2000 (4) on the management of water resources should be promoted in the developing countries, LDCs and Euro-Med countries. That directive establishes a comprehensive framework for the management of water resources and could form the basis for framing regional water management policies in respect of technical issues.

6.3

Equally important is the management of protected areas, as, in this case too, there are many examples of transnational reserves, as well as cross-border friction. Given that these areas support many economic activities, it is clear that regional integration agreements directly affect management of them. For this reason there must be special provision for the sustainable management of protected areas.

6.3.1

Management of protected areas must be based on comprehensive plans that are not only supported by adequate evaluation of the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, environmental and social) but also lead to operationally practicable measures that include the dimension of regional cooperation.

6.4

The EU is in the process of establishing a network of protected areas in the Member States with the aim of preserving biodiversity (the Natura 2000 network). The experience Member States have in this field should be passed on to the developing and least developed countries. Programmes to develop skills in managing protected areas and maintaining biodiversity should therefore be promoted. The Commission and Member States can also contribute directly to this by inviting observers from the developing and least developed countries to sit in on the biogeographical seminars (especially seminars on the Mediterranean region).

6.5

Among the most important areas for development is the coastal zone. Any process of regional integration must inevitably involve issues which affect the coastal zone, either directly or indirectly. Given the complexity of both the ecosystems and economic activities in such areas, regional integration must also be used as a means of promoting the sustainable management of the coastal zone. In this field, the EESC is in favour of implementation of the integrated coastal zone management developed by the Commission.

6.6

Another issue of particular importance is wildlife management and strict controls on the trade in wild flora and fauna. In this context, the EESC supports the strictest possible implementation of the CITES convention and the promotion of it in as many countries as possible.

6.7

Special attention must also be paid to the considerable problems posed by the increased risk of desertification in many Euro-Med countries. In many parts of the Euro-Med countries this phenomenon not only has environmental implications for the regions concerned but also disrupts regional economies by preventing economic activities. The Euro-Med countries must therefore be helped to develop regional cooperation projects that provide for specific measures to contain the risk of desertification.

7.1

The basic principles of incorporating sustainable development into regional integration initiatives presented above demand specific measures and practices. The measures and practices must help the developing countries and LDCs to include the concept of sustainable development in regional integration and make it possible to monitor the progress made on this issue in these and the Euro-Med countries. A key role must be given in the process of developing such measures and practices to participatory planning and efforts to achieve optimum forms of governance.

7.2

Through its external assistance section, the EU has planned and implemented development programmes for the developing countries and LDCs (MEDA, ALA, CARDS etc.). Sustainable development is an integral element in the planning of these programmes. Their effectiveness has not so far lived up to the EU's ambitious aims, but they can help to promote the idea of incorporating sustainable development in regional integration initiatives.

7.3

Special mention should be made of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation arrangements. The Euro-Mediterranean cooperation strategy is a high-priority area in the EU's external relations. The basic tool for implementation of this strategy is the MEDA programme. The SMAP programme is another key tool for policy implementation in the environmental and sustainable development field.

7.4

The MEDA programme has not lived up to expectations to date. Despite the fact that the budget for MEDA II was considered more than adequate, it has not yet managed to achieve the objectives set at the start of implementation. Although it has succeeded in triggering off sustainable development projects, the SMAP programme does not have the necessary continuity to ensure completion of actions. Although it is difficult to implement projects under these programmes because of a lack of the necessary cooperation between the target countries, the EU's efforts, and particularly those of the Commission, will have to be directed towards mobilising the necessary players with a stake in the programmes. The EESC feels that the Commission should examine the possibility of funding more flexible mechanisms involving both public operators, who will guarantee the national commitment of the countries with a stake in the programmes, and private players, who can fulfil the function of transferring technical expertise to the target countries.

7.5

As regards monitoring the progress made in the developing countries and LDCs and the Euro-Med countries with efforts to incorporate sustainable development into regional integration measures, the particular importance of sustainability impact studies should be highlighted. On this point, the EESC endorses the Council's view that a sustainability impact assessment study should be drawn up for free-trade agreements. This view was confirmed in May 2003 at the mid-term Euro-Mediterranean conference in Crete.

7.6

The performance of countries where regional integration measures are being implemented should also be assessed on the basis of the sustainable development indicators which have been adopted and are starting to be applied in the EU Member States. Although still in an early stage of development and application, these indicators should be thought of as a modus vivendi providing a working framework for assessing the performance of such countries.

7.7

One issue that will have to be considered very carefully during the process of assessing the performance of countries in which the regional integration programmes are being implemented is the overlapping of measures implemented due to countries taking part in more than one regional integration agreement. Many developing countries and LDCs belong to several regional integration agreements, which can reduce efficiency and create a risk of wasting resources. A major aim of incorporating sustainable development into regional integration measures must be to mitigate any consequences this might have.

7.8

With regard to financing sustainable development in regional integration programmes, the EESC supports the Monterrey Agreement on financing for development, which provides for a steady increase in the amount of financing available for sustainable development. (5) The declaration calls for increased mobility and effective use of financial resources so as to establish the conditions required to meet the development goals agreed on at international level. These goals are also set out in the Millennium Declaration (6) and concern eradicating poverty, improving social conditions, increasing living standards and protection of the environment as a first step towards satisfying the need for the 21st century to be a century of development for all.

8.1

As mentioned in the introduction, sustainable development is, and must be treated as, an overarching, and not complementary, dimension of regional integration. This issue is not easy but must not be regarded as impossible. The goals set for the EU's efforts in this direction may bring substantial results. By way of regional cooperation programmes, the EU not only helps the developing countries and LDCs, but also conveys cultural, political and social messages. These messages can be summed up in the concept of sustainable development and implemented, inter alia, through regional integration.

8.2

One of the EU's concerns as part of its effort in this field should be to seek out opportunities for international cooperation. On this subject, special mention must be made of cooperation with the United Nations.

8.3

Relations between the UN and the EU have developed over time through a variegated network of cooperation projects. These relations are strong and cover virtually all areas of external relations. The further promotion of relations with the UN is a strategic priority of the EU, of the Member States and of the Commission.

8.4

Regional integration and sustainable development offer an ideal area for improving these relations. Given the strategic orientation and experience of the UN in matters of sustainable development and the technical expertise of the EU in matters of regional integration, the EESC is in favour of cooperation between the two organisations through regional and sustainable development projects funded by joint mechanisms of the two organisations.

8.5

The EU's intention to pursue such cooperation has already been expressed both in the November 2000 declaration by the Council and the Commission on European Community development policy and in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Building an effective partnership with the United Nations in the fields of Development and Humanitarian Affairs (COM(2001) 231 final/2.5.2001).

8.6

With respect to regional integration the EU cooperation programmes, in particular those that concern regional integration with the developing countries and LDCs, must therefore place special emphasis on the various dimensions of sustainability, i.e. economic, social and environmental. The EESC can contribute greatly to the success of these efforts, since it is the EU body with the most appropriate remit to address these questions within civil society.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/41

1.1

The Commission's proposal is based on Article 13(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has already been the basis for the Directives combating discrimination in employment or occupation on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (1) and, in relation to both employment and occupation and access to and the supply of goods and services, on grounds of racial or ethnic origin (2).

1.2

The proposed Directive lays down a framework for combating discrimination based on sex in access to and the supply of goods and services, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment between men and women. It has no retrospective effect.

1.2.1

Direct and indirect discrimination based on sex are prohibited, including less favourable treatment of women for reasons of pregnancy and maternity. Harassment and sexual harassment, as defined in the proposal, are deemed to be discrimination on grounds of sex and, therefore, prohibited. A person's rejection of, or submission to, such conduct may not be used as a basis for a decision affecting that person. Incitement to discriminate is also deemed to be discrimination within the meaning of the Directive.

1.3

The scope of the proposal is wide, although there are certain significant limitations. Broadly it covers access to and supply of goods and services available to the public, including housing. It covers both the public and private sectors, including public bodies. Transactions of a purely private nature are excluded, for example the renting of a holiday home to a family member or the letting of a room in a private house.

1.3.1

The Commission gives examples of goods and services available to the public:

1.3.2

The range of services involved is wide. Important areas include pensions, life and health insurance, general insurance and access to finance and housing.

1.3.3

The use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purpose of insurance and related financial services will be prohibited from the date on which the Directive comes into force. Member States are permitted, however, to defer implementation of this provision for up to a further six years. If they do so, they must immediately inform the Commission and are required to compile, publish and regularly update comprehensive tables on the mortality and life expectancy of women and men.

1.4

There are certain exclusions. The proposed Directive would not preclude differences related to goods or services for which men and women are not in a comparable situation because goods or services are intended exclusively or primarily for the members of one sex or to skills which are practised differently for each sex. Examples include single-sex sessions in a swimming pool and private membership clubs.

