30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/1

1.1

The Committee would stress that the Lisbon Strategy will not achieve its objectives of international competitiveness, economic, social and environmental progress and sustainable development without a comprehensive review of the method, the institutional and political arrangements and the cooperation instruments tasked with their delivery.

1.1.1

The EESC particularly recognises that the Lisbon strategy is more complex, more multi-dimensional and more diffuse in its implications than any previous specific ambition in terms of achieving results for the European Union.

1.2

In order to address this, the Committee proposes a more dynamic approach, which, at institutional level, would take the form of reinforced coordination to secure renewed economic growth in Europe, based on adequate regard for economic, social and environmental concerns, with a constant interplay between these factors, i.e. on sustainable development and a competitive European system.

1.3

The Committee suggests:

1.4

This reinforced coordination, which does not require the Treaties to be amended, presupposes cooperation and emulation between Member States on the Lisbon Strategy objectives, a responsible innovative commitment to macroeconomic policies, and a cooperative approach to individual implementation policies for the structural reforms.

1.5

In addition to the need to comply with the Stability Pact, which is based on the reliability of the Member States in defending the single currency, an integrated European economic growth policy remains a priority. This will require a means of applying the Stability and Growth Pact for the eurozone, to encourage better implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. Moreover, tax policies will have to be brought closer in line to secure the competitiveness an open economy needs, whilst ensuring social sustainability.

1.6

The first concern of this integrated economic policy must be to create the conditions for a major relaunch of economic activity in Europe. The Committee supports the objective – already the subject of several recent proposals – to create a European growth initiative to encourage trans-European investment, particularly in infrastructure (energy, transport and ICT), research and training, to improve labour market performance, and also social protection systems, within a framework of sustainable development.

1.7

The Committee would reiterate the need to speed up the completion of the single market, in tandem with enlargement. This particularly applies to public procurement, various types of services, and legislative and administrative simplification. The aim is to develop a genuinely independent growth capability which Europe currently lacks, by making full use of the potential of this extensive and technologically advanced integrated economic area.

2.1

The Committee would stress that dialogue with and amongst the social partners at European and national level is crucial to delivering the reforms, particularly those designed to improve education and training, labour market performance, and also social protection systems, whilst ensuring they are sustainable.

2.2

From the outset, the Lisbon European Council mandate for the implementation of the multi-annual strategy emphasised the priority role that fell to private sector initiatives and a new partnership between the State and civil society. Civil society organisations should participate fully in the open method of coordination set out in this strategy.

2.3

With preparations under way for the new treaty on European integration, which will follow enlargement in 2004, the Committee has strongly supported the European Convention's insertion of a reference to the role of participatory democracy, facilitated by civil society players, to complement but not replace representative democracy.

2.4

The vertical view of subsidiarity (distinguishing between European, national, regional and local competences) should be complemented by a horizontal or functional view (distinguishing between issues that are mainly the preserve of government authorities and others that concern the direct, and at times autonomous, involvement of civil society, namely the private sector, the social partners, socio-occupational groups and non-profit associations).

2.5

To succeed, the Lisbon strategy must not only secure the genuine commitment of the European institutions and Member States, but must also:

—

improving the European institutions' consultation of socio-occupational interest groups and the social partners, in order to develop a permanent European dialogue on the Lisbon strategy's various joint guidelines and action plans, and ensuring better consideration and reconciliation of the imperatives of economic competitiveness, social progress, and sustainable development;

—

actively involving the social partners in the implementation of the multiannual social dialogue programme they agreed, with a view to their drawing up European agreements in fields relevant to the Lisbon strategy;

—

highlighting this socio-occupational dialogue and the contribution of the European social partners in the European Commission's annual report to the Spring summit;

—

developing socio-occupational consultation and dialogue in parallel with the launch of a public information campaign and a debate on the whys and wherefores of the reforms set in motion under the Lisbon strategy;

—

securing a dialogue and the contractual involvement of the social partners in their areas of responsibility, in line with the various cultures and economic and social backdrops, to produce national action plans;

—

highlighting the contributions of civil society, and in particular those of the social partners, in the Member States' annual reports to the Spring summit; this would facilitate wider dissemination of best practice in these areas;

—

establishing a real dialogue at regional and local levels. This is the best way of ensuring effective participation by economic and social actors in order to make the most of local potential in terms of human resources, entrepreneurial spirit, cultural heritage and natural resources.

3.2.1

Governments and other official agencies can contribute to enhanced competitiveness by stepping up those policies and services that help to enhance the performance of businesses and other organisations.

3.2.2

The EESC endorses the need for more focused efforts, including the use of fiscal incentives, with the following objectives:

—

helping to develop public dialogue, directly involving civil society representatives in the evaluation process;

—

holding close consultations on implementation of the strategy with the national economic and social councils and similar organisations. At their meeting in Madrid on 28 November 2003, the Presidents of the Economic and Social Councils of the Member States and of the EESC decided to initiate joint discussions in order to make a joint contribution to the 2005 European Spring Council under the Luxembourg Presidency;

—

promoting the dissemination of European and national initiatives from the socio-occupational domain and the social partners that have contributed to the successful implementation of the Lisbon strategy;

—

on this basis, continuing to submit an evaluation report every year for the Spring summit on progress in the implementation of the Lisbon strategy.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/4

1.1

At its meeting of 13 November 2003 the SMO heard the Parliament rapporteur, Mr Medina Ortega (1), and Commission representatives on the Communication on the framework action ‘Updating and simplifying the Community acquis’ (2), on which the Commission presented its first six-monthly interim report this year [COM(2003) 623 final].

1.2

According to this report, the key actions aimed at reducing the volume of legislation and making it simpler, more accessible and more meaningful are well underway. Measures undertaken or planned account for 4 % of the current volume of the acquis.

1.3

The Communication and the framework action aim to simplify and update the acquis in the following ways:

1.4

The rate at which work is progressing varies according to the area of simplification concerned and not all of the Commission's directorates have been involved as yet. Substantial problems in terms of methodology, personnel and budget have delayed the implementation of Phase I (February – September 2003). The Commission hopes that Phase II (October 2003 – March 2004) will advance more quickly and help make up for lost time, so that the programme as a whole will be on schedule by the start of Phase III (April 2004 – December 2004).

2.1

A distinction must be made between:

This framework action is not concerned only with simplifying the Community acquis. The simplification of procedures and documents is, however, just as important for economic players.

The Committee refers to its previous opinions on this subject (3).

3.1

The Committee welcomes the inter-institutional agreement (IIA) (4) between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission with regard to simplification procedures that respect their specific powers and responsibilities; it is probable that changes will be made to the co-decision procedure in a future treaty, which should expand the Parliament's role in drawing up Community legislation and monitoring its implementation.

3.1.1

The IIA is intended to improve the coordination of the legislative process between the Parliament and the Council, on the basis of an indicative timetable for the various stages leading to the final adoption of each legislative proposal; the Commission and the Council should participate regularly, at the highest level, in the discussions of the relevant parliamentary committees.

3.1.2

During discussion on a substantive amendment, the agreement considers the possibility of carrying out an impact study before the amendment is adopted (although this could cause procedural complications and delays).

3.1.3

With regard to alternative methods of regulation, that is, co-regulation between private partners or private self-regulation, the agreement stipulates that these mechanisms will not be applicable where ‘fundamental rights or important political options are at stake or in situations where the rules must be applied in a uniform fashion in all Member States.’ The mechanisms must also ‘ensure swift and flexible regulation which does not affect the principles of competition or the unity of the internal market.’ The alternative regulation is therefore subject to a number of restrictions.

3.1.4

It should be noted that the rules agreed between European social partners (Articles 138 and 139 of the EC Treaty) should not come into the general category of co-regulation; this category covers voluntary initiatives between private partners, not implying that the Institutions have adopted any particular stance. Collective European negotiation is a specific method of regulation governed by the original law.

3.1.4.1

The Commission will examine the voluntary regulation initiatives to ensure that they comply with the Treaty and will notify the Parliament of this and of the representativeness of the parties concerned. This seems slightly contradictory, and it is difficult to see what the consequences might be if the Parliament considered that the information received was not satisfactory. The Parliament's only possible step would be to ask the Commission to take a legislative initiative replacing the self-regulation. In future, the Parliament would like a formal call back procedure to be enshrined in the new Constitutional Treaty, for Community legislation to replace self-regulation initiatives.

3.1.5

Finally, the IIA covers the serious problem of transposing Community directives into national law; the institutions have undertaken to allow a time limit for transposition that is as short as possible and that does not exceed two years (the Treaty does not mention transposition periods). The Committee welcomes this undertaking, but questions its practical implementation (to be carried out by the Council) if the Treaty does not lay down that the transposition time limit stipulated in a directive must be respected, and that failure to do so will automatically result in an infringement procedure when the deadline has been passed.

3.1.6

The Committee would have liked to have had the opportunity to give its opinion while the interinstitutional agreement was still being drafted, in so far as it was concerned and had in the past given opinions on these issues; it could have brought to the discussion the suggestions of organised civil society, to which the acquis is principally addressed and which is directly concerned by simplification, transposition and alternative methods of regulation.

3.2

With regard to the number and nature of texts listed in the Commission's scoreboard, it must be pointed out that delays accumulated during Phase I will overflow into Phase II; it may therefore be optimistic to think that the objective can be met by 2005. Moreover, a large majority of the texts listed were produced by the Commission under the committee procedure (5), exercising delegated regulatory powers (although this concept is not included in the current text of the EU Treaty, which refers to powers of implementation delegated by the Council).

3.3

The rule of nemo censitur (ignorance of the law is no defence) has become a real legal fiction owing to the huge number and complexity of directives and regulations, and this despite welcome codification initiatives that allow for a more consistent approach in certain areas of European law. Nonetheless, diversity in transposing directives at national level can lead to annoying discrepancies and different procedures. Member States and national legislators therefore have the important responsibility of transposing Community directives logically, accessibly and clearly, respecting both the letter and the aims of the legislation: convergence and harmonisation of national law.

3.4

Legislation produced under the committee procedure often seems to be pernickety and lacking transparency. The Parliament hopes that in future the committee procedure will focus on implementing and adapting legislation (strict powers of enforcement) rather than on existing law per se; it feels that substantive changes to regulations should follow normal legislative procedure. The EESC would then be consulted on such changes.

3.5

The Committee has always backed initiatives to simplify, a posteriori, the Community acquis. However, it also believes that legislation should be simple and clear from the very beginning and in particular that, before producing a legislative or regulatory proposal, the Commission should consult all the interested parties - through questionnaires, ad hoc meetings or other methods – and the EESC itself, to ensure that all the issues are given due consideration from the start.

3.5.1

These consultations may also help produce assessments which are as realistic as possible of the impact and consequences, financial and otherwise, of a proposal. It may, although not solely, be a question of consultation on green papers or on other preparatory working documents of the Commission accompanied by a questionnaire. The Committee is prepared to contribute to the consultative process as representative of the social and economic interests of the whole of civil society and to organise hearings with the organisations representing all these interests to make its own contribution to the continuous improvement and simplification of legislation.

3.5.2

The Committee is in favour of cost-benefit analyses as well as evaluating legislative projects from the point of view of proportionality and subsidiarity.

3.5.3

However, as regards health-safety or the environment, analysing the cost-benefit implications in purely monetary terms is a rather complex and difficult exercise which in some cases could prove incomplete, when the legislation's aim is to prevent disease or protect human lives.

3.5.4

The impact in terms of cost for those to whom the legislation is addressed, particularly businesses, must also be evaluated. There is no doubt that Community legislation or transposing a directive into domestic law can be expensive for businesses or individuals, especially if it lacks legal precision, or if the presentation of the draft does not provide a clear and precise explanation of the exact scope and the aims of the proposal (6). If the courts are needed to interpret the legislation or regulation, the end result will be disproportionate expense for those to whom the law is addressed.

3.5.5

Therefore, the preliminary phase of consultation must be primarily directed at those bodies which are truly representative of the interests of those to whom the law is principally addressed, including professionals and qualified experts; but it must also consult the European Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions.

3.6

The EESC also very much hopes to be regularly involved in ex post impact assessments of Community legislation, and in the review of the periodic reports required by the legislation, so that it may express the views of those who use and practise the law on the effectiveness of these rules; indeed, the law is weakened if it is not useful, effective and correctly applied or if it must be interpreted by the courts before being applied.

3.7

Follow-up, which can be difficult, consists of assessing the real impact of legislation - whether direct (regulations) or indirect (transposition of directives) - at national, regional and local level.

3.8

The EESC has suggested setting up an independent European body to follow-up and promote regulatory and administrative simplification, and a provision of this nature should be considered as soon as possible. At all events, simplification should be extended as far as possible to all areas of the acquis, and this is far from being achieved. This is all the more urgent because simplification will support and accelerate the effective implementation of the acquis in the new Member States, and should spur on those who are lagging behind to clear their backlog.

3.8.1

Environmental and safety legislation in relation to business activities might be a particularly promising area for simplification. In the long run, the issue could be recast more consistently and accessibly in a European Environment code. The Committee notes that some private publishers periodically produce unofficial European codes which bring together and gives glosses on certain subjects, such as a European social code or a business code, illustrated and explained by case-law and legal commentators. These initiatives prove the usefulness of codifying or reformulating the acquis for users and professionals in Community law.

3.9

Simplification is directly linked to the principle of good governance (7); it brings to the fore the issues of proportionality and subsidiarity which have to be resolved first. Depending on the legal texts in question, a procedure for assessing each specific stage (conception, drafting, adoption and publication) and for monitoring implementation should be introduced. This procedure can only enhance the legal certainty of those to whom the law is addressed and their respect for it.

3.10

It is clear that the users of Community law, which today accounts for a significant proportion if not most of the legal texts applicable in the Member States, are calling for wording that is less complex, devoid of ambiguity and easier to transpose and implement. The proliferation of legislation has an adverse effect on businesses, in particular smaller enterprises that lack their own legal services, and consumers, who seek certainty regarding their rights and the remedies open to them.

3.11

Single market regulation must be able to adapt to change while at the same time offering social and economic players sufficient legal certainty and security. Such regulation must be warranted and appropriate, and must not create unnecessary difficulties or obstacles. However, simplification must not be confused with deregulation (8). Codification is a form of simplification that concerns the consistency and comprehensibility of applicable law, but does not make substantive changes. Simplification and periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the acquis could also, where appropriate, lead to a reformulation of the law, through amendments or a draft replacement if necessary.

3.12

EU harmonisation and Community texts have already simplified the single market, preventing a proliferation of national texts and thereby making it easier for all European players to know the law.

3.13

Information and its channels are important in acquiring knowledge about applicable law and changes to it, and should therefore be targeted (limitations of simply publishing in official journals, the importance of possible conduits or alternative means). The websites of the Community institutions provide information for the public from the preliminary stages onwards, and the legislation pages of the Parliament's website give clear information about how dossiers are progressing. Finally, Community brochures for the general public also play a useful role, as do press releases, which are generally well written, although sometimes badly explained to readers by journalists.

3.13.1

A number of professional organisations and associations (e.g. national Bars) publish relevant texts for their members, as well as explanations and advice.

3.13.2

Information is also often distributed by Member States or teachers. University textbooks, legal commentators and student exchanges all contribute to the training of lawyers and future European legislators.

3.13.3

The Committee suggests to the Commission that a review should be carried out of how those to whom legislation is addressed and Community law professionals are best informed in practice, so as to determine whether the current means of conveying information are used effectively and whether or not they are sufficient, with a view to developing a better strategy for communication and training on Community law.

4.1

It should be emphasised that many regulations lay down the procedures to follow and provide specimens of the documents to be used. The Committee encourages this method which simplifies administrative formalities in the single market and reduces transaction costs.

4.2

As regards administrative documents and procedures currently in use, harmonisation is becoming a serious problem for operators, when each country has different requirements. There is much scope for harmonisation here. This will genuinely simplify trade and must be exploited to the full.

4.3

However, if the role of the committee procedure is also to implement legislation, it should contribute towards simplifying and harmonising administrative documents and procedures, by taking into consideration the opinions of legal professionals and users.

4.4

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in e-administration is also an instrument for good governance which must be rapidly promoted. Its application in the area of customs, as envisaged by the Commission, would be a good way of simplifying procedures and documents (e.g. one-stop-shop, standard documents to avoid delays at Community borders). This clearly calls for consultations with the interested parties, industries, customs personnel and carriers in order to avoid pointless formalities, ensure the legal security of operations and carry out proper checks. Such checks must not hinder freedom of movement and must respect business confidentiality, providing there is no evidence of fraud or strong suspicions of fraud.

