title: Avis du Comité économique et social sur la «Proposition de directive du Conseil instaurant une procédure d'évaluation de la sécurité des aéronefs des pays tiers empruntant les aéroports communautaires»

eurovoc_concepts:
air safety
air traffic control
aircraft
exchange of information
third country

text: C 19/20 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 21. 1. 98 Avis du Comité économique et social sur la «Proposition de directive du Conseil instaurant une procédure d’évaluation de la sécurité des aéronefs des pays tiers empruntant les aéroports communautaires» (1) (98/C 19/06) Le 17 mars 1997, conformément à l’article 84, paragraphe 2, du Traité, la Commission a décidé de consulter le Comité économique et social sur la proposition susmentionnée. La section des transports et communications, chargée de préparer les travaux du Comité en la matière, a adopté son avis le 15 octobre 1997 (rapporteur: M. Mobbs). Lors de sa 349e session plénière des 29 et 30 octobre 1997 (séance du 29 octobre), le Comité économique et social a adopté par 105 voix pour, une voix contre et 2 abstentions l’avis suivant. 1. Introduction 1. 1. Depuis quelque temps, les niveaux de sécurité aérienne dans certaines parties du monde suscitent une préoccupation de plus en plus vive. Cela a amené le gouvernement des États-Unis et l’Organisation de l’aviation civile internationale (OACI) à établir des programmes de surveillance et d’assistance en vue de déceler d’éventuelles carences et d’y remédier afin de garantir la sécurité des voyageurs, des équipages ainsi que des personnes tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur des aéroports. Les autorités de l’aviation civile européenne se 1. 2. sont elles aussi rendu compte que l’Europe devait également agir dans ce domaine, et la Conférence européenne de l’aviation civile (CEAC) a entrepris de développer le programme d’évaluation de la sécurité des aéronefs étrangers (SAFA). Les directeurs généraux de la CEAC ont adopté en juin 1996 un programme européen spécifique conçu pour s’intégrer dans toute la mesure du possible dans un cadre relevant de l’OACI et pour éviter de faire double emploi avec les actions de cette organisation. Tandis que l’UE met au point une directive visant à renforcer la base juridique et politique des inspections au sol, certains États membres pratiquent déjà des contrôles de sécurité au sol, quoique leurs modalités ne soient pas uniformisées au niveau de l’UE. 1. 3. En février 1996, 176 ressortissants européens ont perdu la vie dans un accident d’avion en République dominicaine. A` la suite de cette catastrophe, le Parlement européen (2) et le Conseil (3) ont demandé à la Commis- sion d’envisager des mesures pour améliorer la sécurité et, en particulier, d’aborder le problème des transpor- teurs ne respectant pas les normes en vigueur et exploitant des lignes à destination et au départ de l’Union euro- péenne. 1. 4. La Commission a donc présenté une proposition visant à rationaliser et à coordonner dans le cadre d’une directive unique les mesures que tous les États membres (1) JO C 214 du 21. 4. 1997, p. 39. (2) Résolution B4-0150/96: JO C 65 du 4. 3. 1996, p. 172. (3) 1907e réunion du Conseil — Transports — Bruxelles, le 11. 3. 1996 (PRES 96/55). peuvent déjà prendre en se fondant sur les normes de l’OACI et les pratiques recommandées par celle-ci. Afin de bien comprendre les motifs de cette démarche, il est nécessaire de connaître la situation existant actuellement dans les États membres. 1. 4. 1. La directive 94/56/CEE du Conseil relative aux enquêtes sur les accidents et les incidents dans l’aviation civile dispose que: «Chaque État membre s’assure que les enquêtes techniques sont réalisées par un organisme ou une entité aéronautique civil permanent ou sous le contrôle d’un tel organisme ou d’une telle entité. L’organisme ou l’entité en question est fonctionnelle- ment indépendant, notamment des autorités aéronauti- ques nationales responsables de la navigabilité, de la certification. et, en général, de toute autre partie dont les intérêts pourraient entrer en conflit avec la mission confiée à l’organisme ou à l’entité d’enquête». 1. 4. 2. L’annexe 8 de la convention OACI «Navigabi- lité des aéronefs» dispose que tous les aéronefs doivent être maintenus en état de voler. Lorsqu’un État contrac- tant a des raisons de penser que ce n’est pas le cas, il n’est plus obligé de reconnaître la validité du certificat de navigabilité et est autorisé à procéder à un contrôle de l’appareil, en l’immobilisant au sol si nécessaire. Les lois applicables varient d’un pays à l’autre, mais dans chaque État membre, il existe un organisme habilité à immobiliser tout aéronef relevant de cet État, de tout autre État membre ou de tout pays tiers lorsque l’organisme en question a des raisons de mettre en doute la navigabilité dudit aéronef. L’annexe 13 de la convention OACI «Enquêtes sur les accidents et incidents d’aviation» fonctionne de manière semblable lorsqu’il est estimé qu’un incident est survenu. 1. 4. 3. Dès lors, chaque État membre est déjà habilité, compétence qui devrait être reconnue par tous les signataires de la convention OACI, à inspecter et, le cas échéant, à immobiliser au sol tout aéronef immatriculé dans sa juridiction, dans celle de tout autre État membre ou dans celle de tout pays tiers. En outre, les dispositions existantes qui régissent les aéronefs d’États membres sont identiques à celles applicables aux aéronefs de pays tiers ou plus rigoureuses que celles-ci. L’intention n’est donc pas d’introduire à l’égard des aéronefs de pays tiers 21. 1. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 19/21 une réglementation qui ne serait pas déjà applicable aux aéronefs des États membres. 1. 4. 4. Si les réglementations existantes permettent de prendre les mesures qui s’imposent à l’égard de tous les aéronefs provenant de n’importe où dans le monde, le traitement des aéronefs de pays tiers peut en fait varier d’un État membre à l’autre. A` l’heure actuelle, une mesure prise par un État membre ne DOIT PAS nécessairement être imitée ou soutenue par d’autres États membres. Par conséquent, un aéronef considéré par un État membre comme n’étant pas entièrement en état de voler mais autorisé à quitter cet État sans passagers (ou sans cargaison) afin de remédier aux défaillances constatées, peut aujourd’hui être autorisé à atterrir dans un autre État membre et à y charger des passagers (ou une cargaison) sans que ces défaillances soient rectifiées. A` l’heure actuelle, une compagnie aérienne de 1. 4. 5. pays tiers dont un aéronef a été immobilisé au sol dans un État membre peut prendre des mesures de représailles contre une compagnie aérienne de cet État membre tout en continuant à pouvoir utiliser les aéroports des autres États membres. De telles mesures sont actuellement appliquées dans le cas du Royaume-Uni et du Nigeria. 1. 5. Eu égard à la nécessité permanente d’accroître la sécurité, la Commission a constitué un groupe de haut niveau (composé de représentants des autorités civiles de l’aviation des États membres, de la CEAC, des Autorités conjointes de l’Aviation (JAA) et de la Com- mission) chargé de l’aider à examiner divers problèmes importants en matière de sécurité aérienne. 2. Le groupe de haut niveau 2. 1. Le groupe de haut niveau a élaboré un rapport annexé à la communication de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement européen intitulé «Définir une stratégie communautaire de sécurité aérienne» (1). Ce rapport contient toute une série de propositions, mais la description qui suit porte unique- ment sur celles qui concernent le présent avis. renforcement de la 2. 