16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

1.1

The Committee sees an urgent need to substantially step up current measures to promote research and development (R&D) in Europe, to improve the framework for R&D and to ensure adequate funding.

As well as effective Community, national and business-backed R&D programmes, we need a European internal market for research and development in order to better harness and release the potential — either available now or still to be cultivated — within the European Union. This is what is meant by the European Research Area.

1.2

The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's intention to strengthen and expand the European Research Area. The objectives defined and proposals made are broadly correct and worthy of support, but they need to be supplemented and in some cases clarified or corrected.

1.3

The Committee endorses the objective of creating an attractive European labour market for researchers which also provides for and rewards mobility. The most important issues here are contract conditions, attractive salaries, social security cover that is portable across Europe, and family integrity. The Member States in particular are very deficient in this respect. The Committee therefore calls on them above all and on the relevant social partners to correct these deficiencies and especially to also offer young researchers attractive career prospects that can compete with alternative career opportunities for top-flight academics. This will ensure that more young people will again be prepared to invest energy and time in a very difficult, demanding and selective course of study and thus help to avert the looming shortage of qualified science and technology experts in Europe.

1.4

The Committee supports the European Council's Barcelona objective. However, it has now been decided that the Community will contribute only around 2 % (i.e. just one fiftieth) of the total investment in research and development aimed for under the Barcelona objective. This means that Member States carry by far the biggest political responsibility for achieving the Barcelona objective, and industry by far the biggest economic responsibility. The Committee's recommendations are therefore addressed in particular to the Council, the Parliament and the Member States, urging them to take all the necessary steps to again make Europe the global leader in research and development and to put in place the requisite measures needed to achieve this goal.

1.5

The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the European Community should raise its contribution to the total target R&D spending to at least 3 %, in order to boost the multiplier effect of Community research funding on required research investment by the Member States and industry. In addition, moneys from the Structural Funds are to be used for R&D infrastructure measures, and funding measures through the EIB stepped up. This recommendation has become even more compelling in view of the very serious and long-underrated energy and climate issues to be faced.

1.6

The Committee supports the objective of creating world-class science and technology infrastructure, but this must be backed up by long-term, reliable funding. The success and purpose of this investment is contingent on the involvement of the relevant institutes and university groups in the Member States being involved, and on committed participation of industry in technology projects. Such networking is the only way to create a complete system and produce value added for Europe.

1.7

The Committee supports the objective of strengthening research institutions — and their umbrella organisations — as the main initiators and backers of research and development. These institutions must be able to plan for the longer term, and have adequate facilities and decision-making powers. This requires greater autonomy in the use of financial resources, a sufficiently large share of basic funding, whole-project funding, the possibility of carrying resources over to the following year, the reduction of progress-hampering red tape for scientists involved in research and teaching, incentives and the promotion of high-quality work through extra research funding based on competitive tendering.

1.8

The Committee sees Joint Technology Initiatives and technology platforms as important instruments for creating technological innovation in strategically important research areas. These require public-private sector partnerships and joint research programmes, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should also be involved as appropriate. The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the European Technology Institute (ETI) that are to be set up should draw on experience gained with these. Experience with ERA-Net and CORNET, as well as the EUREKA clusters, could also be valuable here.

1.9

The Committee endorses the goal of opening the European Research Area to the world. But the crucial criterion here is its attractiveness: this task can only be considered to have been accomplished when the current lamentable ‘brain drain’ has been halted, not just in quantitative but also in qualitative terms, i.e. in respect of the world's highest performing and most successful researchers. But in order to achieve this, all the key factors must be right: job position, facilities, working conditions, political situation, career development prospects and autonomy, personal income and social recognition.

1.10

The Committee favours the open coordination method, whereby Member States' strategic goals and policies are evaluated and their experience compared in order to ensure coherence and optimise European research policy. In contrast, any detailed top-down coordination of European research in a bid to secure general standardisation and penetrating research organisations and companies must be rejected. The Commission should therefore avoid the impression that its aim is to introduce central management of European research. It is a question of achieving a proper balance between the Community framework, Member State autonomy, and institutional and individual initiatives and planning ability. Only a plurality of methods, approaches and choice of issues can in each case ensure the best outcomes, procedures and innovations.

1.11

The Committee repeats its admonitions to cut red tape. The Committee therefore recommends that Reducing red tape be included as a further major policy aim in the Commission's future agenda. This means developing ways, in collaboration with the Member States and research bodies, to simplify overregulation and the deluge of European, national, regional and institutional reporting requirements, application procedures, reviews, evaluations, authorisation arrangements, etc. and reduce them to what is strictly necessary. The competitive promotion of excellence will initially increase the amount of red tape that will be required of researchers. This makes it all the more important to find an acceptable solution through reduction and simplification overall. Fear of individuals making mistakes should not lead to overregulation and obstructions for everyone.

1.12

The Committee believes it is essential that funding bodies, especially the Commission, involve staff with proven scientific expertise, who are familiar with the particular features and ‘community’ of the scientific area in question — and maintain their knowledge over the long term (making regular job rotation counterproductive).

1.13

The Committee recommends that the European Research Area should be complemented by a European Knowledge Area designed to create a European knowledge-based society. This will require a solid and broad education for all citizens, and additional high-level specialised training for scientists and engineers. Hence there is also the reference to appropriate ‘knowledge management’. Research and development build on existing knowledge to create new knowledge.

1.14

The Committee recommends that clear and comprehensible rules be developed to manage the wide range of Community instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D. This includes a summary list (and instructions for use) of all instruments and measures available to the Commission for promoting and coordinating R&D objectives. This should also show whether, among the growing plethora of instruments, the purpose of each is adequately defined and the instruments properly separated, and whether they can be easily understood and applied both by potential users and by Commission staff or whether they need to be reorganised.

1.15

Many of the issues addressed in the Green Paper must be considered individually. For these and other relevant aspects, the reader is referred to the full text of this opinion.

2.1

The background to this Commission communication is the earlier debate about and adoption of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development — which has now come into effect — the research areas selected for it (so-called specific programmes), the instruments available and the participation rules. In its communication, the Commission is therefore no longer concerned with the content of research, but solely with the strategic objectives of the European Research Area.

2.2

Following a brief account of the background to the Green Paper, the Commission summarises the tasks and objectives of the European Research Area, which are discussed, examined and adjusted to take account of new developments in the light of the current situation. The communication takes as its premise the importance of European research and development for the Lisbon strategy, as well as the question of R&D competitiveness at a global level.

2.3

The following specific tasks and objectives are identified:

2.4

The paper gives a résumé of what has been achieved so far and, on this basis, proposes future measures to consolidate and further expand the ERA. The current EU Research Framework Programme was explicitly designed by the Commission to support such measures. Its funding has been substantially increased, although by less than the European Commission had proposed (and indeed less than the Committee had recommended). New initiatives launched in connection with the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013), such as the European Research Council, will have an important impact on the European research landscape. The future European Institute of Technology could also help to create world-class knowledge and innovation communities.

2.5

At the same time the Commission has pointed to shortcomings that should be overcome, for example (in brief):

2.6

Other aspects of the Green Paper are addressed in the Committee's comments below.

2.7

In order to stimulate a wide debate on the Green Paper, the Commission has included 35 specific questions in the text. The answers expected from Parliament, the Council, the EESC, the Committee of the Regions and the Member States, as well as researchers and research institutes, are to be incorporated into proposals for measures during 2008. Answers to many of these questions are implicitly provided in point 3 below, while some specific issues are addressed in point 4.

3.1

Importance of scientific excellence. As the Committee has observed on several occasions (1) top performance in science and technology, and their conversion into a competitive economic force, are essential preconditions so as not to jeopardise our future global position and the European social model.

There is therefore an urgent need to substantially step up measures in favour of research and development in Europe, to set the political priorities required for this, and to improve the necessary framework and establish the financial prerequisites. It is important to apply the principle of competition based on criteria of excellence. The Committee has on a number of occasions given its views on the rules for the requisite state aid (2).

3.2

European internal market for research and development. In addition to effective Community, national and industry-based research and development programmes, we need a European internal market for research and development, in order to better harness and release the potential — either available now or still to be cultivated — within the European Union. This is what is meant by the European Research Area.

3.3

Overall endorsement. The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's stated intention to consolidate, strengthen and further expand the European Research Area (and thus press ahead with what has been a broadly favourable development). It also notes that important aspects of its previous recommendations are reflected in the text (3). The objectives defined by the Commission are the right ones, and its proposals are generally considered to be suitable and worthy of support, but they need to be supplemented and in some cases clarified or corrected.

3.4.1

The scientific community. The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) (4) was set up over 50 years ago. This independent effort of the international scientific community — i.e. a project mounted by leading international scientists (5) — received the support it needed from key policymakers in Europe. Thus a first-class European laboratory was set up, something that individual countries would have been unable or unwilling to finance and use on their own. For similar reasons, other transnational European organisations were later set up, such as the ECMWF, EMBO, ESRF, ESO, ESA and ILL (6).

3.4.2

European Community. The Treaty setting up the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), which was signed on 25 March 1957, is one of the three treaties establishing the European Communities. This was the starting-point for the European Community's involvement in the sphere of research and development  (7). With the entry into force of the first R&D Framework Programme in 1986, the foundation was laid for a broad Community research policy with more far-reaching objectives than Euratom. With the decision taken in 2000, when drawing up the Lisbon strategy, to establish a European Research Area, Europe's policymakers affirmed their intention to create a formal framework for European research. The European Research Area was to become an emblematic project whose rationale and objectives were geared towards the Lisbon strategy.

3.4.3

Barcelona objective. The Committee has repeatedly said that it supports the Barcelona objective formulated five years ago by the European Council as a follow-on from the Lisbon strategy. This requires that the Union's total R&D expenditure should be increased so as to reach almost 3 % of GDP by 2010. Two-thirds of the required investment was to come from the private sector. However, it has now been decided that the Community will contribute only around 2 % (i.e. just one fiftieth) of the total investment in research and development aimed for under the Barcelona objective.

3.5

Political commitment of the Member States. This means that Member States carry by far the biggest political responsibility for achieving the Barcelona objective, and industry and the private sector by far the biggest economic responsibility. The recommendations and calls of the Committee are therefore addressed in particular to the Council, the Parliament and the Member States, urging them to take all the urgently necessary steps and to support the targets set out in the Green Paper, in order to make Europe the global leader in research and development again, first by realising the Barcelona objective, and by also taking all other measures needed to achieve this goal.

3.6

Better use of the multiplier effect of Community support for research. Community funding for research is also very important, however, because it not only acts as an integrating and coordinating factor but above all also has a multiplier effect on the research investment provided by the Member States and industry. The strength of this multiplier effect should therefore be substantially enhanced, so that the Member States and industry can finally make the full contribution that is required to achieve the as yet unmet Barcelona objective. Europe must become aware that it was once the leading area for research and innovation and aim to revive that tradition.

3.6.1

Increasing the Community contribution. The Committee has in the past noted (8) that the current R&D budget is not sufficient to use this multiplier effect. It therefore repeats its urgent recommendation that the Community contribution to total target R&D spending in the European Research Area, which is currently well under 2 %, be increased to at least 3 % at the impending budget revision in 2008. It also recommends allocating a substantial amount of resources from the Structural Funds to R&D-related infrastructure measures (9)  (10), as well as radically increasing support from the EIB.

3.6.2

Urgent need for a policy decision. A statistical bulletin just published by the Commission (11) on the current state of European research and its funding compared with that of international competitors confirms the extreme urgency of translating the Committee's above-mentioned recommendation into a policy decision. The matter is further complicated by the very serious and long-underrated energy and climate issues to be faced.

3.7

Critical mass, pooling of resources and expertise, European value added. The Community should address and fund primarily those research tasks and projects critical for science and technology progress that individual Member States are not prepared or economically able to support, or whose impact is substantially increased through a Community process and a networked Europe-wide approach. This will result in significant added value compared with the efforts of individual Member States.

3.8

Infrastructure and excellent research institutions. In many particularly relevant areas of research, costly infrastructure and large apparatus are essential to securing fundamentally new findings and technological progress, and they provide technological development (at the pre-competitive stage) with novel options for improvements and innovation. The Committee therefore considers the objective cited in the Green Paper of Developing world-class research infrastructures to be extremely important. Such infrastructures are the basis and catalyst for top-level research. They are a major factor in attracting the best scientists and engineers, and are thus a prime means of achieving another important objective that should be endorsed, namely the creation of excellent research institutions which draw attention to the emblems European research and European Research Area.

3.8.1

ESFRI  (12) list. The Committee therefore welcomes the ESFRI list, which was drawn up by the Member States and the Commission, and has been commended and endorsed by the Council (13). The Committee also notes that the primary involvement of the Member States here will have to be complemented by a stepped-up, reliable and sustained effort on the part of the Commission, since the political will to achieve exceptional pioneering work in science and technology is especially visible in this area. The Committee therefore emphatically endorses the consistent pursuit of the ‘road map’ and substantial financial involvement of the Community in building and maintaining these facilities over the long term. It draws attention to the importance of proper contract arrangements to make facilities accessible and attractive to partners or users from the whole of the European Research Area, and also supports the efforts of partnerships or participation from outside Europe (14).

3.8.2

Steady funding. It is particularly important that funding — especially for projects conceived as long-term ventures because of the high levels of investment involved — should be steady and reliable until the objectives have been achieved, provided they meet the criterion of scientific excellence. In this area in particular, substantial fluctuations, uncertainties or even interruptions in financing not only waste costly financial investment and science and technology development work but also break down networks that have been developed, and destroy both international cooperation and trust in future commitments. This is also detrimental to the European labour market for scientists and engineers.

3.8.3

Involvement of universities and institutes. For this substantial investment in infrastructure projects to be effective, and for high-level research to expand as necessary, it is essential that the relevant university groups, institutes and research bodies based in the Member States be involved in a responsible capacity in developing and using the test facilities concerned: such networking is the only way to create a single system and secure European value added. Thus it is also necessary to provide adequate funding for such networking and to ensure that the cooperation and ideas elements of the programmes are given sufficient resources, in particular for travel and onsite visits and for communication systems and equipment. The Committee would also stress the key importance of promoting mobility.

3.8.4

Unhindered mobility. The Committee endorses the aim of ensuring unhindered mobility within the European Research Area between Member States, organisations and the private and public sectors. Mobility not only fosters career development, the pooling of knowledge and technical experience, but also generally broadens horizons, enhances good judgment and encourages cultural understanding. This is why shortcomings and unsound measures that are still obstacles to unhindered mobility must be rectified or eliminated. These include problems between Member States, insufficient recognition/portability of acquired social entitlements, as well as tax disadvantages or the strain involved in families having to relocate.

3.8.5

Situation in the new Member States. However, care must be taken and incentives worked out to ensure that the desirable mobility within Europe for researchers from the new Member States does not lead to a long-term intra-European ‘brain drain’. The Committee has already pointed out in an earlier opinion that the creation of attractive research institutes in the new Member States is particularly important for this very reason.

3.9

Appreciation of the European Research Area. Efficient and successful international cooperation, especially on large-scale European Community projects, creates a feeling of team spirit between those involved, which enhances appreciation of the European Research Area and Europe's image.

3.10

Own initiatives and scientific conferences. CERN and the development of the European fusion research institutes are examples of both the will and ability of the scientific community to seek and find international partners on their own initiative, and to obtain international funding from governments of third countries. This is also predicated on the provision of funding for especially relevant science and technology conferences in Europe, and grants for younger European scientists in particular to take part in international conferences.

3.10.1

Science and technology associations — civil society organisations. Specialist conferences are the main forum for publicising and evaluating findings, pooling knowledge and ideas, launching cooperation initiatives and developing new or improved concepts. Such conferences are generally organised by science and technology associations (15), which are typical civil society organisations. The Committee therefore recommends that there should be greater awareness and recognition of their value and that their efforts to disseminate knowledge, evaluate findings and coordinate research should be drawn on more often and encouraged.

3.11

Framework programmes. The Committee considers the Community R&D Framework Programme and the framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community to be the main Community instruments for realising the European Research Area.

As an adjunct to the specific programmes relating to infrastructure and ideas, key incentives for coordinated cooperation (see point 3.13) are also generated in particular by the cooperation and people programmes and related funding. Adequate implementation of these programmes is thus a substantial element in creating a cross-border, synergistic identity for the European research and the European Research Area.

3.11.1

Basic research and applications. It is significant that basic research has been explicitly included and its crucial importance in progress and innovation recognised. This creates the need for a balance between the objectives of promoting basic research on the one hand, and applied and product- and process-oriented research on the other. As the Committee has often noted (16), there are no sharp dividing lines between these areas, but rather many interactions: they influence each other.