4.5

While the Committee is very much in favour of developing e-administration, providing it is accompanied by procedural and administrative simplification, it wishes to reiterate the fundamental principles that govern how it works. Strict rules governing confidentiality, the length of time that authorities can keep certain documents, and the anonymisation of data for statistical or communication purposes must be respected.

5.1

Until now, the possibilities have not been properly explored for less detailed and less finicky regulation, offering scope for co-regulation and self-regulation. The role of those to whom legislation is addressed must be developed, as this will make for easier and more widespread implementation. The EESC's data base PRISM (Progress Report on Initiatives in the Single Market) provides specific examples of what could be called ‘contractual regulation’ and ‘unilateral regulation’ respectively, which also require appropriate monitoring and assessment procedures (e.g. labels, certificates, private or public independent checks). Mutual recognition, consumer relations, etc. open the way for effective private regulation.

5.2

With regard to Community social and labour law, collective bargaining on working and employment conditions and social dialogue allow European employers' and employees' organisations to have a say in labour relations and Community social law.

5.2.1

Negotiated texts must, however, be the subject of a Commission initiative and Council decision if they are to become legislation. The Parliament is not really consulted in this procedure, since any amendments it might make are not taken into consideration.

5.2.2

However, if the methods of self-regulation did not give acceptable or adequate results, or if necessary, the legislator could always, under existing procedures or new procedures from the new Treaty, such as the call back procedure, transform self-regulation or co-regulation into legislation. The Committee feels however that prudence should be exercised in this matter, particularly as regards collective contracts between European social partners, whose wishes and provisions should in principle be respected.

5.3

Therefore, while public regulation (legislation) may replace private regulation (contractual and unilateral regulation, non-governmental monitoring bodies, out-of-court dispute settlement …), such legislative intervention must respond to solid political reasons or clear public requirements. In a democratic political framework, private regulation must generally further develop or apply public regulation, even replacing it in some areas, including unwritten rules originating in common law or rules of procedure which the legislator and public authority wish, explicitly or implicitly, to ensure are respected, e.g. the ethical codes of certain professions.

5.4

When quasi-judicial provisions are laid down in private rules, an appeal against a duly motivated decision by the private body (e.g. disciplinary board, admission board for a professional body) must always be admissible before a public court or, if necessary, an arbitration body agreed by the parties.

6.1

The EESC will follow the Commission's six-monthly interim reports with considerable attention. It supports the initiative and the framework action to simplify the Community acquis, and hopes that this simplification will spread rapidly to other areas of the acquis to facilitate and promote its practical application, both in existing and new member countries.

6.2

Through its consultative opinions, the EESC wishes to have a greater role in drawing up Community law, which presupposes that it plays a part in proceedings at a much earlier stage than is usually the case at the moment. It also wishes to participate actively in impact and follow-up assessments and in actions to promote simplification, in order to contribute to the greater accessibility and effectiveness of Community law in the enlarged Europe. These requests of course follow the principles of democracy and good governance, as well as those of bringing citizens closer to the institutions and legislation of the European Union.

6.3

Finally, the Committee welcomes the inter-institutional agreement on Better Lawmaking, adopted by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 16 December 2003, which lays out the conditions for better simplification of Community legislation and in particular defines and frames, while encouraging, use of self-regulation and co-regulation by socio-occupational players. This agreement corresponds to the Committee's wishes in this area expressed in September 2000, when it adopted its own code of conduct and invited the institutions to follow its example. The Committee will contribute to the correct functioning of the agreement and will continue to promote the use of self-regulation and co-regulation, which are the subject of an information report being prepared by the Committee.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

1.1

The White Paper submitted to the EESC is a logical follow-up to the Green Paper on European Space Policy, on which the Committee adopted an opinion in June 2003.

1.2

On that occasion the Committee essentially asked the question: does Europe have a strong political and ongoing commitment to the space sector, together with the necessary financial resources and an adequate institutional architecture?

1.3

The Committee concluded that: ‘Europe's position in the space sector will depend on the strength of its political commitment and the clarity of its budget decisions. The introduction of a shared and/or parallel competence for the space sector in the future European constitutional treaty would provide the European Union with the political, legislative and financial means to define and implement a strong space policy, which will have to, inter alia:

1.4

It is in the light of this clear position that the Committee should assess the White Paper which has been referred to it for an opinion.

2.1

The Commission sets out the dangers facing Europe in the space sector:

2.2

Against this background and noting that ‘standing still is not an option’, the Commission proposes a series of initiatives to prevent the weakening of Europe's position in the space sector.

2.3

The document is organised into the following sections:

2.4

In each section, the challenges are identified and proposals made for responding to them.

2.5

The conclusion of the White Paper is that Europe must progressively increase its space budget as part of a long-term vision aimed at creating more effective European space policies and more opportunities for a revitalised space industry to expand Europe's share of the market in space-based services.

2.6

In the resources assessment in Annex 2, the Commission presents three scenarios for increased expenditure on space, corresponding to three degrees of political will.

3.1

The White Paper is, above all, a policy document the primary objective of which is to define a space policy for Europe. In this respect, it represents an important step forward in a field where Europe has been very active and scored major successes, but without ever having really made a coherent expression of political will. In addition, the White Paper outlines areas for specific action in the main sectors, where mastery of space-based resources involves strategic, economic and industrial challenges. The way that the document is structured according to the various challenges to be met is interesting in that it highlights the scale and urgency of the commitments that need to be made if Europe wishes to retain its position as a major space power, its scientific and technological strength, its community of scientists and engineers, its cutting-edge industry and a competitive market presence.

3.2

The initiatives, measures and proposals put forward by the Commission seem to be consistent with the ideas aired in the consultations on the Green Paper. As such, the White Paper represents a solid platform for the implementation of a European space project that is embedded in a political vision of the future. But clearly the crucial factor here is the real political and financial will of the Member States and the Union to support and develop an independent European space sector.

3.3

Finally, with the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference a problem has arisen regarding a solid legal basis for the European Union in the space field in that Article 13(3) of the Treaty will remain unchanged until the draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe has been ratified. The European Economic and Social Committee therefore recommends that the framework agreement signed between ESA and the Commission be used to the full in a pro-active way because action in the space field cannot wait for the ratification of the future treaty at some indefinite point in time. The adverse repercussions that this would have for Europe's strategic autonomy, space industry and its partners, and research teams and capacities could open up an unbridgeable gap between Europe and its competitors in this field.

3.3.1

In fact, Member States have reached unanimous agreement on providing the EU with shared competence in space policy, an agreement which no-one has called into question.

3.3.2

Consequently, the EESC stresses the need to consider ways and means of supporting this clearly stated political will, pending the creation of a solid legal basis.

Firstly, the ESA-EU Space Council provided for in the framework agreement between the Commission and ESA must be set up immediately. Secondly, consideration could be given to appointing a high official for Space (along the lines of the high official for the CFSP), or to including space policy in the portfolio of the President of the European Commission, without ruling out the possibility of creating the post of Commissioner for Space in the future. All three options imply a strong endorsement of the importance of space policy.

4.1.1

Space technologies are a tool for fundamental research, on account of both the complexity of the technologies applied and the fields of research involved, which include not only astrophysics and planetology but also seismology, oceanography, meteorology, epidemiology, etc. The EESC regrets that the White Paper does not make specific mention of their key role and hopes that this aspect will be given some kind of legitimacy by European space policy, even if ESA's mandatory programme responds to this need mainly as regards the sciences of the universe.

4.1.2

Moreover, it must be emphasised that in the field of observation and knowledge of the planet there is close interdependence between operational activities (such as those conducted by Eumetsat) and pure research.

4.1.3

Finally, it is essential to stress the duality of space technology at the research and development stage; the difference between civil and military usage emerges mainly during the practical application of research findings. Upstream research and development activity should therefore bring together all civil and military stakeholders in a concerted effort to optimise the use of facilities and reduce costs.

4.2.2.1

Priority must be given to the interoperability of space systems as they can have different origins.

4.2.2.2

The EESC feels that two specific aspects are not given enough emphasis and are not sufficiently understood:

4.2.2.3

The EESC considers this to be a shortcoming of the document as EU space policy must be built on what already exists, not by duplicating what the space agencies do but by complementing their activities and structuring demand.

4.2.2.4

The Committee therefore recommends that the Commission adopt a constructive attitude towards Eumetsat, which is a key European partner, along the lines of that adopted with regard to ESA. Equally, the Committee believes that better use should be made of the Madrid-based Torrejón satellite centre for gathering satellite information by creating a true space database, along the lines of that under development in the United States.

4.3.1

The EESC feels that this section is regrettably weak, in terms of both form and content. It stands in stark contrast to the rest of the document. It is surprising – to say the least – to note that, in the box entitled ‘The Way Forward’, satellite communications are only mentioned in passing in parentheses when it is asserted that full use should be made of the potential offered by all available broadband technologies to bridge the digital divide.

4.3.2

The Committee fears that, as far as this issue is concerned, the text is based on a number of misinterpretations or misjudgements.

4.3.3

In the first place, the concept of technological neutrality cannot mean that all technologies are equivalent as regards solving a given problem. Clearly, choices have to be made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis along the lines of that drawn up by the Commission (working document SEC(2003) 895). It is important in this context that use of the Structural Funds is not at variance with these principles and that local authorities have a clear idea of the complementarity of terrestrial and space systems in terms of geographic data and population density

4.3.4

While there can no be question of promoting space-based solutions to the detriment of more effective terrestrial solutions, there can be no denying that the former are particularly appropriate for regions with a low population density or which are geographically remote or access to which is difficult. Space-based solutions and terrestrial solutions are complementary and offer different areas of excellence.

4.3.5

What the text overlooks is the fact that the role of space-based solutions in resolving the problem of the ‘digital divide’ must derive from the intrinsic complementarity of terrestrial and space-based solutions.

4.3.6

The crucial factor for the development of space-based solutions is equal access to the advantages of broadband telecommunications regardless of where an activity is located.

4.3.7

To be specific, today in many countries 80 % of the population but only 20 % of the territory is covered or in the process of being covered by terrestrial solutions. This situation can only change for the better by exploiting the complementarity of space and terrestrial technologies.

4.3.8

The sheer size of the urban market favours terrestrial solutions and the importance of terrestrial operators can only accentuate the imbalance between urban and rural regions. This raises the following question: is it acceptable that the information society is evolving in a direction which favours urban concentration at the expense of rural depopulation? Clearly, this cannot be the socio-political choice of the European Union or of Member States.

4.3.9

In stating that the market is characterised by ‘intense competition between operators and technologies’, the White Paper confuses two very different elements: commercial competition between operators and the balance between technologies, which ultimately depends on their respective qualities.

4.3.10

Therefore the EESC feels that the European institutions should make a more accurate assessment of the specific role of space-based solutions so as not to lose the initiative in this key area of space policy. Consequently, it would be useful to promote pilot operations based on joint initiatives between ESA and the Commission in order to demonstrate the cost-benefit advantages of satellite-based solutions in comparison with the investment that would be necessary to bring about equivalent fixed network solutions in areas where there is no coverage. Similarly, the pooling of public contracts should be encouraged so as to enable satellite-based solutions with Europe-wide coverage to benefit from economies of scale, leading to lower costs, both in terms of terminals and service provision. This would also help pave the way for the emergence of a European standard, enabling the various companies involved to establish a global presence.

4.3.11

The role of space policy is not to promote space policy at any price but to see to it that space-based solutions are not overlooked to the detriment of the interests of certain users and certain regions and the people who live in them.

4.4.1

The EESC does not have any major comments to make on these sections but it would strongly emphasise that, insofar as space is considered by our main partners to be an important power issue (in 2004, NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, will present a new road map which, significantly, deals with the subject of renewed US space domination), international cooperation must be based on an approach which realistically reflects European interests.

4.4.2

The Committee would therefore reiterate that, insofar as free access to space is essential for Europe's autonomy and it cannot be achieved through a commercial approach, public funds must be allocated to maintaining freedom of access, which is of major strategic importance.

4.4.3

As concerns the ESDP, the Committee recalls that the presidency report on European Security and Defence Policy, approved by the Thessaloniki European Council of 19 and 20 June 2003, recognised the importance of space applications and activities in this area. Here the Committee would highlight the dual nature of space sciences and technologies, which is not sufficiently exploited in Europe.

4.4.4

As regards space flights, careful attention needs to be paid to a possible revision of US space policy in this area.

4.4.5

The EESC considers it desirable to maintain this type of activity for reasons which have to do with both humankind's deeply rooted desire for adventure and discovery and the need for symbols that can stimulate and maintain public interest. Consequently, realistic programmes should be devised which respond intelligently to European interests but which at the same time are based on global cooperation.

4.4.6

In this context, the idea of a lunar station certainly needs to be given serious consideration, with the greatest regard for Europe's interests.

4.5.1

The Committee would recall that ESA, national agencies, scientific institutes and industry have succeeded in elevating Europe to a level of scientific excellence which is recognised worldwide. Moreover, as the Commission points out, this has been done subject to strict budget constraints that have required efficiency and competitiveness, which deserves to be applauded.

4.5.2

This is all the more reason to support the White Paper proposal to progressively increase ESA and Member State funding for space research, not only to promote research as such but also to avoid the break-up of our research capacities and to offer attractive career opportunities to young scientists; otherwise there is a real risk that the ‘brain drain’ will accelerate, particularly to the United States.

4.5.3

The Committee considers that just as much emphasis should be put on the earth sciences in space research as on the sciences of the universe. What sets the earth sciences apart from the sciences of the universe is the fact that they are intrinsically bound up with practical applications (meteorology, surveillance, environmental management, etc.). A distinction therefore needs to be drawn between these two branches of science, without favouring one at the expense of the other.

4.6.1

At this stage, the White Paper can only provide some pointers to the way forward, including how to organise space responsibilities within the Commission.

4.6.2

Despite the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference, no-one has called into question the agreement to provide the European Union with shared competence in the space field. However, the absence of a clearly established legal base for EU action in the space sector will inevitably give rise to a certain caution.

4.6.3

Nevertheless, as regards internal organisation within the Commission, it seems to the Committee that there are two pitfalls that must be avoided:

4.6.4

The EESC believes that a single, dedicated body of modest size, attached to a high level of the Commission, for the example the presidency, would offer an appropriate response.

4.6.5

Of course, the Commission will have to have resources of its own, augmenting those which Member States devote to ESA and national agencies. If there is a genuine desire to develop EU space activity, the ‘game’ cannot be played without staking some money.

4.7.1

The White Paper presents three scenarios:

4.7.2

Space activity is of major strategic importance for the European Union. Its scientific, technological, economic and human implications are considerable. It is therefore an integral part of the Lisbon strategy and there is a need to ensure that the means are made available for achieving the stated objectives in this area. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the EESC can only reject the possibility of scenario C. It regards scenario B as the minimum working hypothesis, whilst hoping that it will be possible to move closer to scenario A.

4.7.2.1

In fact, some wonder whether it might not be possible, in the light of the requirements of the Stability Pact, to insulate strategic investment spending, such as that on space, from budgetary considerations so that the future is not compromised by budgetary restrictions, which all too often are targeted at investment spending rather than current expenditure.

4.7.3

It is equally clear that nothing should be put in the way of enhanced cooperation in the space sector, although it has to be recognised that the Nice Treaty provides little scope for such cooperation.

5.1

The European Economic and Social Committee considers the White Paper to be a high-quality document which has the great merit of being an expression of political will which is formulated in a strong and coherent manner.

5.2

Nevertheless, the Committee deplores the weakness of the section on the ‘digital divide’ and broadband technologies. It therefore urges the Commission to review and expand this section by considering the complementarity between space-based and terrestrial solutions.

5.3

The Committee would again stress the key strategic importance of space activities for the European Union. It calls for the Union's policy approach, particularly as regards international cooperation, to be underpinned by a realistic vision that is free of all trace of naivety, especially in view of the dual nature (civil/military) of the technologies which space activities are based on.

5.4

The Committee emphasises that the space sector, which has been restructured and taken the necessary steps to improve competitiveness in order to be able to compete internationally, employs directly some 30,000 people, many of them highly skilled, and that it is essential to maintain and enrich this vast human potential, which is the source of European excellence in this field. In particular, it would point out that greater attention should be paid to training, both initial and continuing, in a sector based on high technologies which are evolving along with progress in scientific research.