1.5

Specifically excluded from the scope of the Directive are education and the content of media and advertising, in particular advertising and television advertising, as defined in Article 1(b) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC.

1.6

Positive action is permitted under the Directive.

1.7

The Directive contains provisions on minimum rights and remedies, enforcement and monitoring common to the two directives referred to in paragraph 1.1.

2.1

The Committee would stress the importance of the principle of banning sex discrimination in relation to men's and women's access to and supply of goods and services.

2.2

The Committee welcomes the consistency of wording and definition in this proposal with that in the two previous Directives and that on the burden of proof in equality cases.

2.2.1

The Committee is concerned that the definition of ‘services’ is contained only in Article 10 of the Preamble to the draft Directive. To avoid ambiguity, given the wide range of public and other services available to the public (for example, those provided by NGOs), the term ‘services’ should be defined clearly in the text. The Committee favours a broad definition.

2.3

The exclusion of education from the scope of the Directive is regrettable. However, it is recognised that there may be problems of Community competence in this area. Education, however, is a key factor in equality between women and men and can result in boys and girls following traditional career paths, thus affecting their future in a significant way. There are concerns in some Member States concerning limitations on choice and lack of adequate guidance in education, which have ongoing and significant implications both for the individuals concerned, for attainment of social inclusion targets and for the competitiveness of the EU itself.

2.3.1

The Commission has stated that only privately-provided education would come within the scope of services, if this sector was not excluded from the Directive. This could have resulted in the application of different standards in the implementation of the principle of equal treatment.

2.3.2

The Member States have already begun to take action in the area of education under the Lisbon Agenda. The Committee, therefore, urges the Commission to do whatever is within its powers, to encourage the Member States to ensure that there is equality of access to and provision of educational opportunities for both boys and girls.

2.3.3

The existing equal treatment Directive covers access to vocational training, including third-level education of a vocational nature. This is, however, insufficient. The means of benefiting from third-level education, whether in university or a vocational institution, are acquired at primary and secondary level.

2.4

The Committee understands that the proposal only covers the media and advertising in their role as service industries. It accepts that the current proposal is not the correct vehicle for action on the content of media and advertising. However, as the media and advertising exert powerful influence on public attitudes and opinions, they cannot be ignored in the EU's efforts to remove discrimination from employment and everyday life. There is, however, a fine line between appropriate action and censorship. The Commission should, therefore, continue its consultations on these issues, bearing these factors in mind and take appropriate action, within a reasonable timeframe. The Committee looks forward to taking its part in this process.

2.5

The Committee welcomes the fact that men and women would have equal access to finance — particularly important for them both, whether as entrepreneurs or as persons seeking housing finance.

2.6

Since education, the media and advertising are excluded from the Directive, the Committee feels that non-discrimination on the basis of gender in access to insurance is the most delicate aspect of the proposal. No new discriminatory criteria should be created in any area covered by the proposal, including insurance.

2.6.1

The Committee has serious doubts about the claim that unisex rates — which are actually applied in certain countries of the Union — always increase insurance premiums in general and that spreading risks more evenly between men and women tends to push up insurance costs. It is unwise and inconsistent with the purpose of the proposal to allow Member States to defer implementation of equal treatment for six years in the general context of free provision of services and freedom of establishment in the field of insurance.

2.6.2

On the matter of universal access to rights to insurance complementing social protection, the Committee calls for the abolition of direct and indirect discrimination. This request is especially urgent given that the second and third pillars of social protection (supplementary insurance) are currently the fastest growing components of social protection in the Union. In this regard the Committee would refer to the proposals set out in its Opinion on Supplementary health insurance (4).

3.1

The Committee supports equalisation of access to financial services, many of which are essential to everyday life and the equalisation of benefits and premiums for men and women. However, the Directive covers a wide range of financial services that are very different in nature — e.g., motor insurance, health and disability insurance and pensions and annuities. This raises complex and difficult issues, that vary from one Member State to another.

3.1.1

It must, however, be recognised that there will be some adverse as well as positive effects in the equalisation of benefits and premiums for consumers of these services, the effects for men and women varying, depending on the financial service involved. In the case of motor insurance, ‘no-claim’ bonuses for individuals arise only after several years of insurance experience. There is a distinct possibility that, in order to cover uncertainties arising, insurance costs could rise for everyone.

3.1.2

The European Court of Justice in the Colorell judgement (5) accepted that the use of actuarial statistics based on sex was valid for the purposes of calculation of pension contributions and benefits. It required, however, the contributions made by employees and the benefits received by them to be equal. Higher contributions on the part of the employer were held to be valid. The Court has in effect recognised that equalisation of benefit costs more. In occupational pension schemes, the employer paid the higher contribution. In private pension and insurance provision, there is no employer to absorb any higher premium or contribution: this will fall on the consumers of the service. However, this does not only apply to pensions where men have to pay for female longevity, but to all types of insurance. Women may have to pay, for example, for men's increased accident risk, etc.

3.1.3

The Commission in its Extended Impact Assessment recognises that there will be specific costs for insurance providers, that will ultimately be passed on to the consumers but considers that this will end once the adjustment period has passed. The EESC takes the same view.

3.1.4

The Committee would also refer here to the Treaty principle on equal treatment for women and men. If this principle is used as a basis, the insurance industry must — over a certain period of time, naturally — amend its calculation systems so that sex is no longer a factor in calculating car insurance premiums, for example. Since accident frequency and longevity are clearly not affected by calculation methods, consumers' overall premium payments should, in theory, remain unchanged

3.1.5

The Committee considers that more specific assessment (including independent simulations on effects of alternative bases) of the insurance/pensions industry are required in order to assess the long-term impact of the proposals. The Committee believes it is important to monitor events — particularly in the insurance industry — after the directive has entered into force. The overall aim of the directive must be to protect people's right not to suffer discrimination.

3.2

In relation to the provision of housing, the Committee is of the opinion that the Directive should not apply to private arrangements, i.e., lease, sale or donation, made between family members.

3.3

The Committee is of the opinion that exclusions should be clearly defined. They must not jeopardise equality between women and men.

3.4

The Committee welcomes Article 5, which permits positive action. This provision should not, however, endanger vital services provided both by the public service and by NGOs for men and women, such as single-sex housing for disadvantaged persons and shelters for women who have been subject to domestic or other forms of violence.

3.5

The Committee approves the provision on dialogue with non-governmental organisations. This provision must, however, guarantee regular contact with organised civil society.

3.6

Information and publicity of the Directive when adopted will be vital to ensure that consumers are fully aware of their rights and that providers of goods and services understand their obligations under it.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/44

1.1

This communication is one in a long line of non-legislative Commission texts which take stock of past initiatives and future options in a particular sector. It forms a sort of general framework for Commission thinking on environmental technologies.

1.2

From the very start, the communication is set in the context of the EU sustainable development strategy and the Lisbon strategy, pointing out — in the words of the now familiar refrain — that the aim is to make the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’.

1.3

But after this now ritual reminder, the real question is raised, namely what are the aims of this environmental technologies action plan (ETAP)?

The Commission lists three:

with the ultimate aim being to reduce pressures on our natural resources, improve the quality of life for Europe's population and promote economic growth.

1.4

The Commission thinks that politically the time is right for launching this action plan, but the question is how is this to be done and what concrete actions are to be taken. It is the responses to these two questions which structure the text.

2.1.1

The Commission starts by noting a number of points which are to underpin the action plan:

—

Getting from research to markets,

—

Improving market conditions,

—

Acting globally.

2.2.1.1

The Commission is advocating that funds from, inter alia, the EIB and the EBRD be used to increase and focus research, the aim being to develop commercial applications.

2.2.1.2

The Commission plans to promote technology platforms for promising environmental technologies, the main aim of which would be to improve the effectiveness of research, mobilise resources, provide for the development of public-private partnerships, and improve technology transfer to developing countries.

2.2.1.3

Finally, the Commission wishes to improve testing and standardisation in relation to environmental technologies.

2.2.2.1

The Commission describes how to bring about this improvement in the market in terms of investment, removing economic barriers, influencing the economic weight of public procurement and mobilising civil society.

2.2.3.1

Europe's ambitions with regard to environmental technologies are not confined to the old continent. The Commission thinks that the European Union has a duty to act resolutely in promoting sustainable development worldwide.

2.2.3.2

The Commission plans to develop partnerships with developing countries and to get closely involved in the initiatives taken at the Johannesburg summit with regard to environmental technologies.

3.1

The drawing-up of an action plan supposes that its implementation will be monitored. The Commission makes provision for various instruments to that effect: two-yearly report, European panel on environmental technologies, coordination, information on best practice, etc.