3.11.2

Joint Technology Initiatives, technology platforms and the ETI. The Committee draws attention to the special role played by Joint Technology Initiatives and technology platforms, which serve to create partnerships in strategic research areas between the public and private sectors and enable joint research programmes to be conducted. The Committee recommends that experience gained with these be drawn on when setting up the new Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the European Technology Institute (ETI). Experience with ERA-Net projects and EUREKA clusters could also be valuable.

3.11.3

SMEs. Adequate involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is particularly important in public-private partnerships, and in business partnerships too. The Committee welcomes the Commission's considerable efforts in this area to date and its desire to continue these in the future. The CORNET (Collective Research Networking) project (17), launched through ERA-Net, can also be helpful here.

3.11.4

Withholding of data. Free dissemination of data on new findings was and still is one of the keys to the success of modern science (cf. point 4.4.2, Open Access). Withholding of data raises problems, not only in relation to intellectual property issues but above all regarding the stage of development of novel/innovative technologies at which withholding data, for reasons of free-market competition (18), hinders the necessary exchange of knowledge and further cooperation with and between business partners. The Committee recommends that the Commission should examine this important question in detail, because it determines the success of cooperation, especially cooperation between the public and private sectors.

3.12

Strengthening research institutions. The Committee supports the very important goal of strengthening research institutions — and their umbrella organisations — as the main initiators and backers of research and development. These institutions coordinate, plan and conduct research, and the working environment, latitude of action, and research style that develop there determine the reputation and success of each body. These organisations must therefore be able to plan for the longer term, and have adequate facilities and decision-making powers. This requires greater autonomy in the use of financial resources, a sufficiently high share of basic public funding (typically at least 75-80 %), whole-project funding, the possibility of carrying resources over to the following year, reduction of red tape for scientists, incentives and promotion of high-quality work through adequate long-term extra funding based on competitive tendering and performance.

3.13

Open coordination. Key factors in encouraging bilateral open coordination and evaluation of research policies and strategic goals between the Member States are the tried-and-tested European-level decision-making processes relating to Commission research policy initiatives and the consultative phases involved in preparing them. The Committee also considers complementary coordinating measures with and between the Member States and the regions on specific priorities or infrastructure projects to be important and sensible in order to improve coherence and optimise European research policy. Coordination is therefore also desirable when setting up European Intergovernmental Research Organisations for large projects and infrastructure (see point 3.8). The Commission also exercises a coordinating role through the support measures under the Seventh Framework Programme (see point 3.11).

3.14

Avoiding excessive coordination. On the other hand, any top-down detailed coordination of European research as an end in itself, or with the objective of a general standardisation affecting individual projects and penetrating research organisations or companies, cannot be accepted. This might be based on the explicit intention of avoiding duplication (19) and fragmentation, for instance, but it would reduce the required diversity of research approaches and methods (see in particular point 4.7.1) and generate a negative attitude among the researchers, institutions and businesses involved.

The Commission should certainly avoid the impression that its aim is to introduce central management of European research; this would further fuel the existing concern of the general public (20) in the Member States about excessive centralisation in Brussels. It is much more a question of achieving a proper balance between the Community framework, autonomous decision-making by the Member States, and institutional and individual initiatives and planning ability.

3.14.1

Plurality of methods, approaches and choice of issues. Only a plurality of methods, approaches and choice of issues can ensure the best outcomes, procedures and innovations in each case. Plurality is not wasteful, but is a necessary means of optimising and making progress in the search for new knowledge and techniques. The Committee recommends that the European Research Council in particular be consulted about this important issue of remits.

3.15

Another objective: cutting red tape. The Committee nevertheless repeats its previous pleas that the Commission should include reducing red tape as another major objective in the future political agenda of the European Research Area. Ways must be developed with the Member States and research bodies to simplify overregulation and the deluge of European and national institutional reporting requirements, application procedures, reviews, evaluations, authorisation arrangements, etc. and if necessary condense and reduce them to what is strictly necessary. Competition to promote excellence, secure funding etc. — which is supported by the Committee — will initially increase the amount of red tape that will be required of researchers because of administrative and approval procedures. This makes it all the more important to find an acceptable solution through a reduction and simplification of all these processes. The Committee has already (21) commented that fear of individuals making mistakes or behaving wrongly should not lead to overregulation and obstructions for everyone. The same principle should apply to the modus operandi of funding bodies and researchers.

3.16

Attractive employment and better career opportunities. The Committee endorses the important goal of creating an attractive labour market for researchers. This means ensuring that contracts, social security arrangements and family integrity are arranged and improved in such a way that researchers do not feel that advantage is being taken of their idealism, e.g. because of low pay, protracted contract negotiations and excessive uncertainty about their future career development. They might then come to the conclusion that their investment in very demanding, specialised training would not be rewarded by a successful career in Europe.

3.16.1

Deficiencies in the Member States. Deficiencies in the Member States are a particular problem, and mistakes can still be seen (22). The Committee therefore urges in particular the Member States and the social partners in each country to rectify these deficiencies and especially to also offer young scientists attractive career opportunities with prospects for advancement, opportunities that can compete with those of alternative career paths for top-flight academics. This is the only way to ensure that more young people with the right talents are prepared to invest energy and time in a demanding and selective course of study and thus help to avert the looming shortage of science and technology experts — and graduates with the right qualifications — in Europe.

3.16.2

Gender equality. The Committee reiterates its commitment to equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women. We need the best talents of both — what counts is ability and performance. (The terms ‘scientist’, ‘researcher’ and ‘engineer’ are gender-neutral.)

3.16.3

Mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries. The Committee also endorses the objective set out in the Green Paper of improving mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries. It points to its above recommendations in this regard, and also to its earlier recommendation to create an attractive grant (sabbatical) system for personnel exchanges between academia and industry.

3.16.4

Family integrity. The Committee has many times mentioned a particularly important aspect of promoting mobility, namely facilitating and promoting family integrity. Important concerns here are the career of the spouse (e.g. in the case of dual-career couples), suitable schools for children and help with moving house (reimbursement of costs, taxes).

3.17

A wide opening of the European Research Area to the world. The Green Paper mentions opening the European Research Area to the world as a very important objective. The Committee fully supports this objective. Achieving this goal will be a crucial test of the Lisbon strategy's success.

3.17.1

Attractiveness is the key. However, the key factor here — signifying more than a formal opening in principle, which has already been achieved in many respects — is the attractiveness of the European Research Area: invitations to leading international researchers are the first step required; the challenge then is to actually get them to come and, in the case of European scientists working outside Europe, to ensure their eventual return.

3.17.2

Overcoming the ‘brain drain’ problem. This task will not have been achieved until the current lamentable ‘brain drain’ has been halted, not just in quantitative but also in qualitative terms, i.e. in respect of the highest performing and most successful scientists and engineers. But in order to achieve this all the key factors must be right: job position, facilities, working conditions, a stable situation, career development possibilities and autonomy, personal income (including social benefits) and social recognition.

3.18

Building on achievements. Despite the persistent lacunae and the work that is still to be done, the Committee is pleased to see that efforts so far in European research and the European Research Area are showing initial signs of success and generally point in the right direction. It is therefore important to continue that progress through ongoing and rapid growth in Europe's R&D capacity, underpinned by competition-based funding policy, networking and the impact thereof on integration and, in particular, through the creation of an attractive and stable environment and appropriate career opportunities without overregulation and centralisation. The European Research Area must be a concept with worldwide reach.

3.19

European Knowledge Area. The Committee has noted on a number of previous occasions that the European Research Area should be complemented by a ‘European Knowledge Area’ (23). A key reason is the goal of creating a European knowledge-based society, which presupposes a solid education for all citizens and the high-level specialised training also required for scientists and engineers. Lifelong and independent learning are also very important. Since this opinion concerns the European Research Area, the Committee would also point to the need for appropriate ‘knowledge management’, to ensure that knowledge acquired is recorded, organised, disseminated, accessible and conserved. Research and development build on existing knowledge in order to create new knowledge.

3.19.1

Knowledge management and technology. Knowledge management is also important for the safe application (24) of technical procedures, so as to ensure optimum and secure use, minimise risk and not endanger the population. In this area the Commission should also take appropriate measures in the future, in collaboration with the relevant international organisations, and promote the necessary research programmes.

3.19.2

Textbooks and review papers. Good textbooks, general review papers and manuals are important in maintaining, explaining and organising knowledge, and especially for high-quality training. Experience, effort and time, and freedom from other work, is required in order to produce these. The Committee recommends that such activity be included in the list of tasks that should receive funding, especially since this onerous work generally does not produce any commercial gain for the authors.

4.1

Questions 1-3: Elements of the European Research Area vision: the basic precondition is an open social attitude to research and development which understands and respects the key importance of R&D for welfare, competitiveness, progress and culture. It is also important that there should be adequate communication between different disciplines, especially between the arts and the sciences; this should include efforts to agree on methodological principles. This is also a prerequisite for creating the necessary framework and setting priorities at all policy levels. In addition, the Commission and the Member States can do more than they have done in the past to encourage exchanges of experience between the scientific community and civil society in general, and to publicise the European Research Area, through symposiums and conferences. The media should also play a key role, but the emphasis should be on providing information rather than opinion-forming. The Committee supports the Commission's concern to ensure an open discussion and further steps.

4.2

Questions 8 and 10: PhD candidates. Action must first be taken with respect to young scientists who have completed their first degree, i.e. PhD candidates. These are not students or trainees (25) but essential contributors to research and teaching. Research and teaching in themselves, together with reading the appropriate literature, and taking part in conferences, seminars and summer schools, are the best form of further training. But participation must also be strongly promoted and made possible. Initiative and autonomy must be encouraged and rewarded; these qualities will not develop in response to a teaching-based approach.

4.3

Question 12 et seq.: The basis should be ETI and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities, which can be instructive.

4.3.1

Question 18: First, information should be gathered from specific cases. Risk and liability issues — e.g. where a partner drops out — should be clarified.

4.3.2

Question 19: The first step is to draw on the experience of research bodies in the Member States with existing ‘virtual institutes’. A bottom-up approach should also be favoured.

4.3.3

Question 20: (i): Proposals should be gathered from the institutions concerned.

4.3.4

Question 20: (ii): No objectively measurable criteria. The Committee has very strong reservations here, as there is a risk that emphasis would be placed on quantitative criteria that are supposed to be objectively measurable, and such criteria are virtually non-existent in research (26). Such criteria may well be useful in the case of product-oriented development, but in research they would promote short-termism and sloppiness (jockeying for funding). Even in industry, research institutes have scope for longer-term and basic research, whose importance is indeed evidenced by the most successful labs (27), but such research is not easy to justify on the basis of prescribed assessment procedures based primarily on ‘quantitatively measurable’ criteria. The Committee also refers the reader to comments in previous opinions (28).

4.4

Question 21: Sharing knowledge: raw data. This is a difficult and delicate question. (At what point in the investigation chain are ‘raw data’ produced? Their accuracy often still has to be checked or evaluated by the person who conducted the original study.) This has implications for the relationship of trust between individual researchers (29). There is no mention of issues relating to how experiments are conducted or to interpersonal factors (team spirit, competition, priorities, etc.) among researchers. It is helpful to provide incentives to share knowledge directly. The key factor is the reproducibility of findings. The Committee strongly advises against a prescriptive approach, especially at European level; recommendations would be useful in certain cases on the minimum length of time for keeping raw data and who should be responsible for this. In addition (see also point 3.19.1 above), there is the question of general ‘knowledge management’, in order to ensure that knowledge is not lost. It might also be appropriate for the European Research Council to address this question.

4.4.1

Returning to question 21: Problems of access to information and data-sharing. Yet another problem is addressed here, namely that of free and rapid access to data that has already been published in the specialist journals of academic publishers. Because of the current interpretation of copyright, there is no free access to online libraries and copies may no longer be sent electronically, thereby drastically restricting swift access to important science and technology literature archives and radically hindering scientific knowledge-sharing and progress.

4.4.2

Open access. The Committee thus urges the Commission all the more to address this question and seek new and better solutions. One possibility would be ‘open access’ information systems (30), e.g. in recognised open-access technical journals with peer review (see below).

4.4.3

Question 23: Grace period. The Committee has on several occasions called for a grace period in order to reduce the tension between publishing as quickly as possible (researchers are judged on the basis of their publications) and applying first for a patent.

4.5

Questions 25-29: Optimising research programmes and priorities. Generally speaking the experience with ERA-Net should be brought to bear here.

4.5.1

Question 25: Evaluation principles. The question of common — presumably meaning harmonised — principles for peer review, quality assurance and evaluation is a difficult one, since, on the one hand, there is no perfect evaluation procedure, only better or less good ones and, on the other hand, research bodies have different approaches, at least as far as the details are concerned, which means that the (relative) effectiveness of different procedures must be taken on board as a criterion. Thus, at this point too, the Committee has reservations in principle about any intended harmonisation. It is true that peer review is undoubtedly the best procedure (31), but its quality and efficacy depend very much on the details (32). Above all it is important to avoid cutting corners, which easily happens with the ongoing and multiple evaluations that are nowadays often required. Hence the principle of less frequent but more thorough evaluations.

4.5.2

Again (but not exclusively) relating to question 25: Staff with expertise. In particular it is absolutely essential that funding bodies, including the Commission, involve staff with proven scientific expertise, who are familiar with the particular features, peers and ‘community’ of the scientific area in question — also on the basis of previous research activity — and maintain their knowledge over the long term (making regular job rotation counterproductive). The principle that fear of individuals making mistakes should not lead to overregulation and obstructions for everyone also applies here. The example of highly successful research bodies should be followed.

4.5.3

Question 26: Simplification. Further simplifying the relevant rules and procedures in order to remove excessive red tape for researchers has often been mentioned as an objective. However, the Committee is aware that its general call for plurality and a ‘bottom-up’ approach could be seen as conflicting somewhat with the call for simplification and removal of excessive red tape. It therefore endorses a coordinated approach (see also point 3.15) involving joint evaluation for all projects in which the Community and its funding programmes are, or are likely to be, substantially involved. The European Research Council should be consulted about the choice of evaluation procedures.

4.5.4

Question 29: Membership of intergovernmental research organisations. The meaning of ‘membership’ must be clarified. Membership of consultative bodies is useful as, of course, is membership of the relevant oversight bodies, if these are co-financed by the Community. However, the Committee would definitely advise against membership of executive bodies.

4.6

Questions 30 and 31: Opening to the world: international cooperation in science and technology. The Committee fully supports the objective relating to research policy. As far as instruments are concerned, a distinction must be made between programmes that require large-scale equipment such as accelerators, nuclear fusion plants, satellites and wind tunnels, and programmes that are spread over a number of centres or share equipment. The experience of existing cases should be drawn on as far as possible, although there is a risk of generalising and therefore glossing over the differences between individual cases. Generally speaking the Committee believes that effective mechanisms or precedents already exist here, obviating the need for additional instruments.

4.7

General comment on the Commission's questions. The questions posed by the Commission give the impression that it is continually seeking general rules that are intended to be valid for all individual cases arising in the Member States. The Committee would have serious reservations about such an approach (see point 3.14.1).

4.7.1

Autonomy and a ‘bottom-up’ approach rather than standardisation. This means that any efforts tending towards excessive standardisation should be rejected. Standardisation prevents best practice from first being empirically established through competition — which the ‘bottom-up’ principle basically allows — between different procedures, methods and cultural approaches, and thus also prevents the advantages of gradual progression from being tapped. This is the only way to identify which approach is particularly effective, deserves further funding and can serve as an example.

4.7.2

Existing mechanisms are adequate. Existing mechanisms at both the policymaking and programme and project levels already provide sufficient and reasonable scope in this regard. Further measures and rules can also be introduced or adapted later, if there is a well-founded specific need.

4.8

Existing Community instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D. On the other hand, the Committee recommends that general, clear and comprehensible rules should be developed to manage the wide range of Community instruments for promoting and coordinating R&D. It would be very helpful if the Commission listed and described (i.e. provided comprehensible instructions for use for) all the instruments and measures available to it for promoting and coordinating R&D objectives. This would also show whether, among the growing plethora of instruments, the purpose of each one is adequately defined and the instruments properly separated, and whether they can be easily understood by potential users and Commission staff or need to be overhauled to make them clearer.

ILL

:

Institut Laue-Langevin

ECMWF

:

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

ESRF

:

European Synchroton Radiation Facility

ESO

:

European Southern Observatory

EMBO

:

European Molecular Biology Organisation

ESA

:

European Space Agency

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/11

1.1

The pharmaceutical industry is quite rightly considered as a key strategic sector, and its products are crucial to the health and well-being of European citizens. It is also important from the point of view of employment.

1.2

In the light of this situation, and of the decline of pharmaceutical research in Europe, the decision to set up the IMI JU (Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking) is very much justified. The Committee welcomes and supports this decision, in particular because it involves a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors.

1.3

The key aspects on which the role of the IMI JU should be focused include the following:

1.4

The EESC welcomes the wide-ranging consultation that preceded the drafting of this regulation and supports the proposal that an annual report on the results of the IMI JU be submitted. However, the Committee regrets the absence of a detailed assessment of the operation and the results achieved by the former European Technology Platforms.