5.5

Despite the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference, the Committee recommends that the European Union, building on the framework agreement between the Commission and ESA, press ahead resolutely with its efforts to shape and stimulate demand and with space initiatives, without duplicating the programmes of Member States, their national agencies or ESA and without standing in the way of enhanced cooperation or strong partnerships between certain Member States. The Committee recommends the incorporation of space policy within the remit of a high-level EU body or official.

5.6

The Committee urges that the budgetary resources granted for space policy be equivalent, at a minimum, to the level of funding envisaged in scenario B of Annex 2 and to avoid any chance that investment by the EU might result in a corresponding decline in investment by Member States.

5.7

Space policy, because of the human, scientific and strategic challenges it involves, touches at the very heart of the human adventure. As a result, Europe is again on the road to a date with history, in a geopolitical context where other leading continental powers are key protagonists. We do not have the right to miss this encounter.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/14

1.1

This Commission document is above all a reaction, and in fact a rehash of the conclusions of the Aerospace Advisory Group's Strategic Aerospace Review for the 21st Century (STAR 21).

1.2

The Commission links this reflection to the conclusions of the European Councils of Cologne, Lisbon, Barcelona and Thessalonica.

1.3

It points out that the aerospace industry is a key sector in achieving the strategic and economic goals that the European Union has set itself. The sector is very high-tech and highly-skilled, and operates in both the civil and military field.

1.4

So, what is the situation of the sector in the EU?

1.4.1

The aerospace industry is a cyclical and fluctuating activity. In the civil field the market depends on the purchase programmes of airlines, which can be affected by external events such as terrorist actions, which may seriously disturb activity.

1.4.1.1

In the military field, it is determined by budget choices and the purchasing policies of states, which are themselves determined by geo-strategic data.

1.4.1.2

Today, the manufacture of large civil aircraft underpinned by the competitiveness of Airbus is and will remain the key factor in the development of the aerospace industry.

1.4.1.3

The defence sector is more uncertain. The number of new programmes is limited. However, the European aerospace industry remains strong and has a strong presence on the helicopter market.

1.4.1.4

The sector has been affected by the uncertainty of the European market and the complex and cumbersome nature of military decision-making, and so European companies are turning to the much larger and more stable US defence market, despite the protectionist rules of the USA and without sufficient guarantees of any technological benefits.

1.4.1.5

The space sector is going through a difficult phase. Mainly civil, it has suffered greatly from the fall in demand for telecommunications and is now facing strong competition in the launcher market, which is protected in the USA and is facing the entry of new actors on the world scene. The plans of the USA and NASA are geared to current requirements; this provides an opportunity to bring about an upturn in Europe.

1.4.1.6

Aerospace is a dual sector, whose skills and techniques can have civil and military applications. One of its weaknesses is the inadequacy and fragmentation of the defence market.

1.4.2.1

The report stresses the importance of:

1.4.2.2

Finally, the report stresses the need to re-examine conditions on the defence market.

1.4.3.1

The Commission identifies the questions that it considers essential, sector-by-sector.

1.4.4.1

The Commission deplores the fragmentation of the market, which is due to the fact that defence lies at the very heart of states' sovereignty and to the particular features of the sector (confidentiality, security of supplies, political criteria in purchase decisions...). It stresses that Europe spends less on defence than the USA, and that market fragmentation makes it impossible to get the most out of investments.

1.4.4.2

For the future, it recommends that this fragmentation of demand be combated, since it is impossible to achieve profitable production levels with programmes that are specific to only one state.

It proposes that military requirements be harmonised and feels that the setting-up of a ‘European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency,’ as part of a European security and defence policy, would help create a sufficiently important and coherent market to maintain and develop our aerospace industry and enter into a credible dialogue with the USA.

1.4.4.3

The Commission also feels that the initiatives taken by the defence ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom could usefully be extended to the whole of the EU.

1.4.5.1

The Commission points out that there is no European or multinational structure responsible for security and defence-related space programmes, a lack which is cruelly felt when there is a sharp and sustained downturn in the civil commercial market. This situation is largely due to the provisions of the ESA Treaty, which strictly applies the Convention on Space prohibiting the use of space for military purposes. The result is that, unlike the USA, Europe does not consolidate its civil and commercial space activity with space activity in the field of defence that is institutionally supported and therefore not subject to commercial risks. This is all the more regrettable since space technologies are of a dual nature, and can therefore have both civil and military applications.

1.4.5.2

For the future, it calls for the introduction of an overall European policy and for more effective coordination, so that the European space sector does not lose its current capabilities and technological excellence.

1.4.6.1

Aerospace research clearly needs to be better coordinated. Some interesting civil initiatives have been taken (Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe), but the situation is not satisfactory as regards defence.

1.4.6.2

For the future, the Commission thinks it essential to ensure the long-term stability of the structures for funding research. It also wants to develop an overall plan for research and development and plan research programmes.

1.4.7.1

The Commission wants the European Aviation Safety Agency to become operational as quickly as possible and transatlantic negotiations to be conducted, in particular on certifications.

1.4.7.2

It wants air safety issues to be handled at European level and the EU to play an active part in the relevant international organisations.

1.4.7.3

It also calls for the creation of a civil-military interface to improve the use of airspace.

1.4.8.1

The Commission mainly considers issues related to the commercial difficulties with the USA over defence equipment, due in particular to US protective rules and export controls.

2.1

STAR 21 and the Commission make a number of objective remarks that merit support. The aerospace industries clearly belong to a hi-tech sector whose advanced skills and technologies may have a valuable impact on other sectors. In this respect, they have a major role to play in enabling the EU to achieve the Lisbon goal: ‘to become 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.’

2.2

Market fragmentation in the defence aerospace industry is due to the very nature of the sector and its sovereign activity of defence, i.e. possibly war. So, it is logical that states have wanted to ensure security of supplies and the secrecy of technologies by using national companies, often with close links to the state. The secrecy of technologies is currently ensured by means of various bilateral and multilateral agreements.

2.3

This vision clashes with the logic of an alliance and the fact that the huge investments of the defence industries can no longer be guaranteed a return from the national markets which are their main support, especially at a time of budget restrictions. Moreover, international competition is particularly keen from US firms, which are supported by a vast and stable national market.

2.4

The Commission's proposals to overcome market fragmentation are interesting, but too much trust seems to be placed in such structures as a European armaments agency. In the field of defence, which by its very nature is a question of national sovereignty, nothing is possible without a stated political will and this can only be stated as part of a European world policy that is clear and shared by all, which is not the case. Moreover, in a hi-tech activity that calls for skills and know-how of very high level, it is advisable to make sure that the cooperation planned does indeed generate technological added value and does not lead to skill dilution.

2.5

The EESC would point out that a recent defence agreement signed between France, Germany and the UK should lead to operational aspects in 2005. This could open up some interesting perspectives for industry, as the British, French and German markets combined would achieve the critical mass necessary for our military aircraft industry.

2.6

The latest developments regarding space (framework agreement with the ESA, provisions of the draft treaty instituting a constitution for the European Union which are not at issue in the IRC's failure) are along the lines wished by the Commission and the EESC. The basic question is whether the budget appropriations are sufficient for the EU and Member States to have the means to achieve their space ambitions. This is the main issue of the White Paper, which is a quality document despite a glaring weakness regarding broadband telecommunications.

2.7

The Commission proposals on the European regulation of civil aviation appear justified both at a practical level and in terms of safety and consistency. Moreover, this could only strengthen our position in the transatlantic negotiations.

3.1.1

The EESC notes the difference between what the European civil aircraft industry has been able to achieve with Airbus and the relative weakness of the military aircraft industry due to the fragmentary nature of the market. It feels that this is due to the lack of an overall political plan for Europe's defence. This situation only reinforces the dominance of the USA, which has been able to use its defence agreements with various countries for the benefit of its own industries, thus making the world market almost a captive one. The aerospace industry is a concentration of the strategic technologies that determine future economic growth. It therefore fits in perfectly with the Lisbon strategy, which aims 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’. In addition, the technological independence of European companies in the defence-related sectors is one of the preconditions for the Em's independence.

3.1.2

The EESC points out that as regards military aviation (as with space activities), the USA uses various instruments or legal concepts that in fact amount to protectionist practices. It therefore asks the Commission, which is in charge of the Em's commercial policy, to take action against these practices, particularly in the WTO, to restore our trade balance in this area.

3.1.3

It notes the defence agreement between France, Germany and the UK which is a sign of change in the approach to Europe's defence. While it is not desirable to have an EU where everyone does their own thing, neither would it be advisable to stand in the way of initiatives which may provide a lead for others.

3.2.1

The EESC feels that the proposals in the White Paper more than fulfil STAR 21's recommendations. It again stresses the major strategic importance of space activities for the EU and asks that the Em's political approach to cooperation and international relations be based on a realistic vision of its interests.

3.2.2

It recalls that this sector employs 30,000 highly skilled people and that it is imperative to maintain and enrich this formidable human potential.

3.2.3

Owing to the IRC's failure, and pending a European treaty giving the EU competence in space matters, it recommends that the Commission develop to the maximum the potential of the framework agreement concluded with the ESA.

3.2.4

Finally, it asks that the budget authorised for space policy correspond at least to scenario B ‘political act’ in the appendix to the White Paper.

3.3.1

The EESC totally supports the call for the rapid creation of a European Aviation Safety Agency and the wish to achieve, as soon as possible, mutual acceptance of certifications granted by regulatory authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.

3.3.2

It also wants effective promotion of European air safety standards, as a factor in the competitiveness of the European aerospace industry, and therefore the active participation of the EU in international organisations with competence in such matters.

4.1

The European Economic and Social Committee considers that the Commission Communication on the STAR 21 report rightly draws attention to the weaknesses of military aerospace activity in Europe. However, it feels that the Commission probably attaches too much importance to the institutional side of things, and that the main thing is that a real political desire for autonomous Community defence should emerge in Europe. Only that will enable our industries to be given a solid base.

4.2

In the field of space, the EESC notes that the White Paper drawn up by the Commission fully answers the requests made by STAR 21. It considers that the Commission/ESA framework agreement and the political guidelines defined by the White Paper should enable Europe's ambitions in space to be revived.

4.3

The EESC would point out that the European aerospace industry provides jobs for millions of Europeans and requires highly skilled staff able to master the most advanced current technologies. It is therefore clear that if the aim of making Europe ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ is not to remain only an empty and hollow formula, it is up to the Member States to take appropriate action by defining genuine and ambitious European policies as regards armament and space activities, coordinated and synthesised at EU level so that our continent can regain its rightful position in the new world order.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/18

1.1

In order to achieve the objective of enhanced road safety, which is a priority for the Community institutions and national authorities alike, measures will have to be introduced progressively in all areas of car manufacturing that can reduce the number of accidents and their effects.

1.2

The proposal rightly focuses on protecting the weakest and most vulnerable road users in the case of a collision with a motor vehicle. As stated in the European Road Safety Action Programme, presented recently by the Commission, ‘safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists are a priority for EU action.’

1.3

Road accident statistics indicate that a significant proportion of casualties involve pedestrians and cyclists who are injured as a result of contact with a moving vehicle, notably with the frontal structures of passenger cars. The most recent data from CARE (1) provide the following figures for deaths relating to the most vulnerable categories: pedestrians 4,571; cyclists 1,444. Unfortunately, no details of the circumstances of the collision are provided.

1.3.1

It should be remembered that there are two types of injury in this type of collision: those from the ‘primary’ impact of the pedestrian or cyclist with the front of the vehicle, and those from the ‘secondary’ impact with the road surface onto which the pedestrian is often hurled. In any case, it should be noted that it there is no hope of protecting pedestrians if the primary impact occurs at a speed of over 40 km/h. It is, however, possible to reduce levels of injury in primary collisions at this speed, i.e. in heavy urban traffic, where almost half of accidents occur.

1.3.2

The proposal to amend Directive 70/156/EEC (2), which provides the basis for type-approval of vehicles and their trailers in so far as it regulates and harmonises procedures, springs from the commitment made in 2001 by the European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturing associations (the ACEA, JAMA and KAMA respectively) not to install rigid (usually steel) bull bars as original equipment on new vehicles or to sell them as an after market item through their commercial networks. It should be remembered, however, that they were originally designed to improve vehicle safety for professional users (farmers, forestry workers, etc.) in ‘hostile’ areas and/or where animals are present.

1.4

The proposal has also become necessary for three reasons:

1.5

The proposal aims to establish the technical and construction provisions for frontal protection systems (bull bars) on M1 and N1 type vehicles, i.e. passenger cars and light vans not exceeding a total permissible mass of 3.5 tonnes, and as such is one of the special directives provided for under the type-approval procedure established by Directive 70/156/EEC.

1.6

The proposal also ties in with Directive 2003/102/EC of 17 November 2003 (3) relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. The proposal has become particularly necessary since the latter directive does not contain any specific provisions on frontal protection systems (bull bars).

1.7

The Committee has already commented on the above directive in its opinion of 16 July 2003 (4), where it endorsed and supported the Commission's work in the area of pedestrian protection, but pointed out that this should be part of the bigger Community drive to promote road safety, with the accent on the need for a comprehensive prevention policy.

1.8

Moreover, the Committee has recently commented on other legislative proposals on road safety (e.g. on restraint systems and safety belts, and on extending the requirement to fit speed limitation devices to almost all vehicles) (5), and on the European Road Safety Action Programme. It reiterated the importance of developing in parallel the three crucial elements for safety: vehicles, infrastructure and user-behaviour.

2.1

The Committee welcomes this new initiative from the Commission, which will help to round off the regulatory framework designed to improve road safety, thereby filling a gap in the legislation.

2.2

Whilst the Committee accepts that the initiative is necessary, it feels obliged to express some considerable reservation with regard to the approach adopted by the Commission in drawing up the proposed directive.

2.2.1

Given the accepted dangers posed by rigid frontal protection systems, and the subsequent agreement by car manufacturers not to produce or market them, the Commission has opted for a technical, type-approval solution, insofar as it does not define rigid and non-rigid, but lays down technical/type-approval specifications, compliance with which defines – in practice – safe frontal protection system, i.e. non-rigid.

2.2.2

On the other hand, the current wording of the proposal creates unexpected and probably unsolvable complications for manufacturers, by requiring bull bars to pass different tests from those required for the basic vehicle in the initial implementation phase of Directive 2003/102/EC.

2.3

One should not forget all the work carried out thus far in the field of pedestrian safety. This work, starting with the agreement with car-maker associations and followed by the above Directive 2003/102/EC, has made it possible to identify some of the mainstays of state-of- the-art technology in this area and, logically, the proposal should build on these.

2.3.1

Directive 2003/102/EC (Annex I, p1) establishes the ‘frontal surface’ (including frontal protection systems) crash tests for vehicle type-approval. However, under the present proposal the Commission anticipates the adoption of certain technical provisions (Art. 4) specific to bull bar crash tests. These do not correspond to the provisions for the initial phase of the above directive, which was adopted only recently. The Committee fails to see the need for this review:

2.4

The Committee therefore believes that the provisions of the proposal must be aligned with those of Directive 2003/102/EC, as detailed below.

2.5

Failing this, it would appear reasonable to surmise that bull bar manufacturers will be forced out of business, as they are unable to set up immediately the technical units needed to pass the stringent tests required under the present proposal.

3.1

to monitor the Member States so that checks are always carried out to ensure that the frontal protection system is mounted on the vehicle for which it was granted type-approval, in order to avoid any possible sources of danger.

3.2

to reconsider Article 3 of the proposal – The Committee calls for the date (1 July 2005) to be changed to 1 October 2005. As pointed out above, the proposal should be closely aligned with Directive 2003/102/EC.

3.3

to reconsider Article 4(1) and Annex I, part 3 of the proposal (test provisions) – the Committee would point out that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to establish detailed technical provisions or timescales that differ from those provided for in the initial implementation phase of Directive 2003/102/EC. Since it is not the frontal protection system itself that must be tested, but the front of the vehicle (incorporating such a system or some other device), it would be inappropriate to have different test arrangements. For example, under the proposal an ‘upper legform’ test is mandatory for vehicle type-approval, whereas under the provisions of Directive 2003/102/EC, this type of test is only carried out for monitoring and data collection purposes.

4.1

The Committee hopes that the proposed directive, amended as suggested by the Committee above, will be adopted as soon as possible. The suggestions are intended to refocus the directive on making possible improvements to vehicle frontal protection systems, something which has already been provided for and approved with the recent Directive on the protection of pedestrians.

4.2

The Committee is concerned that – failing the adoption of the suggested changes – the result could be a ‘prohibitionary’ type of legislation, with bull bars no longer being produced and perhaps the emergence of a market that is difficult to control.