2. Le groupe de haut niveau, après avoir étudié la procédure suivie aux États-Unis par l’administration fédérale de l’aviation (FAA) (qui consiste à vérifier si les autorités réglementaires nationales disposent des moyens juridiques ainsi que des ressources, du personnel et de l’expertise nécessaires pour satisfaire comme il se doit à leurs obligations internationales en matière de surveillance de la sécurité), a conclu que le système américain ne serait pas adapté au contexte européen. (1) Doc. SEC(96) 1083 final du 12. 6. 1996. 2. 3. En effet, l’Europe a beaucoup plus de partenaires aériens, vu qu’il existe dans presque tous les pays du monde des liaisons aériennes à destination des aéroports européens. Un contrôle de chaque autorité nationale serait démesuré par rapport aux moyens dont dispose l’UE, constituerait dans de nombreux cas un gaspillage inutile et ferait double emploi avec le travail d’autres instances. 2. 4. Il serait plus judicieux que l’Europe dispose d’une procédure par étapes qui serait déclenchée s’il existe une preuve qu’un transporteur non communautaire ne présente pas toutes les garanties de sécurité. Ce système consisterait en une procédure d’évaluation de la sécurité des aéronefs non communautaires (SAFA). 2. 5. Les aspects pratiques de la procédure SAFA sont en train d’être mis au point par les JAA au nom de la Conférence européenne de l’aviation civile (CEAC). 2. 6. Le groupe de haut niveau reconnaît la nécessité de se conformer aux principes contenus dans la Convention sur l’aviation civile internationale signée à Chicago en décembre 1944. Les principaux points soulignés dans le rapport du groupe de haut niveau sont les suivants: 2. 6. 1. Une stratégie d’amélioration de la sécurité visant les aéronefs et les transporteurs de pays tiers doit être compatible avec les principes régissant l’aviation civile internationale. 2. 6. 2. Chaque État contractant a la responsabilité de délivrer ou de valider les certificats de navigabilité de chaque aéronef immatriculé et les licences de chaque équipage enregistré dans sa juridiction. Cette certifica- tion doit être acceptée par tous les autres États contrac- tants dès lors que son niveau est égal ou supérieur aux normes internationales minimales. Par conséquent, un État contractant ne peut reconnaître des certificats qui, d’après lui, ne respectent pas les normes OACI. Lorsque c’est le cas, on peut considérer qu’une action unilatérale peut être prise pour protéger les ressortissants d’un État. On ne peut toutefois en déduire qu’une action collective est possible. 2. 6. 3. Les accords bilatéraux, tout en reconnaissant le droit de chaque partie de désigner des transporteurs, ne contiennent généralement pas de dispositions spécifiques relatives à la surveillance de la sécurité ou à des actions unilatérales qui permettraient à une partie de priver l’autre des droits qui lui sont reconnus. 2. 6. 4. Il est donc très difficile, en termes de droit international de l’aviation, d’établir des «listes noires» de compagnies aériennes particulières de pays tiers, sans compter les risques inévitables de rétorsion ou d’autres conséquences néfastes d’ordre diplomatique. C 19/22 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 21. 1. 98 3. La proposition de la Commission 3. 1. La proposition de directive «instaurant une procédure d’évaluation de la sécurité des aéronefs des pays tiers empruntant les aéroports communautaires» a pour objet de contribuer à l’amélioration de la sécurité en contrôlant les aéronefs de pays tiers lorsque la présomption existe que leur exploitation ne répond pas aux normes internationales en matière de sécurité. 3. 2. Si la proposition est essentiellement conçue pour s’appliquer aux aéronefs de pays tiers, elle ne modifie en rien le droit qu’ont les États membres, dans le respect du droit communautaire, d’inspecter tout aéronef atterrissant dans un de leurs aéroports. La procédure inclut en particulier les éléments 3. 3. suivants: 3. 3. 1. L’identification des données qu’un État mem- bre doit relever afin d’obtenir les informations suffisantes pour entreprendre par la suite toute action. 3. 3. 2. Les États membres sont tenus d’échanger des informations sur leurs actions, de sorte que les mesures de renforcement de la sécurité puissent être arrêtées à l’échelle de la Communauté. S’il en résulte qu’un État membre a des raisons 3. 3. 3. de croire qu’un aéronef ne respecte pas les normes internationales, il effectuera une inspection au sol. Si celle-ci fait apparaître une situation non 3. 3. 4. satisfaisante en termes de sécurité, l’État membre est tenu d’immobiliser l’appareil au sol jusqu’à l’élimination du danger. Le propriétaire/exploitant a un droit de recours. Si les défaillances ne peuvent être supprimées, l’État membre dans lequel l’inspection a eu lieu peut, en coordination avec l’État responsable de l’exploitation de l’aéronef, imposer les conditions nécessaires dans lesquelles ledit aéronef pourrait être autorisé à voler sans passagers payants jusqu’à un aéroport où il pourra être réparé. 3. 4. La Commission propose d’être assistée par un comité consultatif en ce qui concerne les mesures d’amélioration de la sécurité et les mesures d’application. La Commission a l’intention de créer un cadre 3. 5. juridique tout en laissant aux États membres une marge suffisante pour mettre sur pied les mécanismes correspondants, individuellement ou collectivement, par exemple en ayant recours à la CEAC ou aux JAA, à leur choix. La Commission estime que cette approche est compatible avec le principe de subsidiarité. 3. 6. Les États membres sont tenus de mettre en vigueur les dispositions législatives voulues pour se conformer à la directive proposée au plus tard le 1er juillet 1998. 4. Observations générales 4. 1. Le Comité accueille favorablement la proposition de la Commission. Toutefois, la proposition doit être envisagée comme un élément d’une stratégie globale d’amélioration de la sécurité plutôt qu’être considérée en soi comme une réponse définitive au problème de la sécurité. Le Comité souligne que l’action communautaire ne devrait pas se limiter à accroître la sécurité des transporteurs et des aéronefs de pays tiers, mais qu’elle devrait poursuivre les efforts en vue de renforcer l’ensemble des normes de sécurité en Europe. Le Comité souscrit au point de vue de la 4. 2. Commission selon lequel les mesures relatives aux inspections, aux immobilisations au sol et, le cas échéant, aux restrictions des droits d’atterrissage, doivent être communes à tous les États membres. Si cet objectif n’est pas atteint, la situation non satisfaisante concernant les droits de trafic décrite au paragraphe 1. 4. 4 perdurera sans aucun doute. Le Comité estime que cette éventualité ne saurait être tolérée. Si une action communautaire uniforme et efficace n’est pas arrêtée dans les meilleurs délais, la validité de la proposition de la Commission pourrait être remise en cause. 4. 3. Il convient de relever que l’annexe 13 de la Convention OACI définit un exploitant comme une «personne, organisme ou entreprise qui se livre ou propose de se livrer à l’exploitation d’un ou de plusieurs aéronefs» et que les exigences des JAA donnent une définition détaillée de la terminologie utilisée dans différents accords de louage. Toutefois, il n’existe pas de définition aussi précise du terme «propriétaire». Le Comité estime que la Commission devrait clarifier toute question en suspens avec les organismes intéressés, afin d’éviter des lacunes qui risqueraient de compromettre la sécurité. 4. 4. Les JAA sont susceptibles d’avoir un grand rôle à jouer, en particulier s’agissant de la définition des normes et des programmes de travail. Le Comité est favorable à cette évolution, mais relève que les JAA n’ont, à l’heure actuelle, aucun statut juridique. Ses 27 membres ont convenu d’en faire un organe de réglementation, mais non un organe législatif. Tous les membres des JAA ont souscrit en principe à l’engagement de donner force de loi dans leur pays à toutes les règles des JAA (en effet, il n’existe pas d’autre organe européen capable de s’acquitter des tâches accomplies par les JAA, notamment vu que celles-ci sont reconnues comme le centre d’expertise européen dans ce domaine). Le Comité estime que la Commission devrait reconnaître cette situation de fait et trouver un mode de coopération efficace entre les JAA et la Commission. 