1.5

In the light of the multiple financing system that has been set up and of the significant volume of Community resources involved, the EESC believes that it would be appropriate to better define the use and allocation of the end products of the research in question, in particular as regards intellectual property and the issue of patents.

1.6

The EESC believes that it would be helpful to think about mechanisms conducive to returns on European investments. Similarly, it would be desirable to provide for the profits generated by research to be assigned to investments located within the EU.

2.1

The purpose of the proposed regulation under review is to launch the very first public-private partnerships in the area of R&D. It defines one of the first two Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI). This involves innovative medicines (1).

2.2

The aim of JTIs is to allow industry, research organisations, Member States and the Commission to pool some or all of their resources into selected research programmes.

2.3

Unlike the traditional strategy, which involves providing public funding for projects on a case-by-case basis, JTIs involve large-scale research programmes with shared strategic research goals. This new approach is expected to create a critical mass for European research and innovation, consolidate the scientific community in key strategic areas, and harmonise the funding of projects so that research findings can be put to use more quickly. JTIs are aimed at key areas where the current instruments have neither the scale nor the speed to keep Europe ahead of global competition. These are areas where national, European and private funding of research could bring significant added value, inter alia by stimulating an increase in private R&D expenditure.

2.4

The JTI on the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) seeks to support the development of new knowledge, new instruments and new methods that will facilitate the faster supply of safer and more effective medicines.

2.5

Thanks to an innovative financing method, the IMI should help to increase private investment in R&D, speed up the transfer of knowledge between universities and businesses, and facilitate the participation of SMEs in European research.

3.1

Over the last ten to fifteen years, pharmaceutical research in Europe has gradually been falling behind. Whilst investment in R&D increased by a factor of 4,6 between 1990 and 2005 in the USA, the equivalent factor in Europe was just 2,8. Businesses are increasingly transferring their cutting-edge research units to countries outside the European Union, mainly the United States and, more recently, in Asia.

3.1.1

This situation could have grave consequences for European competitiveness, as innovation and cutting-edge technologies are among the keys to long-term economic growth. This was one of the main reasons behind the decision to create a JTI on innovative medicines.

3.2

Whereas governments draw up their plans at national level, industry has a global vision. Large countries such as the United States and China have a unified investment strategy that enables businesses to better plan and attract resources. In Europe, national governments do not coordinate their R&D investment and pharmaceutical companies must expend resources adapting their activities to local circumstances.

3.3

A Community legislative act could establish a targeted, coherent R&D programme that could draw on all the sources of R&D investment (public and private) at European level and thus create a more favourable environment for the European Union. This is the purpose of the regulation under review.

4.1

The proposed regulation setting up the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking [COM(2007) 241] arises out of the provisions of the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) covered by Decision 1982/2006/EEC. This provides for a Community contribution towards the creation of long-term public-private partnerships at European level in the area of research.

4.2

These partnerships take the form of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) and arise from the work of the former European Technology Platforms (ETPs).

4.3

The Council, in its Decision No 971/2006/EEC on the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’, emphasised the need to set up public-private partnerships and identified six areas in which the creation of joint technology initiatives is appropriate with a view to relaunching European research. These are:

4.4

Within the context of this general strategy, the regulation proposed by COM(2007) 241 under review provides for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (IMI JTI) by means of the establishment of an Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (IMI JU).

4.5

In accordance with the Commission's aims, the establishment of an Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking is expected to facilitate the involvement of stakeholders who are not currently able to carry out costly and complex research programmes (universities, SMEs, hospitals, public authorities, etc.).

4.6

The IMI JU will be founded as a joint undertaking, its founder members being the European Community represented by the Commission and the EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations), and set up as a Community body by a Council Regulation under Treaty Article 171. The Member States and the countries involved in the 7th Framework Programme will be able to join it, as will any legal entity involved in R&D, provided that it makes a financial contribution.

4.7

This programme will benefit from a budget of EUR 2 billion, to be invested over a period of seven years, split equally between the Commission (resources from the 7th Framework Programme in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of Council Regulation 1605/2002) and the businesses that belong to the EFPIA, who will provide most of the staff, equipment, consumables, etc.

4.8

The IMI JU will support research activities conducted in the Member States and in the countries associated with FP7. The entire Community contribution of one billion euro will be set aside for small and medium-sized enterprises and universities for applied pharmaceutical research. The participating large enterprises will invest an equal sum by bearing the costs of their part of the research and by involving SMEs and universities in this.

4.9

The IMI joint undertaking is to be considered as an international body with a legal personality within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2004/17/EEC and Article 15 of Directive 2004/18/EEC. Its seat will be in Brussels and its activities will cease in December 2017. This period may be extended by the Council.

5.1

The pharmaceutical industry is quite rightly considered, in the report entitled Creating an innovative Europe, as a key strategic sector, and its products are crucial to the health and well-being of European citizens. In essence, the effective and proper use of pharmaceutical products helps to improve quality of life.

5.2

The pharmaceutical industry also provides a lot of jobs in Europe. In 2004, this sector employed 612 000 people, 103 000 of whom were highly skilled in scientific research.

5.3

The main justification for the establishment of the IMI JU is the need to address Europe's decline in the area of pharmaceutical research and to reverse this trend, which was already observed in the Commission Communication dated 1 July 2003 entitled A Stronger European-based Pharmaceutical Industry for the Benefit of the Patient — A Call for Action.

5.4

To achieve this, changes in the traditional methods of bilateral cooperation are necessary. A new approach at European level is now needed, bringing about direct cooperation between universities, relevant SMEs, public bodies and the pharmaceutical industry in connection with the financial provisions set out in the 7th Framework Programme.

5.5

The key aspects on which the role of the IMI JU should be focused are as follows:

6.1

The EESC is pleased to note the wide-ranging consultation that preceded the drafting of this regulation and supports the implementation of appropriate training programmes aimed at providing the necessary skills in a sector that is crucial to the European economy and to citizens' quality of life.

6.2

As stated under point 4.2, JTIs arise out of the work of the former European Technology Platforms (ETPs). However, these latter rarely achieved their stated aim of strategically relaunching research in Europe. The creation of JTIs is based on this acknowledgement of partial failure regarding the role of the ETPs, which was essentially to make a key contribution to industry in the area of competitiveness.

6.2.1

In the light of this, the EESC regrets the absence from the Commission proposal of a more detailed outline of the work previously carried out by the European Technology Platforms (ETPs); there is no assessment, the results are not mentioned, and there are no bibliographical references.

6.2.2

For this reason, with regard to the JTIs, the EESC welcomes the proposal that an annual report, giving an assessment of the results and progress achieved, be submitted.

6.3

That said, the EESC welcomes the creation of the joint undertaking for the innovative medicines initiative. In general terms, it has the necessary features for relaunching pharmaceutical research in Europe thanks to a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors. This initiative is consistent with the aims of the Lisbon strategy, which provides for the investment of 3 % of GDP in R&D activities, two-thirds of which are to come from the private sector.

6.3.1

However, in the light of the multiple financing system that has been set up and of the significant volume of Community resources involved, the EESC believes that it would be appropriate to better define the use and allocation of the end products of the research in question. To this end, the issue of patents and intellectual property as defined in the regulation and its appendix, which limits itself to setting out principles, ought to be more precise and more explicit, lest it become a sticking point in the smooth implementation of the IMI JI.

6.3.2

Most of the large pharmaceutical companies that operate in Europe have a global dimension. Here too, because of the significant Community funding, it would be appropriate to think about mechanisms that promote a return on European investment. From this perspective, whilst taking care not to create barriers to the use of innovative medicines in non-EU countries, the regulation could contain provisions for all of the phases of research and the production of molecules based on such research to take place within the EU. Similarly, it would be desirable for these same provisions to state that the profits generated by research funded by the IMI JI should be assigned to investments located within the EU.

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/15

1.1

The EESC broadly supports the Commission's strategy. It believes that relaunching investment in R&D is an appropriate way of giving European businesses a stable frame of reference by means of a new instrument that makes it possible to overcome the current fragmentation of Community financing and avoids a wide range of thinly-spread programmes that made it almost impossible to evaluate results.

1.2

The EESC welcomes the proposal that an annual report on ARTEMIS' results be produced. However, the Committee regrets the absence of a detailed assessment of the operation and the results achieved by the former European Technology Platforms.

1.3

The EESC considers that the ARTEMIS joint undertaking, which is based on a public-private partnership, represents a strong basis for the creation of a European research area and a major contribution to the competitiveness of European businesses.

1.4

In supporting the proposal under consideration, the EESC stresses the importance of the innovative strategy that is being proposed in terms of investments, pooling the resources of the EU, businesses, different Member States, and participating R&D bodies.

1.5

In the light of this innovative collaborative structure, which may become complicated when it comes to using the products of the research to be carried out, the EESC welcomes the importance and the detail accorded to intellectual property in Article 24 of the joint undertaking's statutes.

1.6

Finally, the Committee considers the following to be necessary:

2.1

The purpose of the proposed Council Regulation under review is to launch the very first public-private partnerships in the area of R&D. It defines one of the first two Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI). This involves embedded computing systems (1).

2.2

The general aim of JTIs is to allow industry, research organisations, Member States and the Commission to pool some or all of their resources into selected research programmes.

2.3

Unlike the traditional strategy, which involves providing public funding for projects on a case-by-case basis, JTIs involve large-scale research programmes with shared strategic research goals. This new approach is expected to create a critical mass for European research and innovation, consolidate the scientific community in key strategic areas, and harmonise the funding of projects so that research findings can be put to use more quickly.

2.4

This proposal provides the legal framework establishing ARTEMIS, the JTI on embedded computing systems.

2.5

The ARTEMIS JTI involves invisible computers (integrated systems) that make numerous machines work, from cars and planes to phones, and from energy networks to various domestic appliances such as washing machines, televisions, etc.

2.6

Forecasts suggest that there will be more than 16 billion integrated processors in the world by 2010, and more than 40 billion by 2020. In 2010, this unseen hardware and software will represent 30 to 40 % of the value of new products: in consumer electronics (41 %), telecommunications (37 %), cars (36 %) and healthcare equipment (33 %).

2.7

The ARTEMIS budget dedicated to research will total EUR 2,7 billion over seven years. 60 % of this is to come from industry, EUR 410 million from the Commission, and EUR 800 million from Member State programmes.

3.1

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are of fundamental economic and social importance and play a key role in the implementation of the revised Lisbon strategy, which emphasises that knowledge and innovation in the EU help to stimulate growth and jobs.

3.2

At global level, whilst total R&D expenditure is expected to rise by around 170 % over the next ten years, that on embedded systems is expected to increase by 225 %, thus rising from EUR 58 billion in 2002 to EUR 132 billion in 2015 (2).

3.3

In the EU, R&D on ICT represents about 18 % of total R&D expenditure, whereas the figure in the United States is 34 % and in Japan, 35 % (3). Expenditure per inhabitant is around EUR 80, whereas the figure is EUR 350 in the United States and EUR 400 in Japan. Research into embedded systems is a major part of ICT research. In Europe, it represents EUR 380 million of public funds and more than 50 % of businesses' budget for research into information and communication technologies.

3.4

If the EU is to continue to be a player in this sector with great development potential, the EU must increase its investment in this strategic area and make better use of it, rather than relying on a research structure that fragments effort and leads to duplication. EU businesses do not currently have a framework to facilitate the development of the necessary technologies and enabling standards.

3.4.1

In general terms, progress is held back by a lack of coordination of businesses' R&D goals, duplication, and sub-optimal use of limited research funding.

3.4.2

The Commission proposal seeks to change this environment.

4.1

The decision on the establishment of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking set out in COM(2007) 243 final is based on Decision 1982/2006/EEC on the 7th Framework Programme, which provides for a Community contribution towards the establishment of long-term public-private partnerships at European level in the area of scientific research.

4.2

These partnerships take the form of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) and arise from the work of the former European Technology Platforms (ETP).

4.3

The Commission, in its Decision No 971/2006/EEC on the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ (4), emphasised the need to set up public-private partnerships and identified six areas in which the creation of joint technology initiatives is appropriate with a view to relaunching European research. These are:

4.4

Within the context of this general strategy, the regulation contained in proposal COM(2007) 243 under review provides for the implementation of a Council Regulation on the establishment of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in embedded computing systems.

4.5

The choice of an undertaking addressing the key theme of the ‘embedding of intelligence’ is part of a strategic area including the automotive sector, domestic appliances, communications equipment, control systems and office equipment.

4.6

In these sectors, it is expected that the already considerable importance of embedded systems for controlling appliances will increase significantly over the next five years: embedded systems' share of the value of finished goods is expected to reach between 35 and 40 %, and their total number is expected to be 16 billion in 2010 and more than 40 billion in 2020.

4.7

The main reason for setting up a JTI is the desire to create a European research and development programme that will help the European economy to become a world leader in embedded computing systems, which are essential innovations in key sectors for the competitiveness and the development of European businesses.

4.8

The role of an initiative such as ARTEMIS is, according to the Commission, essential to avoid a repeat of what has happened to the European personal computing and internet sector, where production moved away from Europe (to the United States, Japan, and elsewhere) precisely because of the lack of investment in research and innovation.

4.9

The establishment of an ARTEMIS JTI follows a wide-ranging consultation of the relevant stakeholders and a series of major initiatives and conferences at Community level. The aims and objectives of this initiative have been subjected to the prior scrutiny of academia and business, which have brought their expertise in the area of embedded systems to bear on the proposal. The Member States have recognised that the Community level is the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the future.

—

a financial contribution from ARTEMISIA of up to EUR 20 million or up to 1 % of the overall costs of projects, but not exceeding EUR 30 million;

—

a financial contribution from the Community of up to EUR 10 million;

—

in-kind contributions from ARTEMIS Member States.

—

a financial contribution from the Community of up to EUR 410 million;

—

contributions from ARTEMIS Member States, paid directly to research and development organisations participating in R&D projects;

—

in-kind contributions from research and development organisations.

4.12.1

For the period ending on 31 December 2013, the Commission's maximum contribution is to be EUR 420 million. These funds are to be provided from the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development, according to the provisions of Article 54(2) of Council Regulation No 1605/2002. In 2008, 42,5 million are to be committed.

4.12.2

This considerable investment is justified by the fact that the future results of ARTEMIS in the areas concerned will also be important benchmarks for Community policy across the board, inter alia regarding the environment, transport, energy and the internal market. They will also make a tangible contribution to the achievement of the Lisbon competitiveness goals and the Barcelona goals as regards research expenditure. The proposed initiative is part of an ambitious Community strategy which includes, among other things, the proposal to create a European Institute of Technology (EIT).

4.14

According to the Commission, the establishment of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking will offer the Community the following objective benefits:

5.1

The EESC broadly supports the Commission's strategy. It believes that relaunching investment in R&D is an appropriate way of giving European businesses a stable frame of reference by means of a new instrument that makes it possible to overcome the current fragmentation of Community financing and avoids a wide range of thinly-spread programmes that made it almost impossible to evaluate results.

5.2

However, as stated under point 4.2, JTIs arise out of the work of the former European Technology Platforms (ETPs). However, these latter rarely achieved their stated aim of strategically relaunching research in Europe, not least because the stakeholders were insufficiently empowered. The creation of JTIs is based on this acknowledgement of partial failure regarding the role of the ETPs, which was essentially to make a key contribution to industry in the area of competitiveness.

5.2.1

In the light of this, the EESC regrets the absence from the Commission proposal of a more detailed outline of the work previously carried out by the European Technology Platforms (ETPs): there is no assessment, the results are not mentioned, and there are no bibliographical references.

5.2.2

For this reason, with regard to the JTIs, the EESC welcomes the proposal that an annual report, giving an assessment of the results and progress achieved, be submitted.

5.3

The EESC considers that the ARTEMIS joint undertaking, which is based on a public-private partnership, represents a strong basis for the creation of a European research area and a key contribution to the competitiveness of European businesses.

5.4

The future availability of increasingly intelligent systems could make a significant contribution to the production of ever more secure products, whilst at the same time stimulating the provision of high-level training and qualifications and, by extension, the creation and development of jobs.

5.5

In giving a favourable opinion on the proposal under review, the EESC would first of all like to highlight the importance of the innovative strategy that is proposed with regard to investment.

5.5.1

For the first time involving research and development programmes, resources are to be made available not only by the Community and businesses — which is unusual — represented by ARTEMISIA, but also by the various Member States and participating research organisations.

5.5.2

In the light of this innovative collaborative structure, which may become complicated when it comes to using the products of the research to be carried out, the EESC welcomes the importance and the detail accorded to intellectual property in Article 24 of the joint undertaking's statutes.