4.1

The Committee's comments also take account of the remarks and suggestions of the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (rapporteur: Mrs Sirkeinen, co-rapporteur: Mr Reichel).

4.2

Environmental technologies, by definition, cover a very wide field. Their purpose can be to use natural resources in a sustainable manner, avoid or reduce damage to the environment, develop alternative energy sources, or be a part of integrated products policy, etc. As the EESC has already pointed out (1), it is very important for the definition of environmental technologies not to be limited to ‘clean’ technologies. The ongoing improvement of processes and service provision methods in order to reduce the negative impact on the environment, research, innovative know-how and development with a view to upgrading traditional technologies and incorporating an environmental dimension therein is also one way of developing environmental technologies and must be encouraged. The effectiveness of an environmental technique is gauged in the light of its favourable impact on the environment and not on the basis of a predetermined definition of environmentally ‘virtuous’ technologies.

4.3

There is the danger of a very broad action plan being too wide-ranging and hence its resources being scattered too widely. One of the major challenges for such a plan's success is probably the ability to define priorities and establish a hierarchy and hence to assess not only the effectiveness of environmental technologies but also their economic viability. This idea hardly comes across at all in the Commission document, but it is of major practical importance. However, it must also not be forgotten that the sustainable development concept rests on three pillars — economic development, protection of the environment and natural resources, and personal self-fulfilment within society.

4.4

Environmental technologies are always used when their use is either of direct benefit to the user or a legal requirement. Since the free market alone does not fulfil all the socially accepted ethical, social and environmental goals, the legislator has always had to step in to create the appropriate legal framework. Whilst such legislation may result in higher costs at a microeconomic level, these costs may prove to be worthwhile in macroeconomic terms. When establishing the legal framework, the legislator should take into account the innovative strength of the economy and of science, by setting targets without specifying the steps or technologies that are needed to achieve those targets. The increasing awareness that fulfilling additional social and environmental criteria may bring opportunities for increasing sales is an important driving force for the action plan and for strengthening the competitiveness of the European economy.

4.5

Another determining factor for the success of the environmental technologies plan is market access and conditions. There is no point in hoping that environmental technologies will take off if they cannot find a buoyant and competitive market. Partly because of non-internalised environmental costs, but also partly because they have not been developed or penetrated the market to such a degree that economies of scale can be made to reduce costs, effective environmental technologies often cannot be produced as cheaply as less environment-friendly technologies. The challenge is therefore to define ways and means (loans, subsidies, tax incentives) of promoting the development of environmentally desirable and proven processes and corresponding environmental technologies, in order to encourage and facilitate market access, or even market creation. The EESC would stress that if incentives are to form a coherent whole and be put to good use, it will be necessary to establish some sort of classification or hierarchy: risk capital for launches, more traditional loans during the development phase, tax incentives to consolidate the market, and possibly taxes which internalise the environmental costs of less environmentally-friendly technologies.

4.6

In this respect, incentives or deterrents — in the form of legal and regulatory provisions — are necessary but cannot treat economic and social realities with disdain. Nor can they result in the unfair distortion of competition. Environmental technologies must not be an unattainable luxury or result in the distortion of competition, brought about by the acceptance of products and services from economic areas which have not imposed similar rules. The Commission text makes a point of this vital fact. The briefing and mobilisation of civil society and public opinion in support of environmental technologies will be futile if reality and economic feasibility are overlooked. One factor in gaining the support of public opinion is that it must not be forgotten that citizens and consumers are also working men and women. Therefore, if old technologies have to be abandoned because of sustainable development requirements, it is necessary to foresee the need for retraining and the cost thereof.

4.7

Finally, it should be pointed out that it is necessary for the EU's various policies to be generally consistent so that there is no policy clash. For example, it would be pointless to formulate a sustainable development policy that is in conflict with the policy pursued by the EU in the context of the WTO or in connection with market liberalisation. In this regard, there is a vital need for both a serious debate on this issue within the WTO and a resolute stance against the acceptance of products and services — irrespective of their origins — which do not confine the impact of technologies and processes to the minimum.

5.1.1

The EESC endorses the action plan's objectives and in particular the desire to exploit environmental technologies' potential to the full in order to improve the state of the environment while at the same time boosting competitiveness and economic growth. This point has already been made in an earlier opinion (see footnote 1).

5.2.1

The Committee stresses the importance of incentives for developing environmental technologies, but it would point out that these incentives must not lead to artificial support for technologies which will never be able to find a real market. Above all, the market should, however, be geared, through the use of a properly targeted mix of taxation, subsidy, licence and regulatory instruments, in such a way as to ensure that the external costs of various alternative technologies are taken into account.

5.2.2

Efforts must also focus on improving more traditional technologies so that they comply increasingly with sustainable development requirements. In practice, the modernisation and adaptation of equipment and advances made in technology and manufacturing or service provision methods have already led to the application of certain environmental technologies. This is one way of developing environmental technologies which may go unnoticed but which is very real.

5.3.1

One of the major challenges is finding concrete applications for research into environmental technologies. Research funds should therefore also be earmarked for applied research and provision made for the large-scale involvement of enterprises — and particularly SMEs. It must also be pointed out that certain SMEs play a locomotive role in the development and perfection of environmental technologies.

5.4.1

The EESC thinks that the idea of establishing technology platforms for promising environmental technologies is interesting. Bringing together interested stakeholders with real expertise to focus on a given technology, technologies serving a given sector or the implementation of technologies suitable for solving a specific environmental problem is an interesting move. Intellectual property, patent and trade mark issues will be governed by the research framework programme's rules and intellectual property law without giving rise to any particular problems. The EESC thinks that if the secretariat is provided by the Commission at the outset, a form of public-private partnership should be able to develop insofar as these technology platforms meet a real need and are of real interest.

5.5.1

The spread of environmental technologies is based on economic considerations but also on their technical effectiveness. A validation mechanism and networking system for data on certain key technologies — as advocated by the Commission — would be very useful for both enterprises and the public authorities, especially if there is a wish to include some form of ‘best environmental value’ in public procurement. In this context, the EESC would draw attention to the call which it has made for the establishment of a European database. The European Environment Agency could be involved in the setting-up and maintenance of this database, which would list proven, cost-effective/appropriate environmental technologies and thus provide them with a form of ‘quality label’ (2).

5.6.1

The Commission stresses that these targets must be based on best environmental performance while being realistic from an economic and social efficiency point of view. The EESC can only endorse this point and would underline that real sustainable development takes account of not only environmental concerns but also economic competitiveness, the creation of more and better jobs, and social cohesion.

5.7.1

The use of existing financial instruments and creation of new ones to share the risk of investing in environmental technology projects and companies, notably through risk capital funds, requires skilled analysts who can assess the projects' technical and economic feasibility. Otherwise there would be a risk of wasting loans, which could be useful elsewhere. Projects must be assessed on the basis of sound and objective scientific and technical facts and not on the basis of preconceived ideas. The application of new financial instruments could provide an opportunity to involve local authorities in the development of environmental technologies and to devise public-private partnerships.

5.7.2

Investments made by enterprises to reduce the adverse impact of their activities on the environment or to make their activities more in tune with sustainable development often represent considerable financial commitments, especially in heavy industry. Tax incentives should be devised to encourage such investments, and inversely the tax system should penalise enterprises that make no effort to improve their activities' environmental impact and thus gain a competitive edge by producing more cheaply.

5.8.1

The idea of using ‘best environmental value’ to promote environmental technologies is not new. It must be assessed in the light of the reliability of environmental technologies and public finance constraints. It can provide an opportunity to develop performance-based invitations to tender. Whatever happens, however, it cannot be a gimmick used merely for the sake of having a clear conscience.

5.9.1

Every generation is accountable for the society it hands down to its children. Our contemporaries are becoming increasingly aware that they are answerable for the environment they are bequeathing to future generations. Promoting environmental technologies requires that people be educated and provided with information which — if it is to be effective — must be realistic, must underline the advantages of such technologies, and must be easy to understand and access. This means organising a real dialogue with stakeholders and the general public and mobilising local authorities, which often have a major responsibility in the environmental field.

5.10.1

The Commission's wish to act globally is commendable. The EESC would point out that in the case of most developing countries the main concerns are economic growth and the fight against poverty. In addition, these countries' financial capabilities are poor. The Committee therefore thinks effective aid must be based more on the transfer of simple and cheap ‘intermediate’ technologies which would already be an improvement on the present situation and need not necessarily be inferior to more complex, more expensive solutions in terms of their performance. It should be pointed out that, in the case of less complex solutions, those receiving the technologies will face lower costs relating to intellectual property rights and patents.