4.3

More generally, the Committee hopes that the Commission will adopt a strategy that clearly defines regulatory priorities and avoids any inconsistency in the declared objectives. In this context, the Committee would point out that the various options should always be selected on the basis of a full-scale impact assessment of the new regulations, in order to take proper account, alongside other factors, of the cost to manufacturers, and consequently of the international competitiveness of European industry.

4.4

The Committee would also highlight the need to overhaul the complex legal framework relating to motor vehicles. For passenger car type-approval alone, there are currently 170 directives taking up some 3,500 pages of the Official Journal.

4.5

The Committee would also stress the need for the technical aspects of all safety solutions to be assessed thoroughly, by means of broad consultation involving the industry and all stakeholders, in order to identify the most advanced, reliable, effective and cost-efficient solutions.

4.6

Finally, the Committee, in accordance with the comments made in point 1.8 above and with a view to improving road safety, calls for ever greater focus to be placed on education and awareness campaigns for pedestrians and cyclists.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/21

1.1.1

In 1999, the Commission adopted an Action Plan for Financial Services (1) that identified a series of actions required to construct a single European financial market. At its meeting in Lisbon in March 2000, the European Council called for the implementation of this Action Plan by 2005.

1.1.2

On 17 July 2000, the Council set up a Committee of Wise Men on the Regulation of European Securities Markets. The Committee's final report published in February 2001 recommended regulating these markets on four levels in order to make Community legislation more flexible, effective and transparent.

1.1.3

In the light of these developments, the Commission adopted Decisions 2001/527/EC (2) and 2001/528/EC (3) setting up, respectively, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and the European Securities Committee (ESC).

1.1.4

On 3 December 2002, the Council called on the Commission to implement arrangements for the remaining financial services sectors based upon the Final Report of the Committee of Wise Men.

1.1.5

The proposal therefore extends the ‘comitology’ approach of the aforementioned decisions to the banking, insurance and occupational pensions, and investment fund sectors.

1.2.1

The proposal establishes a new ‘comitology’ system by both setting up new committees and abolishing existing ones, thereby shaping a new regulatory framework for financial services in the European Union.

1.2.2

As regards credit institutions, the European Banking Committee – established under the Commission Decision of 5 November 2003 (4) - will therefore take over most of the functions of the Banking Advisory Committee, which will cease to exist (5). That is to say, essentially it will play an advisory role at the request of the Commission concerning legislative acts adopted in co-decision by the Council and the Parliament, and a regulatory ‘comitology’ role.

1.2.3

Meanwhile, the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS), established under the Commission Decision of 5 November 2003 (6), will enhance supervisory cooperation and contribute to the convergence of Member States' supervisory practices and the consistent application of Community legislation. It will also advise the Commission, at the latter's request, on issues relating to banking legislation.

1.2.4

As regards insurance and occupational pensions, the Insurance Committee established under Council Directive 91/675/EEC of 19 December 1991 (7) will become the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee (8), essentially playing an advisory role at the request of the Commission and a regulatory ‘comitology’ role.

1.2.5

The establishment of the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (9), meanwhile, will contribute to the convergence of the supervisory practices of the competent national authorities, improve the exchange of confidential information on specific supervised institutions, and facilitate the provision of technical advice to the Commission, in particular on draft implementing measures that the Commission may wish to propose.

1.2.6

Finally, as regards the securities market - and to ensure compliance with, among other relevant legislation, Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 (10) – the functions of the Contact Committee on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (11) are transferred as follows: its ‘comitology’ role and role of advising the European Commission, at the latter's request, on legislation being drafted are transferred to the European Securities Committee (12), while its role of advising the Commission on the preparation of draft implementing measures for relevant legislation in this area and promoting enhanced co-operation and networking among EU securities regulators are transferred to the Committee of European Securities Regulators (13).

2.1

The urgent need to respond quickly and effectively to technological change and financial market developments in the global economy calls for the reform of the European Union's legislative and ‘comitology’ structure currently regulating this area.

2.2

The EESC therefore welcomes the proposed directive, which aims to harmonise the European financial regulatory framework by adapting the current regulatory approach in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and adequate resources.

3.1

The proposed directive extends the structure and role of advisory and regulatory committees, already applied in the securities sector, to the sectors of banking, insurance and occupational pensions and UCITS.

3.2

In accordance with the aforementioned objectives and content of the proposal, four main elements can be identified: (i) the establishment and composition of new committees; (ii) the different consultative role assigned to them; (iii) the regulatory or ‘comitology’ role given to each of the new committees; and (iv) the supervisory and follow-up role vis-à-vis implementation of relevant Community legislation in this area.

3.3

According to the Commission, the establishment of four new committees – i.e. the European Banking Committee, the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee and the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors – to replace the three existing committees – i.e. the Banking Advisory Committee, the Insurance Committee and the UCITS Contact Committee – avoids the risk of complexity and duplication due to overlap between existing committees.

3.4

In quantitative terms alone, the number of new committees is nonetheless twice the number of existing committees, giving rise to a long list of committees which becomes even longer if we include the Financial Services Committee, established a few months before the committees listed above and the role of which would seem to overlap a priori with theirs (14). Unless this situation is justified by the reasons of legislative techniques outlined above, it would in principle seem to run counter to the demands for transparency and simplification via a drastic reduction in the huge number of existing EU committees (15).

3.5

On the other hand, as regards the composition of the four new committees, the EESC welcomes the fact that the European Banking Committee will be composed of only one high-level representative per Member State – as opposed to the national delegations to the Banking Advisory Committee which are currently allowed up to three members – and that it will be chaired by the Commission - as opposed to the latter which is chaired by a representative from a Member State. Though the proposed Directive does not explicitly refer to this, it can be deduced from the executive summary.

3.6

However, no provision is made for representatives from the securities markets to participate in the committees responsible for regulating them. Given that all European stock exchanges are private entities operating under the supervision of public regulators, at least one national representative from the securities market should be allowed to participate as an observer.

3.7

As regards the advisory role of the new committees, the proposal suggests simultaneously reassigning and splitting the tasks currently carried out by the existing committees in the sectors of banking, insurance and collective investment in transferable securities.

3.8

According to point 1.2 above, the European Banking Committee, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee and the European Securities Committee will together play a key advisory role during the drafting and implementation of relevant legislation in this area.

3.9

In other words, they will play an advisory role at Level 1 of the EU's current four-level regulatory approach to securities legislation.

3.10

The Committee of European Banking Supervisors, the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors and the Committee of European Securities Regulators, meanwhile, will play an advisory role with regard to the consistent and timely implementation of relevant legislation in this area – including implementing technical measures – and enhanced cooperation among regulators in the Member States. In other words, they will play an advisory role at Level 3 of the aforementioned regulatory approach.

3.11

No new advisory roles are therefore created in addition to those that already exist. Whatever the likely impact of the entry into force of the new advisory system, the initial assessment is positive, providing that it improves the technical quality of the legislation in question and that doubling the number of committees does not adversely affect the flexibility and transparency of any advisory procedures initiated by the Commission.

3.12

Thirdly, the European Banking Committee, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee and the European Securities Committee will each play an exclusive regulatory or ‘comitology’ role in their respective areas of competence. No new committee procedures are created here, nor are the committees assigned any new roles in addition to those already played by the existing committees.

3.13

However, we wish to make a number of comments on this subject given that a ‘comitology’ system has until now been almost non-existent in the finance sector (16). On the one hand, with regard to the decision-making procedure, financial ‘comitology’ is governed by the provisions of Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 (17), i.e. in accordance with the regulatory procedure. This procedure establishes a right of revision which can be exercised only by the Council (18) and a right of examination which can be exercised by the European Parliament (19), which gives the two institutions similar but not equal weight in cases where they consider that their prerogatives have been infringed through a regulatory procedure based on a Community legal act adopted under the co-decision procedure (20).

3.14

This situation needs to be treated with a degree of caution with regard to the proposal which concerns us here, as in effect the European Parliament, in its Resolution of 5 February 2002 on the implementation of financial services legislation (21), accepted the four-level regulation recommended in the report of the Committee of Wise Men, referred to above, provided that the Parliament received equal treatment in Level 2 (‘comitology’ procedures), as guaranteed to the Council in accordance with the Resolution of the Stockholm European Council (22). The European Economic and Social Committee urges the competent institutions to resolve the conflict over supervision of implementing powers as a matter of urgency.

3.15

On the other hand, echoing the previous comment, there is a worrying inconsistency in the proposal, in that the proposal is difficult to reconcile with some of the provisions of the proposed amendment to the Treaties establishing the European Community currently under negotiation. Thus, Article I-35 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (23) would require revision of the regulatory procedure, assigning to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers equally the power to reject the power delegated to the Commission.

3.16

In its turn, Annex 8 to the document of the Naples ministerial conclave on the 2003 IGC (24), amends point 6 of Article III-77 of the draft Treaty, creating a twofold conflict with the proposal under consideration. First because, by providing that a European law could grant the European Central Bank the power of prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions, with the exception of insurance undertakings, it would undermine the consultative and ‘comitology’ functions of the European Banking Committee, as well as the consultative functions of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (25).

3.17

Secondly because it would spark off a new conflict with the European Parliament, by providing that the Council would effect such a transfer of powers by unanimity, after consulting the Parliament, whereas Article 105(6) of the EC Treaty, as currently in force, allows the Council to do this only after receiving the assent of the Parliament. Although Commission proposals do not have to take account of draft legislation which has not entered into force, the above comments stem from the fact that the Committee is bound to look ahead when exercising its consultative functions.

3.18

Finally, the power to supervise and monitor the application of Community law in this area would enable the committees to reinforce the current mechanism under which the Commission detects obstacles and deploys the appropriate means for eliminating them in the legal systems of the Member States (26).

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/25

1.1

‘Eco-design’ means the systematic incorporation of environmental considerations into the design of products with the aim of reducing their negative environmental impact throughout the whole of their life cycle. The aim is to develop a coherent framework for eco-design, while maintaining competitive standards of pricing, performance and quality, in order to improve sustainability and competitiveness within the European single market and worldwide.

1.2

Integration of environmental aspects into product characteristics from the design stage is linked to the development of the Community's Integrated Product Policy (IPP) – particularly for the integration of the concept of ‘life cycle’ – on which the Committee has already commented (1) in connection with the Sixth Environment Action Programme (2). It also ties in with the three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) of sustainability of energy-using products emphasised at the Cardiff and Helsinki European Councils.

1.3

Within the context of harmonisation of technical standards (3), of a new approach and of preventive information (4), the new framework should take into consideration the directives already in existence regarding energy efficiency requirements for various types of product.

1.4.1

The Commission states that those directives are ‘considered as implementing measures of the [proposed new] framework Directive regarding energy consumption during use’, noting that ‘a consolidation and simplification of Community legislation is thereby achieved.’

1.5

In considering the entire life cycle of energy-using products, the Commission proposal will ensure that these products – as well as being subject to waste management regulations (WEEE) (12) and to standards on the use of hazardous substances (13) - will also be subject to further requirements and checks. The proposal aims to ‘further promote the design of products to facilitate reuse and recycling by allowing for the systematic introduction of those aspects in the early stages of the design process …’. Furthermore, as the environmental performance of all or part of the design of a product will be subject to compulsory minimum standards, ‘it will be possible to address energy consumption throughout the life cycle of the product and not only during its use phase, as is currently the case’.

1.6

Complementary measures such as the voluntary labelling provided for by the Ecolabel scheme (14), the provisions on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (15) and those on voluntary participation in the Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (16) will also be able to interact with the regulations on energy-using products, as will those on energy labelling of electrical appliances, which draw consumers' attention to the benefits of more sustainable consumption.

1.7

In the Committee's view, the proposal for a ‘framework’ simplifying and consolidating Community legislation should allow the Union to pursue a sustainable and globally competitive development path while also upholding the principles of corporate social responsibility and of freedom of informed choice for the citizen/consumer.

2.1

The purpose of the Commission proposal is to establish a coherent framework for integrating environmental characteristics into the design and development of energy-using products (EuPs) within the European single market (17). The aim of the proposal is to be a framework directive that – by providing ‘the right framework for addressing emerging environmental issues swiftly’ – will allow eco-design requirements to be taken into consideration in a coherent and comprehensive fashion in order to:

2.2

This new framework, according to the Commission, should not be limited to aspects of energy efficiency, but should extend to all aspects of environmental impact, especially as regards emissions (solid, gas, sound, electromagnetic, etc.) and be based on Article 95 of the EC Treaty, this being the best article for elimination of barriers to trade and distortions of competition within the internal market.

2.3

The scope of the proposed framework directive would, however, be very large as it would, in principle, apply to all products that use energy in order to fulfil the purpose for which they were designed. Motor vehicles are explicitly excluded, given that these are already subject to a large number of both regulatory measures (on design) and voluntary ones (voluntary agreements on emissions). In its proposal, the Commission also lists criteria for selecting products that could be subject to future implementing measures.

2.4

The directive will also apply to components and sub-assemblies of EuPs which are marketed as spare parts destined for end users, and whose environmental performance can be assessed independently.

2.5

The proposal includes provisions on declarations of conformity, CE marking, assessment and presumption of conformity of products, the procedures for adopting and publishing harmonised technical standards, restrictions of placing on the market, the exchange of information and cooperation between Member States, and rules on penalties applied by them.

2.6

The Commission considers that although – in the absence of implementing measures - the proposed framework directive will not directly create legal obligations for manufacturers, importers or distributors, it should nevertheless help to integrate the concept of ‘life cycle’ into product design, thereby applying one of the guiding principles of the Union's Integrated Product Policy (IPP).

2.7

Finally, the proposal encourages initiatives or voluntary agreements that have achieved wide-ranging and well-deserved success in a number of sectors likely to be affected by the implementation of the directive. Accordingly, in cases where market mechanisms or existing legislation are already having a positive effect, no further implementing measures should be required.

3.1

There are a number of obstacles to the implementation of eco-design, which have been noted at international level thanks to the survey carried out among the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest companies (18). This revealed that cost was classified at a considerably higher level than other factors, which leads one to think that increasing the amount of information on the environment and its protection is critically important.

3.2

Moreover, the existence (or absence) of information sources was felt – not least by the largest American, Japanese and European businesses – to be a highly relevant factor. Similarly, the vast majority of respondents (79 %) considered that education and training on eco-design, both inside and outside the company, were important for promoting a real culture in this area.

3.3

However, there did not seem to be a clear perception of the models of eco-design. The few who did know about it linked it to the Environmental Management System. On the one hand, respondents cited a lack of expert personnel (‘environmentally literate product designers’) and of suitable qualifications; on the other, there did not appear to be any great differences between the analyses of the preceding five years, nor any significant changes in eco-design activities.

3.4

As regards international standards, the ISO 14000 family was mentioned as the first result from the Uruguay Round and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. On the subject of the ISO, the United States seems to favour the adoption of guidelines for eco-design rather than binding standards, to which they have recently reiterated their opposition.

3.5

As far as Europe is concerned, the studies carried out by the Community (19) seem to show a highly diverse situation:

3.6

With regard to European SMEs (20), the following points emerge:

4.1

The Committee has always welcomed the European Union's commitment to including an environmental dimension of energy efficiency in policies for businesses and their production processes, as an integral part of the competitiveness strategy which, among other things, is central to the decisions taken in Lisbon in 2000. Promoting a more intelligent use of energy by addressing this aspect from the product design stage is an objective that the Committee can fully support.

4.2

Furthermore, in an opinion adopted by a large majority (21), the Committee reiterated its previously expressed (22) concern regarding ‘…[the] underplaying [of] the fact that the adoption of such vitally important measures as Life-Cycle Analysis (LCAs) and eco-design necessitates major financial, managerial and legislative efforts’. This opinion also highlighted ‘the need for stronger action in promoting policies to support research and innovation tailored to SMEs, particularly focusing on disseminating information and on framing innovative processes to develop greener products.’

4.3

The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's general aims of ensuring coherence and transparency in Community legislation on the subject and avoiding fragmentation of the internal market as established by Article 95 of the EC Treaty. However, the Committee has a number of reservations about the current proposal, in terms of the context in which it would have to operate, in terms of the choice of legal instrument (enabling act), and finally, in terms of the articulation of the proposal itself.

4.4

A wide range of Community directives (vertical or otherwise) will be affected by the proposal, which has the ambitious aim of establishing a consistent framework for them. In the Committee's view, it might be helpful to consolidate these as a first step. Directives on minimum efficiency requirements already exist. A more integrated environmental assessment could provide better guidance to businesses and avoid subjecting them to a system of requirements and guidelines that could lead to over-regulation.