5.6

However, to achieve its aims and to maximise the potential that this new instrument offers, the EESC considers the following to be necessary:

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/19

1.1

The Committee welcomes the decision on setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. It considers that this approach to relaunching investment in R&D by means of public/private financing has the potential to give European businesses a stable frame of reference and making it possible to overcome the current fragmentation of Community financing and coordinate research, which is often too widely dispersed, thereby helping to make it more effective.

1.2

It welcomes the choice of this sector, which, at the same time as tying in with the Lisbon strategy, gives a new impetus to a technically innovative industry which generates large numbers of highly skilled jobs, and also contributes to much-needed progress in terms of environmental protection.

1.3

In welcoming the proposal under discussion, the EESC wishes firstly to emphasise the importance for the EU of the proposed strategy in terms of promoting investment and coordinating research. In so doing, the Committee feels that the strategy strongly supports the creation of a European research area and significantly contributes to the competitiveness of European businesses in the sector.

1.4

However, in view of the multiplicity of sources of funding, the number of stakeholders, and the substantial Community resources involved, it is clear that the use and ownership of the final products of the research should be better defined, particularly with regard to intellectual property rights and patents.

1.5

Finally, the Committee's feels that the following measures are necessary:

2.1

The purpose of the proposed Council Regulation is to launch one of the very first public-private partnerships in the area of R&D. It defines one of the first Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). This initiative is the field of aeronautics and air transport and is entitled ‘CLEAN SKY’.

2.2

The general aim of JTIs is to allow industry, research organisations, Member States and the Commission to pool some or all of their resources into selected research programmes.

2.3

Unlike the traditional strategy, which involves providing public funding for projects on a case-by-case basis, JTIs involve large-scale research programmes with shared strategic research goals. This new approach is expected to create a critical mass for European research and innovation, consolidate the scientific community in key strategic areas, and harmonise the funding of projects so that research findings can be put to use more quickly. JTIs are aimed at key areas where the current instruments have neither the scale nor the speed to keep Europe ahead of global competition. These are areas where national, European and private funding of research could bring significant added value, inter alia by stimulating an increase in private R&D expenditure.

2.4

The main purpose of the JTI in the field of aeronautics and air transport, known as ‘Clean Sky’, is to speed up the development of clean air transport technologies in the EU so that they can be brought into operation as quickly as possible. In addition to the requirement of maintaining the sector's competitiveness, these technologies should also help to achieve strategic European environmental and social priorities, in combination with sustainable economic growth.

3.1

Given that air traffic is forecast to double over the next twenty years, and that the development of an environment-friendly transport system for both passengers and freight is an essential element in ensuring European economic and social growth, the programme is necessary and justified.

3.2

The decision to act at European level seems appropriate, given that action by stakeholders at Member State level is not so well supported in terms of economic resources and scientific know-how.

3.3

It is crucial for Member States to participate directly, both in order to mobilise financing and because numerous decisions will continue to be taken at national level, with regard both to calls for participation in programmes, ongoing monitoring of all phases of programmes and evaluation of results.

3.4

The aeronautical sector will soon be facing major challenges, such as the environmental impact, which could hold back its development.

3.5

Limiting the impact of aviation on climate change and reducing noise pollution are absolute priorities. In view of this, achieving the reductions envisaged by Community legislation requires major technological changes to be implemented in the near future. (In its Strategic Research Agenda, the European Technology Platform for Aeronautics — ACARE — has set the objectives for 2020 of reducing CO2 emissions by 50 %, NOx emissions by 80 % and noise pollution by 50 %).

3.6

The European aeronautics industry, which currently provides three million jobs in Europe, is also facing fierce competition as a result of the public investment carried out in other geographical areas, and the United States in particular, where the resources allocated to research in this sector are three times higher than those currently available in Europe.

3.7

Public investment is also important given that the sector is characterised by a slow return on investment, with potential scope for market failure on account of lack of investment in aeronautical R&D.

3.8

The choice of aeronautics and air transport in the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ (cf. point 4.3) is motivated by a concern to improve the health and quality of life of present and future generations by reducing the environmental impact of aircraft, improving air quality at local level and limiting noise in areas surrounding airports, as well as improving travelling conditions for passengers.

4.1

The proposed Regulation setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking [COM(2007) 315] arises out of the provisions of the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) covered by Decision 1982/2006/EEC. This provides for a Community contribution towards the establishment of long-term public-private partnerships at European level in the area of research.

4.2

These partnerships take the form of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) and arise from the work of the former European Technology Platforms (ETP).

4.3

The Council, in its Decision No 971/2006/EEC on the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’, emphasised the need to set up public-private partnerships and identified six areas in which the creation of joint technology initiatives is appropriate with a view to relaunching European research. These are:

4.4

In the context of this general strategy, the Regulation proposed in COM(2007) 315 final provides for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) on aeronautics and air transport by means of setting up a Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

4.5

The objectives of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking are explained clearly and in detail in Article 3 of the Statutes set out in the Annex to the Regulation under discussion. These objectives cover a wide and ambitious range of activities, summarised in Article 3 of the Regulation:

4.5.1

Clean Sky therefore ensures integration and coordination of various research activities while tapping into economies of scale. It will be developed around six technological fields referred to as Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), namely:

The technological objectives for each ITD have already been set.

4.6

The Clean Sky joint undertaking is to be considered as an international body with a legal personality within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2004/17/EC and Article 15 of Directive 2004/18/EC. Its seat will be in Brussels and its activities will cease in December 2017, unless extended by Council decision.

4.7.1

The proposal consists of a Council Regulation with the statutes of the joint undertaking in an annex. It is based on Article 171 of the Treaty. The joint undertaking is to be a Community body, and although its budget falls under Article 185 of Council Regulation 1605/2002, it will have to take account of the specifics of this initiative in that it involves public-private partnerships with a large private-sector contribution at least equal to that of the public sector.

—

the European Community represented by the Commission;

—

12 ITD leaders and up to 74 Associates, subject to the membership rules set out in Article 2 of the Statutes in the Annex to the Regulation under discussion;

—

any public or private entity established in a Member State or in a country associated to the Seventh Framework Programme may apply to become a member of the joint undertaking, provided that: as ITD Leaders, they commit themselves to contribute resources proportional to and consistent with the overall JTI activities; as Associates, their commitment is proportional to the budget of the ITD they participate in and consistent with the ITD requirements.

4.9.1

The running cost of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking are to be shared equally in cash between on the one hand the European Community, and on the other hand the rest of the Members, each side contributing 50 %.

4.9.2

The maximum Community contribution to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking covering running costs and research activities is EUR 800 million, paid from the budget appropriation allocated to the Theme ‘Transport’ of the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme according to the provisions of Article 54 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002.

5.1

The Committee welcomes the decision on setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking arising out of the provisions of the 7th Framework Programme. It believes that relaunching investment in R&D is an appropriate way of giving European businesses a stable frame of reference in the form of a new instrument that makes it possible to overcome the current fragmentation of Community financing and avoids a wide range of thinly-spread programmes that made it almost impossible to evaluate results.

5.2

The initiative is consistent with EU policies and objectives and ties in with the approach set out in the Lisbon strategy with its emphasis on knowledge and innovation in the Community supporting growth and employment. It includes measures relating to the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and should be conducive to major progress in implementing the Strategic Research Agenda of ACARE on the environment.

5.3

The EESC considers that the Clean Sky undertaking, which like the other JTIs arising from the Seventh Framework Programme is based on a public-private partnership, provides a solid basis for the creation of a European research area and a major contribution to the competitiveness of European businesses.

5.4

In welcoming the proposal under discussion, the EESC must firstly underline the importance for the EU of the strategy being proposed for investment and coordination of research.

5.5

However, in the light of the multiple financing system that has been set up and of the significant volume of Community resources involved, the EESC believes that it would be appropriate to better define the use and allocation of the end products of the research in question. To this end, the issue of patents and intellectual property as defined in Article 20 of the regulation, which limits itself to setting out principles, ought to be more precise and more explicit, lest it become a sticking point in the implementation and running of the Clean Sky JTI.

5.6

However, to achieve its aims and to maximise the potential that this new instrument offers, the EESC considers the following to be necessary:

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/22

1.1

The Committee welcomes the decision on setting up the ENIAC joint undertaking (1).

1.1.1

It considers that this approach to relaunching investment in R&D by means of public/private financing has the potential to give European businesses a stable frame of reference and making it possible to overcome the current fragmentation of Community financing and coordinate research, which is often too widely dispersed, thereby helping to make it more effective.

1.2

It welcomes the choice of this sector. This is a technically innovative branch of industry, with strong potential for the future and as a source of highly skilled jobs, and developing it will directly contribute to achieving the Lisbon objectives on competitiveness and the Barcelona objectives on percentage of GDP allocated to research, and also to other Community policies, for example on the environment, transport, energy and health.

1.3

In welcoming the proposal under discussion, the EESC wishes firstly to underline the importance for the EU of the strategy being proposed for investment and coordination of research. In so doing, the Committee feels that the strategy strongly supports the creation of a European research area and significantly contributes to the competitiveness of European businesses in the sector.

1.4

In the light of this innovative collaborative structure, which may become complicated when it comes to using the products of the research to be carried out by ENIAC and their industrial application phase, the EESC appreciates the attention which has been paid to intellectual property rules.

1.5

The Committee is pleased to note that particular attention has been paid to the risk of nanoelectronic manufacturing relocating to other parts of the world. The EESC supports the idea of a specialised sectoral approach.

1.6

Finally, to maximise the potential that this new instrument offers, the EESC considers the following to be necessary:

2.1

The purpose of the proposed Regulation is to launch one of the very first public-private partnerships in the area of R&D. It defines one of the first Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI). This initiative is the field of nanotechnologies and is entitled ENIAC.

2.2

The general aim of JTIs is to allow industry, Member States and the Commission to pool some or all of their resources into selected research programmes.

2.3

Unlike the traditional strategy, which involves providing public funding for projects on a case-by-case basis, JTIs involve large-scale research programmes with shared strategic research goals. This new approach is expected to create a critical mass for European research and innovation, consolidate the scientific community in key strategic areas, and harmonise the funding of projects so that research findings can be put to use more quickly. JTIs are aimed at key areas where the current instruments have neither the scale nor the speed to keep Europe ahead of global competition. These are areas where national, European and private funding of research could bring significant added value, inter alia by stimulating an increase in private R&D expenditure.

2.4

The main purpose of the JTI in the field of nanoelectronics, known as ENIAC, is to contribute to the development of key competences for nanoelectronics in order to strengthen European competitiveness. To this end, the proposal under review lays down the legal framework establishing ENIAC.

3.1

With constant growth in the numbers of electronic components in innovative hi-tech products, the nanotechnology sector is of strategic importance for European competitiveness and industrial growth.

3.2

This sector produces equipment which is essential for major industries in a wide variety of fields such as telecommunications, consumer products, multimedia services, education, transport, healthcare, security and the environment.

3.3

An average annual growth rate of 15 % is forecast for the market for the industrial nanotechnology sector (which apart from direct manufacturers also comprises suppliers of manufacturing instruments and materials). In order to maintain such a high growth rate, close attention needs to be paid to the sector.

3.4

A Community-wide initiative must therefore seek to preserve and strengthen global leadership in the relevant sectors, by means of R&D programmes that can achieve the necessary objectives for industrial exploitation, at the same time as pursuing more ambitious technological objectives, aiming for increased competitiveness, and creating highly skilled new jobs.

3.5

The choice of a public-private joint undertaking should make it possible to substantially improve the quality of R&D in the sector. This is vital to overcome the current fragmentation of research programmes in the various Member States which are unable to reach critical mass and lack the necessary resources to fund appropriate programmes.

3.6

The choice of a European dimension appears to be essential, given that it is the only option for meeting the major challenges facing the nanotechnology sector.

3.7

In addition, reaffirming the Community dimension should enable simpler administration and less red tape, with a single Community procedure replacing various national procedures and reducing the time needed to obtain a R&D contract compared to the current situation at Community level (see EUREKA); this would also avoid differences between evaluation and monitoring procedures.

3.8

Setting up a public-private undertaking which directly involves Member States and companies from the relevant sectors is an innovative step compared to the current procedures for participating in Community R&D programmes. Besides, the considerable financial resources which the programmes proposes to allocate at Community level will enable critical economic mass to be achieved, which is essential if the ambitious objectives set by the programme are to be achieved.

3.9

The participation of Member States and companies, and their direct involvement by means of contributing at least of 50 % of research-linked expenditure, will have a multiplier effect in the form of an impetus for new financing and a strong contribution to the development of a European research area.

3.10

It is essential for Member States to participate directly, not only in order to mobilise investment but also — and mainly — because decisions will continue to be taken at national level, for example on calls for proposals and ongoing direct monitoring of all phases of the process.

3.11

Direct participation by industry is also essential in that the results of this ambitious R&D programme could help to achieve important and relevant objectives relating to the competitiveness of European industry in the sector, and consequently have a beneficial impact on employment in the sector.

4.1

The starting point for research programmes is the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). This programme is based on a strong awareness that relaunching investment in R&D is vital for a competitive and dynamic economy.

4.2

Setting up a ENIAC JTI joint undertaking will directly contribute to achieving the Lisbon objectives on competitiveness and the Barcelona objectives on research expenditure. It will contribute indirectly to other Community policies, e.g. on the environment, transport, energy and health.

4.3

The main frame of reference underpinning the ENIAC JTI is provided by ‘Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005-2009’ [COM(2005) 243 final] and the work of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENHIR).

5.1

The decision on the establishment of the ENIAC joint undertaking described in COM(2007) 356 final is based on Decision 1982/2006/EEC on the 7th Framework Programme, which provides for a Community contribution towards the establishment of long-term public-private partnerships at European level in the area of scientific research.

5.2

These partnerships take the form of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) and arise from the work of the former European Technology Platforms (ETP).

5.3

The Commission, in its Decision No 971/2006/EEC on the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ (2), emphasised the need to set up public-private partnerships and identified six areas in which the creation of joint technology initiatives is appropriate with a view to relaunching European research. These are:

5.4

In the context of this general strategy, the Regulation proposed in COM(2007) 356 final provides for the setting up of an ENIAC joint undertaking in the field of nanoelectronics.

5.5

The ENIAC joint undertaking is to be considered as an international body with a legal personality within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2004/17/EC and Article 15 of Directive 2004/18/EC. Its seat will be in Brussels and its activities will cease in December 2017, unless extended by Council decision.

5.8.1

The operating costs of the ENIAC joint undertaking set out in Article 4 are to be borne by the following contributions:

The R&D activities of the ENIAC joint undertaking for the period ending on 31 December 2017 are to be supported by the following contributions:

5.8.2

For the period ending on 31 December 2013, the Commission's maximum contribution is to be EUR 450 million. These funds are to be provided from the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development, according to the provisions of Article 54(2) of Council Regulation No 1605/2002.

—

to define and implement a ‘Research Agenda’ for the development of key competences for nanoelectronics in order to strengthen the competitiveness and sustainability of European businesses, and allow the emergence of new markets;

—

to support the implementation of R&D activities by awarding funding to participants in selected projects;

—

to promote a public-private partnership aimed at mobilising and pooling Community, national and private efforts, and fostering collaboration between the public and private sectors;

—

to ensure the efficiency and durability of the joint technology initiative on nanoelectronics;

—

to achieve synergy and coordination of European R&D efforts including the progressive integration in the ENIAC joint undertaking of the related activities in this field currently implemented through intergovernmental R&D schemes (Eureka).

6.1

The Committee welcomes the decision on setting up the ENIAC joint undertaking and the accompanying draft regulation. In welcoming the proposal under discussion, the EESC wishes firstly to underline the importance for the EU of the strategy being proposed for investment and coordination of research.

6.2

As the Committee has already stated in its opinions on other regulations arising from Council decision 971/2006/EEC on the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’, it believes that relaunching investment in R&D is an appropriate way of giving European businesses a stable frame of reference that makes it possible to overcome the current fragmentation of Community financing and avoids a wide range of thinly-spread programmes.

6.3

The initiative is consistent with EU policies and objectives and ties in with the approach set out in the Lisbon strategy with its emphasis on knowledge and innovation in the Community supporting growth and employment. Nanotechnology plays a vital role in that it has become a driver for innovation in numerous sectors of strategic importance for EU development and growth (mobile communications, transport, computing, automating manufacture, healthcare, etc.). The joint undertaking could be a tool enabling Europe to maintain or even enhance its capacity to design and manufacture products complying with its own standards on quality, sustainability and environmental protection. Setting up such an undertaking provides a solid basis for the creation of a European research area and a major contribution to the competitiveness of European businesses.

6.4

The Committee is pleased to note that, in the impact analysis accompanying the draft regulation on this JTI, particular attention has been paid to the risk of nanoelectronic manufacturing relocating to other parts of the world. This is important in that such manufacture offers strong added value in terms of generating growth and employment at the same time as earning a partial return on the funds which the EU proposes to invest in developing this sector. In view of this the EESC supports the idea of a specialised sectoral approach to support this key industry.