5.10.2

The EESC thinks that it would be interesting for the EU to participate in the action taken under the auspices of UNITAR (3) to promote sustainable urbanisation in developing and transition-economy countries. It notes that in this context research, study and training centres have been opened in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Curitiba (Brazil) and Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). UNITAR is also planning activities in central Europe. The Committee also draws attention to its recommendation that ‘independent skill centres for appropriate technologies’ be set up in the new Member States (4). Such centres could organise the requisite transfer of expertise and provide advice to both local decision-makers and civil society bodies, and do not necessarily need to be restricted to the new Member States.

5.11.1

The EESC thinks that of the proposed initiatives, the exchanging of information on good practice and the establishment of indicators to compare best practice are the most interesting. If the biennial report for the Council and the European Parliament is not very concrete and compact, it is in danger of becoming just another report. Also, calling the European panel on environmental technologies a committee in some language versions is a bad choice of words, since it is not a committee in the usual sense but rather a forum bringing together scientists, technologists, industrialists, entrepreneurs and NGOs, etc. However, there is also a case for asking whether the tasks assigned to this panel could not be performed by the DG Environment and the DG Research without setting up yet another body, the effectiveness of which may be open to question if it is too large?

5.11.2

In an earlier opinion the EESC, reflecting the wish to ‘move forward’, proposed an ‘environmental ombudsman’, who would be responsible in particular for highlighting the obstacles to the development of environmental technologies created by rules and regulations. This proposal would be more operational than the establishment of a vast forum, which would be in danger of getting lost in generalities.

6.1

The EESC recognises the importance of the Commission's action in drawing up the environmental technologies action plan, which has given rise to wide-ranging consultations. At a general level, the importance of this type of non-legislative document is that it provides an overview within the framework of a flexible procedure and lays down general guidelines.

6.2

The EESC considers that the practical development of environmental technologies inevitably means making choices, establishing a hierarchy for these choices and drawing up a classification for funding, which is limited and must be used wisely. The ability to make pertinent choices will determine the success of the European strategy in this field. It necessitates a realistic and practical approach.

6.3

The EESC would emphasise the importance of a system for validating the effectiveness of environmental technologies and the dissemination of the data available on such technologies. This is one of the prerequisites for the spread of environmental technologies and their application by enterprises and public authorities.

6.4

Ultimately, one must ask whether the whole question does not boil down to determining the environmental technologies which it is advisable to develop in the light of their effectiveness, the conditions on the market, environmental constraints, the employment situation in both quantitative and qualitative terms, living standards and the level of development. It is a matter of scientific, technical, economic and social judgment and competence which the Union has a duty to address if it wishes to promote environmental technologies effectively.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/49

A.

EU–US relations have a long, mutually beneficial history and rely on strong foundations of shared basic convictions of open, democratic societies. Both the EU and the US committed themselves to a full and equal partnership in a changed geo-strategic environment following the end of the Cold War. Although this changed environment has challenged the relations on several occasions, the foundations of the partnership remain in place.

B.

Public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic shows common ground as well as differences. While differences are more distinct in foreign policy issues, there is more common ground than one would expect on economic, social and environmental issues and there is widespread consensus that continuous and intense dialogue is necessary not only in the long-term interests of the EU and the US, but also for the rest of the world.

C.

The Transatlantic Economy has become even more intertwined over time with direct investments clearly ahead of trade in importance. Although trade disputes mark the headlines, they account for less than 1 % of transatlantic commerce. Growing economic interdependence leads to tensions reaching beyond the borders affecting fundamental domestic issues such as taxation, governance or regulation.

D.

Economic performance of the EU and the US shows a mixed picture which shows that both economies have their strengths and weaknesses. Both economies face important challenges in the years ahead, which give rise to the necessity for increased dialogue and cooperation in order to make the economy work smoothly for people on both sides.

E.

The changes in geopolitical challenges and threats have challenged the relationship on many occasions. Building and enhancing good governance, including social partners and civil society structures all over the world may be a useful contribution to making the world safer and improving citizen's opportunities to participate in the decisions that determine their living and working conditions.

F.

Although globalisation has opened the door to many benefits, promoted open societies and open economies as well as an increase in trade, foreign investment and world-wide wealth, it has not had positive effects for all. The EU and the US, by combining their efforts, can contribute to give effect to the economic, social and environmental potential of globalisation by improving governance both at national and at international level, including social and civil dialogue.

G.

Both sides underline the strategic importance of the EU-US relationship and the multilateral context, as global challenges require combined forces. Recent proposals to improve the institutional arrangements for transatlantic relations have underlined the importance of a sustained and intense dialogue both with a view to developing the relation and with a view to cooperating with international institutions and other parts of the world.

H.

The EESC strongly supports transatlantic cooperation and recommends that it be strengthened and broadened both in terms of involving the widest possible range of interests and actors and in terms of developing and broadening the approach to include issues relevant for the Dialogues and their respective constituencies on both sides of the Atlantic.

I.

In line with the Irish Presidency, the EESC strongly supports transatlantic cooperation and the constructive involvement of relevant communities of interest from American and European Civil Society. The EESC therefore advocates strengthening and broadening civil society networks including the Dialogues and is ready to contribute to increased information and interaction between these networks and dialogues, which could lead to regular and continuous cooperation and to establishing a Transatlantic and/or US Economic and Social Committee.

J.

The EESC offers to serve as a forum for promoting the dialogue and bringing together the relevant parties. The Committee in this context offers to organise a conference together with the relevant actors and institutions to strengthen the dialogue. The benefit of a reinforced dialogue would consist in activating civil society on both sides of the Atlantic not only in the long-term interest of the EU and the US but also for the rest of the world.

2.1

EU-US relations have a long, mutually beneficial history and were especially intense during the Cold War. The Marshall Plan for European Recovery was one of the most important elements of this era. Following the end of the Cold War, the US and the EU adopted a series of documents in order to lay down the principles and provide for a framework for their future cooperation in a changed geo-strategic environment (1). Promoting peace, stability and economic growth, responding to global challenges, cooperating in the economic area as well as building bridges over the Atlantic were at the core of these agreements. In the Bonn Declaration adopted at the 21 June 1999 EU-US summit in Bonn, both sides committed themselves to a ‘full and equal partnership’ in economic, political and security affairs.

2.2

These agreements which the EESC supported and which have created a set of institutional arrangements, among which the Transatlantic Dialogues, have made it possible for the social partners and civil society to participate in the efforts.

2.3

During the 1990s and in recent years, the relationship has lived through different cycles in which the countries on both sides of the Atlantic had to adjust with more or less ease to new realities. While the foundations of a strong transatlantic partnership remain in place, these changes have led to transatlantic tensions and disagreements, partly due to differences in views and orientations, partly to perceived inadequacies in the institutional arrangements (2).

2.4

To facilitate the dialogue and orient policy towards common goals, it may be useful to have a look at the opinions of people concerned expressed in surveys and opinion polls (such as those done by the German Marshall Fund of the US or the Pew Research Center) (3). Public opinion in the US and Europe shows common ground as well as differences (4). Americans and Europeans share the basic convictions of open democratic societies, respect for human rights and the rule of law, as well as the belief in market-based economic policies (5). Their values, however, are not always identical. When asked whether Europeans and Americans have different social and cultural values, majorities on both sides of the Atlantic overwhelmingly agreed (83 % of US and 79 % of European respondents (6)).

2.5

Although Americans were more internationalist in 2002 than prior to September 11, 2001, Americans and Europeans differ widely on foreign policy issues such as US global leadership or on how to respond to threats (7). Both Americans and Europeans see unilateralism as a problem. Both view the United Nations favourably and want to strengthen it, but Americans are willing to bypass the UN if required by national interest. Although soft power grows out of both US culture and US policies (8), Europe places a greater emphasis on it (9) and large majorities on both sides of the Atlantic say that the EU's soft power can have influence to solve world problems through diplomacy, trade or development aid (10).

2.6

Americans were more supportive in 2003 of having a strong European partner, while Europeans were less willing to rely on the United States on the foreign policy front (11). While the Iraq war has most likely influenced this shift in European views, ‘unexpectedly the Americans seem more positively disposed to the European Union.

2.7

On social issues, business and the environment, there are more shared perspectives than one might expect, which are not, however, reflected at government level. While it is known that Europeans care about the social and environmental dimension Europe has added to political democracy, Americans, too, place an emphasis on support for the needy and on protecting the environment. The economy, education and social security dominate the public's policy agenda in the US (13). While Americans feel empowered and applaud individual enterprise, two-thirds see the need for a government safety net for the needy (14) and to guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep. More than 50 % say government should help the needy even if it means going deeper into debt, 86 % agree that there needs to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment, 65 % agree that people should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment, half the people say the tax system is unfair to them and there is a considerable amount of support (over 75 %) for restricting and controlling people coming into the US to live there. Americans also seem to share the Europeans' concern about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) to some extent, as 92 % of them are in favour of labelling GMOs (15).