4. 5. Le développement de programmes de coopéra- tion et d’assistance ainsi que la formation adéquate de personnel de pays tiers renforcera le niveau de la sécurité dans ces pays. Les conditions existant dans ces pays, en particulier au niveau des aéroports (systèmes d’appro- 21. 1. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 19/23 che, communications, contrôle du trafic aérien) ont une incidence directe sur la sécurité de tous les passagers (y compris européens). Ce sont là des questions qui sont évoquées dans le rapport du groupe de haut niveau, mais qu’il n’est pas prévu d’inclure dans la proposition de la Commission à l’examen. 4. 6. Les autorités compétentes des États membres devraient se pencher, dans un souci de sécurité, sur la manière dont les compagnies aériennes de pays tiers garantissent que leurs équipages disposent d’une com- préhension adéquate des langues utilisées dans l’aviation civile, en particulier l’anglais. 4. 7. Lorsqu’un aéronef sera immobilisé au sol, cela affectera ses passagers (et sa cargaison) et un dédomma- gement pourra être demandé pour tout retard. Il convient d’étudier cette question et la manière dont les passagers (et la cargaison) devraient atteindre leur destination. 5. Observations spécifiques 5. 1. Considérants 5. 1. 1. Afin de faire clairement apparaître aux proprié- taires et/ou exploitants de pays tiers que la directive proposée est non discriminatoire, des considérants sup- plémentaires du type suivant devraient être ajoutés après le troisième considérant: «Considérant que les compagnies aériennes et les aéronefs communautaires font déjà l’objet d’inspec- tions rigoureuses conformément aux normes et aux pratiques recommandées de l’OACI et aux exigences des JAA. Considérant que les États membres sont habilités, conformément aux réglementations basées sur les normes et les pratiques recommandées établies par les annexes 8 et 13 de la convention OACI, à immobiliser au sol tout aéronef lorsqu’ils ont des raisons de penser qu’il n’est pas en état de voler ou lorsque survient un événement qui compromet et ou pourrait compromettre la sécurité de l’exploitation. » 5. 2. Article 2 (Champ d’application) 5. 2. 1. Modifier le premier alinéa comme suit: «La présente directive s’applique aux aéronefs atter- rissant sur les aéroports ou décollant des aéroports situés dans les États membres de la Communauté, lorsque ces aéronefs ne sont pas la propriété et/ou lorsque leur exploitation ne relève pas à part entière d’une organisation établie dans un État membre de la Communauté. » 5. 2. 3. A` la fin du troisième alinéa, ajouter ce qui suit: «Y compris ceux des États membres». 5. 3. Article 3 (Définitions) 5. 3. 1. Quatrième définition (Normes de sécurité inter- nationales). Après «1944», ajouter: «ou toute autre norme de sécurité reconnue interna- tionalement. ». 5. 3. 2. ter à la fin du paragraphe : Cinquième définition (Inspection au sol). Ajou- «ainsi que l’aptitude physique et la compétence de l’équipage. » 5. 4. Article 4 (Collecte de l’information) 5. 4. 1. Le sens à donner aux termes «autorité compé- tente» n’est pas suffisamment clair dans le contexte de cet article et est susceptible d’être source de confusion. Le Comité recommande de supprimer les termes «. autorités compétentes des. ». 5. 4. 2. rubriques suivantes: Au paragraphe 1, premier tiret, ajouter les «— des rapports du personnel de cabine; — des rapports du personnel de maintenance. » 5. 5. Article 5 (Inspection au sol) 5. 5. 1. Le libellé détaillé et normatif de cet article ne concorde pas avec l’intention de définir un cadre général qui ressort de la référence au principe de subsidiarité figurant au huitième alinéa de l’exposé des motifs. Il conviendrait de revoir cet article en vue de clarifier l’étendue du travail requis et sa fréquence. Il conviendrait également que la Commission précise (ici ou dans l’annexe II) que les contrôles ne devraient pas toujours être les mêmes ni effectués dans le même ordre s’ils ne peuvent être réalisés dans des délais raisonnables. 5. 5. 2. P a r a g r a p h e 1 5. 2. 2. Modifier comme suit le début du deuxième alinéa: «Seuls les aéronefs d’État. ». A` la troisième ligne, ajouter: «. sont soumis sans délai à des inspections. ». Cela met en exergue le côté urgent des actions à mener. C 19/24 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 21. 1. 98 5. 5. 3. P a r a g r a p h e 2 le rapport Lorsqu’il y a une défaillance notifiable, d’inspection au sol doit être envoyé à l’autorité de l’aviation civile reconnue officiellement comme l’organe de surveillance. 5. 6. Article 6 (Échange d’information) 5. 6. 1. Le Comité est préoccupé par le peu d’urgence qui est associée aux actions proposées, tant dans le rapport initial sur la situation existante que dans le cadre des activités futures des États membres, de la Commission ou du Comité consultatif (institué par l’article 9). Le paragraphe 2 évoque la disponibilité des rapports d’inspection au sol, mais ne donne pas d’indications adéquates sur la manière dont l’existence de ces rapports sera connue. Le Comité estime qu’il doit être bien clair qu’une action commune de tous les États membres est essentielle. Aucune lacune ne doit subsister et permettre à un exploitant de continuer à utiliser un aéroport communautaire tant qu’il n’a pas été pleinement remédié à toutes les défaillances relevées dans un autre aéroport de la Communauté. 5. 6. 2. Le Comité estime qu’une fois qu’une inspection au sol a eu lieu (article 5) et que les informations ont été il est impératif qu’une action recueillies (article 4), adéquate soit entreprise immédiatement. Les actions requises par la directive proposée ne le sont que parce qu’une situation non satisfaisante existe et que tout retard dans la mise en œuvre d’actions visant à y remédier est inacceptable. Cette préoccupation quant à d’éventuels retards serait encore plus aigue¨ si un État membre était empêché d’agir de son propre chef lorsqu’il estime que les circonstances l’exigent. Bruxelles, le 29 octobre 1997. 5. 6. 3. Au paragraphe 2, il serait utile de supprimer les termes «sur demande». La perception de l’urgence pourrait être accrue si tous les rapports étaient automati- quement envoyés à toutes les autres autorités compé- tentes. 5. 7. Article 7 (Protection de l’information) 5. 7. 1. Les intentions de cet article sont claires, mais son application pratique risque d’être difficile. Des informations confidentielles pourraient devoir être révé- lées pour justifier l’immobilisation au sol d’un aéronef contre laquelle une compagnie aérienne intenterait un recours. 5. 7. 2. Modifier le paragraphe 2 comme suit: «. notamment par l’équipage ou le personnel de maintenance, est garantie. » 5. 8. Article 8, paragraphe 5 (Immobilisation d’un aéro- nef au sol) Il faut définir clairement auprès de qui un 5. 8. 1. recours contre une décision d’immobilisation peut être introduit. 5. 9. Articles 9, 10 et 11 (Mesures d’amélioration de la sécurité, mesures d’application, comitologie) 5. 9. 1. La Commission devrait réexaminer ces articles et adapter leur libellé à tout changement qui serait décidé en conséquence du présent avis. 5. 10. Annexe 2 (Inspection au sol) 5. 10. 1. Il conviendrait de modifier le paragraphe 1 (première phrase) en ajoutant à la fin «et les rapports relatifs aux inspections précédentes». Cela devrait contri- buer à réduire les doubles emplois avec les inspections déjà effectuées et dont les autorités compétentes ont déjà connaissance. Le Président du Comité économique et social Tom JENKINS