6.5

In the light of this innovative collaborative structure, which may become complicated when it comes to using the products of the research to be carried out by ENIAC and their industrial application phase, the EESC appreciates the attention which has been paid to the definition of intellectual property rules set out in Article 23 of the Statute. At the same time, it is pleased that the action plan relating to the regulation pays close attention to health and safety issues.

6.6

To achieve the aims of the joint undertaking and to maximise the potential that this new instrument offers, the Committee considers the following to be necessary:

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/27

1.1

Following up its opinions on the Green Paper on the Community acquis  (1) and on the Commission communication on the implementation of the directive on distance contracts (2), the EESC supports the Commission's initiative to carry out a revision of Directive 94/47/EC (3) of 26 October 1994 in the form proposed, taking on board the Committee's comments and recommendations (4).

1.2

The EESC broadly agrees with the thrust of the Commission proposal as regards extending the directive's scope, defining and clarifying the nature of new products, strengthening requirements for pre-contractual and contractual information, standardising the withdrawal period and prohibiting any payment, for any reason whatsoever, during this period.

1.3

The Committee welcomes the light-handed approach of this proposal, giving Member States the option of taking further steps to protect consumers, in line with the principles set out in the Treaty. The EESC considers, however, that according to the Commission's own rationale, as expressed in its Green Paper on the Review of the Community Acquis, if any area justifies maximum harmonisation, it is precisely this one, because of the unique nature of the right in question and because of the major discrepancies at national level in the design and specific characteristics of its multifaceted legal nature, which has extremely divergent consequences in the different national legal systems, specifically as regards the minimum and maximum duration and the annulment, invalidation, termination or cancellation of contracts.

1.4

The Committee, therefore, regrets that although the Commission acknowledges that most of the problems occurring in this sector are frequently cross-border in nature and consequently cannot be solved properly by Member States on their own, due to the differences in national legislation, it ultimately does no more than address a limited number of aspects relating to these rights. Once again, an entire range of situations is left to the discretion of the Member States and this does almost nothing to remedy the problems listed in the proposal.

1.5

Furthermore, although the EESC agrees with the adoption of a system of ‘minimum harmonisation’, it considers, in line with other Community institutions (5), that the bar for measures protecting consumers' rights has been set too low. Experience shows that the vast majority of Member States have not made use of this clause and have on the contrary, adopted a literal approach (6). Consequently, an appropriate level of consumer protection has not been achieved and the EESC thus calls on the Commission, with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity, to regulate other, equally important aspects in the proposal, taking as its premise a higher level of consumer protection.

1.6

The Committee therefore suggests that improvements be made to a number of provisions concerning the legal system applying to the rights in question, the content of the main contract and its relationship with complementary contracts, specifically for non-linked credit, in order to enhance and guarantee adequate consumer protection.

1.7

As in previous opinions (7), the EESC also wishes to highlight the importance of providing contracting parties — particularly less well-informed consumers — with proper information. The EESC thus considers that it would be useful not to exclude the possibility of Member States adopting proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for practices that seriously infringe the rights set out in the directive, the basic features of which would have to be properly detailed.

1.8

The Committee urges the Commission to carry out a detailed analysis of the responses it received to its Consultation Paper (8), in particular as regards the Member States consulted through this document that were not covered in the report (9) on the application of the directive, which covered only 15 Member States. The Commission should also scrutinise the Comparative Analysis, which covers 25 Member States (10), focusing on the differences between the Member States.

1.9

Specifically, the EESC proposes a range of amendments (11) and puts forward a number of recommendations aimed at improving legal aspects of the proposal and at consolidating and harmonising ideas, concepts or practices already contained in other directives, specifically in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (12). These need to be taken into account in order to promote consumer security and confidence in this type of contract, which is so often underpinned by aggressive marketing and sales campaigns (13).

2.1

The Commission proposes a revision of Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis. The proposal follows the Council conclusions of 13 April 2000 on its report on the application of the directive (14) and the recommendations made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 4 July 2002 (15).

2.2

Since the Commission Communication on Consumer Policy Strategy for 2002-2006 (16), a revision of this directive has been planned and forms part of what is known as the ‘consumer acquis communautaire’, set out in the Green Paper on the matter (17).

2.3

Turning to situations causing problems for the directive's application, the Commission considers that market developments in the sector have brought a considerable number of new products which, whilst involving the use of holiday accommodation, do not fall within the directive's scope.

2.4

The report drawn up by the Commission in 1999 on the Application of Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and Council (18), already highlighted countless shortcomings in the directive's transposal, and its conclusions were adopted by the Council in April 2000 (19), setting out a range of factors that should be taken into account in any revision of the directive.

2.5

The 2001 opinion of the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (20) also highlighted the ‘lowest acceptable level of consumer protection measures’ set out in the directive.

2.6

In turn, the European Parliament's resolution of 4 July 2002 recommended that the Commission adopt measures to guarantee a high level of consumer protection.

2.7

For these reasons, the Commission considers that revising this directive on its own is an ‘urgent matter’, and even a ‘priority’ due to the ‘problems faced by consumers, in particular in relation to resale and the new products’, which are ‘similarly marketed and economically broadly similar to timeshare’, such as ‘holiday discount clubs and … resale contracts’.

2.8

Amongst the main justifications for this, the Commission highlights the need to update the requirements for pre-contractual and contractual information, to standardise arrangements for banning deposits or advance payments during the withdrawal period, to harmonise the withdrawal period and to consider the possibility of introducing criminal sanctions.

2.9

The main parties concerned were consulted at meetings held between 2004 and 2006.

2.10

Having received a number of timeshare-related complaints, in particular concerning new products such as holiday clubs, discount tourist contracts and exchange and resale contracts, the Commission then published a consultation paper (21). These issues were also discussed at the meeting of the standing working group of Member States' experts on the Review of the Acquis, in March 2006.

2.11

The proposed revision is included in the Commission programme for modernising and simplifying the Community acquis  (22).

2.12

The Commission considers that the legal basis for this proposal should remain confined to Article 95 of the Treaty (completion of the internal market) and that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it should not comment on the legal nature of timeshare rights, respecting the Member States' different views on the matter.

2.13

The Commission emphasises the cross-border aspects of the problem, and in fact considers that ‘The […] majority of consumer complaints are of a cross-border nature’. However, it only targets those aspects it considers to be ‘most problematic, and hence necessitating Community action’, leaving all other aspects to national legislation. Indeed, it has removed any reference to the rights to cancel or terminate a contract (which were covered by Directive 94/47/EC), even when these are linked to the right of withdrawal.

3.1.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission initiative but notes its tardiness, given that the problems were detected as long ago as 1999 and thus solutions to them could have been found some considerable time ago.

3.1.2

The EESC also wishes to point out that some of the issues referred to in this document were already raised in its opinion of 24 February 1993 (23) when the directive was being drawn up.

3.1.3

The Committee considers that the legal basis should be Article 153 of the Treaty rather than Article 95, because this is not a matter that concerns the single market alone; it is also an issue of consumer protection.

3.1.4

The EESC agrees with extending the scope of the proposal to cover certain movable properties, in order to address the constant new developments in the market effectively.

3.1.5

The Committee endorses the proposal's amendments to existing definitions (24), because they are more appropriate to the new products now being marketed in this sector.

3.1.6

The EESC supports the retention of the ban on any payment or type of deposit, because this ban is an effective means of enabling consumers to exercise their right to withdraw from a contract, without any economic pressure being exerted on them. It also considers that extending the provisions to third parties will satisfactorily cover exchange and resale contracts.

3.1.7

The Committee welcomes extension of the cooling-off period to 14 days, thus standardising deadlines for this process, although it would prefer this deadline to be counted in working days rather than calendar days, as it has stated in earlier opinions (25). It is worth pointing out that when the Council adopted Directive 97/7/EC, it issued a statement calling on the Commission to look into the possibility of harmonising the methods for calculating the cooling-off period contained in the consumer protection directives.

3.1.8

As stated in earlier opinions (26), and without prejudice to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the proposal, the EESC considers it crucial that the Commission provide a more detailed definition of the nature, limitations and effects of the rights of withdrawal, termination and cancellation. Otherwise, the sought-after approximation of legislation will not be achieved because each Member State will adopt its own regulations, with inevitable detrimental consequences for developing cross-border relations.

3.1.9

As the aim of this directive is to approximate national legislation on this type of right, the EESC considers that, in contrast with recital 4 of the proposal and despite the differences that exist between the different countries, the Commission should go further, by determining the legal nature (27) of these rights, in other words, whether they are real rights (in rem) or credit-related rights. Otherwise, this proposal will not help to solve the problems detected. It should thus set down the basic requirements for complying with the right and, in particular, if it takes the form of a real right (in rem), the inevitable consequences for registration.

3.1.9.1

The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to establish a definition of the legal nature of timeshare rights, whether these take the form of a real right (in rem) or a right relating to a personal obligation (the right to a service), with the inevitable consequences for the applicable principles of the Brussels Regulation and the Rome I Regulation. Unless this is done, the much-desired harmonisation and the confidence of consumers and traders will not be attained. In fact, in its opinion referred to above (28), the EESC has already contributed to this definition by stating that the timeshare contract ‘is a real right (in rem) or a personal right (in personam). It is not a tenancy right, since tenancy rights do not entail a transfer. The transferred right applies to an undivided item — an undivided apartment — and takes on (or can take on) the nature of a real property right’.

3.1.10

Without prejudice to the legal form taken by this right, which could be ‘sui generis’ — or indeed, for this very reason — the EESC agrees with the proposal's identification of some of its key aspects: the coverage of both movable and immovable property, together with the right to use accommodation (implying an overnight stay), against payment of a ‘consideration’, for a minimum duration of one year.

3.1.11

In addition to the products already listed in Article 2, the Committee calls on the Commission to lay down a clause (containing a definition of key aspects) to facilitate adaptation to any product that might in future (29) be placed on the market after the entry into force of the directive and which cannot meet the requirements set out in these definitions of new products.

3.1.12

The EESC considers that the possibility of consumers having to reimburse or pay any sum for having exercised the right of withdrawal in due time clearly undermines this right, which is based on the idea that the consumer does not have to give any reason or pay any amount whatsoever. Articles 5(5) and 5(6) of the proposal should thus be deleted.

3.1.13

The Committee draws the Commission's attention to the reference made to the recently adopted Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (30), with which it agrees. The Committee points out, however, that Articles 14 and 15 of that directive make no reference to the directive currently in force and nor is any such reference provided for in the proposal now under consideration.

3.1.14

Although it agrees with the principle of minimum harmonisation, the EESC considers that the proposed directive is more restrictive than the one currently in force, in that whilst providing for the possibility that Member States can adopt measures affording greater protection to consumers' rights, it only does so for the right of withdrawal (concerning the starting point, modalities and effect of exercising this right). Article 11 of the directive in force (31), however, enables this option to be used more widely. The EESC thus calls on the Commission to retain a similar provision.

3.1.15

The Committee considers that the Commission should provide for an effective system of sanctions, aimed not only at deterring practices that infringe the obligations set out in the directive, but also for reasons of legal certainty and security (32). The Committee supports the possibility that, within the framework previously defined by the Commission (33), the Member States and not the Commission might introduce criminal sanctions that are proportionate but sufficient to deter particularly serious abusive practices.

3.1.16

The EESC agrees with the inclusion of a regular review clause — absent from the current directive — to prevent it from rapidly becoming obsolete.

3.1.17

Although cases have been brought against some Member States (34) for having transposed some of the directive's provisions incorrectly, the EESC is surprised to note the Commission's failure to act, in particular as regards non-compliance with the deadline for transposing the directive (30 April 1997). Only two Member States (35) met this deadline. The Committee thus calls on the Commission, where the new directive is concerned, to be less easy-going on such flagrant breaches in the implementation of Community law.

3.2.1

The EESC considers that the definition given in Article 2(1)(g), tying in with the provisions of Article 7, is too restrictive, because what characterises the ancillary nature of contracts is the complementarity between them. It is therefore complementarity rather than subordination that should be considered, because most contracts with linked credit in particular are extrinsic combinations of contracts which, due to their legal nature, are legally separate and as such do not fit the definition now being proposed.

3.2.2

The Committee disagrees with the wording of Article 3(2), in particular as regards written information, which will only be given to a consumer ‘requesting’ it and ‘where applicable’. As this article concerns pre-contractual information, on the basis of which a consumer will form his or her decision to sign the contract, the EESC considers that the provision of such written information should be compulsory, and urges the Commission to include this stipulation.

3.2.3

The Committee calls on the Commission to replace Articles 3(4) and 4(1) and paragraphs (l) of Annex I, (f) of Annex III and d) of Annex IV with provisions similar to those contained in Article 4 of the current directive (36), which affords greater protection to consumers. Not only does it make the provision of information in the language of the consumer's Member State compulsory; it also requires a certified translation into the language of the Member State in which the property is located, specifically for issues relating to any registration requirements.

3.2.3.1

In fact, the EESC can foresee the widespread adoption by traders of standard contracts in which consumers are restricted to confirming the language selected, without any freedom to assert their choice or to negotiate; this could seriously harm their economic interests.

3.2.4

The Committee calls on the Commission to amend the wording of Article 4(2), specifically by deleting the phrase ‘unless the parties expressly agree otherwise’, given that this is significant information that should not be left to the discretion of the parties concerned. Past experience has shown that the inclusion of this phrase will cause traders unilaterally to propose standard contracts which the consumer has no choice but to accept.

3.2.4.1

For reasons of legal certainty and security, the EESC also considers that the Commission should clarify/standardise the type of ‘circumstances beyond the trader's control’ that will form an integral part of the contract under the terms of Article 4(2).

3.2.4.2

Also concerning this article, the Committee urges the Commission to lay down the method of communicating this information, which should be provided in an appropriate, objective and clear manner (37), and should also be printed in letters of a size that makes the text easy to read (38).

3.2.5

The Committee suggests that the Commission clarify the phrase ‘the trader shall explicitly draw the consumer's attention’ in Article 4(3), because its specific legal meaning is unclear.

3.2.6

If Article 5(1) is to be understood as providing for two periods for exercising the right of withdrawal, then the EESC calls on the Commission to lay down only one provision giving the consumer the right to withdraw up to 14 days after signing the final contract, if this has been preceded by an earlier binding contract, provided that the property has not been used in the meantime.

3.2.7

As it has in previous opinions, the Committee urges the Commission to define the nature of the communication informing of the right of withdrawal, so as to ensure that both parties have proof that the information has been conveyed. In fact, the wording used in the current directive is more appropriate (39).

3.2.8

The EESC considers that the heading of Article 8 should be replaced by the phrase ‘mandatory nature of the rights’ given that the purpose of this article is not to establish the imperative nature of the directive but to ensure that those rights are not excluded or restricted, irrespective of which legislation applies.

3.2.9

As regards judicial and administrative redress, the Committee considers the provisions contained in Articles 11 and 12 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (40) to be more appropriate, because they are more wide-ranging and comprehensive. The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to replace Article 9 of its proposal with rules similar to those.

3.2.10

The EESC wishes to draw the Commission's attention to the wording of the various language versions of its proposal because there are matters that require more careful translation (41).

4.1

The EESC considers that, in addition to the omissions already referred to above, the proposal overlooks other issues that might warrant consideration in a revision of the directive.

This applies specifically to:

—

[…] the contract and the document referred to in Article 3(1) are drawn up in the language or one of the languages of the Member State in which the purchaser is resident or in the language or one of the languages of the Member State of which he is national, […] at the purchaser's option. The Member State in which the purchaser is resident may, however, require that the contract be drawn up in all cases in at least its language or language […]

—

and — the vendor provides the purchaser with a certified translation of the contract in the language or one of the languages of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated.’.

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/33

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/33

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/34

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/34

1.1

The Committee takes issues relating to energy efficiency, climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions very seriously, and in general agrees with the conclusions of the Spring European Council of 8 and 9 March, drawing attention to the three pillars of the Energy Policy for Europe:

1.2

In its Biofuels Progress Report, the Commission points out that without mandatory objectives, it will be impossible to achieve a satisfactory level of biofuels use. It argues that the target of a 5,75 % market share by 2010 is not realistic and that consequently, in order to meet the requirements laid down by the Council, an objective of 10 % by 2020 — considered by the Commission to be achievable — should be set, using the possibility offered by Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/30/EC, known as the ‘review clause’. Strangely enough, the Commission points to the benefits of a scenario in which use of biofuels stands at 14 %, although the declared objective is 10 % — the communication indulges in a display of window-dressing, suggesting unrealistic results.

1.3

The use of first-generation biofuels, however, entails many difficulties, and they do not fully meet European aims. The production costs are high, as are the environmental costs, they take cereals away from human and animal consumption and, as argued by the FAO, they are in part responsible for increasing cereal prices on world markets.