2.8

There is widespread consensus that a more thorough, intense and continuous dialogue is necessary in order to build on common interests, outweigh the differences and to recognise shared interest in a common agenda in many areas of the world economy. The EESC in previous opinions has recognised the importance of the transatlantic partnership and emphasised that a broadly-based partnership and cooperation must be based on mutual understanding and respect for each other's visions, values, interests and models of society (16).

3.1

The most important dimensions underlying Transatlantic relations are the following: EU-US economic and commercial relations, global policy and security, globalisation — international economic, social and environmental development, transatlantic institutions, commitment to the transatlantic partnership and multilateral governance.

3.2.1

As the Quinlan Report (17) on Transatlantic Economic Relations shows, the transatlantic economy has become even more intertwined and interdependent since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and foreign investment is clearly ahead of trade in importance.

3.2.2

For example, roughly half of US FDI in the 1990s went to Europe. Europe's investment stake in the US in 2000 was nearly 25 % larger than America's stake in Europe. In 2001, and throughout most of the 1990s, Europe accounted for half of total global earnings of US companies. US firms invested more than twice as much capital in the Netherlands as in Mexico. There is more European investment in Texas alone than all US investment in Japan.

3.2.3

Although transatlantic trade disputes hit the headlines, trade itself accounts for less than 20 % of transatlantic commerce, and EU-US trade disputes for less than 1 % of transatlantic commerce. Despite an early warning mechanism developed in 1999, disputes over trade-defence mechanisms (such as safeguard measures, anti-dumping and counterveiling duties), subsidy-related issues, intellectual property rights and other measures in areas such as steel, bananas, beef hormones, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), trademarks/geographical indications have caused serious disagreement and disputes. As of 16 March 2004, the EU had 14 active WTO disputes underway with the US (18). In the most recent case concerning Foreign Sales Corporations the EU has imposed tariffs on a series of US products as long as the underlying Act, which has been ruled illegal by the WTO, is not adapted to WTO rules.

3.2.4

Some of the tensions between the EU and the US result from growing economic interdependence. In many cases they are not traditional ‘at-the-border’ trade disputes, but reach beyond the border and affect such fundamental domestic issues as the ways Americans and Europeans are taxed, how our societies are governed, or how our economies are regulated (19).

3.2.5

Performance of the EU and US economies shows a mixed picture. Contrary to the widespread view that the US economy outperforms the European one, even IMF and OECD data show that Europe has done better in some areas (20): It is true that overall growth rates in the US have been higher than in Europe, but living standards, as measured by GDP per person, have risen faster in the EU than in the US.

3.2.6

On labour productivity, there are mixed numbers, depending on the time span considered. US productivity on average is higher than EU productivity since 1995, but lower for the longer period 1990 to 2002. Even while the average is higher in the US, five European countries have done better. Unemployment on average is higher in Europe, but seven countries show lower unemployment than the US.

3.2.7

Unemployment is a problem both for the economy as a whole — as it means resources are being unused — and for people, especially if unemployment is accompanied by a lack of social protection. In addition to macro-economic policy, factors like the structure of the labour market, education levels, or the way social protection systems are designed can greatly influence participation rates. Unemployment, together with inequality in incomes, a lack of social protection as well as education levels is one of the factors influencing and explaining poverty rates.

3.2.8

On average Europe has higher taxes than the US. However, this does not necessarily constitute a competitive disadvantage. If taxes are spent well, they can boost an economy's productivity. The World Economic Forum has recognised this in changing the calculation method for public budgets which resulted in the fact that Finland outperformed the US according to the 2003-2004 Global Competitiveness Report, while Sweden and Denmark also have improved their position now ranking third and fourth (formerly 5th and 10th) (21).

3.2.9

Looking at productivity and taxes at the same time we see that higher taxes do not necessarily impede productivity. Of the five countries showing higher productivity growth than the US since 1995: Belgium, Austria, Finland, Greece and Ireland and the six countries that have higher productivity levels: Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Belgium and Norway (which is not an EU member), only Ireland is a low-tax country.

3.2.10

The lesson from this is: the EU and US economies are strongly linked. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both economies face important challenges in the years ahead, which gives rise to the necessity for increased dialogue and cooperation in order to make the economy work smoothly for people on both sides.

3.3.1

The shift from the Cold War, a situation strongly marked by similar interests between the EU and US, to a situation in which the principal strategic challenges have different geographical origins and in which the nature of threats has changed, has resulted in diverging viewpoints as to how these should be dealt with.

3.3.2

Globalisation's potential for good is immense and it has opened the door to many benefits. There are, nevertheless, deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy. Seen through the eyes of the vast majority of men and women, globalisation has not met their simple and legitimate aspirations for decent jobs and a better future for their children. As open societies are threatened by global terrorism, global governance needs to focus on the concerns and aspirations of people and to improve accountability and democracy at both national and international level to increase global security. Globalisation needs to be based on universally shared values and respect for human rights and individual dignity (22). If globalisation is managed better, the world can come closer together and become more prosperous. Better globalisation is the key to a better and more secure life for people everywhere in the 21st century. If it continues to be poorly managed discontent with globalisation will grow.

3.3.3

In this context, fighting corruption, dictatorships and failed governments as well as building social partners and civil society structures all over the world, especially in countries where good governance structures are weak or have yet to develop, may be a useful contribution to making the world safer and improving citizens' opportunities to participate in the decisions that determine their living and working conditions.

3.3.4

The EESC's contributions to building and strengthening social and civil dialogue in future EU member states as well as in third countries have a long-standing tradition. The EESC has also been an active partner in the EU's Barcelona process, which may constitute a useful basis to build on. In addition, supporting the process of democratisation and the building of social partners in Iraq, for instance, may become a common project of the EU and the US.

3.3.5

The security of transports is also a sector inviting enhanced cooperation between the US and the EU. The EESC (23) sees ‘an urgent need for the EU to take the lead internationally in developing a broader framework for security which will also address the causes of terrorism and not only seek to eliminate its effects. […] Given the international character of maritime and air transport, security requirements should be based on reciprocal arrangements, informally applied and enforced without discrimination, whilst allowing for the most efficient flow of trade’. Moreover, the EESC warned that ‘the European philosophy and culture sustains a strong respect for human rights and any reaction to threats of terrorism should not disregard these long-cherished principles’. The US/EU agreement on container security (November 2003) and its implementation offer an opportunity for discussion in the Transatlantic dialogue. The US and EU are also cooperating at international level in the ILO on seafarers' identity and at the International Maritime Organisation jointly with the ILO on the safety and security of port facilities.

3.4.1

Globalisation has opened the door to many benefits, promoted open societies and open economies and encouraged a freer exchange of goods, ideas and knowledge. A truly global conscience is beginning to emerge, which is sensitive to the inequities of poverty, non-respect of freedom of association, gender discrimination, child labour and environmental degradation wherever these may occur (24).

3.4.2

However, despite an increase in trade, foreign investment and worldwide wealth, globalisation has not had positive effects for all. The worldwide reduction of barriers to trade and capital movements as well as for services and movements of persons has facilitated global sourcing for companies, but it has also created the conditions for worldwide competition with worrying impacts on workers, taxes and the financial sustainability of social protection systems and services of general interest. Worldwide it has led to an increase in poverty in 54 countries since 1990 (25). Inequality between and within countries has increased, the stability of the world economy is threatened by the volatilities of the financial markets as well as by macro-economic imbalances such as currency relations or trade imbalances.

3.4.3

The EU and US when combining their efforts can contribute to fully displaying the economic, social and environmental potential of globalisation by improving governance both at national and at international level as well as improving rules for international trade, investment, finance and migration by taking into account all interests, rights and responsibilities and thus achieving a more broadly-based and equitable distribution of the benefits of growth, that can provide security and stability for the benefit of all.

3.4.4

In this context, global governance needs to be improved. International organisations, which currently have different mandates, need to coordinate their efforts. A better management of globalisation requires coordinated work of the WTO, IMF, World Bank and OECD with other international organisations, in particular with the ILO and the UN as well as improved governance of these institutions, including social and civil dialogue.

3.4.5

The EESC underlines the importance of respecting and implementing core labour standards and welcomes the efforts of the US Treasury Department to maintain the forward momentum in the recognition of core labour standards by the World Bank and the IMF as an important issue to be integrated into their development agenda (26).

3.4.6

The EESC questions the International Monetary Fund's promotion of radical labour market deregulation in Europe (27), considering that this could have serious implications for the European Model of society and pointing out that social safety nets constitute much needed automatic stabilisers in economic downturns.