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: - the 'General principles of food law in the European Union (Commission Green Paper)', and - 'Consumer health and food safety (Communication from the Commission)'

eurovoc_concepts:
approximation of laws
consumer protection
food inspection
foodstuffs legislation
public health

formats: html pdf print

text: 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/61 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: — the ‘General principles of food law in the European Union (Commission Green Paper)’, and — ‘Consumer health and food safety (Communication from the Commission)’ (98/C 19/19) On 12 May 1997 (green paper) and on 14 May 1997 (communication) the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned green paper and communication. The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Jaschick. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to five, with five abstentions. I. THE GREEN PAPER ON THE GENERAL PRIN- CIPLES OF FOOD LAW IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1. Introduction 1. 1. The green paper is concerned with the substantive provisions of Community food law. By taking a stand and inviting comments on a large number of specific questions, the Paper seeks to launch a public debate on how far: — current food law meets the needs and expectations of consumers, producers, manufacturers and traders; — measures to improve monitoring and inspection systems meet the fundamental objective of ensuring a safe and wholesome supply of food; — measures designed to further develop Community food law in the future are necessary and appropriate. 1. 2. On the basis of the reactions to the paper, the Commission will subsequently consider the need for a) a general directive on food law in society, b) the consolidation or reworking of existing legislation, c) pro- posals of a non-legislative nature, for example changes in procedures and working methods. 2. General comments 2. 1. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to use the green paper to trigger a wide-ranging public debate on European food legislation and the Community’s future food policy. It sees the green paper as a valuable basis for discussions and as an opportunity to make European food legislation more transparent and more efficient so that high-quality food supplies can be guaranteed. The Committee notes, however, that a comprehensive, integrated EU food policy upon which the different pieces of food law could be based, does not yet exist. Such a comprehensive policy that sets out the general principles of food law should be developed as soon as possible. As a first step, this could be done in a possible white paper on food law and food policy. In addition, the Committee would also call upon the Commission to present a proposal for a general food law directive. The Committee would underline the importance 2. 2. of consumer protection, consumer safety and the main- tenance of a high level of public health standards and welcomes in the as yet unratified Amsterdam Treaty the provisions strengthening Articles 129 and 129(a) to give consumers a firm guarantee that health problems take precedence over economic interests. 2. 2. 1. With a view to ensuring a high level of public health and consumer protection, the ESC attaches particular importance to the strict application of the precautionary principle, so that where there is scientific uncertainty and no possibility of carrying out a compre- hensive risk assessment, the approach taken to risk management must reflect that uncertainty. The Com- mittee emphasizes, however, that an approach that allows anything that is not directly damaging to health alone is not satisfactory from a consumer point of view. It therefore stresses the need for a clear commitment to the principle of preventative health and consumer protection. Both this principle and the precautionary principle should be incorporated into the general food law directive referred to above. C 19/62 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 2. 2. 2. The Committee would nevertheless point out that there is usually no such thing as a zero risk and life’s general risks by and large have to be accepted. The consumer also bears responsibilities, particularly in the food sector, and the ESC is not unaware of this. Against this background, the ESC continues to 2. 2. 3. take the view that legislative and other provisions must be as simple as possible and only go into detail where necessary; consumer confidence after all cannot be achieved by introducing highly complicated and extremely detailed rules and regulations. It is much more important to increase consumer awareness of existing legislation and proven methods of guaranteeing the availability of high-quality foodstuffs. Consumer confi- dence can also be increased by making Europe’s system more transparent. 2. 3. The Committee would wish to make it clear that considerable progress has already been made in the past to ensure that a high level of consumer protection goes hand in hand with the establishment of the internal market. Securing the free movement of goods will continue to be of great importance in the future. 2. 4. The Committee stresses the importance of the international dimension of these questions and under- lines the need for common basic principles in world trade to ensure that consumer interests are protected and that the European economy remains competitive. The Committee assumes that the green paper’s 2. 5. recommended review of food legislation will encourage consumer confidence in European food laws, their safeguards and the manner in which they are implement- ed and monitored. 3. Specific comments on the various parts of the green paper 3. 1. Introduction (Part I) 3. 1. 1. The Committee agrees with the Commission (see Part I, 4) that food policy-making should take due account of innovation and competitiveness requirements as well as other socio-economic policy directions. The observance of international standards such as the Codex Alimentarius is of particular importance in this respect as long as decision-making reflects the principles of excellence, independence and transparency. These cri- teria should be used to benchmark the EU’s regulatory environment against the general legal framework in place in competing economies. It will also be necessary to create a system whereby the EU’s regulatory system can be adjusted more quickly than in the past to new scientific knowledge and innovations. This will enable the European food industry to retain its international competitiveness and keep abreast of innovations. 3. 1. 2. The Committee is of the view that the Com- munity undoubtedly has a role to play in the field of nutrition (Part I, 5). In this connection it is vital to promote consumer education and information so that the consumer is placed in a position where he can make informed purchasing decisions (1). The Committee nevertheless feels that it is inappropriate to introduce Community rules and regulations on nutrition because of the wide range of nutritional habits in Europe. Community intervention here should be kept to the basic minimum. 3. 2. Simplification and rationalization of EU food law (Part II) 3. 2. 1. A simplification and rationalization of EU food law would be welcome provided that this does not endanger the necessary safety standards. In carrying out this task, the quality of legislation must come before quantity. Simplification must not, however, lead to a renationalization of the European rules and regulations needed in the single market. It is also particularly important to examine how national legislative initiatives detrimental to the free movement of goods are adequately countered at European level. 3. 2. 2. A distinction also needs to be made between self regulation in the foodstuffs sector and the use of voluntary instruments at European level (Part II, 4). In principle, we would lay stress on the food industry’s need to shoulder its own responsibilities. However, the extent to which this should take a ‘self-regulatory’ form must depend on the individual case in question. Without prejudice to existing safety requirements, the use of voluntary instruments must also in principle be examined before the introduction of legislation. The Committee takes the view that the principle of mutual recognition should also be accepted in the case of voluntary Member State instruments, even where there are no grounds for the immediate application of such instruments. Only if voluntary instruments in the internal market are accepted beyond national borders can the emergence of ‘de facto’ trade barriers be avoided. 3. 2. 3. The question of whether preference should be given to general or detailed regulations, to vertical or horizontal provisions in the internal market (Part II, 3 and Part II, 5), cannot be answered comprehensively. General and horizontal approaches are basically prefer- able but cannot be transformed into an incontrovertible principle. It is more important to consider what approach (1) This view is expressed in several ESC opinions, most recently in CES 888/96 — OJ C 295, 17. 10. 1996. 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/63 is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Thus, in exceptional circumstances and where a case presents specific difficulties, it may be necessary to have detailed and/or vertical regulations. 3. 2. 4. With regard to national legislative initiatives (Part II, 7), the Committee supports the approach set out in the green paper and takes the view that, contrary to what is stated in Directive 83/189/EEC, the burden of providing evidence that national laws are not detri- mental to the internal market should lie with the Member States. With regard to the notification of national legislation, the Committee approves the extension of powers provided under the labelling, contaminants and hygiene rules to cover the entire Community foodstuff sector. The Committee also welcomes the development of clear principles for evaluating new national legislative initiatives; this likewise implies the striking of a proper balance between the subsidiarity principle and the justifiable need for national legislation, on the one hand, and the requirements of European legislative standardization, on the other. 