1.4

The use of biofuels therefore raises ethical issues, such as food-fuel competition, which the Commission seems to minimise. The Committee underlines the need for closer cooperation with global institutions and agencies working in the sphere of agriculture and food, such as the FAO and the WFP (World Food Programme).

1.5

Neither the Commission document nor the attached impact study mention some serious difficulties.

Particular attention should be given to the following problems concerning biodiesel:

Ethanol, in turn, is affected by the following problems:

1.6

The Committee emphasises the need for the social, environmental and economic impact of the development of biofuels, together with the related technical issues, to be carefully assessed. The specific question arises of the biofuel yield from raw materials: 1 tonne of beet yields some 400 litres of bioethanol (approximately 1 500 Mcal). Given the energy required to convert biomass into biofuel, this ratio appears uneconomic and inefficient. It would be far more efficient to use biomass directly to produce electrical energy or heating, or for maritime or urban public transport.

1.7

The Committee points out that, from a strictly environmental point of view, thought needs to be given to risks of deforestation and those arising from the storage of raw materials. The related biological and biochemical issues must be clearly and carefully examined.

1.8

The Committee would also raise an issue of ‘scientific ethics’. Planet Earth is an open system, inexorably declining towards a point of equilibrium which will signal its end. It is the responsibility of scientists to slow this downward trend, and it is the responsibility of politics to facilitate the necessary work and studies.

1.9

The Committee recommends that a serious analysis be carried out to find out if the chemical processes of combustion involving molecules other than hydrocarbons may cause the formation and development of free radicals responsible for oxidative stress, which is considered to be a pathological state preliminary to more serious illnesses. This recommendation is justified by the lack of data available in this area.

1.10

The Committee considers special care and protection of the soil to be essential. It must be protected, as it protects us. The progressive contraction and deterioration of the water-bearing strata is caused by misguided exploitation policies and impoverishment of the soil. Crop rotation should be guaranteed in order to facilitate soil recovery.

1.11

The Committee urges the Commission and all the European institutions to focus closely on water consumption in the production of biofuels. Among the many harmful effects of climate change, shrinking water resources may reach crisis proportions in some regions. Recent IWMI studies have calculated that a minimum of 1 000 litres, and possibly as much as 4 000 litres of water are needed to produce one litre of biofuel, depending on the type of product and the area of production.

1.12

Apart from these concerns, which could be alleviated if monitoring and certification measures were to be adopted covering biofuels production methods, in part by means of product traceability, the Committee believes that further support should be given to research and development of second- and even third-generation biofuels such as biobutanol. Biobutanol has low vapour pressure and shows tolerance to water contamination in petrol blends, facilitating its use in existing petrol resupply and distribution channels. Biobutanol can be mixed with petrol in higher concentrations than existing biofuels, with no need to modify vehicles. Furthermore, it offers higher fuel economies than petrol-ethanol blends, thus improving energy efficiency and reducing consumption per litre. The new generation fuels provide high energy yields and low environmental costs by using refuse and biochemistry to facilitate natural processes for breaking down cellulose, which are complex and costly.

1.13

The Committee also believes that the development of biofuels could provide the European economy with opportunities, and thereby help to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon agenda. The 7th Framework Programme specifically provides for this type of action, but better synergies are needed between the various stakeholders: farm producers and the processing industry, but also environmental and local area conservation associations, and workers' organisations, who have a growing interest in combining sustainable development with ever-more advanced models for corporate social responsibility.

1.14

The opportunities that the farming sector detects in the development of biofuels should be encouraged, insofar as farmers also undertake to help protect primary environmental assets and safeguard shared resources, such as water and food for human and animal consumption. It is the task of farmers' associations to keep rural communities informed about any rules devised by the international community to govern the production and sale of biofuels. The dissemination of certification, traceability and conformity control practices are all topics on which the various agricultural organisations are expected to offer vital input, both at European level and nationally and locally. The Committee is willing to cooperate with national ESCs — which have previously expressed a lively interest, and are providing input for some of the Committee's own opinions — in this area and in others regarding energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

1.15

On the question of tax treatment, it is clear that the range of candidates for public assistance is endless — especially as regards duties on biofuels and assistance for farmers, for the car industry in sustaining the necessary research expenditure, for consumers regarding the work required on vehicles not designed to use biofuels, and for biofuel manufacturers. Germany has recently cut its tax incentives significantly, triggering an immediate fall in consumption, and equally prompt protests from industry. Investment requires certainty and stability, but the biofuels markets are still virtually non-existent. Any aid granted, however, must not serve to distort competition.

1.16

The transport sector, for its part, is not subject to the emissions quotas system. The Committee suggests that the Commission examine the possibility of extending the emissions certificates system to transport, as they may provide a further spur to enhance efficiency in the search for new solutions to reduce harmful emissions. The Committee is preparing a working hypothesis in a specific exploratory opinion, requested by Commission vice-president Barrot.

1.17

The Committee agrees with the EP resolution on a strategy for biomass and biofuels, which calls on the Commission to introduce a mandatory and comprehensive certification scheme allowing the sustainable production of biofuels at all stages, and to support the development and use of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) system to monitor land use in the production of bioethanol so as to prevent the destruction of rainforests and other negative impacts on the environment.

1.18

In view of the problems identified in this opinion, the Committee urges the Commission to keep the 10 % target under continuing review, and to be ready to bring forward proposals to modify it if the problems cannot be resolved in a satisfactory and sustainable way.

2.1

The Commission introduces its Report on the progress made in the use of biofuels by emphasising the fact that, for the 2005-2020 period, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (in this case only CO2) of 77 million tonnes per annum is expected in the transport sector alone, accounting for more than 60 % of the total increase in emissions, which is expected to reach 126 million tonnes per annum.

2.2

Another key factor highlighted is transport's almost complete dependence on oil imports, which is the energy source presenting the most acute security of supply challenge. Such dependence would diminish if the use of biofuels were to increase significantly.

2.3

The benefits of developing biofuels in terms of reduced greenhouse gases will not be felt if, for example, existing crops are converted or land rich in biodiversity (such as rainforest) is used.

2.4

The market share of biofuels was 0,3 % in 2001, and only five Member States had any experience in their use. While not laying down any obligations, Directive 2003/30/EC set a target for 2010 of a 5,75 % share of the market for petrol and diesel in transport, with an interim target of 2 % for 2005.

2.5

Article 4(2) of the directive contains a review clause enabling the Commission to submit proposals for mandatory national targets in the event of significant and unjustified slippage with respect to the 2 % target.

2.6

The Common Agricultural Policy has a key role to play, especially since the 2003 reform. By decoupling the payments made to farmers from the crops produced, the reform has allowed set-aside land to be switched to non-food crops, frequently for the production of biofuels.

2.7

A premium for ‘energy crops’ will be paid in 2007, combined with policies to promote the production of wood energy and support for renewable energies under rural development policy (1).

2.8

The use of biofuels has grown significantly, but only two Member States reached the targets set, the overall result being 1 % in 2005 — 1,6 % for biodiesel and 0,4 % for ethanol. On this basis, the Commission concludes that the 5,75 % target for 2010 will not be achieved.

2.9

Experience shows that positive results have been achieved through both tax incentive policies, with no limits on the amounts eligible, and by obliging suppliers to put a specified percentage of biofuels on the market. The Commission considers that obligations represent the most effective approach.

2.10

The Commission states in its communication that: ‘There is a pressing need for the Union to send a clear signal of its determination to reduce its dependence on oil use in transport’. It views biofuels as the only practical means of insuring against high oil prices.

2.11

This signal must be in the form of legally binding targets if it is to carry any weight with the oil producers, who sell 300 million tonnes of oil on the EU market in the transport sector alone.

2.12

The strategy most likely to succeed is to promote joint research and technological development in the 27 Member States. A 10 % market share by 2020 would be a realistic target.

2.13

A clear legal framework, with the minimum administrative burden, setting intermediate objectives — e.g. for 2015 — is essential if vehicle manufacturers are to be able to adapt their design processes.

2.14

In analysing the economic and environmental impact, a number of scenarios are presented in connection, on the one hand, with the evolution of oil prices, imports and the competitiveness of agricultural prices and, on the other, with the development of new technologies that might spur the growth of ‘second-generation’ biofuels, helping to reduce the environmental cost.

2.15

In cost terms, an assumed increase in the use of biofuels to reach 14 % would generate additional costs of between EUR 11,5 and 17,2 billion in 2020 with an oil price around the USD 48/barrel mark, and between EUR 5,2 and 11,4 billion at USD 70/barrel. The break-even points for biodiesel and bioethanol lie in the EUR 69-76/barrel and EUR 63-85/barrel ranges respectively (USD 92,76-102,18/barrel and USD 84,76-114,28/barrel, at an exchange rate on 25 May 2007 of USD 1,3444 to the Euro).

2.16

The reduced cost of storing reserves — still working on the 14 % in 2020 hypothesis — would produce savings of up to EUR 1 billion (EUR 720 million with the 10 % scenario). A supply mix from third countries and Member States represents the best solution, together with the desirable arrival on the market of second- generation biofuels.

2.17

This scenario would have positive effects on employment, creating 144 000 more jobs (100 000 under the 10 % scenario) if bioethanol production is primarily domestic, and would also boost Community GDP (growth of 0,23 %). Lastly, the positive effects of research, particularly into second-generation biofuels, could sustain competitiveness in the renewable energy sector.

2.18

Using the ‘well-to-wheel’ method, the Commission calculates that employing the optimum, most economically advantageous techniques, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 35-50 % could be achieved. Ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil cuts these emissions by 90 %, and biodiesel from palm oil and soya leads to savings of 50 % and 30 % respectively. The production of second-generation biofuels should bring about savings of 90 %. The 14 % scenario should result in savings in greenhouse gas emissions of around 101-103 million tonnes CO2eq per year (or 71-75 mT CO2eq under the 10 % scenario).

2.19

In the communication, a 14 % share is reckoned to be manageable from the environmental impact point of view, provided that production is not from inappropriate land such as rainforest or habitats of high environmental value.

2.20

The Commission concludes its review by maintaining that greater biofuel use will bring substantial greenhouse gas emission benefits, and that security of supply will increase. A targeted incentives/support policy should neutralise the risks of using land with high biodiversity value or bad systems for biofuel production, by encouraging the use of second- generation processes.

2.21

The following will be needed in order to achieve these objectives:

2.22

Lastly, the Commission proposes to revise the biofuels directive, to set a 10 % minimum standard for the share of biofuels in 2020, and to assure the use of efficient and environment-friendly biofuels.

3.1

Biodiesel is obtained by crushing rape, soya and sunflower seeds, and by a transesterification reaction which results in the original alcohol components (glycerol) being replaced with methyl alcohol (methanol). Bioethanol is an alcohol (ethanol or ethylic alcohol) obtained through a fermentation process using various agricultural products rich in carbohydrates and sugars such as cereals (maize, sorghum, wheat, barley), sugar crops (beet and cane), fruit, potatoes and marcs. Products obtained by the chemical combination of molecules of biological origin with molecules of fossil origin are also considered to be biofuels. The main example of this is provided by ETBE, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, obtained by a bioethanol and isobutene reaction.

3.2

Ethanol has the qualities of an excellent fuel: it has a high octane count and can be blended (E5, E10) without requiring major adjustments to engines, although specific engines are necessary for more substantial use (E85).

3.3

The main difficulties in the use of ethanol arise from blending with petrol. Even at low ethanol percentages, vapour pressure rises significantly (approximately 10 kPa) as do, consequently, evaporate emissions. Ethanol's affinity for water can lead to problems with the product's final quality. Blends of ordinary hydrocarbon petrols with petrols containing ethanol should be avoided: a separate logistics and distribution chain should be used for the latter.

3.4

Blends of biodiesel and conventional diesel can be used in diesel engines. In European countries, a blend of up to 5 % (B5) is widely used in standard quality diesel, with no compatibility problems having arisen. Fuels with a high biodiesel content (more than 8-10 %) may cause problems for vehicles with engine seals made of incompatible polymer materials. The most serious difficulties arise in particulates and fine dust filters, which require major and costly modifications. For this reason, some manufacturers have already adjusted their vehicle specifications, while others restrict their guarantee cover to B5 blends. Because of their hygroscopic characteristics, detergency and low storage stability, high-percentage blends may require special measures to be taken for vehicles and product distribution systems.

3.5

The Commission convincingly addresses the need to promote the development of biofuels with greater determination. Realistically, it does not consider that it will in the future be possible to replace current petrol production (1,2 billion tonnes worldwide in 2004) with biofuels (46 million tonnes in 2005, of which 3 million in the EU, as shown in the table below), but aims at a minimum biofuels share of at least 10 % in addition to existing fuels in a little more than 13 years, to be achieved through a directive and individual targets for each Member State.

3.6

Hydrogen, which is already being used — at least experimentally — as an energy vector by some European car manufacturers, is still produced essentially by electrolysis, or by extraction from natural gas or other fossil fuels. This would not produce any greenhouse gas reductions. In spite of the recent development of research geared to producing hydrogen from biomass, sometimes with the use of biotechnologies or renewable sources, the potential widespread use and marketing of hydrogen-fuelled cars is also determined by the high cost of the fuel cells. For hydrogen to become an economically practicable alternative energy source, production costs must be brought down. Current research at the University of New South Wales has set out to meet this aim by using individual ceramic solar panels made of titanium oxide. Titanium is a highly popular option in the solar hydrogen field: it has the right semiconductor characteristics and is water-resistant. In its natural, unmodified state, however, it is not yet efficient enough.

4.1

While demonstrating the possible benefits, the Commission avoids drawing attention to the problems and difficulties involved in developing biofuels, although some warnings do occasionally emerge. In contrast, the Committee believes that the Commission's proposal must be closely and carefully analysed so that by resolving one problem, further more serious ones are not created, and to prevent only the ‘pros’ being highlighted to the exclusion of the ‘cons’. It is rather strange that the unrealistic scenario of a 14 % share by 2020 is used in order to emphasise the benefits of the proposal! The benefits in the event of the 10 % target being met would objectively be more modest.

4.2

Neither the Commission document nor the attached impact study identify any serious difficulties. For instance, the disposal of the waste matter from biofuel production should be modernised and reviewed in the light of new biofuel cell systems and production-related electronic technologies.

4.3

Attention is drawn to the following aspects concerning biodiesel:

4.4

And for bioethanol:

The benefits, meanwhile, include the possibility to increase the crop cycle, alternating traditional human and animal food crops with other specific crops destined for biomass and energy production. This must be developed with an eye to regional crops. In any case, European crops are subject to regulations regarding soil protection and the use of fertilisers.

4.5

Biofuels need the right crops, grown on a large scale. This entails sacrificing other crops that are necessary in order to meet the requirement on the part of the poorer countries for foodstuffs at the lowest possible cost. The possibility of using cellulose to produce biofuels is interesting, but it should be pointed out that production requires chemical and physical pretreatment (a sort of explosion of its mass) to make it reactive to bioprocessing. The issue of residues and of the catalysts used also needs to be highlighted, as they complicate the question of waste disposal downstream of the processing.

4.6

For large-scale use, glycerol — unrefined, pure or blended with other fuels — may be envisaged. The disadvantages of this alternative need to be set out: the cost of glycerol if used pure, the cost of processing if used unrefined, its low calorific yield and, in all cases, the need to break down the toxic substances formed during combustion (mainly acrolein, also known as acrylic aldehyde).

4.7

Another approach could be based on genetic modification of certain organisms best placed to render certain crops particularly suitable for bioprocessing, with high yields and consequently low energy consumption during production. Genetic engineering could also be applied to modify organisms which can make it easier to use cellulose.

4.8

From the technical point of view, there is also the question of the biofuel yield from raw materials: 1 tonne of beet yields some 400 litres of bioethanol (approximately 1 500 Mcal). Is this figure sufficient to justify an overall positive assessment, given the possible environmental risks and disadvantages resulting from the adoption of this type of energy?

4.9

A further aspect not to be underestimated concerns the extraction processes and their selectivity, and the fermentation processes which are relatively costly if carried out with maximum attention to the quality of the finished product. Moreover, the possible presence of impurities in the fuel could, when used, give rise to higher economic losses in connection with secondary reactions, the quality of the fuel obtained, and the characteristics of the waste and residues produced.

4.10

From a strictly environmental point of view, thought needs to be given to risks of deforestation (as is currently the case in Malaysia and Indonesia, due to palm oil production, and in Malawi and Uganda on account of the development of jatropha, in areas intended for food production or particularly valuable rainforest zones) and those arising from the storage of raw materials. The related biological and biochemical issues must be clearly and carefully examined.