3.4.7

There is a growing concern on both sides of the Atlantic about jobs being exported to other regions due to technological possibilities, fewer trade barriers, as well as competitive advantages through different regulation systems, which basically consists in lower labour, environmental and animal protection standards. Economists have largely accepted the trend as a logical phenomenon of free trade (28), which has made possible the easy transfer of jobs to low-wage countries. This is expected to cause future long-term structural unemployment. As both the EU treaties and the draft for the future EU Constitution call for improving living and working conditions, there is some thinking needed about raising labour and environmental standards and living and working conditions in these countries while at the same time maintaining and improving them in Europe and the US.

3.4.8

In the wake of the corporate scandals in recent years, public opinion in the US has become more critical of corporations: 77 % of Americans say there is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big companies, 62 % say that business corporations make too much profit (29). Corporate Governance is thus a major issue. In addition to concrete actions already taken and under way such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the US, the Revision of the OECD Corporate Governance Principles and activities on EU and national level, coordinated efforts are required to make sure corporations are governed in a responsible way that takes into account the interests of all of their stakeholders.

3.4.9

Both the EU and US have pushed for progress in the Doha round. To ensure that civil society views are better incorporated into the negotiations at EU level, the European Commission's DG Trade is involving civil society in the preparation and follow-up to the negotiations and the EESC is fully involved in this process. The EESC will also take the initiative to organise a dialogue with its partners in all continents in order to contribute more effectively to the process and in this respect will organise a conference on WTO issues (30) in July 2004.

3.4.10

Environment and climate change are clearly areas where populations on both sides share concerns, but governments have rather differing views. The Pentagon has recently released a study on the security effects of different scenarios on climate change. In the light of the ongoing dissent over ratification of the Kyoto protocol, the potential effects of climate change certainly are one of the important, albeit difficult, issues to be discussed.

3.4.11

The EESC has also underlined the importance of sustainable development on several occasions. While solemn declarations have been made in international meetings and agreements including the Earth Summit, the Millennium Goals or the Lisbon Strategy, concrete action still is lagging behind. The EESC therefore underlines its call for progress expressed in several opinions (31).

3.4.12

The EU has emphasised the role of food safety, consumer protection and animal welfare in the Doha-WTO-negotiations besides the trade policy measures. The EU thinks that it is necessary to have better, more transparent rules for international trade related to food safety.

3.4.13

Agricultural trade is one of the most difficult topics together with issues such as mad cow disease (BSE), beef hormones, the system of farming, food safety and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The EU and US have a lot of trade and commercial cooperation in the agrobusiness field. These two big trading partners have had some trade policy difficulties over GMOs and hormones. It is important to recognise that the EU and US have reached constructive compromises in the ongoing Doha Round especially in the agricultural sector. The EU has underlined the role of the European agricultural model respecting the environment and animal welfare and moderate reforms in the agriculture policy, where it would be very important to take into account the non-trade concerns and preferences of developing countries in the forthcoming trade agreements and rules.

3.4.14

The latest EU enlargement presents the EU with its greatest challenge to date and at the same time constitutes a dynamic process towards the unification of Europe, strengthening peace, security and prosperity throughout the continent. Both the EU and US are interested in the development of the new EU member states, as well as in improving relations with Russia and the EU's new neighbours and promoting respect for human rights and democracy.

3.5.1

The institutional arrangements provided for by the agreements of the 1990s have been a source of some dissatisfaction. Reasons for this have been: the asymmetry of power between the EU and US, the differing memberships of NATO, EU and other institutions, the incomplete integration of the EU and a general dissatisfaction with the EU-US summit (32).

3.5.2

Recent proposals to improve the institutional arrangements show that the most important factor for progress is the launching of sustained and intense dialogue on the most important issues in whichever institutional setting seems the most appropriate. Unfortunately none of the approaches adequately takes into account the benefits that can be achieved by including social partners and civil society.

3.6.1

Both sides underline the strategic importance of the EU–US relationship and the multilateral context, as global challenges require combined forces.

3.6.2

As the European Council stated in December 2003, ‘the transatlantic relationship is irreplaceable and the EU remains fully committed to a constructive, balanced and forward-looking partnership with our transatlantic partners’ (34).

3.6.3

The EESC agrees with the European Council that it is vital to maintain a permanent dialogue as strategic partners and welcomes the Council's intention to encourage all forms of dialogue between legislative bodies and civil societies on both sides of the Atlantic.

3.6.4

Working together bilaterally and within the framework of multilateral institutions, the transatlantic partners will combine the vision and capabilities needed to address the challenges of our time.

3.6.5

A series of different initiatives underway have outlined the importance and necessity of ongoing and deepened transatlantic cooperation. The German Marshall fund of the United States and the Transatlantic Policy Network have been among the most active organisations to work on the EU–US relationship. Their activities range from analysing public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic, including economic aspects of the relationship, to organising contacts and conferences and to making recommendations and strategies for the future of EU-US relations.

3.6.6

The Transatlantic Policy Network has developed a 10-point - 10-year action plan to strengthen Transatlantic Partnership, to be implemented from 2005 through 2015 on the basis of jointly agreed objectives, actions and benchmarks for progress. The strategy builds on four areas of interest: Economic, Defence and Security, Political and Institutional (35).

3.6.7

While this programme constitutes a valuable effort to develop the relationship, the EESC regrets that the social dimension of the relationship is hardly mentioned.

3.6.8

On the economic side, there is a long-standing debate on the Transatlantic Market (36). TPN calls for deepening and broadening the transatlantic market, others have gone further calling for a Transatlantic Free Trade Area. In the light of the experiences of both EU integration and NAFTA, the EESC argues in favour of an approach which combines the economic, social and environmental dimension based on economic, social and territorial cohesion. This is also consistent with the draft for the EU constitution which calls for a social market economy as one of the goals of the Union.

4.1

A strong transatlantic partnership is an important driving force in dealing with the challenges ahead. Both Europe and the US are cooperating bilaterally and through the support of international institutions with different parts of the world based on their respective values, convictions and policies. Economic and social cohesion, social and civil dialogue constitute basic elements of European governance, while they are much less important in the United States. These different approaches may therefore lead to conflicting recommendations and cooperation models in the regions concerned.

4.1.1

For instance, while the US is the driving force in the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas on the model of the NAFTA agreement, other voices in the region have argued for drawing on the European Integration experience. Actors as diverse as the Brazilian Government, Mexico's President Vicente Fox (‘NAFTA plus’), US Representatives and a network of trade unions have called for an alternative to the FTAA that would include elements similar to the EU such as a development fund to reduce disparities, free movement of persons, participation in decision-making, common currency and enforceable social standards (37).

4.1.2

Taking another example, economic and social reforms in the future Member States of Central and Eastern Europe in the past 10–15 years have been supported both by the EU and international organisations, such as the IMF and the World Bank. As the EU has only limited competence and legal patrimony in some areas — e.g. social protection systems — reforms in these areas have been driven by the international institutions oriented on a model of society with underlying values and principles that are not fully compatible with the European Model of society which may create problems when the new countries join (38).

4.2

If Europe wants a stronger voice on the international stage, it will have to integrate further in order to enhance its ability to speak out and act in the international community. In this context, the EESC welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Irish Presidency and hopes that recent developments in Member States' positions will contribute to reaching a consensus on the future constitution.

4.3

The Transatlantic Partnership has created a set of institutional arrangements including governments as well as legislators and civil society networks. Civil society participates in the form of different Transatlantic Dialogues which seem to be unequally active:

4.3.1

The Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) was the first and for a time the most active of the dialogues. Nevertheless, there were some doubts over its effectiveness and over the implementation of results. It was reinvigorated at the EU-US summit 2003. The two new co-presidents recently declared that they saw the need to revive the TABD to help create a barrier-free transatlantic market and stimulate transatlantic economic cooperation.

4.3.2

The Transatlantic Labour Dialogue (TALD) has mostly taken place within the existing trade union confederations. In order to contribute fully to the Transatlantic Dialogue and to developing the social dimension of EU-US relations, the TALD needs to be strengthened. During 2001-2003, a joint project on ‘Improving the transatlantic dialogue — the world of work’ brought together union representatives from multinational companies through a series of training workshops.

4.3.3

Over six years, the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) has developed into the most active of the dialogues. It discusses issues of concern to both sides such as GMOs, unsolicited commercial email (spam), digital copyright, as well as issues affecting consumers in developing countries, bringing together consumer representatives from the EU and the US and representing consumer perspectives to the two administrations.

4.3.4

The Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue (TAED) lasted less than two years due to funding difficulties, but is a vital element with regard to the environmental issues at stake.

4.3.5

Existing institutionalised cooperation between the two parliaments has been developed to become the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, which now holds video-conferences and bi-annual meetings.

4.3.6

The informal transatlantic farmers' dialogue needs to be strengthened and integrated into the transatlantic dialogues and networks, taking on board issues such as GMOs, hormones and, in particular, the European model of agriculture..