4.5

The Committee therefore considers it appropriate to bring in a consolidated and simplified version of the Community regulations that already apply to product manufacturers. This should also include systems for supporting the development of an eco-design culture, both on the demand side and on the supply and design side, with measures supporting databases of good practices, dissemination of information, and training measures tailored to the various audiences and the various technical levels involved.

4.6

In the Committee's opinion, it would be appropriate to promote both guidelines on eco-design and the creation of permanent platforms for dialogue and mandatory consultation between the Commission, businesses, consumers, manufacturers and civil society. To this end, suitable promotional instruments could be added into the Community's current multi-annual ‘Intelligent Energy’ programme, into the mid-term review of the Union's Sixth RTD Framework Programme, and into the review of measures planned under the structural and cohesion policies.

4.7

Given the current state of the art, the Committee thinks that it would be useful to promote voluntary sectoral agreements and other instruments that involve economic and social operators, in order to promote a culture of change. It is important, in the Committee's opinion, to promote corporate social responsibility and informed consumer choice.

4.8

It would also be useful to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the extent to which the Commission's proposals comply with the requirements of proportionality, subsidiarity and cutting red tape, and of the consequences that these could have in terms of reducing or increasing costs and improving or worsening the technical and economic performance of products, with a view to developing appropriate and coherent policies and fiscal and financial support measures.

4.9

The Committee has concerns regarding the content of the proposal in that, as stated by the Commission itself, it ‘has a wider scope than any related existing Community legislation … in terms of products to be covered’. Putting the proposed framework into practice would require implementing measures based on set environmental impact criteria, not to mention a defined series of environmental performance indicators, in order to create ecological profiles for a very large number of products. Furthermore, responsibility for this would be conferred on the Commission itself, with input solely from the comitology procedures.

4.10

The Committee also feels that the use of fictitious reference models for sectors of products could be a cause for concern. To this end, the concept of the ‘state of the art’ would be used – not to refer to the latest scientific achievements, but rather to ‘a good average level of technical performance’, reflecting a ‘reasonable balance’ between industrial feasibility and current standards and practices. The Committee believes that it would be appropriate to maintain a similar balance with regard to costs and benefits in order to ensure value for money for all types of consumer, commensurate with their own choices and possibilities.

4.11

When setting the specific requirements for eco-design, the proposal suggests that precise measurement methods would be established, based on the standardised use of the product, its performance and features that provide extra utility or comfort for the user. The Committee believes that a further criterion should be added: technical and economic analysis of the feasibility of the design solutions. Given that the necessary indicators would need to be fixed and pre-determined, there is a risk of fossilising progress and technical and marketing innovations, and of hamstringing competition in the technological performance of new products.

4.12

As well as the effects of the above-mentioned measures on businesses that produce the relevant products, it would also be useful to consider making them fully applicable to all products, whether they are made in the EU or in third countries, and to extend this to components of the product. In the Committee's view, checks on external trade made by the Union's customs services, and those within the internal market, could prove costly, slow and ineffective when faced with accelerating global trends.

4.13

The Committee considers it essential to ensure equal treatment between products manufactured in the EU and imported ones, and to put in place suitable control mechanisms in order to prevent the regulations from impacting differently on different manufacturers.

4.14

The Committee also believes that due consideration must be given to the progress made internationally by the ISO standards and guidelines on the integration of environmental considerations into the design of energy-consuming products.

4.15

The Committee would like to heavily underscore the current situation faced by SMEs, which is made worse by the significant disparities between Member States and by the fact that sectors with high concentrations of SMEs tend to take longer to reach a consensus on the adoption of voluntary measures.

4.16

In the Committee's opinion, the guiding principles – both in general and for SMEs in particular – should be those of proportionality and of real relevance, as well as prior verification of the feasibility of the measures accompanied by sufficient financial support and/or tax incentives. This is essential in order to encourage and sustain the competitive implementation of eco-design information and fast, easy access to databases, training of technicians and businesses, dissemination of innovation and the technological marketing of innovative products.

4.17

Finally, the Committee underscores the absolute necessity of ensuring the right balance between minimum standards of environmental protection, safeguarding the development of businesses and jobs, and the freedom of consumers to make informed choices.

5.1

The Committee has always been in favour of putting an environmental dimension of energy efficiency into policies aimed at businesses and their products, and considers this to be an integral part of the European competitiveness strategy. The Committee stresses the need to develop a true eco-design culture that draws on the social and environmental responsibility of businesses and consumers and promotes active and responsible behaviour.

5.2

The Committee also favours the creation of a framework that is consistent with the legislation in this area, avoids market fragmentation and ensures transparency of treatment for all businesses and users.

5.3

The Committee therefore recommends that this consolidated framework should be provided as a matter of priority in order to give better guidance to businesses, especially SMEs.

5.4

Eco-design requirements for new products should be kept at reasonable and acceptable levels in order to ensure the development of new designs and the freedom of the consumer to choose between the different technical solutions on offer.

5.5

The Committee believes that as a very wide range of Community regulations will be affected by the new directive, the initiative needs to go hand in hand with the simplification of the legislation and with a strengthening of competitiveness of the single market in an enlarged Europe.

5.6

The Committee strongly recommends that the existing legislation on energy saving and efficiency and the different environmental impact aspects of products should be consolidated and simplified as a first step (23). The main thing is to arrive at a simplified, user-friendly overview of the Community regulations that currently cover the design of energy-consuming products.

5.7

The Committee advocates the adoption, as soon as possible, of guidelines on eco-design and on the creation of permanent dialogue platforms for the different sectors and for sensitive products, bringing together the Commission, businesses, consumers, manufacturers, and civil society. The aim is to assess developments and promote initiatives that consistently and coherently support Community and national programmes and instruments with eco-friendly objectives, in order to improve awareness and develop a real eco-design culture on the part of both producers and consumers.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/30

1.1

Demand for transport has been growing steadily in Europe for many years. The increase has been particularly great in the case of road transport, for both passengers and goods.

1.2

This increase is already resulting in traffic congestion, environmental damage and, above all, accidents that cause fatalities, injuries and material damage. These problems could worsen in the near future.

1.3

The motor industry is working constantly to improve the active and passive safety of its products. Vehicles are now four times safer than in 1970 and the number of deaths in the EU-15 has fallen by 50 % since then, while traffic volumes have tripled.

1.4

Despite this, the societal cost of road transport is still too high. The 1,300,000 accidents per year in Europe cause 40,000 fatalities and 1,700,000 injuries, at an estimated cost of EUR 160 billion, or 2 % of the Union's GDP. At a personal level, even one fatality is too high a price to pay.

1.5

Mindful of the seriousness of the problem, the Commission has launched a number of major road safety initiatives, including the adoption of the European road safety action programme.

1.6

Even before the programme was drawn up, information and communications technologies (ICT) – already widely used in vehicles – were identified as important instruments for improving road safety. With the development of more powerful processors, communications technologies, sensors and actuators, increasingly sophisticated active safety systems can be devised. Although these cannot eliminate accidents completely, they can reduce their number and lessen their impact.

1.7

These considerations led the Commission to set up an eSafety working group in 2002, bringing together around forty experts from the motor vehicle sector and other interested parties. The group was mandated to propose a strategy for speeding up research, development, deployment and use of ICT-based intelligent safety systems for improving road safety.

1.8

In November 2002 the working group published its final report containing 28 recommendations addressed to the Commission, the Member States, road traffic and safety authorities, the motor industry, service providers, consumer associations, insurance companies and other stakeholders. The recommendations are designed to improve safety by means of integrated systems which use advanced ICT for providing new, intelligent solutions that address the involvement of and interaction between driver, vehicle and road environment.

1.9

The working group's report was subsequently discussed and endorsed at the second meeting of the high-level group on eSafety, which set up an eSafety Forum (1) and called on the Commission to put forward policy proposals.

1.10

The communication that has now been referred to the Committee forms the Commission's response to the wishes of the high-level groups on eSafety and road safety, which have also been echoed by the Member States.

2.1

The communication refers to and endorses the final report of the eSafety working group and proposes eleven actions falling into three main categories:

2.1.1

development of intelligent vehicle safety systems

2.1.2

adaptation of regulatory and standardisation provisions

2.1.3

removing the societal and business obstacles.

—

The Commission will continue to chair and support the eSafety Forum, which provides a joint platform for all road safety stakeholders.

—

The Commission will take steps to promote further research and technological development, not least by helping to finance some leading-edge projects.

—

As regards interaction between driver and machine, the Commission will assess the effects of the introduction of nomadic devices (2) in vehicles and, at a later stage, the workload which the introduction of new vehicle control and information systems creates for the driver.

—

The Commission will propose an integrated strategy for pan-European emergency services (e-Call), building on the provisions of the E-112 legislation (3).

—

The Commission will assess progress on the provision of real-time traffic and travel information (RTTI) in Europe.

—

The Commission will propose measures to authorise and regulate the use of the 24 GHz spectrum for ultra wide band (UWB) short-range radar (SRR).

—

The Commission will review existing EC vehicle type-approval legislation and devise measures for facilitating and regulating the use of the new systems.

—

The Commission will ask standardisation organisations (ISO, CEN and ETSI) to draw up a standardisation programme for the new systems, encompassing standard software and hardware architecture, communication protocols and driver-machine interfaces.

—

The Commission will assess the socio-economic benefits obtainable through the introduction of intelligent safety systems.

—

The Commission will promote and fund a study to devise a methodology for risk/benefit assessment of the new systems.

—

The Commission will promote the drafting of Industry and Public Sector Road Maps for the development and deployment of the new systems.

—

The Commission will promote and fund a study to devise a methodology for assessing the potential impact of the introduction of combined intelligent vehicle safety systems involving sensor fusion (4).

—

The Commission will promote and fund a study of assessment procedures for vehicles equipped with the new systems.

—

The industry will define, produce, maintain and certify a European digital map database with road safety attributes.

3.1

The Commission's communication makes a clear and exemplary commitment to the development and adoption of intelligent road safety systems, at a time when traditional passive safety systems may have reached their limits.

3.2

The general guidelines are clearly set out in the communication. The priorities are less clear (with the exception of e-Call, which is rightly highlighted). Above all, no timeframe is given for the action plan; at present there is only a work schedule for 2004. The Committee hopes that the drafting of the roadmap – one of the anticipated results of the eSafety Forum – will prove crucial for establishing the plan's priorities and timeframe.

3.3

It is important that the motor industry, which has already been involved in the working group and the eSafety Forum, should continue to provide technical guidance for the development of these initiatives, in particular by contributing to the drafting of the roadmap.

3.4

The motor industry will undoubtedly need guidelines for the market introduction of intelligent safety systems. However, each company must have the possibility of offering their own distinctive innovative solutions, with appropriate timeframes, without overlooking the vital need for the new systems to be interoperable and reliable.

3.5

In order to ensure that the new intelligent safety systems are deployed to best effect, steps will have to be taken to ‘educate’ users. To this end, it would be helpful for representatives of driving schools to take part in the eSafety Forum. Special attention should be paid to professional carriers, who could ‘pilot’ the introduction of the new systems and who will in any case represent a large number of users.

3.6

From a purely technical viewpoint, some safety systems such as ESP (an electronic system to improve the vehicle's stability in critical situations) could already be adopted on a large scale fairly rapidly. Other systems which are inherently more complex and more complicated to use will require careful analysis with a view to optimising the driver's workload (i.e. providing the best possible compromise between fatigue and risk of distraction).

3.7

The communication deals sensibly with the question of the shared responsibility of the various parties (Commission, Member States, road and safety authorities, the motor industry, service and system suppliers). However, responsibilities need to be defined and regulated in detail to cater for the eventuality of safety devices failing to operate satisfactorily. As the systems and functions are completely new, there is much work to be done. Nonetheless, as regards the question of responsibilities, it must be acknowledged that the Commission has already funded three research projects: Response, Response 2 and Prevent.

3.8

The Committee also notes that the communication puts a strong emphasis on the need for safer vehicles. The need to improve road infrastructure (newer and safer roads; elimination of traffic congestion) must on no account be overlooked. Moreover, many of the new vehicle safety systems will require special ‘intelligent’ infrastructure (e.g. telecommunications networks able to receive, decode and handle automatic emergency calls). The Commission should focus attention on these aspects and their impact.

3.9

In the context of intelligent infrastructure, the Community's Galileo programme is undoubtedly crucial, providing as it will a series of navigation and positioning services that will facilitate the development of a wide range of innovative eSafety applications.

3.10

The adoption of intelligent safety systems is likely to significantly increase vehicle purchase and running costs. Additional safety systems are possible when the consumer is willing to pay for them. The consumer must be shown that the extra cost is offset by a reduction in the risk of accidents and in their consequences. For this reason too, the Commission's plan for the eSafety Forum to collate and analyse data on the causes of road accidents is vitally important. More particularly, the CARE system (5) will have to be reorganised in order to include accident causes and an analysis thereof, supplemented where possible by data from motor manufacturers.

3.11

A practical illustration of the problem of increased costs is already provided by the e-Call service. Many car firms have offered the e-Call system as an optional feature, but demand for it has been low because few drivers want to pay for a service that they hope they will never need to use. The e-Call system, selected by the Commission as one of its priority actions, could act as a litmus test for the whole programme. Widespread adoption of the system is vital in order to reduce its running costs and thus the prices paid by users, exploiting economies of scale and competition between the different suppliers and avoiding monopoly positions.

3.12

Costs could also be pushed up by the need for workshops to be equipped with special apparatus for diagnosis, repair and inspections. However, it should be noted that this could also have a positive impact, as it will extend the skills of motor mechanics and could create new job opportunities.

3.13

One means of alleviating the problem could be to offer incentives in the form of tax rebates and/or reductions in insurance premiums. At all events, a consultation process involving all the various parties will be essential.

3.14

However it is very difficult, if not illusory, to imagine that private interests or sense of responsibility (whether on the part of manufacturers or users) will suffice to secure the generalised adoption of intelligent safety systems. As an alternative or adjunct to voluntary adoption, the case should be considered for introducing a legal obligation in the form of binding rules. These would make the phasing-in of intelligent safety systems mandatory within a given timeframe.

3.15

In any event, the costs of safety functions will impact on the client and the taxpayer. It is therefore particularly important that the costs/benefits calculations should be objective and reliable.

4.1

The communication is a policy document which does not yet contain specific or binding measures. The Commission may draw up and put forward such measures in due course, so the Committee feels it is worth highlighting some points which it thinks should be borne in mind during the further development of the programme.

4.2

The communication makes a clear and exemplary commitment to the development and adoption of intelligent road safety systems. Interested parties should therefore welcome it, not least because it also stresses that road safety is the shared responsibility of all the various stakeholders.

4.3

However, the intentions voiced in it should be implemented according to an action plan which should be defined forthwith. Greater emphasis must also be placed on the need to work on road infrastructure (newer and safer roads; elimination of traffic congestion) and new ‘intelligent’ infrastructure.

4.4

Responsibilities need to be defined and regulated precisely to cater for the eventuality of safety devices failing to operate satisfactorily.

4.5

Each company must have the possibility of offering their own distinctive innovative solutions, with appropriate timeframes.

4.6

The adoption of intelligent safety systems is likely to significantly increase vehicle purchasing and running costs. These increased costs could have a major impact on ranges at the lower end of the market, making it more difficult for the less well-off to afford them. The early adoption of awareness-raising measures and incentives will be crucial here. In the medium term and for certain safety systems, consideration could be given to the introduction of a legal obligation.

4.7

Lastly, the Member States will play a key role in the success of the programme. The dialogue which has already been launched with the Commission, the industry and other stakeholders must continue, with involvement of the individual states throughout the whole process from the outset, on the basis of clear policy guidelines. Without technical and economic input from the Member States, the programme would not be able to succeed.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

1.1

Mobility is a key issue for very many Europeans of all ages. The vast majority of Europeans over the age of 18 hold a driving licence, giving them access to motorised mobility. In Europe in particular, with its increasingly ageing population, holding a driving licence is often vital for maintaining contact with the outside world, and even for meeting basic needs. Any proposal for a European directive on driving licences thus affects all Europeans. The importance of such a proposal cannot therefore be underestimated.

1.2

In submitting legislation on driving licences in the EEA, the European Commission is seeking to enhance the free movement of Community citizens, reduce the possibility of fraud and help improve road safety. The Commission had these objectives in mind in earlier driving licence legislation and they will continue to underpin future laws in this field.