4.11

There is also an ‘ethical’ aspect which needs to be further assessed: competition between food and fuel. The prices of high-grade raw materials such as wheat, maize and rice are rising inexorably as a result of the growing demand from biofuel ‘distilleries’ (FAO and WFP 2007 Report). In Mexico, the price of tortillas has risen by 60 %, sparking public unrest and protests. Since the beginning of the year, in China, the rising price of soya has driven meat prices up by 43 % and egg prices up by 16 %. The prices of maize and oats have risen by 40 % and 20 % respectively. In India, cereal prices have increased by 10 %, with wheat rising by 11 %. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the United States too will see price rises of 10 % for poultry, 21 % for eggs and 14 % for milk. If, in the future, the fuel value of cereals exceeds their food value, the market will turn to the energy economy — and food prices will rise with oil prices, increasing the risk of food shortages, even in Europe.

4.12

The growth of production plants (in the United States alone, 79 plants are under construction, in addition to the 116 currently in operation) will trigger an exponential increase in cereals consumption, estimated by the EPI (Earth Policy Institute) at some 139 million tonnes, twice the US Department of Agriculture's forecast. Since yields stand at 110 gallons (416,19 litres) of ethanol per tonne of maize (slightly more than four full tanks for an SUV), the issue assumes truly worrying proportions.

4.13

In a recent opinion (2), the Committee also stressed the need to safeguard biodiversity, especially the rainforest, which not only constitutes the habitat of fauna which would otherwise inevitably disappear, but also represents the planet's only and last ‘lung’. The intensive cultivation of sugar cane in Brazil and palm trees in Malaysia and Indonesia, which every day sacrifices hundreds of hectares of forest to single-crop farming, must be stopped.

4.14

There is also an issue of ‘scientific ethics’. Planet Earth is an open system, inexorably declining towards a point of equilibrium which will signal its end. It is the responsibility of scientists to slow this downward trend, and it is the responsibility of politics to facilitate the necessary work and studies.

4.15

The costs — not only economic, but also environmental and health-related — must be clearly identified. Serious efforts are needed to evaluate and study the impact accurately.

4.16

With regard to the chemical processes of combustion involving molecules other than hydrocarbons, a careful examination should be made of the possible formation and development of free radicals as a result of oxidative stress in the processes (free radicals are one of the main causes of oncological pathologies). No reliable data on their possible increase as a result of biofuels production are available.

4.17

Care and protection of the soil is crucial. It must be protected, as it protects us. The progressive contraction and deterioration of the water-bearing strata is caused by misguided exploitation policies and impoverishment of the soil. Crop rotation should be guaranteed in order to facilitate soil recovery.

4.18

The 33rd session of the FAO's Committee on World Food Security, held in Rome from 7 to 10 May 2007, gives over a major chapter (point 45) to this issue, stating that: ‘Bioenergy offers both opportunities and risks for each of the four dimensions of food security: availability, access, stability and utilisation. The food security implications of bioenergy will be shaped by the scale and type of system under consideration, by the structure of commodity and energy markets, and by policy choices in the areas of agriculture, energy, environment and trade. Technological change in the bioenergy sector is occurring rapidly and represents an additional major source of uncertainty regarding food security’.

4.19

In the same report, the FAO emphasises that ‘the most prominent feature of the food and feed markets in 2006 has been the surge in prices of cereals, in particular wheat and maize, which, by November, had reached levels not seen for a decade. Poor harvests in key producing countries associated with a fast growing demand for biofuel production have been the main drivers of the grain markets. Supply constraints also have dominated the rice economy’.

4.20

China too has recently taken steps to reduce the production of ethanol from maize, as reported by Asia Times Online on 21 December 2006. ‘In China the first thing is to provide food for its 1,3 billion people, and after that, we will support biofuel production’ declared Wang Xiaobing, an Agriculture Ministry official.

4.21

On 20 July 2007, the Italian newspaper La Repubblica published an article entitled ‘Biofuel vs. spaghetti war’. Pasta prices are set to rise by 20 % owing to a biofuel maize boom. The price of durum wheat, the main ingredient in Italian pasta, has risen by more than 30 % as farmers shift to maize crops for bioethanol. At the Chicago exchange the price of a bushel (27 kg) of wheat shot up from USD 3,6404 on 3 April to USD 5,64 on 14 June. Italians are likely to feel the effect of these price changes keenly as they are the world's biggest consumers (28 kg per capita a year) and producers (3.2 million tonnes) of durum wheat.

4.22

Water consumption in biofuels production is another aspect not receiving enough attention. The most recent research by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), published on 10 May 2007, shows that, in Sri Lanka for example, 1-4 000 litres of water are needed to produce one litre of ethanol, depending on the type of plant and production techniques used. In Brazil, it is calculated that 2 200 litres of water are required for one litre of ethanol, while in India — where rainfall is not abundant and irrigation must be used — the same litre of ethanol needs 3 500 litres of irrigation water! These figures have been confirmed by the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education in Delft, which is working with the local university, founded in 2003, and also by recent studies conducted by the University of Colorado agrarian studies faculty, which is developing a special maize strain that needs less water. These data can also be viewed on the following website: www.waterfootprint.org.

4.23

In Europe, those worst affected by water problems are the southern regions. They have suffered water shortages for many years and, with temperature rises and resulting evaporation, these difficulties are set to continue, while for now at least the northern regions do not appear to be concerned.

4.24

The following table (presented by Mr Mario Marchionna of the ENI at a recent seminar held by AIDIC — the Italian Association of Chemical Engineering) compares the cost of fossil fuels and biofuels, for equivalent energy.

4.25

The Commission estimates that 18 million ha of arable land would be needed in order to produce the necessary biofuels within the EU to reach the 10 % target by 2020:

4.26

The Commission states that developing the use of biofuels will bring significant benefits, especially to the developing countries, which can step up their production geared to exports. African farmers, however, are expressing concern about the economic return on the investments made so far. The 10 May 2007 issue of African Agriculture, raises some serious questions in an article on Is jatropha excitement a mirage? (the jatropha is a bush yielding oilseeds that are toxic to humans but produce reasonable-quality biodiesel, and that do not require special care).

4.27

African environmental associations are also making their voices heard, as reported in the East African Business Week (an online journal produced by Kenya's leading publishing group, Nation Media Group) of 7 May 2007. Deforestation is increasing by 2,2 % yearly, compared to a world average of 0,2 % — at this rate the country will have no forest left by 2040. A group of civil society activists has set up the ‘Save Mabira’ coalition, named for a forest that the Ugandan government has decided to hand over to the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd to increase the amount of land for sugar cane cultivation, earmarked for bioethanol. Some 7 100 ha, or one quarter of the virgin forest, the biggest in the country, will be sacrificed to produce a few tonnes of bioethanol, that might even end up being used in eco-friendly buses in Europe!

4.28

The Commission has virtually nothing to say in this regard, simply mentioning in passing that both the use of food crops and the use of land of high nature-related value must be countered in some way, relying on deterrent economic policies to solve the problem. It is frankly difficult to detect any sign of courage on the Commission's part here. The Committee is highly concerned at the environmental risks arising from the proliferation of GMO crops which, if used for these purposes, might seem to be more acceptable. The risk of GMO propagation is real, and their use can only be assessed once all the scientific research into their possible dangers has been completed; in any case, the EU's remaining biodiversity must be preserved.

4.29

The Committee considers it essential to step up cooperation with international bodies concerned with combating hunger in the world, especially the FAO and WFP (World Food Programme), and regrets that in its impact assessment, the Commission decided not to enter into contact with these international agencies, which are carrying out serious work on the subject without obscuring all the problems and risks arising from the development of biofuels, especially in terms of consumption of water resources.

4.30

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Spring Council of 8 and 9 March 2007, which devoted considerable attention to the Energy Policy for Europe (EPE), whose three main objectives are to:

4.31

The European Council supports and adopts the Commission's proposals on energy in general, and on biofuels in particular, although the wording used with respect to the 10 % obligation leaves considerable room for doubt: ‘The binding character of this target is appropriate subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available and the Fuel Quality Directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending’.

4.32

It will be extremely important to understand how these provisos may be used effectively by the Member States. In particular, reference to the market availability of second-generation biofuels currently seems problematic. It would be extremely costly to convert existing first-generation biofuel-producing plants, those in an advanced phase of construction and those planned for the coming years, as their processes are very different to those necessary for second-generation fuels. If these fuels are not available, the Council decision will not be binding. As regards sustainability, additional European legislation will be required alongside the existing directives to ensure that biomass production responds strictly to fixed requirements and that biofuel crops are not in competition with human and animal food crops. As for the necessary changes to the directive on fuel quality, the procedure is somewhat complex and will require the full attention of the standards bodies, the CEN in particular, to analyse the problems relating to technical specifications.

4.33

For second-generation biofuels, a number of solutions for ethanol production are already possible, through both a biological fermentation and distillation process, and a thermochemical biomass gasification process to obtain syngas (H2 and CO) which, through fermentation, produces ethanol and generates energy via a combined cycle or cogeneration. An initial production plant, with a capacity of 180 000 tonnes/annum will begin operating this year in Porvoo, Finland, with another planned for the end of 2008 at the same location. These processes, however, give very low and in some cases negative energy yields. This has led to research on the development of photochemical production processes, using sunlight as an energy source and appropriate catalysts able to improve properties. Biobutanol provides one possible solution for new generation biofuels. It has low vapour pressure and also tolerance to water contamination in petrol blends, facilitating its use in existing petrol supply and distribution channels. Bioethanol can be mixed with petrol in higher concentrations than existing biofuels, without the need to modify vehicles. It also offers higher fuel savings than petrol-ethanol blends, thus improving energy efficiency and reducing consumption per litre. Biobutanol can be produced using bioethanol plants.

4.34

The 7th Framework Programme has earmarked substantial resources for the development of these technologies, which offer a range of interesting characteristics and produce ‘clean’ biofuels:

The Committee believes that Europe has to allocate more financial resources to second-generation biofuel research.

5.1

The Committee endorses the objectives of the EPE: if they are to be achieved, funding will have to be found for the necessary investment, bringing in the European financial institutions.

5.2

The Committee believes that particular attention should focus on research in the biofuels sector, especially for second-generation fuels, without sacrificing other possibilities such as those produced by the development of solar hydrogen or biomass processing.

5.3

The Committee recommends that special attention be paid to respect for biodiversity and the use of exclusively non-food crops for biofuels, in order to prevent the risk of competition between food and fuel when millions of human beings still lack sufficient food and are starving to death. The conclusions of the above-mentioned FAO report point out that ‘As many as 854 million people worldwide still remain undernourished, reflecting the insufficient progress towards the World Food Summit target and the Millennium Development Goals. While many countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa show potential for reducing their numbers of hungry people, this figure still remains threatened by increasing food prices, potentially tighter grain markets, conflict, disease and climate change’. According to American researchers Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota, food cereal price changes give reason to believe that, rather than falling to 600 million in 2025 as predicted, the number of people going hungry in the world will double, reaching 1 200 million.

5.4

With a view to achieving the objectives of environmental protection, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, optimised energy consumption, the use of alternative energies, energy autonomy and security of energy supply, the Committee suggests special treatment (tax and administrative incentives, etc.) for those products which make the most substantial contribution to these objectives.

5.5

The Committee considers that at their current stage, the existing technologies demand very heavy consumption of energy, water and land (yields per hectare are such that if one third of the entire land surface of Italy were to be devoted to rapeseed cultivation, the amount of biodiesel obtained would only be enough to replace 10 % of Italy's total oil consumption, and 40 % of diesel consumption for vehicles).

5.6

The Committee believes that the proposal for a new directive should be accompanied by a major and wide-reaching process of economic, environmental and social assessment which, at least at the present stage, does not appear to be structured in a way commensurate with the importance of the issue.

5.7

If the fight against pollution is not to be in vain, it is essential to secure biofuels using ‘zero-mile’ domestic agricultural products. They should not be transported from distant countries, with the consequent consumption of fossil fuels. The difficulties in recuperating energy from agrifood residues arise from their widespread distribution, requiring costly transport to processing centres, and from their significant water content implying high volumes for processing. For these reasons, biomass of this kind should preferably be processed in situ.

5.8

The Committee believes support should be given to research into biofuel cell technologies, i.e. biofuel cells that use biocatalysts to convert chemical energy into electricity. This energy-producing process enables the recovery of all the electrons accumulated during the photosynthesis process by the plant from which the biomass is taken (24 electrons for every molecule of glucose oxidised to CO2 and water).

5.9

The Committee agrees with the views of the European Parliament which, in the recitals of its resolution on a strategy for biomass and biofuels, adopted in Strasbourg on 14 December 2006, pointed out that ‘the transport sector is responsible for more than 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions although this sector is not included in the emissions trading system …’. The Committee therefore recommends that the Commission envisage extending the application of the ‘white certificates’ scheme to the vehicle sector.

5.10

In the same resolution, the European Parliament ‘asks the Commission to introduce a mandatory and comprehensive certification scheme allowing the sustainable production of biofuels at all stages, including standards for the cultivation and processing phases, as well as for the overall life-cycle greenhouse gas balance, applicable to biofuels both produced within, and imported into, the European Union’, and ‘to support the development and use of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) system to monitor land use in the production of bioethanol so as to prevent the destruction of rainforests and other negative impacts on the environment’. The Committee agrees with and supports the European Parliament's proposals.

5.11

The Committee points out that the vehicle fleet of some of the recent Member States is highly obsolete, being made up of the least efficient used vehicles from the rich markets. Per capita income in these countries is rather low, as is also the case for major sectors of the population in the higher per capita income countries. Consequently, it is not practicable to consider imposing obligations and costs on these European citizens, for whom the private car may be an essential work tool.

5.12

The Committee believes that, at this stage, biofuels can lend support to the fuels market, provided production is closely monitored in order to avoid the environmental and social risks set out in the present opinion, but cannot provide a structural answer to the market's demands. In view of the potential problems identified in this opinion, the Committee believes that the Commission should keep the 10 % target under continuing review, and be ready to propose modifications to it if the problems cannot be satisfactorily overcome in a sustainable way.

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/44

1.1

The EESC supports the European Commission's initiative aimed at reviewing the Community strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from road traffic.

1.2

The Commission's proposal, which the Council plans to confirm, is to cut CO2 emissions from passenger cars to 130 g/km by 2012, by means of technological improvements to motor vehicles. A further reduction of 10 g/km should be achieved, if technically possible, thanks to alternative technologies and greater use of biofuels, to reach the overall objective of 120 g/km by 2012.

1.3

The EESC believes that this ambitious initiative will only succeed if it is conducted using diverse, balanced measures, and a timeframe that takes into account the need for manufacturers to adapt the chosen technologies to all the models they produce, a complex operation with varying costs. In other words, when it comes to CO2 emissions, improvements in passenger car performance must be reconciled with the manufacturers' capacity to apply them both economically and technologically and with the spending capacity of potential buyers.

1.4

In the light of these factors, while underlining the need to urge car manufacturers to make more rapid progress towards further reductions in consumption and emissions, the EESC also points to the need to press ahead with efforts to introduce the most socially, economically and environmentally effective legislative framework possible.

1.5

The EESC therefore recommends commissioning a full and detailed impact assessment, to establish the costs/benefits of the various options, ranging from work on vehicle technology to other possible instruments: adjustments to infrastructure, alternative fuels, tax incentives, information through various forms of education for eco-driving (needed most of all in large urban areas (1)) and guiding demand by means of taxation targeting CO2 emissions. The EESC also feels that among future measures, consideration should be given to the use of low rolling resistance tyres which, according to industry data, can reduce consumption by 3-4 %. The Commission's suggestion to introduce tyre pressure monitoring systems is a step in the same direction.

1.6

An intelligent and considered combination of all the measures available might enable the CO2 reduction targets to be reached, without putting a brake on the renewal of the car fleet, by containing and sharing out the financial burden and avoiding penalising potential buyers of new cars.

1.7

The EESC also hopes that the impact of the legislative instrument chosen will be as neutral as possible when it comes to competition between manufacturers, not imposing binding limits on the models they can put on the market, but rather guiding consumer demand towards lower emission models. The CO2 reduction targets must correlate with the existing differences within the product ranges, using those parameters judged to be most informative and proportionate to their CO2 emissions.

1.8

It is extremely important that the parameters chosen act as an instrument to guide consumers towards types of vehicle that respond to their real needs, avoiding consumption and emission levels that go beyond their everyday needs.

1.9

In this respect, the EESC is concerned at the Commission's plan to introduce legislation for light commercial vehicles. The consumption, and thus CO2 levels, of these vehicles, designed for professional use, are examined carefully by potential buyers as they have a significant impact on business costs. As a result, the vehicles currently on the market are already adopting the most efficient solutions — the almost exclusive use of diesel engines. In any case, before a decision is taken, the EESC recommends that the Commission conduct an impact assessment based on an up-to-date survey of light commercial vehicle emissions, something that is not currently available.

1.10

Lastly, the EESC believes that the Member States should develop activities in a wider range of areas than in the past (roads, intelligent traffic lights, etc.), not least by buying environmentally-sound vehicles for their own public transport fleets and committing themselves to both building infrastructure networks that can give access to the distribution of fuels of a lower environmental impact, such as natural gas, and facilitating the purchase of vehicles using natural gas or LPG, a matter on which the EESC has already expressed its view in previous opinions (2).