4.3.7

In addition, the European Commission has launched two people-to-people initiatives in the field of education and policy-making, involving EU centres in American universities as well as think tanks, academic institutions and networks at local level.

4.3.8

Other informal dialogues complete the picture.

4.4

The EESC, based on its consultative role within Europe and its cooperation activities with social partners and civil society throughout the world, may be well placed to serve as a forum for promoting the dialogue and bringing together the relevant parties.

5.1

In line with the Irish Presidency of the European Council, which aims at ensuring a solid and productive political and economic transatlantic relationship, the EESC strongly supports the transatlantic cooperation and recommends that it be strengthened and broadened both in terms of involving the widest possible range of interests and actors and in terms of developing and broadening the approach to include issues relevant for the dialogues and their respective constituencies on both sides of the Atlantic.

5.2

The EESC strongly supports the constructive involvement of relevant communities of interest from American and European civil society. The Dialogue Structure, established by the agreements in the 1990s, is a useful instrument which can and should be further developed to include a broader range of civil society networks.

5.2.1

To make these dialogues and networks work effectively, it will be necessary to build on their respective interests, aspirations and concerns and on core topics of mutual interest for the partners concerned. It may be useful to have a thorough debate on their role and mission as well as on improving their effectiveness. This includes developing common understanding of their role on both sides of the Atlantic, especially with governments and parliaments, which are important political partners of the dialogues.

5.2.2

Drawing on past experiences, these dialogues and networks should have equal access to governments and high-level officials, which would make their functioning and work more attractive to their respective interest groups. Strengthening them also requires that the outcomes of their considerations are better taken into account in political decisions.

5.2.3

Keeping the dialogues and networks going and strengthening them requires commitment and financial funding including core costs. In this context, the EESC points out that funding should include support for meetings, which may be necessary to find common ground, and for the development of common projects.

5.2.4

In the long-run, the EESC would be ready to contribute to increased information on and interaction between these dialogues and networks which could lead to regular and continuous cooperation. The establishment of a Transatlantic and/or US Economic and Social Committee should also be considered.

5.3

The issues to be dealt with should build on the respective interests, aspirations and concerns of the dialogues and networks and their constituencies. The Dialogues have already decided on or suggested issues they would like to deal with and formulated objectives they would like to reach.

5.3.1

The TABD has recently renewed its dedication to strengthening the transatlantic relationship and to fostering global economic cooperation and development. The TABD has committed itself to pursue a core agenda driven by its members. It intends to proactively identify upcoming challenges and give concrete high-level business input to the EU-US legislative and policy agenda developing key recommendations to the US administration and the EU Commission. It intends to come up with solutions to transatlantic economic, trade and investment problems and to recommend areas for joint action by governments on both sides of the Atlantic. Four areas of priority have been identified recently: trade liberalisation and the Doha round, intellectual property rights, international accounting standards and security and trade issues. Its goal is ‘to help establish a barrier-free transatlantic market, which will serve as a catalyst for global trade liberalisation and prosperity and to stimulate innovation, investment and economic growth and create new jobs’. The TABD also intends to monitor the governments' progress on the implementation of its recommendations (39).

5.3.2

For the TALD, trade unions attach importance to the vital nature of the transatlantic relationship and considering the ways it can be effectively widened and deepened. Trade unions have for many years developed their bilateral relationships and would like to see the Transatlantic Labour dialogue expanded. There are numerous possible topics in the areas of social, economic and labour dimensions that could be discussed. Job dislocation which occurs on both sides of the Atlantic could be subject to an exchange of best response practices. In the wake of large corporate collapses, improving corporate governance to enhance accountability and the voice of workers is another issue. Reviewing social protection, health care, education and training, occupational safety and health, pension systems, wider industrial relations including framework agreements and development assistance in respect of international core labour standards are other relevant topics subject to dialogue (40).

5.3.3

The TACD develops and makes joint consumer policy recommendations to the US government and the European Union to promote consumer interests in EU and US policy formulation. 45 EU and 20 US consumer organisations participate, mainly through membership of the working groups, on food-related issues, e-commerce, trade, economic issues and intellectual property which develop and produce common TACD policy positions. Its priorities for government action 2003–2004 comprise Global Intellectual Property Rules on Access to Medicines, Genetically Modified Organisms, Nutritional Labelling, Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail (Spam), Internet Fraud and Consumer Redress, Product Labels and Trade Rules, Transparency and Early Warning (41).

5.3.4

The Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue regrettably has collapsed but given the importance of developments such as the effects of global warming; activities of transatlantic civil society networks in this area should therefore be encouraged.

5.4

The EESC may be a useful platform for giving transatlantic dialogues and networks a stronger voice and enhancing their interaction.

5.4.1

The EESC in this context offers to organise a conference together with the relevant actors. The purpose of such a conference would be to encourage the development of transatlantic civil society networks on environmental issues, to develop common understanding on the importance of the dialogue at non-governmental level, the topics to be dealt with and what would be the best ways to achieve their respective goals and strategies and to exchange views and work together.

5.4.2

In preparing the conference, the EESC would contact the relevant actors and institutions in order to identify the relevant parts of civil society to be represented in the conference, take up their interests and concerns as well as the topics they would like to deal with and build the ground for cooperation.

5.4.3

The benefit of a reinforced dialogue would consist in activating civil society on both sides of the Atlantic, creating effective networks, fostering an exchange of views within and between transatlantic civil society networks including the Dialogues, provide high level access to government, help form good professional relationships between these networks and dialogues and government/administration. It would thus strengthen and improve the institutional structures not only in the long-term interest of the EU and US but also for the rest of the world.

28.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/58

1.1

On 23 July 2003 the European Commission adopted a proposal amending Directive 1999/62/EC, the ‘Eurovignette Directive’.

1.2

The proposal is in response to the request of the European Councils of 12 and 13 December 2002 and 20 and 21 March 2003 that the Commission submit a proposal for a new Eurovignette Directive by mid-2003.

1.3

It is also in response to a call by the European Parliament which, when adopting the report on the conclusions of the White Paper of 12 February 2003, concluded that charges should be levied for infrastructure use.

1.4

The main aim of the Commission proposal is to ensure that the costs of using infrastructure are more efficiently allocated to users. The principle that the user should pay the costs for which he is responsible can be applied more effectively under the proposed system than through the Eurovignette Directive, as the new system offers greater flexibility to vary charges according to the type of vehicle and the time and place of use.

1.5

It is clearly not the intention that the overall burden of taxes and charges borne by the transport sector should rise, but rather to obtain a clearer picture so that the costs of various forms of use can be more effectively reflected in the price.

1.6

At this stage the Commission is restricting itself to charges for the use of road transport infrastructure by heavy goods vehicles. It reserves the right, however, to submit proposals at a later date in the form of sectoral directives for the use of air, inland waterway and maritime transport infrastructure and indicates that the Member States and cities should adopt their own approaches to passenger vehicles.

1.7

With regard to the railways, the Commission assumes that charging for the use of infrastructure has already been dealt with in the rail package.

2.1

The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal amending the Eurovignette Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as it will allow more effective application of the principle that the user should pay the cost of his infrastructure use.

2.2

In the Committee's view, a secondary advantage of this proposal is that it attempts to put an end to the patchwork of charging systems increasingly being introduced or already in force in the Member States.

2.3

The Committee considers that the Commission is being too ambitious in attempting, with its proposal for amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC, to solve six different problems simultaneously. The problems in question are:

2.4

It would be the first time that such an undertaking has succeeded. It is made all the more unrealistic by the fact that the calculations for the last three objectives differ from each other and require an entirely different approach to that required for the first three.

2.5

In its Opinion on the White Paper (COM(1998) 466 final) (1) the Committee stated that the ‘user pays’ principle could only be implemented if there were a thorough analysis of the relative value of the different cost components and a level playing field for all transport modes. The ESC added that before introducing the ‘user pays’ principle, things needed be clear about income neutrality and the way it was put into practice. The Committee foresees many problems here, as the obvious way of compensating for this, the partial or total abolition of the tax on motor vehicles would in many countries not appear sufficient, and certainly not as long as there is a compulsory EU minimum level.

2.6

Another consideration is the fact that the current mosaic of national rules and systems, albeit with a different pattern, would remain in place.

2.7

The Commission proposal establishes a framework within which the Member States can set up a system for taxing heavy goods vehicles of over 3,5 tonnes. This is an extension of scope. In the current Eurovignette Directive the minimum threshold is 12 tonnes. As transport-related costs such as safety, congestion and noise-abatement measures are being brought within the ambit of the proposal, and as private passenger vehicles and light goods vehicles of less than 3,5 tonnes also contribute to these costs, the Committee believes that these vehicles too should be brought within the scope of the proposed directive. The Commission states this in so many words in its White Paper entitled European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, which appeared in 2001. The Commission has produced numerous amendments, some of them significantly extending the scope of the original measures, which would suggest that there is no impediment to light goods vehicles and passenger vehicles being added to the scope of the directive. However, the Commission's call for the Member States and cities to adopt their own approaches in this area, partly because of the overwhelmingly national character of such measures, is reason enough for the Committee to endorse the Commission's approach. The proposed amendment is not the right instrument for adding passenger vehicles and light goods vehicles of less than 3,5 tonnes.