1.3

Over the past few years, Community citizens have faced more rather than less legal uncertainty in spite of all the measures that have been taken over that period. (1) The European Commission considers it essential that the legal uncertainty for citizens, which hinders their free movement, be removed. This objective falls within the framework of the much wider objectives set by the European Council in the Lisbon agenda, namely achieving 100 % functioning of the internal market, including in the field of competition. The proposed directive seeks to remove the last obstacles relating to driving licences, and the Commission views this as the end of a process of gradual harmonisation.

1.4

In addition to moves by the Commission to secure the full mutual recognition of driving licences so as to foster the free movement of Community citizens, the directive also proposes a number of specific legal changes designed to promote road safety. These measures include the introduction of new vehicle categories for driving licences, the introduction of tiered access to these categories so that drivers first acquire experience with smaller vehicles, harmonisation of the periodicity of the checks on drivers' medical fitness, special consideration for disabled driver access to motorised transport, and minimum training requirements for examiners.

1.5

The third key point in the proposal relates to reducing the possibilities of fraud in driving licences. The aim is to make driving licences less susceptible to fraud by eliminating the possibility of issuing paper models through the mandatory introduction of a plastic card, and by limiting the licence's administrative validity.

2.1

The Committee endorses the European Commission's objectives in submitting this proposal (improving road safety, reducing the possibilities of fraud and enhancing the free movement of Community citizens). The proposal ties in with the Commission's European Road Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility (2) and the earlier White Paper European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide (3).

2.2

The Committee is particularly pleased that the proposal stresses the human aspect of transport and that it puts forward practical measures for dealing with the human side of road safety. In its opinion on the European Road Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility (4) the Committee noted the importance of the human element of road safety, and it is thus very pleased that the Commission proposal focuses on that aspect in particular.

2.3

The Committee considers that many of the proposed measures have far-reaching implications for Member State citizens (the limited administrative validity of driving licences), for driving licence applicants and holders in certain categories (medical checks, progressive access to certain categories, higher minimum ages) and for driving schools (new categories, changed vehicle requirements in categories C1 en D1). These implications will not always be welcomed by the individuals concerned and, in a number of cases, there will be increased administrative pressure and higher costs. The Committee would ask that consideration be given to the impact of this directive and draws the Commission's attention to the need for a sufficiently long transitional period for implementing the measures under it. Such an approach is warranted inter alia because, in a number of Member States, the changes required under Directive 91/439/EEC (5) have not long been in place. This does not mean that the Committee does not broadly endorse the measures proposed under this directive, but it is critical of some points.

3.1

The Committee endorses limiting the administrative validity of driving licences. It agrees with the reasoning that this both enhances the free movement of Community citizens and reduces the possibility of fraud with the driving licence document. The European Commission does not consider it necessary to limit the validity of driving licences that are already in circulation. It argues that, under the subsidiarity principle, the Member States are authorised to recall older models that no longer comply with fraud prevention requirements. The Committee would question this partial exemption as it means that some Member States will have an actual transitional period of more than fifty years. The Committee thus proposes firming up Article 3(2) to provide greater security with regard to the exchange of older driving licence models that do not meet the fraud prevention requirements. This could be achieved by replacing the words ‘They shall inform the Commission thereof’ in Article 3(2) by ‘The Commission must give its approval’. This recommendation is prompted, among other things, by the fact that, in some countries, driving licences may also be used as identity documents. Anti-fraud protection is thus of crucial importance.

3.2

The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal to replace paper driving licence models with a plastic card, possibly with a built-in chip. The Committee feels that this makes for greater uniformity between the Member States and significantly reduces the possibility of fraud. At the same time, the Committee also recommends that even more be done to protect the document against fraud, and calls for optimum security features both in and on the document similar to the security requirements for passports.

3.3

The Committee also endorses the proposed harmonisation of medical checks for holders of Group 2 licences. Both the periodicity and the content of these medical checks need to be harmonised at Community level to prevent distortions of competition between the Member States. That said, the Committee is not happy about applying the same requirements for medical checks both to the ‘big’ categories C and D (lorries and buses) and the ‘small’ categories C1 and D1. The Committee feels that less frequent medical checks would be appropriate for categories C1 and D1. The Committee also feels that this requirement should likewise apply to other professional drivers who, by virtue of their vehicle definition, hold Group 1 licences. Taxi drivers are a case in point.

3.4

The present Commission proposal no longer allows Member States to issue driving licences with limited validity for medical reasons. Member States had that power under previous legislation, and the Committee feels they should retain it.

3.5

The Committee fully endorses the proposed vehicle re-categorisation for driving licences. The introduction of a driving licence category AM and the mandatory introduction of the light motorcycle category A1 at the age of sixteen will resolve many of the difficulties surrounding these light two-wheelers. In particular, the Committee feels that there will be a direct improvement in road safety by giving sixteen-year-old drivers in the Member States an alternative to the accident-prone moped that involves more thorough training and both theoretical and practical tests. An added distinction is also being made between categories A2 and A, with a mandatory second driving test and higher age limits. These are promising developments for a vehicle type with a disproportionately high accident rate.

3.6

The Committee fully supports the new definition of vehicle categories C1 and D1, with the maximum permitted weight now fixed at 6,000 kg as opposed to the original figure of 7,500 kg. The Committee welcomes this move, particularly as it better reflects the vehicles' technical characteristics. The Committee also endorses the equivalence between C1 en D1 vehicles. This equivalence is not detrimental to road safety as the vehicles in these two categories have the same technical specifications and are, for instance, equipped with the same type of brake fittings. The 6,000 kg upper limit also marks the transition to a different technical specification, with, for instance, a different type of brake fitting. Thus, drivers trained to operate category C1 vehicles are just as well equipped to operate category D1 vehicles as well. This equivalence also offers drivers of these vehicles greater freedom and enhanced possibilities.

3.7

The Committee feels that the mandatory introduction of the ‘small’ categories C1 and D1, which were still optional under the Directive on driving licences (91/439/EEC), will also enhance road safety, especially in urban areas. The Committee expects increasing use to be made of these vehicle categories in urban areas to deliver goods and transport people. This means that ‘large’ vehicles will no longer need to enter town centres, benefiting urban dwellers in terms of both road safety and pollution emissions. The Committee does feel, however, that, for this effect to kick in, these categories must be made more attractive, for instance by requiring less frequent medical examinations for categories C1 and D1.

3.8

The Committee welcomes the clarification of the definition of vehicle category B+E. The revised definition clarifies this category by stipulating, among other things, that a B+E licence is required to drive trailers with a maximum authorised mass exceeding 750 kg. The Committee very much welcomes the clarification this brings both for the public and for enforcement.

3.9

On the other hand, the definition of vehicle categories B+E and C1+E could be made clearer. The Committee feels that the definition of vehicle category C1+E raises particular difficulties as the maximum authorised mass of the trailer is contingent on the maximum authorised mass of the tractor vehicle. This means that, under this category of driving licence, only extremely light trailers are allowed, while much heavier trailers may be used with driving licence category B+E. For instance, under the present and proposed new definition, it is not in practice possible in view of the weight distribution to drive a combination of a tractor vehicle and semi-trailer in category C1+E, while the same option is open under category B+E. Indeed, this very possibility – driving a combination of a tractor vehicle and semi-trailer under driving licence category B+E – is deemed undesirable by the Committee. This combination, which the Committee feels is used only for professional transportation, would be better suited to category C1+E, but that is not possible under the proposed definition.

3.10

For that reason, the Committee would ask that further consideration be given to the definitions of trailer classes. One option that would secure clarity for both the public and enforcement agents and would also improve road safety would be to define trailer classes independently of the weight of the tractor vehicle, and to include not only a lower weight limit, but an upper limit as well.

3.11

The Committee would also point out that the requirement placed on caravan owners under the Commission's proposed definition of vehicle category B+E may be too high. Under the current definition of vehicle category B, most caravans may be driven with a vehicle category B licence. Under the Commission proposal, this right no longer applies to new drivers and all caravans are to come under licence category B+E, with drivers required to sit an examination. The Committee would point out the potential implications of this proposal for industry, and suggests that, for road safety reasons, a one-day training course be made mandatory for certain kinds of trailer, including a large percentage of caravans. A code on the driving licence could indicate that the holder has attended such a course. The Committee proposes using code 96 for that purpose.

3.12

The Committee notes that many category B drivers (vans) are professional transporters and that the proposed directive introduces no additional measures to combat the high accident rate (6) within this category. This means that, at the moment, this group of drivers is not subject to rules about driving hours, rest periods and aptitude, and that the vehicles need not be fitted with speed limiters. The Committee is particularly concerned about white vans with a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 3,500 kg and the danger posed by this sector on EU roads. The Committee would like to see the Commission tackle this sector. Of the several possible options, the Committee feels the soundest would be to require drivers of all vehicles with a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 3,500 kg and a payload of more than 1,000 kg to obtain a C1 licence. They are thus automatically classed and treated as professional drivers. Such a definition would make drivers of these vehicles subject to the provisions of Directive 2003/59/EC and require them to gain an initial qualification and undergo periodic training. The Committee feels that it would be a positive step to make Group 1 professional drivers (such as van, taxi and ambulance drivers) subject to the same medical testing requirements as Group 2 professional drivers (lorry and bus drivers).

3.13

In the light of the above comments, the Committee would propose the following new definitions for driving licence categories B, B+E, C1 and C1+E:

3.14

The Committee is somewhat concerned that Member States are to have the option of lowering the minimum age for obtaining a driving licence, as provided for under Article 7(2). No distinction is made, either in the explanatory memorandum or in the article itself, between Member States' differing practices on this front. Lower age limits apply in three distinct cases:

3.15

The Committee rejects the equivalence between vehicle categories B and A1 as laid down in Directive 91/439/EC, which the Commission does not intend to change. Although the Committee feels that this provision does give car drivers more freedom and more options, it is not conducive to road safety. Studies from countries that have equivalence of this kind show that it has an adverse impact on accident figures for this category of two-wheeler. The Committee thus believes that separate training and examination are needed for each type of vehicle. The Committee could approve equivalence between the B driving licence and the AM moped category. The AM category examination consists of a theoretical test only, covering broadly the same knowledge as that required for a B licence.

3.16

The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal to harmonise minimum training standards for driving examiners. Genuine harmonisation between the EU Member States can only be realised if driving licence applicants have to meet the same requirements. It is only natural, therefore, that the parties assessing whether applicants meet those requirements should also operate in a harmonised way.

4.1

The Committee very much welcomes the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, although it is critical of a number of points relating to the practical application of some of the measures.

4.2

The Committee is particularly pleased that the proposed directive focuses on improving road safety by introducing a number of changes to the system that are designed to factor in the human element of transport, without playing down the directive's other objectives (free movement of citizens and reducing susceptibility to fraud).

4.3

The Committee asks that consideration be given to the expected reaction to the proposed measures in some Member States and among certain target groups. Much of the resistance could be prevented by having a sufficiently long transitional phase, which would not, however, mean having to delay the measures indefinitely. Given the proposed new measures for vehicle categories C, C1, D, D1 and their respective trailer categories, and in the light of Directive 2003/59/EC recently adopted by the Commission and Council on the aptitude of professional drivers, the synchronised introduction of some parts of this directive would be helpful for many Member States.

4.4

The Committee asks that attention to be drawn to the high accident rate among professional drivers in licence category B. The Committee would very much appreciate a European Commission proposal for drivers in this group.

4.5

The Committee recommends a rethink of the definition of trailer classes B+E and C1+E. In the current proposal, the Committee notes a lack of clarity in the suggested definition, the problem of weight distribution in licence category C1+E and the disparity between licence categories B+E and C1+E.

4.6

The Committee welcomes the equivalence between licence categories C1 and D1. However, it is not happy about the expected impact of equivalence between licence categories B and A1. The Committee is aware that such equivalence is already in place in a number of Member States but is concerned about the impact of such a step.

4.7

The Committee feels that Member States should retain the authority to issue driving licences with limited validity for medical reasons.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/39

1.

Because the clarity and transparency of Community law are important, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have stressed the need to codify frequently amended legislative texts under an agreed and rapid procedure. In this process no changes of substance may be made (1).

2.

The Committee approves and encourages the work to simplify the acquis communautaire, and especially the procedures for consolidating and codifying existing legislation. This work contributes to good democratic governance by making it easier to understand the acquis communautaire and apply it properly.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/40

1.1

With the entry into force of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (1) the rules for implementing its legislative content must be adjusted, so that its main objective – to protect the European aquatic environment – can be fully achieved. A number of provisions (2) have already been put forward for this purpose, fleshing out the practical aspects of water protection, in particular the directive establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy (3), which is of great importance for dealing with pollution of groundwater.

1.2

At present, protection of groundwater is basically governed by Directive 80/68/EEC (4) determining the dangerous substances which pollute such waters, and by Article 17 of the WFD, constituting the fundamental legislation for preventing and controlling pollution of this aspect of the environment.

1.3

The importance of groundwater has been made abundantly clear, not only as a vital source of domestic supply and for a range of human activities, but also as a corrective factor for surface water. Groundwater protection should therefore be looked at again, since in addition to direct pollution, groundwater is affected by diffuse pollution as a result of various processes (leaching, filtration of pollutants, etc.) over a period of years, and this is increasingly causing declining quality and deterioration of aquifers.

1.4

Protection of groundwater must be one of the main aims of European legislation, in order to deal with and prevent existing and future pollution. Contamination of groundwater is difficult and expensive to put right. The impact on abstraction of drinking water is significant; consequently boosting protection is a basic objective of all protection standards – not only of water, but also of human health and public quality of life.

1.5

When the WFD came into effect, its Article 17 became the basic rule imposing protection of this type of water from pollution, as part of the general framework of regulation of Community waters. It should however be pointed out that since this is an area affected by other Community policies such as the CAP, industrial policy, health policy, etc., legislation on specific aspects of protection also apply. Examples include the directives on drinking water (5), nitrates (6), plant protection products (7) and biocidal products (8).

2.1

The present proposal for a directive was prompted by the requirement set out in Article 17 for specific measures to be adopted to prevent and control groundwater pollution in order to ensure good groundwater chemical status. The measures are to be adopted within two years following the entry into force of the WFD (i.e. 2006). It should however be pointed out that the standards contained in the present draft directive fall within the scope of the WFD, and consequently it is not necessary to repeat the provisions contained in the WFD, particularly with regard to environmental objectives, coordinated administration of river basins authorities which are to hold the groundwater registers, identification of waters for abstraction of drinking water and safeguard zones for them, public information and consultation requirements, etc.

2.2

The overall purpose of the proposal is to introduce specific measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution, through the application of the following criteria:

2.3

The conditions are laid down under which the Member States must set the threshold values for each pollutant listed in Annex III, so that they can be used as references for the review of groundwater status as provided for in the WFD.

2.4

A requirement is introduced to the effect that the Member States must establish measures in addition to those contained in the WFD to prevent and limit indirect discharges into groundwater which affect good groundwater chemical status.

2.5

The annexes lay down quality standards, procedures for the assessment of chemical status and threshold values for groundwater pollutants. The content of Annex IV is of particular importance, concerning the identification and reversal of significant and sustained upward trends to be carried out by the Member States.

3.1

The EESC views the proposal for a directive, based on consultation and discussion with the parties concerned, as positive and in particular welcomes the fact that it entails the establishment of a new methodology for analysing the status of groundwater in the EU compared to Directive 80/68/EEC. In this way, the criterion of integrating water policy as a whole into river basin plans, which requires an inventory of all groundwater bodies, can be brought into line with the geographical aspects of the measures adopted.

3.2

However, the list of pollutants affecting groundwater quality may be considered restrictive. Although there is a large proportion of nitrates and plant health products, other processes should be considered, such as filtration from petrol storage installations, leaching from industrial sites and, most of all, the effects of over-exploitation of aquifers in coastal regions, especially in the Mediterranean basin, triggering the progressive salination of such areas.

3.3

The integration of all Community standards relating to groundwater, pesticides, biocides etc. is also to be welcomed, since it enables horizontal application of all policies having an impact on water quality. This horizontal approach should also embrace further legislative measures extending quality criteria.

3.4

In this connection, implementation of the European standards relating to lists of established pollutants (9) (although they refer to surface water) and thresholds should perhaps be included in the content of Annex I of the present draft directive. This outcome would be more beneficial for the quality of groundwater, since a greater number of substances which can produce diffuse pollution would be covered.

3.5

The EESC welcomes the inclusion of statistics on significant and sustained upward trends of concentrations of pollutants, as stipulated in Annex IV, since this reflects the mandate set out in Annex V of the WFD which enables the Member States to identify trends over harmonised periods of time so as to take account not only of river basin plans, but also of the climate and soil conditions of each European region.

3.6

However, in order to ensure greater accuracy and to avoid misinterpretations of statistics, the Commission should introduce more specific criteria concerning the parameters, indicators, conversion functions, etc., making it possible to compare the effects of this directive.

3.7

The procedure for notification of the list of pollutants for which threshold values have been determined, which the Member States must provide by 22 June 2006, is of key importance in terms of the information which must figure in river basin plans for bodies of groundwater.

3.8

The system for informing and consulting interested parties (10), farmers, NGOs and trade unions is of great importance in this context, as is the possibility of steps to ensure it is used properly. The system for approving river basin plans should therefore be strengthened by means of a public system for the information and participation of all those involved. It would be advisable for the Commission to draw up reports to check on the satisfactory conduct of such consultations.

3.9

The EESC believes that follow-up to Article 5 and Annex II.2 of the WFD, governing the characteristics of the geographical area, environmental impact etc. is needed. It is also necessary to assess the impact of human activity so that all sources affecting groundwater bodies are taken into account in river basin plans. Similarly, implementation of the WFD's other annexes must be ensured, since otherwise paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 17 are applicable, allowing the Member States to establish the criteria for reversing the groundwater quality trend.

3.10

Clarification is required on the conditions under which indirect discharges, e.g. including diffuse pollution, may be authorised through the programme of basic measures set out in Article 11(3) of the WFD. The key problem in the event of indirect discharges is the absence or limited usefulness of the authorisations; moreover, they give rise to a considerable proportion of diffuse pollution.

3.11

Environmental policy concerning the necessary research into new water technologies (11) should be tied in with the 6th Research Programme, so that academic and company research departments can be involved in enhancing systems for improving and restoring the European aquatic environment.

3.12

Lastly, regarding the cost-benefit analysis which will accompany the new provisions, it should be pointed out that such an analysis has been carried out for all waters through the assessment of the river basin monitoring and clean-up costs. Nevertheless, the proposal provides specific, clearer measures which will apply a more uniform approach in determining the state of groundwater. As a result, it will be possible to avoid funds being allocated for comparison of bodies of groundwater using different parameters, which would generate avoidable costs. The harmonised criteria will prevent such avoidable costs being incurred (12).

4.1

The Committee considers the draft directive on groundwater to be particularly significant, since uniform data on the quality of bodies of groundwater in the EU are presently lacking. Although under the WFD currently in force, all river basin plans are obliged to include an inventory of all bodies of water, including groundwater, it should be borne in mind that some Member States have not even transposed the WFD. The system of river basin pilot projects applied by the Environment DG (some 50 of which are currently under way) could be extended to groundwater bodies, in such a way as to prompt the Member States to work more efficiently and swiftly to survey and assess such waters and take the appropriate action.

4.2

The general characterisation of groundwater bodies required by the WFD in order to assess their environmental quality should include, among other data, diffuse sources of pollution. The draft directive mentions among such sources ‘indirect discharges’ after percolation from the ground or subsoil, excluding all other sources of pollution which may affect good water chemical status.

4.2.1

The first point which must be highlighted is the existence of other current Community legislation using different quality standards to those contained in the present proposal, such as the drinking water directive, and the nitrates (13) and pesticides (14) directives.

4.2.1.1

In line with the quality parameters set out in other directives on water quality concerning their main use (domestic consumption or agriculture), and using the scientific and technical information derived from the planning required under the WFD (uses of water in river basins, establishment of values for determining good chemical status), it is possible to determine threshold values for a larger number of substances than the few contained in the present proposal.

4.2.1.2

The appropriate authorities also have other rigorously tested sources of information resulting from the application of other instruments, such as IPPC Directive 96/61/EEC (15) which sets threshold values for some 26 water pollutants.

4.2.2

Secondly, concerning the lists of pollutants set out in Annex I and the substances in Annex III to the proposal, it would be advisable – even given their minimum content – to extend the list to cover the content of Annex VIII of the WFD, since it is referred to in Article 6 of the proposal.

4.2.3

In the light of the above, the Commission must harmonise all the groundwater quality parameters from 2007.

4.3

Lastly, the permission which may be granted for indirect discharges under Article 6 of the proposal must be modelled on the provisions set out in Article 11(3)(j) of the WFD which prohibits direct discharges of pollutants into groundwater, with no room for deviation from them by the granting authorities, as stipulated in Article 6.

4.4

The EESC reiterates the importance of informing and involving the parties concerned in the application of the provisions regarding water and urges that the new provisions (16) implementing the Aarhus Convention be taken into account. The Convention facilitates information, participation and access to legal redress concerning environmental policy not only in the Member States but also in the Community institutions.

4.5

Lastly, the Commission should be reminded that cooperation and coordination between all the Community institutions, especially the Commission DGs, is essential if the environmental objectives put forward in the 6th programme are to be achieved. They must avoid any repetition, differences and, most of all, duplication in the use of public funds.

4.5.1

In this regard, the Committee considers it a priority to compile and process the all existing scientific, technical and social information which is currently scattered among numerous academic and administrative bodies, institutions etc., as this would be of enormous help to the Commission in implementing the various directives concerned with the management of the EU's water resources.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/44

1.1

Because different national provisions obtain in the individual Member States, the market in foods to which vitamins, minerals or other substances have been added varies considerably and thus presents an obstacle to the free movement of goods. Uniform European legislation is therefore very welcome, also for the purpose of protecting consumers.

1.2

Although it must be assumed that a balanced diet can provide all essential vitamins, minerals and other substances, for various reasons such a diet is not consumed by all sectors of the population in the European Union (1).

1.3

In this context, fortifying foods with vitamins, minerals or other substances can be seen as one of many measures for improving the delivery of essential nutrients to the general public, without being a substitute for a balanced and varied diet.

1.4.1

In this connection the EESC urges that appropriate strategies be developed to ensure that people's intake of folic acid is adequate. This could be achieved through mandatory fortification of certain foods with folic acid throughout the EU or through national information campaigns.

1.5

It should not become the norm for foods to be fortified with vitamins, minerals or other substances. Non-fortified foods should not be discriminated against. Nor should consumers be given the impression that foods fortified with vitamins, minerals or other substances can generally be considered superior to non-fortified foods.

2.1

The Proposal for a Regulation on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods is intended to harmonise provisions in the EU Member States for the marketing of foods to which vitamins, minerals and certain other substances have been added by choice.

2.2

The proposal is not meant to harmonise legal provisions governing the obligatory addition of vitamins and minerals. Some Member States already have provisions governing such mandatory fortification of certain food groups in order to correct known regional nutritional deficits. Since those provisions are very much geared to regional situations, their harmonisation would not be appropriate.

2.3

Only vitamins and minerals or combinations thereof that are listed in Annexes I and II of the regulation may be added to foods. They may be added only for the purpose of enriching the food, making it nutritionally equivalent to a reference food or restoring substances that have been lost as part of the proper manufacturing process or during normal storage or handling.

2.4

Fresh non-processed produce (including fruit, vegetables and meat) and beverages containing more than 1.2 % by volume of alcohol may not normally be fortified with vitamins or minerals, and this restriction may be extended to other foods or food groups in future.

2.5

Special labelling provisions are to be introduced for foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added.

2.6

The addition of substances other than vitamins and minerals also falls within the scope of the present proposal for a regulation.

2.7

It will be possible either to prohibit or to limit the addition of substances to foods by including them in Annex III of the regulation. However, substances may also be placed under observation if there are doubts as to their safety.

2.8

To facilitate monitoring, Member States have the possibility of introducing a notification system for fortified foods, whereby a model of the product label must be submitted to the competent authority.

3.1

The EESC welcomes the European Commission's proposal to harmonise the legal provisions relating to the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods. The proposal is very well-rounded, both with respect to the free circulation of goods and to consumer protection.

3.2

The EESC notes that the principle of providing nutrient profiles contained in the Commission's preliminary proposal is not contained in the present proposal. However, since it can be assumed that substances are added to food only if claims can also be made for them, the EESC agrees with the Commission's position in the explanatory memorandum that the present proposal need not make explicit provision for the establishment of nutrient profiles, since these are already provided for in the Commission's proposal on nutrition and health claims.

3.3

However, the EESC would emphasise that consistency must be ensured between this proposal and the planned provisions in the proposal for a regulation on nutrition and health claims.

3.4

The EESC expressly welcomes the ban on adding vitamins and minerals to beverages containing more than 1.2 % by volume of alcohol and the ban on adding vitamins and minerals to fresh and non-transformed produce. The addictive potential of alcohol is uncontested, and its consumption should not therefore be encouraged by adding vitamins minerals.

3.5

The EESC notes that in the absence of harmonised implementing rules, national arrangements may be maintained. This includes setting maximum levels for vitamins and minerals that may be added to a food. However, the EESC would like this provision to be formulated more precisely, e.g. by using the wording in Article 11 of Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements (2).

4.1.1

The consumer should also be informed about the importance of a balanced diet, and specifically that consumption of foods to which vitamins, minerals or other substances have been added can be seen only as part of a balanced diet and not as a substitute. Information to this effect should be printed on the label.

4.1.2

Similar provisions are contained in Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements (3)  (4).

4.2

Article 8(3): The EESC considers that the labelling of a food to which vitamins or minerals have been added should always mention this fact and, therefore suggests replacing voluntary labelling with mandatory labelling. It should be possible for every consumer to distinguish between fortified and non-fortified foods readily and at a glance.

4.3

Chapter III: The EESC believes that the special provisions for labelling, presentation and advertising (Article 8) should also apply to substances other than vitamins and minerals, especially the mandatory indication of which substances have been added to the food and in which amounts.

5.1

The Committee considers the proposal in general to be well-balanced and cohesive.

5.2

An obligation to indicate on the labelling that nutrients have been added to the food would meet the consumer's right to information.

5.3

Appropriate measures should also be taken to prevent excessive intake of vitamins, minerals or other substances. It is also important in this connection to mention the value of a balanced diet.

5.4

The special labelling requirements, which in the present proposal apply only to food fortified with vitamins and minerals, should be extended to include foods to which substances other than vitamins and minerals are added.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

1.1

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste. 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.

1.2

The Committee regards it as very useful to have all the texts integrated into one Directive. In the context of a People's Europe, the Committee, like the Commission, attaches great importance to simplifying and clarifying Community law so as to make it clearer and more accessible to ordinary citizens, thus giving them new opportunities and the chance to make use of the specific rights it gives them.

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.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

1.1

In 1994 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1467/94 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture launched a five-year action programme that expired on 31 December 1999. This action programme was the Commission's response to various European Parliament resolutions dating back to the 1980s which had pointed to the problem of genetic erosion and proposed Community initiatives to counter this trend.

1.2

Under this action programme 21 projects were financed, most of which focused on the characterisation of available ex situ genetic resources; gene banks, research institutes and users were the main participants in the projects. Sometimes NGOs were also involved under the aegis of scientific institutions.

1.3

The action programme was evaluated, as planned in the regulation, by a group of independent experts. Their report gave the programme a generally positive assessment, called for the actions to be maintained and strengthened, and contained inter alia the following proposals:

1.4

In March 2001 the Commission submitted a proposal for a new Community programme which was, however, subsequently withdrawn, as both the European Parliament and the Council were against the financing of national measures under the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The Commission was to play a more active role in coordinating and implementing the new programme.

1.5

The current proposal for a regulation provides for a three-year Community action programme. Preference will be given to projects involving the use of genetic resources for the following purposes:

1.6

The implementation of the Community programme will focus mainly on targeted actions, but will also involve concerted and accompanying actions.

2.1

In its Opinion (1) of 24 April 2002 on Commission proposal COM(2001) 617 final, which was subsequently withdrawn, the Committee welcomed the proposal, stressing that ‘the loss of genetic resources in agriculture has been far from halted, so that further efforts are needed (a) to characterise, compile an inventory of and conserve the gene potential and (b) to maintain the utilisation of genetic diversity by farms’.

2.2

The EESC notes that the conservation of genetic resources will become even more important with the accession of ten new Member States. The expected change in farming practices in these countries could damage the exceptional diversity of genetic resources used in agriculture in these regions.

2.3

Our knowledge of the genetic potential of species which are in some cases at high risk or in danger of extinction is still fragmentary. The potential use of multiple and in some cases still unknown qualities is the basis for diversity in agriculture and farming practices tailored to the area.

2.4

There are shortcomings in the recording of gene potential in the databases and in the networking of these databases. The EESC points out that clear rules are needed on the use and economic exploitation of the data collected in the framework of this programme.

2.5

The Committee welcomes the proposal for a regulation's focus on the in-situ conservation and on-farm management of these genetic resources. In this way the regulation is in step with the FAO's 1996 Global Plan of Action (GPA) (2). Here too strong stress on measures of this kind is called for.

2.6

The Committee also welcomes the close attention which the programme pays to the work of NGOs.

2.7

In its Opinion of 25 April 2002 the Committee stated that ‘ in parallel with this scientific approach there is the no less important need to ensure that the diversity of genetic resources continues to be used in farming by promoting environmentally sound practices such as diversity in crop rotation under the second pillar of the CAP’. Comparable measures should be carried out to maintain the use of rare farm animal breeds. Protecting through consumption can be an important part of a new, consciously diverse European food culture.

2.8

The EESC therefore emphasises that the opportunities offered by the second pillar of the CAP for the conservation and use of genetic resources should be more clearly pinpointed and exploited.

3.1

The proposed three-year Community programme 2004-2006 will be financed with a total of IJ10 m. from Heading 3 of the budget (internal policies). The Committee is glad that the Commission will be assuming the necessary active role in implementing the programme. The Committee regards the financial framework as limited compared with the proposal of 22 November 2001 (IJ10 m. annually for five years) and expects funding to be stepped up in 2005.

3.2

The EESC considers that in the longer term the Commission should support and coordinate the necessary activities in the current and future Member States. This would involve not only state-funded programmes and projects but also the numerous NGO networks which play an important part in the maintenance and improved use of genetic diversity in the framework of sustainable farming practices.

3.3

With this regulation the European Community would be complying with some of its commitments under the relevant UN conventions (the FAO's GPA and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio 1992)). The Committee feels that before the programme expires the Commission should submit a proposal for a successor programme. The Commission should continue to provide the necessary human resources for the implementation of the programme.

3.4

The Committee points out that this Community programme takes on particular importance in the light of the Community's negotiations in the WTO on the protection of regional labels of origin and state aid which does not distort competition. It makes a contribution to achieving a multifunctional European agriculture.

3.5

The EESC recognises the particular importance of the implementing regulation for the amended Directives 2002/53-57 and 66/401 on the marketing of seed, which the Commission has announced but not yet submitted. These directives have an impact on access to conservation species and non-commercial species. On the initiative of the Parliament special arrangements for the labelling and marketing of seed were introduced which did not fulfil the relevant certified species criteria. They cannot at present be marketed; there is therefore a danger that they will not be (re)produced and thus conserved. The implementing regulation for these directives has been in preparation since November 2002.

3.6

The EESC considers that the trade category regulations should be checked to ensure that they do not impede the market access of rare plant and animal products.

3.7

It should be ensured that the NGOs are sufficiently involved in the Committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture provided for in Article 15 of the proposal for a regulation.

3.8

Farmers should also be specifically mentioned in Article 9(2) of the draft regulation.

3.9

The EESC calls on the Commission to draw up two reports on the effects of the CAP answering the following questions:

3.10

Even though a work programme has not been submitted for the regulation, the Committee welcomes the detailed objectives set out in the draft.

4.1

In its proposal for a regulation the Commission already to a large extent takes account of the proposals of the Member States, the Parliament and the EESC on the withdrawn proposal of 22 November 2001. The EESC welcomes the new proposal for a regulation and expects the programme to be rapidly adopted, implemented, evaluated and continued.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/49

1.1.1

The directive on the posting of workers (1) was adopted in 1996 by the Council and the European Parliament.

1.1.2

The directive seeks to strike a balance between extending the opportunities for businesses to provide services in other Member States and social protection of workers. For this reason, it defines a series of employment conditions which posted workers are to be guaranteed in the territory of the host country, regardless of which legal system governs posted workers' employment contracts. The directive defines a posted worker as a worker who, for a limited period, carries out his work in the territory of a Member State other than the State in which he normally works (Article 2(1)).

1.1.3

Regulation 1408/71, which deals with the coordination of social security in the EU in connection with the free movement of workers and services, introduced postings as one of the circumstances in which social insurance coverage could continue in the State of residence when working in another Member State for a maximum period of 12 months (2), or 18 months under certain conditions.