3. 2. 5. In the fields of processing aids, the addition of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs and dietary supplements (Part II, 8), the Committee agrees with the Commission that the principle of mutual recognition can offer no solution to detrimental effects in the internal market, and that further consultations on the content of laws in these areas should therefore be initiated (1). 3. 3. Review of (Part III) existing Community legislation 3. 3. 1. With regard to the adaptation of Community legislation to innovation and technical progress (Part III, 4), the Committee feels that only purely technical rules should be dealt with under the committee procedure. Questions of principle and sensitive questions from the point of view of the consumer with far-reaching importance should be the subject of a political decision. The introduction of a European-wide defi- 3. 3. 2. nition of ‘food’ and other generally important concepts (Part III, 5) is welcomed by the Committee. Such definitions should form part of a general foodstuffs regulation containing other basic requirements. This is the only way of ensuring that European food law is applied uniformly throughout the European Union. (1) It should be recalled that the Commission has recently launched a consultation in view of possible Community legislation in this field; a discussion paper has been prepared on the subject, presenting two options (an approach based on product safety and an approach based on the recommended daily intake). 3. 3. 2. 1. However, the proposed definition of a food- stuff raises, as is also indicated in the green paper, questions with regard to its general use for primary products which can be used as foodstuffs or foodstuff additives or processed into industrial products. Nonethe- less the Committee supports the proposal that the definition based on the Codex Alimentarius be used. An exception could be made for primary products in respect of which it is clear from the outset that they will at no time and in no way enter the food chain. The task of simplifying and rationalizing legis- 3. 3. 3. lation in the field of Community food hygiene (Part III, 6) has now begun and the move is particularly welcomed by the Committee. 3. 3. 3. 1. The numerous vertical directives with their specific provisions for sensitive categories of product (e. g. meat and fish preparations, milk products, etc. ) are incoherent, especially for firms subject to more than one set of provisions, and give rise to considerable red tape and expenditure on permits. The Committee is therefore pleased with the European Commission’s proposal to consolidate legislation into a single text and to launch a consultation exercise in connection with the planned simplification of vertical provisions. The green paper points to a welcome shift in 3. 3. 3. 2. policy in favour of thinking based on the general directive on food hygiene (Directive 93/43/EEC). The ESC shares the Commission’s view that a coherent and consistent body of legislation relating to food hygiene can best be achieved by the application of HACCP (2) principles and by limiting detailed prescriptive pro- visions to cases where they are regarded as essential. In this context the Committee is of the opinion that, in addition to the proposals already submitted, both vertical and horizontal hygiene requirements should be consolidated in a single text. It notes, however, that this would require clarification of the legal basis of such a document since current rules and regulations are based on different Treaty articles. 3. 3. 3. 3. HACCP principles should apply to the whole food chain (from ‘stable to table’), notwithstanding the size or type of establishment. Specific consultations with SMEs and agricultural enterprises are therefore required if such enterprises are to be in a position where they can apply these principles. 3. 3. 3. 4. The Committee considers that it is necessary to be consistent and press on down the road of simplification and rationalization. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the need for a clear definition (2) ‘HACCP’ (a self-checking system) stands for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. C 19/64 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 of the scope of any future provisions (cf. point 3. 3. 3. 2) — something which can be achieved first and foremost by laying down general and practical definitions. The Committee is of the view that the scope of veterinary hygiene rules should not be widened to include the retail supply of foodstuffs of animal origin since the retail trade is already covered by the general provisions currently laid down in the directive on food hygiene (Directive 93/43/EEC) which guarantees compliance with appropriate hygiene standards. 3. 3. 3. 5. With regard to primary products of non- animal origin the Committee is of the view that pesticide residues and contaminants constitute critical areas from the point of view of safety and hygiene. Legislative provisions on pesticide residues and contaminants should therefore be drawn up where they do not already exist and where they are felt to be necessary; European-level scientific committees should be involved in the drawing up of such provisions and the most stringent scientific standards should be set. Furthermore, there should be strict enforcement of pesticide residue limits. In drawing up pesticide legislation, industrial safety requirements should also be borne in mind. Since rules guaranteeing safety and hygiene standards need to be restricted to key areas, a more general set of provisions is not needed. The Committee underlines the importance of 3. 3. 4. foodstuff quality and points out that high standards have already been achieved. Rules on quality (Part III, 7) only need to be harmonized where a health link is established; preservation of the diversity of European products is another reason why rules on quality should not be harmonized. Any trade barriers resulting from national quality requirements must be countered by the consistent application of the principle of mutual recognition. By taking this line, problems stemming from different national quality requirements would be limited to the question of correct product labelling. Help for consumers in making purchasing decisions would be provided by the latest amendments to Directive 79/112/EEC introducing the principle of the quantitative declaration of ingredients. The Committee would also recall Council 3. 3. 4. 1. Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and for foodstuffs — two regulations which created instruments for diversification in the field of foodstuff quality. In terms of use, however, these regulations have so far been of secondary importance. 3. 3. 5. The Committee would emphasize the growing importance of foodstuff labelling rules (Part III, 8) in helping the consumer make purchasing decisions. The labelling of foodstuffs thus has an important role to play in the internal market. This means fulfilling the three essential requirements of labelling, viz. product identification, consumer information and product mar- keting. To fulfil these requirements, clearly recognizable, legible, simple, understandable, interesting and informa- tive labelling is needed which will not mislead the consumer. Attention must also be paid to increasing consumer wishes and growing consumer interest in receiving specific information. This relates inter alia to foodstuffs containing or derived from GMOs, pro- duction methods, the indication of packaging dates and compound ingredients of finished products. With respect to this latter question, the Committee believes that the 25 % rule should be abolished. 3. 3. 5. 1. The limits to labelling must however also be recognized and efforts made to open up new channels of information such as free telephone numbers, barcode scanners in shops, data banks, the Internet, etc. A look at the more than 40 European pieces of legislation on foodstuff labelling (the vast majority of which are mandatory), combined with the fact that the information on the labels is more and more detailed and hard for consumers to understand, reveals the need to review labelling provisions in the interests of consumers. In carrying out this review, mandatory labelling should be confined to the essential information required for purchasing decisions, whilst opportunities for the pro- vision of information on all other questions should be available on a voluntary basis. The Committee is of 3. 3. 5. 2. the opinion that nutritional labelling should be made compulsory (1). Before doing so, however, this type of labelling should be made more effective. To that end, major information and education campaigns will be needed, as consumers are not particularly well versed in nutritional labelling at the present time and so do not really know what to make off it. In addition, careful attention needs to be paid to the way the information is presented to consumers, so that it is understandable and useful to them (2). 3. 3. 5. 3. The Committee considers that codification is needed in the case of the food labelling Directive 79/112/EEC. Vertical labelling provisions should be incorporated in the consolidated text insofar as they also regulate horizontal labelling questions. They could be consolidated altogether in Directive 79/112/EEC. However, labelling elements particular to certain prod- 3. 3. 4. 2. In the view of the Committee, quality pro- visions with no link to health should be removed from veterinary legislation for reasons of coherence and consistency. (1) The ESC also made this request in its opinion on consumer policy priorities (cf. OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996 — points 2. 6. 3 and 2. 6. 7). (2) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996. 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/65 ucts should continue to be contained in specific vertical regulations. Insofar as horizontal labelling features of specific groups of products are modified, they should again be incorporated in the horizontal regulation. 3. 3. 5. 4. The Committee would point out that Direc- tive 79/112/EEC also regulates the question of advertis- ing. As a matter of general principle, advertising and labelling should not come into conflict, i. e. advertising should be complementary to rather than at odds with labelling. 3. 3. 5. 4. 1. Advertising claims, particularly those relat- ing to health and diseases, pose problems in the Internal Market because of varying practices in the Member States. This happens despite the fact that Directive 79/112/EEC [Article 2(1)(b)] contains a general provision stating that the labelling must not attribute to a foodstuff of general use the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, nor must it suggest that it possesses such properties. This general provision is by and large sufficient to regulate the question of advertising in relation to diseases. In this respect a uniform interpre- tation and application of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC is nevertheless required in all Member States of the Community. Regarding health claims no such general rules exist. Consequently, although such claims may not be, strictly speaking, misleading in terms of current EC legislation, they may contribute to misunderstanding and misinformation about food and nutrition. Therefore, the following principles should perhaps be incorporated in Article 2 of Directive 79/112/EEC in the form of a clarifying amendment: — advertising messages stating that a foodstuff is suitable for treating or curing diseases shall be prohibited; — health claims shall be allowed provided that they reflect significant agreement among qualified experts supported by the totality of publicly available evi- dence and which contribute to inform consumers about the relationship between health and diet. Also, a framework for the enforcement of health claims should be established; — advertising messages referring to nutritional values and healthy eating habits, and to the importance of nutrients and healthy eating habits in maintaining good health and reducing the risk of disease, shall be allowed, under the condition that these messages are also supported by scientific evidence. 3. 4. Maintenance of a high level of protection (Part IV) 3. 4. 1. The Committee supports the Commission’s stance in favour of the strict application of the pre- cautionary principle to food safety and food legislation (Part IV, 2). 3. 4. 2. Extending the scope of the safeguard clause contained in Article 10 of the general directive on the hygiene of foodstuffs (Council Directive 93/43/EEC) to include intra-Community trade (Part IV, 4) is not in principle necessary since the directive on product safety, which contains effective provisions on the appropriate reaction of the authorities when there is a risk of delay, affects intra-Community trade. If additional, general safeguard clauses are drawn up, they should for reasons of consistency be based on existing veterinary regu- lations. 3. 4. 3. The introduction of a general obligation to ensure that food is safe and wholesome (Part IV, 7) is to be welcomed. Such an obligation would reduce the number of regulations required in this area. The Committee welcomes accommodation 3. 4. 3. 1. of the ‘due diligence’ defence, i. e. the principle existing in some Member States whereby a business can never be liable to criminal or administrative penalties for bringing a product on to the market if it has taken all the steps which could reasonably be expected of it to ensure that the foodstuff meets legal requirements. The extent to which this principle can be incorporated into different national legal systems nevertheless needs to be examined. Room should nevertheless be found at the very least for a statement of the basic principle at stake. However it also needs to be said that ‘due diligence defence’ is a legal feature of the common law system and as such is incompatible with continental European legal systems which link criminal liability to actual wrong doing and have enshrined the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ in their legal systems. 3. 4. 4. The ESC, in line with what has been said in a number of previous opinions, reiterates its view that the scope of Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products (Part IV, 8) should be extended to cover unprocessed primary agricultural products (1). Account should nevertheless be taken of the specific character- istics of these products and the fact that detailed specific provisions already exist in this field. In the forthcoming months the ESC will tackle the question of liability for primary agricultural products again, as it will be (1) See on this question the views expressed in the ESC opinion of 31. 12. 1991 (OJ C 339) on completion of the internal market and consumer production. The opinion underlined the potential risks that the completion of the internal market could entail in the absence of proper monitoring and controls. It called for a consistent product safety policy recommending the inclusion of farm products and unforeseeable risks in the product liability directive. This position was reaffirmed in point 2. 7 of the ESC Opinion on BSE (OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996). C 19/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 consulted on the Commission proposal to amend Direc- tive 85/374/EEC to include these products within its scope. 3. 4. 5. With regard to the question of how the new aspirations of consumers are to be taken sufficiently into account (Part IV, 9), the Committee would draw attention to the green paper’s statement that ‘experience suggests that where there is a genuine consumer demand for more information about certain aspects of a food- stuff, this demand will frequently be met by producers and distributors on a voluntary basis, for example, through labelling, telephone information lines or the Internet’. Information about rapidly changing aspi- rations should also continue to be made available on a voluntary basis. Responding to the new aspirations of consumers is a way of helping to strengthen consumer confidence. 3. 5. Ensuring the effective implementation of internal market rules (Part V) 3. 5. 1. The Committee’s basic feeling here is that the harmonization and adoption of legislative provisions will only be successful if the provisions are transposed, implemented and monitored effectively and uniformly throughout the European Union (Part V, 2). In this respect improvements are needed at all three levels. Thought needs to be given to the extent to which the necessary exchange of information between representa- tives from Member States, producers, industry, com- merce, employees and consumers should be insti- tutionalized. Consideration should also be given to the case for inviting interested parties to meetings of the Standing Foodstuffs Committee. 3. 5. 1. 1. The Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs should also be consulted in connection with the drawing up of regular Commission reports on progress in implementing and monitoring legislation. This Advisory Committee should also be regularly consulted on all draft food legislation — a field where it has a vital role to play. Another institution already in place is the ESC itself. There is also a role here for the Advisory Veterinary Committee. 3. 5. 1. 2. If internal market legislation is to be effec- tively implemented, it is necessary for decision-takers in Member States, e. g. the authorities and courts, to be informed about the current legal situation and brought up to date with European legislation by attending refresher courses in advanced training establishments. The social partners in individual sectors of the economy also have a key role to play here since they are involved in social dialogue and can, for example, attend highly important basic and advanced in-house courses on the implementation of food legislation. 3. 5. 2. The Commission proposal that food legislation should include a general principle calling for equivalent, effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in the different Member States (Part V, 4) is welcome from the point of view of ensuring equal terms of competition and an equally high level of consumer protection. The ESC is aware here that national proportionality must be taken into account. 3. 5. 3. The principle of mutual recognition will con- tinue unchanged to be of great importance in non- harmonized areas (Part V, 5). It would also be a good idea for the Commission to identify and assess problems and cases of inadequate information arising for con- sumers in the non-harmonized areas. 3. 6. The external dimension The Committee agrees with the Commission 3. 6. 1. that imported foodstuffs from non-member countries must meet exactly the same requirements as products produced within the Community. 3. 6. 2. With regard to the multilateral dimension and the ever-increasing importance of world trade, it is necessary for the European food industry and European consumer interests to be represented as effectively as possible in hard-fought world trade negotiations and in relevant international bodies such as the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius. European interests need to be pushed more effectively than in the past and this can be done by coordinating and pooling efforts. To achieve this goal the European Community, its Member States, and the members of the European Economic Area will have to work together more intensively than has so far been the case. 3. 6. 2. 1. The Committee considers that the European Community needs to play an active role in the aforemen- tioned bodies. Steps need to be taken to ensure that should the European Union become a direct member, EU representation is no less effective than that of individual Member States. 3. 6. 2. 2. In this context, the Committee would also call upon the Community and the Member States to actively promote the European viewpoint that in cases of scientific doubt consumer interests take precedence over economic considerations. 3. 6. 3. In the context of the bilateral dimension of food legislation (Part VI, 3), mention could also be made of the fact that, in view of the different attitudes in the US and the EU on food standards issues (GMOs, Hormones, BST), the Committee should continue dis- cussions with its US counterparts in the context of the Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogue. II. THE COMMUNICATION ON CONSUMER HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY 1. General comments 1. 1. Back in July 1996, in its Opinions on the BSE 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/67 crisis (1) and on priorities for consumer policy (1), the Economic and Social Committee expressed its concern about food safety and invited the Commission to strengthen the authority of monitoring systems so as to reassure consumers that health concerns took precedence over economic interests. In this context the Committee welcomes the amendments to Articles 129 and 129a contained in the Amsterdam Treaty. 1. 2. The ESC also drew attention to the misfunc- tioning of the relationship between scientific advice and the decision-making processes and called upon the Council, Commission, Parliament and Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure that food products were safe for consumers and that the present situation did not deteriorate. The Committee welcomes the communication as 1. 3. an essential step towards a consistent policy in the fields of food, cosmetics, animal nutrition, animal health and animal welfare, and sees it as an opportunity to build up consumer confidence, as was underlined during the debate that took place in the Environment Section on 8 May 1997 following the presentation of the communication by Commissioner Emma Bonino. 1. 4. In expressing its views, it also welcomes President Santer’s statement at the February plenary session inviting the ESC as an institution representing different interests and components of society to provide a specific input in this field and to develop a permanent and open dialogue with all interested parties on new complex topics involving ethical, scientific, social and economic issues. 1. 4. 1. However, regrettably, the ESC is nowhere mentioned in the actual communication. As a matter of principle, whenever the European Parliament is consulted, so must the ESC. The ESC firmly supports the strengthening of 1. 5. experts’ committees but feels that changes to the resolution governing detailed procedures — on which the Commission is required by the end of 1998 to submit in accordance with the a proposal to the Council declaration on the final act as set out in Article 18(e) of the Amsterdam Treaty — are also extremely important. In the view of the ESC, any revision of the resolution on detailed procedures should accommodate the need to precisely define the powers invested in the Commission to enact implementing measures, especially in terms of (1) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996. the content and scope of such powers. Carefully defining in advance the scope and limits to the power to enact implementing legislation would then give legitimacy to the greater independence and more extensive decision- making powers enjoyed by the Commission. 2. Specific comments 2. 1. The Committee underlines the importance of scientific advice by the scientific committees, regarding it as a basis for legislation on the protection of consumer health. The Committee likewise supports the call for excellence, independence and transparency. 2. 1. 1. The ESC considers that a multidisciplinary approach is needed to be able to fulfil the tasks of scientific committees. The discussions and conclusions reached by these committees, including dissenting mi- nority views, should be accessible to the public. The independence of committee members is a sine qua non here although realism must also come into the equation. What is really needed in the committees are highly competent scientists who have already had experience of and carried out work in a wide variety of areas. The committee chairman, however, must always be notified of any conflict of interest before a given meeting takes place. The increasing tendency to consult scientific 2. 1. 2. committees is to be welcomed as long as decision-making reflects the principles of excellence, independence and transparency. Such consultations should be obligatory where health problems are concerned. This is particu- larly important in the context of international trade and the high profile of science in the WTO and SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary measures) Agreements. 2. 1. 3. The establishment of a scientific steering com- mittee to coordinate different committees and to take decisions on the involvement of several committees where multiple expertise is needed, is welcomed by the ESC. 2. 2. The legislator must be guided by the precaution- ary principle where safe conclusions are not reached despite calling on the expertise of highly qualified specialists and using all available scientific information. Legislation should in principle be drawn up on the basis of scientific evidence; in other words in cases where the scientific basis is insufficient or there are uncertainties, the Commission must adopt an approach to legislation which reflects these uncertainties. It must be remembered that there is no such thing as a zero risk and that what is needed in these cases is a political decision on acceptable risks. C 19/68 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 2. 3. As far as control and inspection services are concerned, the Committee would emphasize the need for effective and appropriately funded mechanisms. 2. 3. 1. The Committee supports the proposed intro- duction of a new approach which would embrace the monitoring of the whole food production chain (involving both animal and plant products) but would be limited to the ‘monitoring of monitoring’. Monitoring methods will have to be reviewed and systems for inspecting the performance of the competent authorities introduced. The required level of transparency must be achieved in a non-discriminatory manner whilst respecting confidentiality thresholds. The new approach must not however jeopardize consumer protection. The application of an externally audited quality 2. 3. 2. control system (e. g. EN 45004) to the management of the control services is regarded as opportune by the Committee since it would signify bringing control service management up to the current requirements of a modern administration. The establishment of a strong and efficient 2. 3. 3. authority for control and inspection services is supported by the ESC (1). The task of this authority is to ‘monitor monitoring’. The new authority should therefore be expected to meet the most stringent conditions of excellence, transparency and independence. 2. 3. 4. A general foodstuff agency, such as exists in the USA (FDA), is not regarded by the Committee as necessary. The advantages of such an agency over the existing system in Europe are not obvious so no action should be taken in Europe to set up such an agency. (1) In its opinion of 27 November 1996 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Agency for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection (OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997) the ESC expressed doubts as to whether the conversion of the existing office into an agency was really necessary. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/69 APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Defeated amendments The following amendments, which were supported by more than one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during the debate: Point 3. 2. 5 Replace by the original text of point 3. 2. 5, as follows: ‘In the fields of processing aids, the addition of vitamins and minerals to foodstuffs, and dietary supplements (1) (Part II, 8), priority should be given to the principle of mutual recognition. The Committee considers that further Community legislation is needed in these fields only in cases where obstacles to trade cannot be totally eliminated by mutual recognition. ’ Result of the vote For: 34, against: 39, abstentions: 14. Point 3. 3. 3. 3 The second sentence should be replaced by the following: ‘Specific checks are therefore required to establish to what extent these can actually be applied by SMEs and agricultural enterprises. ’ Result of the vote For: 28, against: 56, abstentions: 15. Point 3. 3. 5 Delete the last two sentences, from ‘This relates inter alia. ’ to ‘. should be abolished’. Result of the vote For: 32, against: 56, abstentions: 18. Point 3. 3. 5. 2 Replace this point by the original text, as follows: ‘As far as nutritional labelling is concerned, the Committee would refer to its comments in the opinion on “priorities for consumer policy” (2). This opinion has already made the point that consumers are not very interested in nutritional labelling; this may be due to the fact that consumers are not particularly well versed in nutritional information at the present time and so do not really know what to make of it. The Committee also said in this opinion that “major information and education campaigns will be needed to make nutritional labelling more effective”. Consumer understanding of existing labelling systems must therefore be improved before there is any discussion of further labelling requirements. ’ Result of the vote For: 30, against: 69, abstentions: 7. (1) It should be recalled that the Commission has recently launched a consultation in view of possible Community legislation in this field; a discussion paper has been prepared on the subject, presenting two options (an approach based on product safety and an approach based on the recommended daily intake). (2) OJ C 295, 7. 10. 1996


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission - An overall view of energy policy and actions'

eurovoc_concepts:
competitiveness
energy industry
energy policy
environmental protection
security of supply

text: 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/37 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission — An overall view of energy policy and actions’ (98/C 19/10) On 30 April 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 September 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Lerios. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 113 votes, with three abstentions. 1. Introduction The Committee has given its views many times 1. 1. on the various Community programmes and activities in the energy sector. — Investment projects of interest to the Community in the petroleum, natural gas and electricity sectors (1); — European energy charter (2); — Supply of crude oil and petroleum products (3); — Internal market in electricity and natural gas (4); — Internal market in electricity and natural gas (5); — Trans-European energy networks (6); — Community energy policy (7); — Energy and economic and social cohesion (8); — Thermie II (9); — Green paper policy’ (10); ‘For a European Union energy — Energy charter treaty (11); — SAVE II (12); — Gas supply (13); — Public service obligations in the internal energy market (14); — Illustrative nuclear programme (15); (1) OJ C 75, 26. 3. 1990, p. 26. (2) OJ C 269, 14. 10. 1991, p. 79. (3) OJ C 332, 16. 12. 1992, p. 74. (4) OJ C 73, 15. 3. 1993, p. 31. (5) OJ C 195, 18. 7. 1994, p. 82. (6) OJ C 195, 18. 7. 1994, p. 33. (7) OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 95. (8) OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 164. (9) OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 77. (10) OJ C 256, 2. 10. 1995, p. 34. (11) OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996, p. 146. (12) OJ C 82, 19. 3. 1996, p. 13. (13) OJ C 204, 15. 7. 1996, p. 84. (14) OJ C 56, 24. 2. 1997, p. 83. (15) OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 83. — Cooperation around agreed Community energy objectives (16); — Green Paper on energy for the future: renewable sources of energy (17). 1. 1. 1. Most recently the Commission’s proposal con- cerning the organization of cooperation around agreed Community energy objectives(18) sets out objectives and policy guidelines covering, in particular, security of supply, competitiveness, environmental protection, external energy relations and the promotion of energy efficiency and renewables; these guidelines have been periodically endorsed by the Member States and also by the ESC. 1. 1. 2. In order to facilitate the achievement of these common energy objectives, the Commission states that it is essential to strengthen cooperation and coordination between the Member States within an organized frame- work so as to ensure that national and Community energy policies are compatible with these objectives, as mentioned in the ESC’s previous opinions. 1. 2. The present communication is a first response to the call by the Council and European Parliament to establish a framework for existing Community programmes and activities in the energy sector and to make progress on rationalizing and coordinating them. 1. 3. The Commission’s request for the Committee to issue an opinion on this communication is in line with the new philosophy of involving the ESC from the outset in new Commission initiatives. (16) OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 123. (17) OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 41. (18) OJ C 27, 28. 1. 1997, p. 9. C 19/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 2. Gist of the Commission document 2. 1. The communication aims at giving complete information on EU actions in the field of energy and the corresponding financial means. It deals, on the one hand, with energy cooperation which includes cooper- ation with the Member States and with interested parties and, on the other hand, with Community actions concentrated on four objectives: — security of supply and international energy cooper- ation, — integrating energy markets to enhance competi- tiveness, — promoting sustainable development in the field of energy, and — promoting energy research and technological devel- opment. 3. General comments The Committee welcomes the Communication 3. 1. from the Commission, which further develops the direction taken by the green and white papers on EU energy policy, and by its Communication on cooperation around agreed Community energy objectives. 3. 2. Except in the case of the white paper, the Committee was able to express satisfaction with the content of all the above documents. In its opinion on the green paper on an EU energy policy, the Committee asked the Commission to clarify which instruments directly or indirectly influence Community energy pol- icy, and the powers and responsibilities concerned. 3. 3. The Committee welcomes the new Communi- cation as going some way towards satisfying this request. it still has some reservations, which are However, outlined below. 3. 5. As long as the Treaty lacks an energy chapter, therefore, it will be necessary to balance and coordinate the use of the various Treaty articles which have a bearing on the development of energy policy. Unless these articles are interpreted in their widest sense, there is a risk that the structure of the common energy policy will simply be based on that of numerous other Community policies. This could mean an energy policy which places insufficient emphasis on security of supply, which does not strengthen competitiveness, which is incompatible with environmental protection, or which does not respond to the needs of the Union’s citizens in terms of safety and quality of service. The Committee considers that the desire for 3. 6. transparency demonstrated by the Commission in this Communication is an important first step towards a new proposal which could lead to a new approach to the management of all energy policy actions contained in EU programmes. 3. 7. Many of the proposed initiatives have been included in previous Communications, and contain neither new elements nor additional substance. How- ever, the Commission’s attempt to provide an overall view of these, as per the title of the Communication, should be recognized. 3. 8. For this reason, the Committee is of the opinion that this Communication can only be a starting point, and that it should be completed by a further Communi- cation in which each of the areas mentioned (security of supply and international energy cooperation, integrating energy markets, promoting sustainable development in the energy field and promoting energy research and technological development) is examined in more detail and in more specific terms. The document should specify the added value of direct Community action or coordination of national activities, the legal base to be used, follow-up and monitoring mechanisms, financial implications, respective priority, and the timetable for the individual initiatives. 3. 4. Various Member States had proposed including an energy chapter in the Amsterdam Treaty. Because this could not be achieved, the Committee believes that a coherent and coordinated common energy policy should be drawn up at European Union level, using the existing acquis communautaire. This idea has been systematically approved by the Committee since the adoption of its own-initiative opinion on a Community energy policy, which proposed that the common policy be built upon cooperation between national energy policies and the freedom to choose primary energy sources. 3. 9. It should also be pointed out that the European Union is at a watershed in its development. The introduction of the single currency, the deepening of the single market, the effort to maintain economic and social cohesion among its citizens, advances in the social field, the possible accession of new Member States, and the growing demands of the citizens of the Union in many areas — all these are challenges in which the energy sector must always have a role. It must be emphasized that anyone of these new values or commit- ments that the European Union hopes to achieve could be jeopardized by even a short-lived energy shortage, 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/39 excessive increases in the cost of imported energy, or a decline in the quality and efficiency of the supply of oil, electricity or natural gas to which European consumers have been accustomed for decades. It is vital, therefore, that the energy sector — and hence energy policy — are able to rise to these challenges and meet the demands of European citizens. 3. 10. This Communication could thus serve as the basis for a real programme for the energy sector. The Economic and Social Committee could be consulted again and have another chance to make a positive contribution to the document. Finally, this programme for energy policy could be included in the discussions on Agenda 2000, which will include debates on the challenges and opportunities opened up by EU enlarge- ment, the overall financial outlook and the new operating framework for the institutions. This would also mean that the European Commission’s Directorate-General for energy would have a substantial work programme covering several years, which would consolidate the role of the energy sector in a European Union which is geographically larger, economically more competitive and socially more cohesive. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Recommen- dation on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education’ (98/C 19/11) On 5 June 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Rodrı´guez Garcı´a Caro. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes, with one abstention. 1. Introduction Article 126(1) of the Treaty establishing the 1. 1. European Community states that the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and by supporting and supplementing action designed to attain the objectives of the Treaty, while fully respecting the responsibilities of the Member States. 1. 2. Given the interest shown by the Member States in improving the quality of higher education in their universities, the Council meeting of Education Ministers held in November 1991 urged Community action in the field of quality assessment. In 1994 the Commission and the Member States implemented two pilot projects with the aim of assessing the quality of teaching and learning in a few specific subject areas in selected institutions. 1. 3. At the time this action was launched, quality assessment systems had been developed to different degrees in the Member States. Consequently, the funda- mental aim of the projects was to raise awareness of the need for quality assessment in higher education establishments, with a view to improving the actual teaching received by students. The results obtained in the pilot projects and the 1. 4. conclusions drawn from this interesting experiment were set out in an information note presented by Mrs Cresson to the Council meeting of Education Ministers on 6 May 1996. The Council took note of the Com- mission’s intention to produce a recommendation fol- lowing the guidelines of the note


title: Advies van het Economisch en Sociaal Comité over het "Voorstel voor een verordening (EG) van de Raad tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 2201/96 houdende een gemeenschappelijke ordening der markten in de sector verwerkte producten op basis van groenten en fruit"

eurovoc_concepts:
common organisation of markets
fruit product
fruit vegetable
production aid
vegetable product

text: C 19/126 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 21. 1. 98 Advies van het Economisch en Sociaal Comité over het „Voorstel voor een verordening (EG) van de Raad tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 2201/96 houdende een gemeenschappelijke ordening der markten in de sector verwerkte producten op basis van groenten en fruit” (98/C 19/33) De Raad heeft op 15 september 1997 besloten, overeenkomstig de bepalingen van de artikelen 43 en 198 van het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, het Economisch en Sociaal Comité te raadplegen over het voornoemde voorstel. Het Economisch en Sociaal Comité heeft de heer Sabin als algemeen rapporteur voor dit onderwerp aangewezen. Het Economisch en Sociaal Comité heeft tijdens zijn op 29 en 30 oktober 1997 gehouden 349e Zitting (vergadering van 29 oktober) het volgende advies uitgebracht, dat met 82 stemmen voor en 2 stemmen tegen is goedgekeurd. 1. Het Comité constateert dat dit voorstel tot wij- ziging van de GMO in de sector verwerkte producten op basis van groenten en fruit, die in 1996 nog werd herzien, alleen betrekking heeft op de verdeling van het Franse quotum voor de voor verwerking bestemde tomaten over de verschillende productgroepen, en geen invloed heeft op de quota van andere lid-staten. Bij de hervorming van de GMO in 1996 werd het 1. 1. totale Franse quotum verlaagd met 24 000 ton. Deze verlaging gold voor zowel tomatenconcentraat als „an- dere producten”. 1. 2. Ook werd bij de hervorming van 1996 een eind gemaakt aan de mogelijkheid om hoeveelheden van de ene productgroep naar de andere over te hevelen zodra het quotum van één ervan is overschreden. 1. 3. Dit betekende dat het aan Frankrijk toegewezen quotum voor tomaten die bestemd zijn voor „andere producten” niet strookte met de nationale productie en er een verschil bestond van ongeveer 15 000 ton tussen de werkelijke productie en het quotum. het Franse quotum over de verschillende productgroepen voor de verkoopseizoenen 1997/1998 en 1998/1999 aan te passen: het quotum voor gepelde tomaten zou met 15 000 ton moeten worden verlaagd en het quotum voor „andere producten” met dezelfde hoeveelheid verhoogd. 2. Met het voorstel van de Commissie wordt gevolg gegeven aan het besluit van de Raad van juni 1997. Het voorgestelde quotum sluit beter aan bij de werkelijke productie van voor verwerking bestemde tomaten in Frankrijk, zonder dat het totale Franse quotum wordt verhoogd. Bovendien heeft een verhoging van 15 000 ton van het Franse quotum voor „andere producten” geen negatieve gevolgen voor de andere lid-staten. Frankrijk voorziet immers slechts voor 35-40 % zélf in de benodigde hoeveelheid tomaten voor de verwerkende industrie. Volgens de laatste gegevens zullen de commu- nautaire quota voor het verkoopseizoen 1997 overigens niet eens worden gehaald. Ten slotte brengt dit voorstel geen kosten met zich mee en levert het zelfs een kleine besparing op omdat er voor gepelde tomaten een hogere premie wordt toegekend dan voor tomaten die voor „andere producten” zijn bestemd. 1. 4. In juni 1997 besloot de Raad van ministers van landbouw de Commissie te verzoeken de verdeling van 2. 1. Het Comité hecht dan ook zijn goedkeuring aan het voorstel van de Commissie. Brussel, 29 oktober 1997. De voorzitter van het Economisch en Sociaal Comité T. JENKINS


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 3513/97 del Jup WEBER a la Comisión. Estrategia de la Unión Europea para el sector forestal

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
European Commission
European Union
forestry policy
proposal (EU)
resolution of parliament

formats: html print