2.8

If the Commission persists in its view that legislating for goods vehicles only, and not for private passenger vehicles, will be sufficient to ensure the proper operation of the internal market, it would be logical to retain the current 12 tonne minimum threshold for goods vehicles. In any case, as the Commission itself points out in the explanatory memorandum, the proportion of light goods vehicles in cross-border transport is so small that their effect on the operation of the internal market is negligible, as is that of passenger vehicles.

2.9

The Committee endorses the idea that every infrastructure user should pay the costs for which he is responsible, on the condition set out in point 2.3, that there be a thorough analysis of the relative value of the different cost components. It can also go along with the fact that road haulage is the first part of the road transport mode to be confronted with this kind of framework. It feels in principle, however, that the same system should apply to the other parts of road transport and other modes of transport.

2.10

The Commission proposal does not change the optional character of charges such as the Eurovignette or tolls. It is up to the Member States to opt for toll systems or a system of user charges. The Committee feels that this freedom of choice is not conducive to transparency. The Committee also considers interoperability of collection systems to be a sine qua non.

2.11

The proposal covers the trans-European road network and other parts of the trunk road network which closely follow the route of a motorway. On secondary roads which are not necessary vital to the proper operation of the internal market tolls or user charges may be levied but they are not subject to the directive. The Committee realises that, in line with the subsidiarity principle, the proposed amendment in Article 7 does not prevent the Member States from applying tolls/user charges in different ways. The Committee endorses this approach, in view of the fact that the trunk road network is still underdeveloped in the countries which will soon be joining the Union. They will of course have to comply with existing law and policy.

2.12

In its proposal the Commission establishes a direct link between the user charge to be introduced and investment in and maintenance of infrastructure. In this way it intends to prevent the Member States using the proceeds of the user charge to fill government coffers. Rules are also laid down in the proposal for the calculation of the charge. The Committee considers this approach sensible, as in this way users of specific infrastructure will know that the charges they are paying may be used for investment in infrastructure.

2.13

The Commission suggests that in exceptional cases a mark-up not exceeding 25 % may, after consulting the Commission in conformity with the appropriate procedure, be added to the tolls to allow for cross-financing the investment costs of other transport infrastructures of a high European interest in the same corridor or in particularly sensitive regions. The Committee feels that this option should be used as sparingly as possible and that no transport infrastructure should be excluded. In order to ensure that the project for which the increased tolls have been levied is actually carried out, this revenue should be paid, upon receipt, into a Community account and repaid, without interest, to the Member State only on completion of the project.

2.14

Finally, the Commission proposes that an independent infrastructure supervision authority should be set up in every Member State to monitor the correct handling of road transport costs and revenues from tolls and user charges in the Community. The Committee endorses the establishment of independently operating national authorities of this kind which, in view of their Community task, should be supervised by the Commission in accordance with the Treaty.

2.15

In the interests of clarity, it should be stated in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal amending Directive 1999/62/EC that, independently of the charge system or supervisory authority opted for, the Member States will in future remain responsible for maintaining a suitable road network. The repair and maintenance of infrastructure remains a key task of government.

3.1

A link is established in the Commission proposal between road use charges and the cost of constructing, operating, maintaining and developing the relevant road infrastructure network. The cost of constructing infrastructure will include only those costs arising directly from the construction of new infrastructure. By this the Commission means infrastructure which is less than 15 years old. In this way the Commission sets out to prevent existing infrastructure, which has already been paid for, being included in the scope of the directive. The Committee considers this criterion to be very fair and feels that this is the right approach.

3.2

Under investment costs the proposal includes the cost of noise abatement infrastructure, such as noise barriers along motorways. The Committee would point out, however, that the costs of noise nuisance, and thus of the construction of noise barriers, are to a great extent caused by categories of road user not covered by the directive. The cost of constructing noise barriers should therefore be fairly distributed among the various categories of road user.

3.3

The Commission also proposes including in the charge an amount in respect of accident costs not covered by insurance. Although in theory this approach makes sense, the Committee considers that in practice it would be difficult, in view of the high degree of uncertainty inherent in the calculation of indirect effects, such as legal damages. As things stand at present, the insurance companies, for example, in practice rarely reimburse social security costs.

In order to develop a suitable approach to the costs arising from road accidents, the Committee feels that a study is needed into their causes. In this context, it would refer to its Opinion on the European Commission's Communication on halving the number of road accident victims by 2010. (2)

3.4

The Committee considers that the inclusion of an option for the Member States to use congestion as a parameter for the calculation of the infrastructure charge is, quite apart from the lack of a definition of ‘congestion’, the wrong approach, as congestion is mainly caused by passenger vehicle traffic.

3.5

The Committee agrees with the basic premise underlying the Commission's proposal that the introduction of the amended directive must not increase the total financial burden on the road transport sector. It considers, however, that the reduction or abolition of the tax on motor vehicles will be insufficient to guarantee fiscal neutrality. A reduction in excise duty on diesel fuel should logically also be considered.

3.6

The Committee also concurs with the option offered the Member States of differentiating user tariffs in line with the environment-friendliness of the vehicle (EURO classification) and with the damage to roads caused by the vehicle.

3.7

Finally, the Committee wholeheartedly endorses the Commission's intention of establishing a harmonised charging method for infrastructure use, thus putting an end to the existing patchwork of toll and charge systems.

4.1

The Committee values the Commission's initiative for practical implementation of the principle that the user pays the cost of infrastructure use.

4.2

It considers, however, that the Commission is being much too ambitious in attempting, with its proposal for amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC, to solve too many different problems simultaneously.

4.3

In its Opinion on the White Paper (COM(1998) 466 final) the Committee stated that the ‘user pays’ principle could only be implemented if there were a thorough analysis of the relative value of the different cost components and a level playing field for all transport modes.

4.4

One of the Commission's guiding principles is that charging for infrastructure use should not lead to new and/or higher taxes. It therefore proposes to give the Member States the opportunity to offer compensation in the form of the total or partial abolition of the annual tax on motor vehicles. The Committee points out that many countries are already at or below the current EU minimum level and that this does not therefore offer sufficient compensation. Fiscal neutrality could only be guaranteed by reducing, where necessary, excise duty on diesel fuel.

4.5

The Committee also notes that the current mosaic of national rules and systems would remain in place, which means that the Commission's objective, achieving a harmonised method of charging for infrastructure use, would unfortunately not be achieved.

4.6

The Committee considers that the Commission is being inconsistent in its argument when it proposes that, on the one hand, the minimum threshold should be reduced to include goods vehicles of 3,5 tonnes, whilst on the other hand including in its proposal factors such as congestion costs, the cost of road accidents and environmental costs but not the private passenger vehicles which are responsible for the latter.

4.7

In its proposal the Commission makes a direct link between the charge to be introduced and investment in infrastructure. Revenues are intended to be channelled back to the sector from which they come and are not to be used to swell state coffers. The Committee endorses the Commission's approach.

4.8

The Commission argues that road transport charges should be related to the cost of constructing, operating, maintaining and developing the relevant road infrastructure network. The cost of constructing infrastructure will include only those costs arising directly from the construction of new infrastructure links. New infrastructure is taken to mean infrastructure less than 15 years old. The Committee endorses this fair approach as a way of ensuring that charges are not used to cover the costs of existing infrastructure which has already been paid for.

4.9

The Commission suggests that a mark-up not exceeding 25 % may, in strict conditions, be added to the tolls to finance the investment costs of other transport infrastructures of a high European interest in the same corridor or in particularly sensitive regions. The Committee feels that this option should be used as sparingly as possible and that no transport infrastructure should be excluded. And if this is done, the proceeds should be paid into a Community account pending completion of the project.

4.10

The Committee also endorses the scope of the proposal, e.g. the inclusion in the proposal of TENs and part of the trunk road network close to these, as well as the consideration given, albeit outside the scope of the directive, to secondary roads which are not necessary vital to the proper operation of the internal market, and the proposal to set up an independent supervisory authority in each Member State to ensure fair distribution of costs and revenues from tolls and user charges.

4.11

Finally, the Committee is critical of the inclusion of costs arising from congestion and road accidents and environmental costs, as they are to a great extent caused by private cars, a category of vehicle excluded from the scope of the directive, as there is no clear analysis of the causes of road accidents and no definition of sensitive areas.