1.1.4

Directive 96/71/EC is concerned with the practical coordination of employment conditions for posted workers. Article 3 is the core of the text, stipulating the conditions applicable to posted workers. These are laid down:

1.1.5

Together with transposition into national legislation, administrative cooperation (Article 4) is also considered an important means for implementing the provisions of the directive, not only for exchange of information, but also for measures necessary to prevention infringement of the rules set out in the directive. Directly preventing infringements contributes to social protection and the free movement of services.

1.2.1

In 1991, the ESC issued an opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (COM(91) 230 final – SYN 346, and ESC opinion CES 1512/91).

1.3.1

The directive was to be transposed by the Member States by the end of 1999.

1.3.2

Article 8 of the directive stipulated that the Commission should review its operation by 16 December 2001, in order to see if it was necessary to propose any amendments to the Council. When the deadline expired, the Commission began to monitor the implementation of the directive in Member State legislation. The conclusions of the report were transposed into the Commission's communication on implementation of the directive. The communication is an evaluation of the transposition, in legislative terms, of applicable national rights. It introduces the content and objectives of the directive under evaluation, and describes the legislative measures taken in the Member States, dividing them into three groups: those which have reproduced the terms of the directive, without indicating to which provisions of their national legislation the matters covered by the directive correspond; those which have sought to identify the applicable national provisions and have inserted references to these national provisions; and lastly, those Member States which have not adopted any specific transposition legislation concerning the national provisions applicable to posted workers.

1.3.3

The legal study cites the provisions of conventions, the implementation of cooperation on information (Article 4), monitoring measures and penalties in the event of non-compliance with the directive (Articles 5 and 6).

1.3.4

In chapter 4 of the communication, the Commission assesses the situation regarding the transposition of the directive in the Member States, the method of transposition, and the nature of the standards and collective agreements applicable.

1.3.5

Chapter 4 also mentions the practical and administrative difficulties in application encountered by the Member States, with three short paragraphs being given over to difficulties encountered by service provider undertakings and posted workers.

1.3.6

It concludes that since none of the Member States has encountered any particular legal difficulties in transposing the directive, implementation may pose some difficulties, but these should disappear over time.

1.3.7

The Commission then concludes that it would therefore be premature to consider amending the directive. Finally, it proposes that a group of government experts of variable composition should be charged with examining ways of facilitating access to information on the provisions applicable to posted workers and of monitoring compliance with provisions in order to resolve the difficulties identified (countries failing to transpose specific provisions, public policy provisions, information seeking, compliance with national transposition provisions, and implementing penalties).

2.1.1

The Committee considers the communication to be useful, but insufficient. It calls upon the Commission to flesh out its analysis, especially regarding the unfair competition and social dumping which could result from bogus postings. The Committee urges the Commission to conduct sector-based consultations with those to whom transposition is effectively addressed, particularly in the construction sector where the social partners have not yet been consulted, since they have mentioned problems concerning the definitions of posted workers and the grey area comprising ‘self-employed’ workers. This fuller analysis could focus on the practical implementation of Article 3 of the directive in terms of real respect for the fundamental rights of workers contained in it. In this connection, the Committee wonders if the national consultations carried out in the first exercise effectively shed light on practical difficulties in application and the real state of transposition of the implementing provisions. In any case, the Committee considers that more detailed work needs to be carried out on the most advantageous provisions, in order to provide a more accurate comparison of good practices and better inform all workers and businesses concerned.

2.1.2

The definitions used in the different national laws regarding posted workers are of significance in terms of the principles of the directive. Specific questions, which are important if the evaluation is to be complete, must be raised. How do the Member States recognise posted workers, and do they apply the directive accordingly? What type of measures have the Member States or the social partners taken to ensure compliance with the directive? A number of aspects are of particular importance in this regard:

2.2

In view of the communication's shortcomings, the Committee calls on the Commission to submit a new report so that the following can be verified:

2.2.1

Several Member States have universally applicable collective agreements in the construction sector. The main question is how the provisions of such collective agreements are used to implement the directive. The interpretation of the employment conditions defined in Article 3 is of special importance in this regard. What are the minimum rates of pay, minimum paid holidays and rest periods under the terms of these collective agreements? Collective agreements may vary considerably between Member States in these areas. One example would be the use, in some Member States, of ‘social funds’ for paid holidays. Membership of such funds may ensure more advantageous conditions for posted workers. The question is to find out how such advantageous conditions may be measured and taken into account.

2.2.2

Not all the Member States have extended application of collectively agreed labour conditions to posted workers in other sectors mentioned in the annex to the directive, although Article 3(10)(2) explicitly provides for this possibility.

2.2.2.1

The Committee urges the Commission to gather all available information from the Member States and the new accession countries concerning the number of posted workers and the various sectors most affected, bearing in mind the differing systems of industrial relations.

2.2.3

On a number of occasions over recent years, the European Commission has been obliged to acknowledge that the expectations of the mid-1980s regarding mobility have not been borne out, or only to a minor extent. Less than 2 % of the European working population works in a country other than the country of origin. The figures for annual mobility are even lower. EU estimates refer to 600,000 active workers outside their own countries, not all of whom have the status of posted workers and are therefore not covered by the directive. This mobility seems to be restricted to executives and highly-skilled workers on the one hand, and construction workers on the other. The existence of pay-related and social dumping in some EU countries and in some occupational sectors is connected with the fact that in these high-risk sectors, even a relatively small number of workers offering their services on the labour market at significantly lower rates of pay can upset the existing pay structure and trigger a down spiral of pay and prices.

—

The communication does not at present justify concluding from the difficulties encountered that the directive should be simplified or revised. In this regard, national experience (social partners in the construction sector, administrators, work inspectors etc.) on posted workers constitutes a valuable source of information and is therefore of great importance.

3.1

In its new analysis, the Commission should first of all consider the impact of enlargement on the implementation of the directive in both existing EU Member States and the accession countries, taking account of the transitional accession periods. The analysis should also evaluate the regional and cross-border or sectoral dimensions, especially the construction sector.

3.2

The Committee also suggests the following:

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/53

1.1

On 8 January 2004, the European Commission submitted a proposal for the amendment of Regulation (EEC) No. 337/75 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). This text (1) proposes changing the rules governing the centre. It also sets out the reasons for these changes and provides background information.

1.2

The regulation is being amended to take account of upcoming EU enlargement and to adapt the centre's operating and working practices to meet future requirements. This applies in particular to the roles played by the centre's main constituent bodies – the Management Board (to be known in future as the Governing Board), the Bureau and the director.

1.3

In its justification for the proposed amendments, the Commission refers to:

1.4

This Commission text is a response to the European Parliament's request. Its main proposals for Cedefop are as follows:

1.5

Other main changes proposed by the Commission to the agency's rules include:

2.1

A common feature of Cedefop, the Dublin-based European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work in Bilbao is that the social partners play a major role in their administration and to date make up almost two-thirds of board members. This reflects the key importance of national social partners in most Member States in the fields of social policy, worker protection and vocational training. Naturally, therefore, they must play a major part in sound, responsible policy-making in these areas at European level as well.

2.2

Cedefop is the first of these three Community agencies with a tripartite administrative structure to be subject to the changes called for the European Parliament. The other two agencies (Eurofound and EU-OSHA) are to be similarly revamped shortly. The changes proposed to the functioning and governance of the Thessaloniki centre will thus also be a point of reference for the other two Community agencies.

2.3

In Committee's view, that makes it all the more important to examine the proposals carefully, particularly in relation to maintaining social partners' scope to become involved in, and exert an influence on, the centre's operation, management and administration – a practice with a proven track record. Any change to the role and composition of these Community agencies' main bodies may impact on the scope for involvement and participation of the groups represented on the management Board.

2.4

The Committee thus feels that EU enlargement must not be used as an opportunity to weaken social partners' role within the agencies on grounds of cost-effectiveness or a desire to streamline operations. On the contrary, the rules must be framed in such a way that the specific involvement of the social partners – which must be retained – can be tailored to meet new future requirements.

2.5

The Committee agrees with the Commission therefore that, in all the proposals to revise the composition of the centre and the guidelines for its governance and management, it is vital to fully maintain the tripartite management structure and, thus, the involvement, on equal terms, of the social partners from all Member States. That is a key factor in the success of the centre's work, and it is the only way to ensure that all the relevant stakeholders remain on board and that the centre's work continues to take account of the wide variety of schemes and concepts in the field of vocational training.

2.6

However important it is to safeguard management bodies' ability to operate effectively, and however understandable the need to contain the costs of the projected impact of EU enlargement on the composition of the Management Board, the Committee feels it is vital to ensure that, in terms of the interests represented on the centre's management bodies, the revised rules do not make Cedefop any less representative or any less able to exert influence, and do not have an adverse impact on the breadth and depth of policy-forming or on continuity of stakeholder involvement.

2.7

With these premises in mind, the Committee welcomes most of the changes proposed by the Commission, subject to a number of specific comments and reservations about some of the points as detailed below. It hopes these will be taken on board in the ongoing work of revising the Cedefop regulation.

3.1

Formalising good practice: Many of the Commission's proposed amendments seek to enshrine the centre's current, successful practices. This applies in particular to the work of the Bureau of the Management Board, arrangements for bringing in the social partners at national and European level, cooperation with other Community bodies and coordination of the activities of the groups represented on the centre's management bodies. The Committee is pleased that these good – and hitherto largely informal – practices are now being placed on a formalised footing. It hopes that that will make the centre more transparent, more effective and more accountable, and that it will safeguard and strengthen its tripartite structure.

3.2

Role of the European social partners: The Committee is also pleased that the proposed new regulation gives the European social partners an important role in Cedefop management through the explicit introduction of group coordinators and their right to attend meetings of the Management Board and Bureau. (5) The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) are key players in this connection. To underscore this important role, the Committee proposes amending Article 4(5) of the draft regulation so that coordinators also enjoy voting rights on the Management Board and the Bureau, and, as a logical follow-on, are also involved in the appointment of the centre's managers (director, deputy director).

3.3

Cooperation with institutes and authorities: Against the backdrop of the Lisbon strategy, and bearing in mind the importance of initial and further training and lifelong learning, the Committee also welcomes the proposal to formalise cooperation between Cedefop and the European Training Foundation in Turin. (6) The Committee hopes that that will not simply mean closer cooperation between two vocational training agencies, each with its own distinctive remit, but that a boost will also be given to cooperation and enhanced coordination with other European institutes and authorities involved in initial and further training, such as the Commission's EURYDICE service for general and higher education.

3.4

Fewer meetings of the Management Board: The Commission's key proposal for reconciling the need to increase the number of seats on the Management Board in the wake of enlargement with the need for cost neutrality is to cut the number of routine board meetings from two to just one per year. (7) One reason given by the Commission for this proposal is the Management Board's new, more strategic role, which, among other things, involves transferring administrative tasks from it to the Bureau and the directors.

The Committee signals its misgivings about such a move as it feels that scheduling just one routine board meeting a year from now on could negatively impact the breadth of dialogue between board members. It is also clear that, by cutting the number of meetings, most board members – who will not have a seat on the future eight-strong Bureau – may find it difficult to continually swap information and stay in touch with each other between the annual meetings.

To dispel these misgivings and guarantee the requisite breadth and depth of opinion-forming, the Committee proposes two courses of action:

3.5

Safeguarding continuity of stakeholder involvement: To enable all board members to continue their involvement in the centre's work, the Committee feels that additional measures are needed to offset stakeholders' diminished physical presence (as a result of less frequent meetings) and the reduced flow of information, and at the same time to secure the requisite breadth and depth of opinion-forming. It is particularly important in this regard to ensure internal coordination within the groups (governments, employees, employers) and to provide the group coordinators, who play a key role on this front, both with adequate scope for action (e.g. the facility to convene separate group meetings and the right to request meetings of an enlarged Bureau) and with the requisite resources.

3.6

Composition of the Bureau: The Committee feels that the Commission's beefed-up role in the future eight-member Bureau of the Management Board is significant. (The Bureau is to comprise two representatives from each of the Cedefop groups and two representatives from the Commission. (8)) The Committee would have expected the Commission to set out its reasons for such a change in the balance of interests represented on this management body. The Committee considers effective tripartite representation on the Bureau, too, to be essential for the centre's functioning. It hopes therefore that the Commission's beefed-up role in the Cedefop executive will boost expert input and does not expect any change in the balance of voting as a result.

In this connection, the Committee recalls the proposal set out in the Cedefop Management Board's 2001 action plan to establish an enlarged Bureau made up of a small number of permanent members and a number of rotating members in order to strike a balance between efficiency and the need for broad opinion-forming among board members. The Committee suggests resurrecting that proposal and introducing an explicit provision into Article 4(10) of the draft regulation – in addition to the suggested facility to call additional meetings – allowing the chairman to convene enlarged Bureau meetings at the request of Bureau members.

3.7

Role of the director and position of a deputy director: Broadly speaking, the revised regulation tasks the director to be the centre's legal representative, to be responsible for the centre's management and to implement the decisions of the Management Board and the Bureau. (9) The Committee has its reservations as to whether, given the aim of boosting internal efficiency, this very brief definition of the director's role and responsibilities provides the clear, razor-sharp division of tasks between director, Management Board and Bureau that Cedefop needs for its future work.

On the subject of the director's role, the Committee also feels that, in the course of reviewing the Cedefop regulation, serious consideration should be given to reintroducing the post of deputy director into the rules. That would re-establish an arrangement that had worked well for more than two decades until the rules were changes when Cedefop headquarters moved from Berlin to Thessaloniki in 1995. This arrangement was also instrumental in securing the ready involvement of the social partners in key staff decisions. Moreover, it would bring Cedefop back into line with the good practice and rules of the Dublin-based Eurofound – a move firmly backed by the Committee. The Committee therefore proposes that Article 6 of the regulation be amended in line with the relevant provisions of the Eurofound regulation (10).

In addition, the Committee feels that the regulation should explicitly state that the director's employment contracts must also be signed by the chair of the Management Board. That must also apply to the resuscitated post of deputy director. Otherwise, the deputy director's appointment would ultimately be contingent on the director's say – something that is hardly consistent with the normal practice of taking account of the full breadth of interests on the Governing Board.

3.8

Adoption of medium-term priorities: In Article 8(1) of the proposed regulation, the Commission lays down who is to be responsible for determining the centre's strategic direction. This involves the adoption, by the Management Board, of medium-term priorities and the annual work programmes on the basis of a draft submitted by the director. That too enshrines a practice which has existed de facto since the mid–1990s. The Committee welcomes the shift to a more strategic role for the Management which this move represents. It again expresses its misgivings, however, about whether the broad spectrum of opinion and sound decision-making required if the Management Body is to play this role, will be obtainable now that its meetings are being cut to one a year. One solution might be to include provision for enlarged Bureau meetings, as already called for in points 3.4 and 3.6 above.

Although it fully understands the need to ‘take into account the priority needs indicated by the Community institutions’, (11) the Committee would nonetheless point out that Cedefop's work must continue not only to benefit Community bodies and Member State governments in policy consultations, but also in the first instance, to be of use to stakeholders involved in vocational training at national level, particularly the social partners in the Member States.

3.9

Equal opportunities: Finally, the Committee is pleased that the target of securing a balanced representation of men and women in the centre's constituent bodies has been explicitly included in the rules. (12) This is a practical step towards implementing Article 3 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities. The Committee feels that Member State governments and social partner organisations are thereby called upon to take gender into account when making appointments. The Committee expects that such considerations will also be reflected in the staffing policy of the centre itself, particularly in staff decisions at managerial level.

30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/57

1.1

The European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee have decided to make the question of the social dimension of culture a common theme, as they consider that culture and social development are closely interrelated and that this relationship will be increasingly important for European integration policy.

1.2

In a 1999 opinion (1) the Committee stated that: ‘If we take the very broad definition of culture as a code of values that apply to the members of a society, then culture also shapes the areas in which civil society operates’. The Committee considers that culture – understood as a process and a common form of thinking and acting – assigns key functions to education and the participation of society. The draft European Constitution is after all based on common values, objectives, fundamental rights and a new understanding of democratic action. These components together make up the foundation of a European concept of culture. The European concept of culture also embraces strong social elements such as solidarity, social cohesion, measures to combat marginalisation and discrimination, as well as social integration. On the basis of this approach, the Committee asked the European Convention that in future it be consulted on culture. All of this confers a special responsibility in this field on the European Parliament, as the democratic representative body of the people of Europe and the European Economic and Social Committee, as the institutional representative of civil society organisations.