2.1

In 1995, a Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions was introduced, including measures addressing supply from vehicle manufacturers and demand from consumers.

2.2

More specifically on the supply side, European manufacturers entered into a voluntary agreement aimed at reducing average CO2 emissions from cars to 140 g/km by 2008. Japanese and Korean manufacturers made the same commitment the following year, to be achieved by 2009.

2.3

On the demand side, the European Commission's strategy simultaneously provided for consumer information on CO2 emissions, to help them choose wisely, together with targeted use of car taxes.

2.4

In practice, significant improvements have been achieved on the supply side, although they are not by themselves enough to meet the objective set, as the contribution of the other two instruments — information/guidance and tax — has been lacking. The Commission acknowledges this, admitting in its communication that ‘… improvements in car technology have delivered the bulk of the reductions’ in CO2 emissions.

2.5

Average CO2 emissions fell approximately 13 % from 186 g/km to 161 g/km between 1995 and 2004, and 30 % of the fleet placed on the market in 2004 had emissions of less than 140 g/km.

2.6

On the other hand, during the same period consumer preference has shifted towards larger, heavier, more powerful cars, on account of both the perception that they are safer and the considerable population movement away from urban centres. In consequence, information labelling has had little impact on consumer choices.

2.7

The other instrument for shaping demand, targeted taxation to reduce CO2 emissions, does not yet possess a European dimension (3), being restricted to national initiatives in less than half the Member States. In some cases, the measures taken have had a paradoxically negative impact on reducing emissions. One such example is the increased tax on diesel, which has slowed the shift to diesel that has taken place over recent years in many Member States having larger numbers of diesel vehicles.

2.8

In conclusion, due to both external factors hindering the reduction process launched with the review of car technologies in the wake of the voluntary agreements, and the failure to make use of the other planned instruments, the objectives set for 2008/2009 do not seem to be feasible. The Commission has therefore decided to review the strategy and has published the communication under examination by the EESC, laying down guidelines to be followed by a specific legislative proposal by the end of the first half of 2008.

3.1

In the communication, the Commission proposes to reach the EU objective of 120 g/km by 2012. This is to be achieved through a combination of EU and Member State action.

3.2

To this end, the Commission will propose a legislative framework by mid-2008, focusing on mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions to achieve the average new car fleet objective of 130 g/km by means of improvements in vehicle motor technology.

3.3

A further reduction of 10 g/km, or equivalent if technically possible, is to be achieved by other technological improvements and by increased use of biofuels, specifically:

3.4

The Commission agrees that the legislative framework implementing the average new car fleet target will need to be designed so as to ensure competitively neutral and socially equitable and sustainable reduction targets which reflect the diversity of European car manufacturers and avoid any unjustified distortion of competition between automobile manufacturers.

3.5

In this regard, the Commission encourages Member States to adapt their car taxation policies so as to promote the purchase of fuel-efficient cars throughout the EU and help manufacturers comply with the upcoming fuel efficiency framework.

3.6

The Commission also suggests the introduction of taxes differentiated over the whole range of cars on the market, so as to gradually induce a switch towards relatively less emitting cars, as an efficient way to reduce compliance costs for manufacturers.

3.7

The role of fiscal incentives is mentioned as a powerful way of encouraging people to buy the cleanest light-duty vehicle classes on the market; similar emphasis is placed on the need to improve the effectiveness of information for potential buyers on vehicle consumption (the Commission is to adopt a proposal to amend Directive 1999/94/EC on labelling in 2007).

3.8

Lastly, the Commission points to the need for the Member States to promote eco-driving through training and/or awareness campaigns with the aim of reducing emissions.

3.9

Manufacturers are also invited to sign up before mid-2007 to a voluntary agreement on good practice regarding car marketing and advertising, aimed at promoting sustainable consumption patterns.

4.1

The EESC fully agrees that there is a need to review the Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions generated by road traffic, which account for some 20 % of overall emissions.

4.2

The EESC would also point to the complexity of this review, which should aim to achieve further CO2 emission reductions without undermining the competitiveness of the vehicle sector, which is operating on an extremely competitive world market.

4.3

It should be borne in mind that in Europe alone, the car industry employs 2 million people directly and another 10 million indirectly. The industry accounts for 3,5 % of European GDP, with net exports worth EUR 33,5 billion and — last but not least — the Member States receive EUR 365 billion annually in car taxes.

4.4

Indeed, in its CARS 21 (4) communication, the Commission has sought to outline industrial policy in the automotive sector, which ‘plays a substantial role in the European economy’.

The CARS 21 communication is the Commission's response to the final report and recommendations drawn up in December 2005 by the CARS 21 High Level Group, which comprised representatives of industry and the main components of civil society, as well as of the Commission. The document highlights that attaining ambitious objectives in complex areas, such as the reduction of CO2 emissions while not damaging industrial competitiveness or employment, demands an integrated approach aimed at drawing together the contributions of all stakeholders to pursue a single objective of general interest.

4.5

The EESC shares the concerns voiced regarding the potentially excessive impact on industrial costs of decisions that might directly or indirectly jeopardise employment levels in the industry by encouraging strategic choices entailing the possibility of industrial relocation outside the EU.

4.6

In the light of these considerations, the EESC agrees that car manufacturers should be urged to make more rapid progress towards further reductions in consumption and emissions, but also points to the need to press ahead with efforts to introduce the most socially, economically and environmentally effective legislative framework possible for reducing CO2 emissions.

4.6.1

The EESC would make the following recommendations with a view to securing the best results from future Community legislation on reducing CO2 emissions from road traffic:

4.6.2

All these measures would also have the effect of not undermining the process of renewing the current car fleet, by spreading the financial burden of reducing the level of CO2 emissions. The EESC would point out in passing that according to the ECCP (6), the potential reduction of CO2 emissions from eco-driving could amount to 50 million tonnes in Europe by 2010 (2006-2010), and a joint TNO/IEEP (7) study claims that eco-driving is not only feasible, but is both effective and measurable.

4.6.3

On the other hand, the average sale price of a car would rise by approximately EUR 3 600 if the 120 g/km target were to be reached through car technology alone. Additionally, the same sources (8) indicate that in order to reach 130 g/km, the additional cost to purchasers would in any case be substantial, around the EUR 2 500 mark.

4.6.4

As it takes Europe 12 years on average to replace its car fleet, as noted by the Commission, it is clear that price increases on that scale would further slow the car replacement cycle. It also is clear that such increases would have a social impact, making it even harder for the more disadvantaged sectors of society to buy a car.

4.7

Lastly, the EESC disagrees with the Commission's position that complementary technologies would bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions of 10 g/km, since the ability of biofuels to penetrate the market is still uncertain, and it cannot be assumed that they will contribute the expected 5 g/km. In the EESC's view, it is essential to introduce a raft of measures that can be monitored with certainty, as is the case, for example, with eco-driving and infrastructure.

5.1

In keeping with the general comments above, and also in the light of the current parliamentary debate, the EESC hopes that the future legislative instrument will not compromise the ability of consumers to buy new cars, in order to ensure that the car fleet is renewed, and also that it will succeed in strongly directing demand towards lower emission models.

5.2

In the absence of a full and detailed impact assessment to highlight the costs/benefits of the various options, the EESC reserves the right to draw up an opinion at a later stage on appropriate and feasible limits in terms of reduction of CO2 emissions, but recommends at this juncture that the planned legislative instrument should take account of the fact that the car production cycle is famously complex, requiring a lead time (9) of anything up to seven years.

5.3

In view of the time needed to prepare legislation in the co-decision process, the EESC reckons that the final text laying down the requirements to be met will not be ready before 2009. Given the earlier comments regarding the sector's typical industrial cycles, the first practicable date would be 2015, to coincide with the entry into force of the EURO 6 regulation on the reduction of pollutants that, as in the case of CO2, require structural modifications to cars.

5.4

There is a danger that the 2012 target date is technically impracticable and could have distinctly negative effects on the competitiveness of the European car industry and its contribution to employment.

5.5

The EESC is, as of now, in favour of a legislative instrument which is neutral in terms of competition between manufacturers, meaning not imposing binding limits on the models they can put on the market, but rather guiding consumer demand towards lower emission models; the CO2 reductions called for must match the existing differences within the product range, using those parameters judged to be most informative and proportionate to their CO2 emissions.

5.6

In this regard, it is felt that the parameter to be selected must ensure that contributions in emissions reduction terms from the various segments and the inevitable ensuing vehicle cost increases should not be such as to erode affordability, so that customers can buy a new vehicle in keeping with their own spending power.

5.6.1

One possible parameter would be vehicle weight (as suggested by ACEA, the European Automobile Manufactures' Association), as this directly affects the level of CO2 emissions. The EESC recalls that vehicle weight rose by 32 kg between 1996 and 2005, reflected in a relative increase in CO2 emissions of 6,6 g/km. Weight is to be used as a benchmark in Japan's CO2 emissions strategy. In 2006, the country set a target of 138 g/km to be achieved by 2015. ACEA supports this parameter, as it represents a step towards harmonisation of CO2 policies across the world.

5.6.2

It should also be pointed out that discussions are currently taking place on other parameters that could be used to identify and differentiate product ranges. Of particular note is the proposal by EP rapporteur, MEP Chris Davies, which refers to the vehicle's ‘footprint’ (the area occupied by the car, calculated using wheelbase and track width (10)).

5.6.3

The EESC, meanwhile, considers that adopting, for example, box volume (vehicle length × width × height) as a parameter could be useful and appropriate, as a possible tool for guiding consumers towards vehicle types meeting their real needs and without redundant CO2 emissions caused by a practical need/vehicle size mismatch. In other words, a person needing an SUV (sport utility vehicle) that can carry more passengers and more weight will be willing to pay more because a vehicle of this type is really necessary, whereas a person without these requirements will be more attracted to a lower segment.

5.7

The same European Parliament rapporteur, MEP Chris Davies, has proposed establishing a ‘Carbon Allowance Reduction System’ (CARS) setting penalties and credits for exceeding or coming below the limits set. The EESC believes that introducing a CO2 allowance-swapping system is not practicable in a market restricted to the automobile sector.

In view of the ambitious objectives, there is no realistic prospect of sufficient volumes of allowances for exchange being built up to ensure that the system would work.

5.7.1

In contrast, the EESC considers the application of an ‘open’ emissions trading system (i.e. permitting trading with other sectors) to be possible, offering the advantage of guaranteeing an overall reduction in CO2 emissions with an appropriate degree of flexibility, while setting limits on possible purchases for vehicle manufacturers. The EESC therefore advocates an open system, the economic implications of which will have to be defined and identified in the light of changes within the emissions market between now and 2015, underlining the need to prevent such economic implications putting the affordability for final customers at risk.

5.8

Turning to the communication's call for a code of good practice regarding car marketing and advertising, the EESC points out that almost all the Member States already have — usually very stringent — agreements on how to define rules in this area. In general terms, however, the EESC favours harmonising these rules and consequently is not opposed to drawing up a European code of good practice as suggested to vehicle manufacturers by the Commission.

5.9

The EESC also notes that in its communication, the Commission also states its intention to prepare a legislative instrument to reduce CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles.

5.9.1

It seems to the EESC that light commercial vehicles (category N1 and related passenger transport vehicles) do not require an intervention of this kind, since they are designed for commercial purposes and, consequently, consumption and CO2 emissions are already a deciding factor for buyers, as they have a major impact on business costs. As a result, the vehicles currently on the market are already adopting the most efficient solutions — the almost exclusive use of diesel engines.

5.9.2

In any case, before a decision is taken, the EESC recommends that the Commission conduct an impact assessment based on an up-to-date survey of light commercial vehicle emissions, something that is not currently available.

5.9.3

Applying g/km targets on commercial vehicles, without precise knowledge of the relevant data, also brings the risk of reducing the carrying capacity of individual vehicles, with the ensuing inefficiency requiring either a greater number of vehicles to transport the same loads, or larger, higher category vehicles, thereby increasing overall emissions.

5.10

The EESC also believes that the subject of CO2 emissions from cars and light duty vehicles should be assessed comprehensively, taking into account the entire life cycle of vehicles, from production processes to use and disposal. In the light of the above, the EESC would also stress the need to coordinate and secure coherence between legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to the motor vehicle industry with an impact on CO2 emissions so as to preclude contradictions causing delays in their implementation.

5.11

The EESC believes that future research framework programmes must give priority as a matter of urgency to projects aimed at finding technically feasible and economically sustainable ways of reducing global CO2 emissions (not only in relation to transport), taking into account the real impact of the entire life cycles of various sources of emissions. The EESC is convinced that research projects should work across a broad spectrum with a view to identifying short-, medium- and long-term solutions with affordability — for both manufacturers and final customers — as a constant objective, in order to facilitate the renewal of the vehicle fleet in the interests of sustainable mobility.

5.12

Lastly, the EESC believes that the Member States should develop activities in a wider range of areas than in the past (roads, intelligent traffic lights, etc.), not least by buying environmentally-sound vehicles for their own public transport fleets and committing themselves to both building infrastructure networks that can give access to the distribution of fuels of a lower environmental impact, such as natural gas, and facilitating the purchase of vehicles using natural gas or LPG.

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/49

16.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/50

1.1

The EESC endorses the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services and recommends that it be immediately adopted and brought into effect.

1.2

The EESC strongly supports the main objective of the proposal, as set down in Title 1, Article 1(1), to create a single, Community-coordinated procedure for the selection and authorisation by Member States of mobile satellite communications systems.

1.3

The EESC considers that this decision must be immediately adopted, owing to:

1.4

The EESC stresses that the creation and use of satellite communication systems constitute, due to the nature of the area that they cover, major initiatives for the expansion of the European space industry and development of specific applications in the field of communications, and are fully in line with the Lisbon Strategy to promote sustainable development, including by directly helping to create new jobs in the context of enhanced competitiveness.

1.5

The EESC is pleased to note that, beneficially for this proposal, the EU possesses significant technical resources in this area: three of the world's biggest satellite systems operators are European, and satellite communications account for 40 % of current revenues in the European space sector.

1.6

The EESC welcomes the consensus obtained by the Commission in promoting this proposal, which gained the support of all the interested parties consulted, even during the drafting phase: the satellite industry, telecommunications network operators, the European Space Agency and Member States' national regulatory bodies.

1.7

In parallel, the EESC notes that the decision — in its current, final form — fairly resolves the diverging opinions expressed during the consultation phase, concerning: selection methods and criteria, the need for greater national flexibility with regard to the length of time needed to obtain authorisation and the validity period thereof, and closer coordination of national authorisation procedures.

1.8

The EESC recommends that the decision be adopted in its proposed form, bearing in mind that with regard to the methodology for implementing the provisions on selection and authorisation, regulations must be set down to protect the individual interests of citizens and ensure the privacy of users of terminal equipment for satellite systems.

2.1

The creation and implementation of a pan-European communications system based on satellite technologies constitute an innovative alternative platform for various types of telecommunications and broadcasting/multicasting services, regardless of the location of end users, such as high-speed Internet/intranet access, mobile multimedia, public protection and non-military crisis management (natural or humanitarian disasters), law and order and security, fleet management applications, remote medical assistance, etc.

2.2

The system is designed in such a way as to help develop the internal market, boost competitiveness by increasing the availability of pan-European services, encourage effective investment, particularly by introducing innovative services to provide communication capabilities to outlying terrestrial areas and maritime space.

2.3

In the case of pan-European systems, in particular, it is necessary to set up Community procedures for selecting operators of mobile satellite communications systems, and to establish certain provisions regarding nationally coordinated authorisation of the selected operators. By harmonising selection criteria for mobile satellite communication systems, a uniform policy can be applied at EU level in this field. The selection by different Member States of different operators of mobile communications systems using different satellites could lead to complex fields of interference or even endanger the smooth running of the system overall, if an operator were allocated different radio frequencies in different Member States. Owing to these potential dangers, and with a view to ensuring a consistent authorisation approach in the different Member States, the provisions on synchronised assignment of radio spectrum and on harmonised authorisation conditions should be established at Community level, without prejudice to specific national conditions compatible with Community law.

2.4

Satellite communications are an important aspect of the internal market; they cross national borders and are thus susceptible to international regulation, taking into consideration their important contribution to achieving European Union objectives to expand geographical coverage of broadband.

3.1

The decision, proposed on the legal basis of Article 95 TEC, sets down the necessary legal framework for the selection and authorisation of mobile satellite communications services. Such selection would have to be made in line with the general objectives and pursuant to a competitive selection procedure described in the proposal and would involve the Commission, assisted by the Communications Committee. The authorisation (rights to use radio spectrum) of selected operators would be granted at national level subject to a minimum set of harmonised conditions laid down in the proposal.

4.1

The Commission proposes that the decision be implemented based on the evaluation of the following points: