title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission on modernizing and improving social protection in the European Union'

eurovoc_concepts:
European social policy
employment policy
social change
social security
social-security harmonisation

text: 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/85 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission on modernizing and improving social protection in the European Union’ (98/C 73/22) On 18 March 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 Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 November 1997. The rapporteur was Miss Maddocks, and the co-rapporteur, Mr Chevalier. At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 76 votes to 38, with nine abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 2. Current trends? 1. 1. International competition? Social protection and competitiveness can be mutually reinforcing. Neither should undercut the other, be it in the internal market or in the world trade organization. Together, they can form a cohesive and durable base, along with macro-economic policy, to promote growth and employment, underpinned by solidarity, enterprise and inclusion. Social protection expenditure accounts for 28 % of EU total GDP. In the United States, net expenditure is 27 % of GDP. ‘When account is taken of private as well as public spending, total household expenditure on social protection, health care and pensions’, in the Com- mission’s words, ‘is at relatively similar levels across a range of developed industrialized countries’ (1). The Communication clearly states that ‘It is important to realize that the reasons for a reform of social protection systems is not competition from third countries’ (2). (1) COM(97) 102 final, point 1. 2, 2nd paragraph. Data available on public and private social protection spending in Sweden and in the United States expressed as a percent of private household expenditure, show that, in 1990, Swedish households devoted 4,4 % of their income to private health, education, pensions and day care, and 36,8 % to taxes, for a total of 41,2 %. Their American counterparts devoted 29,2 % of their income to private health, education, pensions and day care, and 10,4 % to taxes, for a total of 39,6 %. Gosta Esping-Andersen, «The Double Problem of Coordination in Contemporary Welfare States», paper prepared for the Conference on Social Policy and Economic Performance, Amsterdam, 23-25 January 1997. (2) Ibid. , 3rd paragraph. ‘Extra-EU exports of goods account for 8 % of EU GDP — a level which has persisted over two decades. That means that 92 % of the demand is met with production in Europe, while 8 % is met through imports from countries outside the EU’, Commission report ‘Europe as an Economic Entity’, CSE(96) 8 final, 4. 12. 1996, p. 8. EU social protection expenditure increased in the 1980s and 1990s at a slower rate in relation to GDP than it did in the 1970s. Increases in relation to GDP occurred mainly during economic recessions, when GDP expand- ed slowly or not at all. Some Member States also increased spending in order to develop their social protection systems towards the levels of more developed states in the Union (3). Taken as a whole, EU social protection expenditure has been relatively stable, except during cycles of poor economic performance. The Commission has concluded, ‘there is little sign of any underlying acceleration in the growth of social protection spending’ (4). At the same time, EU social protection expenditure is credited with maintaining social cohesion and stability in periods of major macro-economic shocks, industrial change process and restructuring. 1. 3. Future sustainability of EU social protection? 1. 3. 1. In order to preserve their social protection systems, while taking account of demographic and economic trends, many Member States will seek to adapt their social protection systems over the next decade, according to their individual circumstances and cultures. However these adaptations ought to take place through cooperation in the EU framework. 1. 3. 2. The Commission Communication considers that the real ‘reasons for a reform are internal’. Two major problems are highlighted: ‘big public deficits and the lack of real success in social integration’ (5). 1. 3. 2. 1. It can be argued that the first problem is not caused by, but does have an effect on, social protection. Mass unemployment and the corresponding transfers to (3) ‘Social Protection in Europe’ COM(95) 457 final, Chapter 3, page 59. (4) COM(95) 457 final, op. cit. , summary, p. 12, penultimate paragraph. (5) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , point 1. 2, last paragraph. C 73/86 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 pay for income compensation for people out of work are problems chiefly relating to economic slowdowns and the performance of the labour market. Likewise, the demographic ‘timebomb’ and fears of an unsustainable dependency ratio in the near future as regards the numbers of retired people receiving old-age benefit vis-à-vis the number of the active workforce, can also be considered as a major distributional problem, relating more to the replacement ratio on the labour market than to any inherent failure of social protection. At the same time, it can also be argued that the economic and labour market adjustments judged necessary can be bolstered and supported by certain adaptations of our social protection systems. The key to progress on both points would seem to be based around the twin concepts of flexibility and security, taking into consideration the ‘changing nature of work’ and the importance of coordinating economic and structural policies as set out in the Dublin Summit declaration on employment and outlined in the Commission’s report on ‘Europe as an Economic Entity’. 1. 3. 2. 2. The second problem, ‘the lack of real success in social integration’, is one more intrinsic to social protection in the EU, especially in relation to mass unemployment and accompanying social exclusion, the estimated economic and social costs of which are huge. There is a general consensus that a major shift is necessary from (passive) income maintenance to (active) employment-friendly social protection systems. 1. 3. 3. Two additional and important challenges are highlighted in the Commission Communication: ‘adapt- ing social protection to the new gender balance’ and ‘improving social protection for people moving within the Union’. The Committee has endorsed all major proposals in these fields (1). 2. Specific proposals? 2. 1. Social protection as a productive factor 2. 1. 1. The Committee has consistently upheld the view that social protection can help stimulate and reinforce economic performance, and has drawn atten- tion to the beneficial effects of an integrated and coordinated approach at both European and national levels between social and economic policies (2). The Commission communication also points out, ‘Members States with a strong safety net often perform better in (1) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , executive summary, points 4 and 5. (2) ESC Opinion on Social policy and economic performance, OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997, points 2. 3 and 3. terms of GDP per capita or external balance than Member States with a weaker safety net. ’ (3) The negative, downward spiral, of bad economic perform- ance being transposed into social protection cut-backs and therefore lower consumption and reduced demand, can be turned around into a positive integrated approach, concentrating on transforming passive into active expen- diture, generating jobs, services and growth. As pointed out in the Delors White Paper, this would require ‘restructuring national government income support schemes in ways which enable income from work to be topped up with income from social security, by developing integrated taxation and income support systems with appropriate safeguards. ’ (4) In this regard, among the further studies on the links between social and economic policies which the Commission will develop, it could undertake studies to establish compar- able indicators of the employment potential of the care sector and of the preventive capacity of social protection. In this framework, a recent study highlights the costs of not having a developed social model (5). Lastly, as the Commission points out, ‘a central question (. ) is how to combine obligations and opportunities’ (6). The Commission rightly points out that ‘the urgent need to consolidate public finances. is not in contradiction with a high degree of social protection nor does it dismantle the principle of solidarity. On the contrary, it strengthens solidarity between different generations, since it reduces the burden on future generations’ (7). The Committee is aware that the Commission will submit a study on this issue to the Member States and would wish to be involved in this debate. 2. 2. Making social protection more employment- friendly 2. 2. 1. Developments on the labour market, such as the increasing participation rates of women and the spread of flexible forms of work, coupled with the emerging of new forms of work organization and of flexible leave arrangements throughout working life are shaping the world of work towards more varied individual working patterns (8). Social protection can back up such developments by facilitating the different forms of labour market transitions. Various Committee (3) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , point 1. 2, 2nd paragraph. (4) White Paper on ‘Growth, Competitivity and Employment: the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century’, EC Bulletin, Supplement 6/93, p. 131, point 8. 8, c(iii). (5) German Unemployment and the European Social Model, Commission Services. (6) COM(97) 102, point 2. 1, 2nd paragraph. (7) Ibid. , point 1. 2, 4th paragraph. (8) Green Paper on ‘Partnership for a New Organization of Work’, COM(97) 128/9. 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/87 opinions upheld the view that these new developments must be taken into account in the organization of social protection (1). The Dublin Declaration on Employment also called for the ‘developing social protection systems capable of adapting to new patterns of work and of providing appropriate social protection to people engaged in such work’. subsidized labour. Particular attention is also needed to ensure that such schemes are designed and based on criteria effectively conducive to employment. As the Committee has previously pointed out, ‘by themselves, education and training are not enough to construct an adequate policy against unemployment. General and specific policies aimed at job creation will also be necessary’ (3). The potential growth areas for such a turn- 2. 2. 2. around in making social protection more employment- friendly are predominantly in the sectors where public- private partnerships can be nurtured. For example, the care sector, transport, energy and the environment are all areas where investment, through the use of non-wage income support mechanisms and accompanying safe- guards, could enable other pressing needs (such as those of the elderly) to become more economically sustainable and could be beneficial to growth and jobs. The high public sector profile of such schemes lends them considerable importance; hence the Delors white paper suggestion to maximize the job generation potential of such measures by their operation through a ‘single government agency’ is logical (2). The involvement of the social partners, of the social economy and relevant NGOs and of local and regional government within such a framework could also help promote practical schemes, and ensure proper safeguards and positive incentives to assist the shift from ‘welfare to work’. Many long-term recipients of benefit over prolonged periods have become locked in to their situation and find it increasingly difficult to break out. This could be overcome by a positive campaign directed towards the betterment and improvement of the individual’s situation as well as a (non-detrimental) adjustment of the relationship between tax and benefits. Such incentives could include a higher income ceiling in terms of benefit entitlement. Similar public/private partnerships, based on 2. 2. 3. part work experience and part income support, and subject to collective agreements, could be envisaged as regards the training and re-skilling of unemployed people seeking to qualify, requalify and enter or re-enter the labour market. Efforts to promote flexible transitions between school, training and employment are important. Again, the involvement of the social partners in negotiat- ing the framework for such job-training schemes topped up by income support could ensure incentive-based rather than compulsory ‘workfare’ schemes, with appro- priate safeguards against job substitution through cheap 2. 2. 4. These policies should be pursued: — with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity and, in particular, the ‘acquis’ of each Member State based on prior negotiations and their different ‘social cultures’; — in close collaboration with the players to define the projects, ensure that they are carried out and evaluate the results; — avoiding the creation of a social stratum with artificial and underpaid jobs. 2. 2. 5. Employment-friendly social protection also includes proposals to reduce non-wage labour costs. The Delors White Paper proposed the lowering or exemption of employers’ social security contributions for less skilled, low-wage labour, with costs being off-set by compensatory measures such as environmental taxes, excise duties on consumer products that are damaging to health, and taxes to make productive investment more attractive (4). The Committee’s Opinion of Novem- ber 1996 on the ‘future of social protection’ took a similar line on compensatory measures, but advocated that employers could enjoy a partial exemption on their social security contributions on all wages and salaries and apply it to those beneath an agreed level (5). The Committee Opinion of 9 July 1997 on taxation in the EU also endorsed such alternative sources of finance (6). that The Commission Communication points out ‘Several Member States have introduced various measures to reduce non-wage labour costs (but that) some studies have shown that they have not led to significant effects on overall employment levels because they trigger substitution effects between subsidized and non-subsidized labour and dead-weight losses. At the (1) See Opinions on ‘The future of Social Protection’, OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997 and on ‘Working Time’, OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996. (2) Ibid. , point 8. 8 c (iii). point 5. 2. 2. (4) White Paper, op. cit. , points 9. 4, 9. 5. (5) OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997, point 5. (6) OJ C 296, 29. 9. 1997, point 2. 2. 3. (3) ESC Opinion on ‘Social Exclusion’, OJ C 352, 30. 12. 1993, C 73/88 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 same time, these studies show that the positive effects will be greater if measures are carefully designed and linked to job creation’ (1). The Committee urges the Commission to continue to work on this issue and would wish to be involved in this exercise. It is clear that such schemes should not lead to insecure jobs substituting secure ones, nor should they undermine the rights of social security beneficiaries. The subsidiarity principle should be observed. 2. 2. 5. 1. In order to promote employment, there is a widespread agreement on the ‘need to reverse the trend in taxation structures towards an increasing burden on labour compared to other tax bases’ (2). This is why the Committee acknowledges the importance of the global view of the whole area of taxation undertaken by the High Level Tax Policy Group set up by the Dublin European Council. Moreover, the interplay between tax and benefits structures could be made more neutral with respect to labour market dynamics. 2. 2. 6. Proposals in the Commission Communication in favour of a more flexible transition from work to retirement, especially through the use of voluntary part-time pre-retirement schemes, have been consistently supported by the Committee, subject to legislative safeguards and a strong framework of collective agree- ments adapted to the sectors concerned. ‘Individuals would progressively reduce their working hours (increas- ingly part-time activity) whilst simultaneously extending their working life (a gradual shift in retirement age. ’ (3). Such individualized, part-time working arrangements, subject to collective agreements, could be designed to help free-up jobs for the young unemployed, with consequent savings in social security and unemployment benefits. However, any such arrangements must not be to the detriment of older workers. Such savings, plus a more gradual and staggered recourse to pensions, could more than off-set income support to top-up the part-time pre-retirement schemes. The overall costs and benefits of such arrangements would need to be evaluated, and examples of good practices across the European Union discussed between the social partners. The question of pro-rata rights and the legal status of part-time workers would also need to be resolved. The Committee has also consistently advocated 2. 2. 7. the need for social protection to promote inclusion. This (1) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , point 2. 2. 3, 4th paragraph. (2) Commission Communication ‘Taxation in the European Union. Report on the development of tax systems’, COM(96) 546 final, point 6. 12. Available data on the taxation structure according to the economic function as % of GDP show that for the EU 15, in 1993, tax burden bore 11 % on consumption, 21,2 % on employed labour, 7 % on capital and 2,1 and 0,6 % on, respectively, energy and environment. Structures of the taxation systems in the EU, Eurostat report, 1997. (3) OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997, op. cit. , point 6. 4. 1. 7. requires a guaranteed minimum level of income security, linked to integration, stability and re-skilling. Jobs and activity are the best means to sustain social inclusion. This can include ‘non-market’ jobs in which the vast savings to public expenditure can easily off-set top-up allowances, benefits or tax exemptions. 2. 3. Adapting social protection to the demographic ageing of European societies 2. 3. 1. The combination of a falling birth rate and increased longevity means that the ratio of elderly people to the working population will double over the next fifty years. This will make it increasingly difficult to finance pension payments if there is not an adequate level of contributors in the active workforce. The development of common forecasting models of long- term social protection expenditure would help increase understanding of the challenges posed by the demo- graphic changes across the Union. The demographic ‘timebomb’ and resulting pressures on and doubts about the sustainability of pension schemes is in any case a major distributional problem relating to the replacement ratio on the labour market, as is also highlighted by the Commission in its Demographic Report 1997 (4). Various labour market adjustments can help off-set some of the problems. For example, the Commission Communi- cation indicates ‘The trend of increased female partici- pation in employment will continue during the years to come and will make a valuable contribution to coun- tering an impact of the ageing workforce (5)’. Flexible transition to retirement with voluntary shifts in retire- ment age, as indicated above, could also lower the dependency ratio. Moreover, at a time when more than 18 million people in the EU are unemployed, it would seem rather paradoxical to panic over the lack of an active workforce. The key issue is not the overall demographic structure of society, but the share of people involved in generating GDP. The problem is jobs more than pensions. Questions arising concerning the sustainability of pensions, be they ‘pay-as-you-go’ (PAYG) schemes or (‘funded’) capital-stock schemes, are in the final event inextricably linked to economic performance. Moreover, as the Commission points out ‘a radical transformation of the public schemes from (4) European Commission, Demographic Report 1997, p. 3 and passim. (5) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , point 1. 2. 3, 1st paragraph. 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/89 PAYG to funded schemes is not realistic because of the huge transition costs’ (1). Providing a ‘secure environment’ for supplementary pension schemes needs to be tempered by policies relating to economic performance. PAYG schemes depend on policies enabling people actively to engage in creating GDP. Funded schemes are subject to inflation, investment and capital speculation risks. Irrespective of the way in which pension insurance is organized — public, supplementary, or private — there must be adequate guarantees on their coexistence. Expenditure involved must in any case be generated by the current state of national economies and by accompanying policies on monetary stability and capital investment. Within such economic constraints, the Committee has already endorsed proposals in favour of portable sup- plementary pension schemes. 2. 3. 2. The Committee has already supported the ideas set out in the Commission Communication as regards meeting new care needs for older people, especially enabling older people who so wish to stay if possible in their own homes, rather than in ‘insti- tutionalized’ care. Enabling conditions, such as home- help, medical and paramedical care, and access to social services, all possibly in partnership with the voluntary sector, are preferable to, and indeed less expensive than, having to depend on private insurance with possible risks of ‘adverse selection’ and ‘moral hazard’ (2). Additional measures have been proposed by the Committee, includ- ing an inter-generational solidarity levy to finance structures and assistance for old people as a means of reducing protection measures to cover new risks can also be achieved, even during periods of recession. dependence. Positive social 2. 3. 3. The protection and restoration of health are an essential aspect of social protection. This chapter should not be approached solely in terms of the elderly, but should be studied in its own right. Health care expenditure, especially for the very old, can be partially offset by preventive medicine, guidance and home care. In order to improve health outcomes, and to equip health care systems to address the factors influencing the health status of the population, Member States could pursue a more consistent approach to health policy along the lines indicated by the WHO (3). Moreover, a better evaluation of cost-effectiveness of new tech- nologies and of the impact of Community policies could be carried out. The Commission also draws attention to the need to improve awareness of the health aspects of the changes in work organization (4). The Committee’s Opinion of November 1996 on ‘the future of social protection’ highlighted that ‘by adopting the 1992 Recommendation on the convergence of social protec- tion objectives and policies, the EU Member States have endorsed the objective of ensuring that all persons legally resident in a Member State have access to necessary health care, as well as the maintenance and development of a high quality health-care system. The concern over containing health care costs must be tempered by concern to ensure equitable access to high-quality health care for all. Measures allowing the selection of risks (cream-skimming) would endanger solidarity and jeop- ardize the provision of effective care’ (5). 2. 4. Adapting social protection to the change in the gender balance: towards an individualization of rights The Committee has supported proposals for 2. 4. 1. reconciling working and family life and for progressively implementing an individualization of rights, without thereby jeopardizing the economic situation of women. The Commission states ‘the idea of a basic old-age pension supplemented by an occupational pension might be able to accommodate this very complex problem’ by taking better account of the current position of women on the labour market and to more varied patterns of working life (6). However, taking into account the differences between the national systems, the effects that the Commission’s idea could have on contribution-and- income-related social security systems should be thor- oughly researched. It would be useful if the Commission issued a Communication on the individualization of rights, in which these problems would be covered. 2. 4. 2. The Committee has also consistently endorsed proposals for equal treatment in statutory and occu- pational social security schemes. 2. 5. Improving social protection for people moving within the Union 2. 5. 1. The Committee has endorsed all up-dates of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, enabling closer coordi- (1) Ibid. , point 2. 3. 1, 7th paragraph. (2) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , point 2. 3. 3, 3rd paragraph. (3) WHO, Health for all in Europe: an Epidemiological Review, Copenhagen, 1990. (4) Green Paper on ‘Partnership for a New Organization of Work’, COM(97) 128/9, points 62 and 63. (5) OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997, point 8. 5. (6) COM(97) 102 final, op. cit. , point 2. 4, last paragraph. C 73/90 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 nation of statutory social security arrangements for people moving within the EU. It is also drawing up an Opinion on the recently published Green Paper on ‘Supplementary Pensions in the Single Market’ (1). The Committee has already specifically called for similar provisions for occupational pension schemes, including a legal framework safeguarding assets and individual rights, comparable EU-wide transfer values, and an EU coordination framework for occupational pension schemes, perhaps based on Article 51 of the Treaty, analogous to that already in existence for statutory schemes (2). It has also draw attention to fiscal anomalies for frontier workers. 3. Supporting the adaptation process through action at European level 3. 1. The Committee has called for an EU regulatory framework on pro-rata rights for part-time workers and for the coordination of occupational pension schemes. It has also called for a European poverty and social exclusion observatory and for European-wide data on the costs of poverty and social exclusion. EU provisions on equal treatment for women and men in statutory and occupational social security schemes have been endorsed. EU-wide measures in favour of growth, competitiveness and employment, upon which sustainable social protec- tion depends, have been proposed or endorsed in numerous Committee opinions. The fundamental inter- dependence of social policy and economic performance in the EU remains paramount. This is why the Committee agrees with the Commission that ‘The reforms of social protection systems have to be seen in the context of the European employment strategy and the “Broad Economic Policy Guidelines”, agreed at the Florence European Council’ (3). It is also why the Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to pursue the debate with the social partners and through the civil dialogue, as well as with the European institutions, in (1) COM(97) 283 final. (2) ESC Opinion on ‘Supplementary Social Security Schemes’, 26. 5. 1992 — OJ C 223, 31. 8. 1992. (3) COM(97) 102 final, point 2. 1, 2nd paragraph. Brussels, 10 December 1997. the knowledge that ‘modernizing and improving social protection in the Union cannot be achieved without the active participation of all involved’ (4). The Committee is also aware that the exchange of experience between Member States represents important added value at EU level (5) and wishes to see this ‘catalyst’ role pursued. In this framework benchmarking can represent a valuable tool in order to identify particularly effective practices with respect to the objectives set out in the 1992 Recommendation on the convergence of objectives and policies of social protection. 3. 2. However, the Committee notes from the com- munication that the Commission has set itself a very busy and tight schedule and plans to carry out numerous studies and draw up several documents. For instance: — analyses: taxation, unemployment benefits, fore- casting methods, relationship between market and health care, care of children and elderly depend- ants. ; — assessments: costs and benefits of social protection, impact of policies and means for combating unem- ployment, minimum income, wage costs, retirement and pension schemes, prevention- health, cost of heath; — the Green Paper on supplementary pension schemes (see point 2. 5. 1 above). For its part, the Committee suggests including 3. 2. 1. a study in order to establish comparable indicators on the employment potential of the care sector and of the preventive capacity of social protection. The Com- mission’s schedule is very tight: ‘Amsterdam Summit, end of June 1997, first half of 1997. ’. Therefore, several documents will not have been examined by the Committee. Furthermore, it will be difficult to consult the bodies concerned. Considering the scope, nature and seriousness of the subjects involved, the Committee would wish to issue its opinion in good time, when the texts are being prepared and not after their publication. (4) Ibid. , point 3, 2nd paragraph. (5) Ibid. , point 3, 1st paragraph. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/91 APPENDIX I to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee The following members, present or represented, voted for the opinion: Mr/Mrs/Miss: ABEJO´ N RESA, ANDREWS, ANGELO, ATTLEY, Dame Jocelyn BARROW, BASTIAN, BETELU BAZO, BØGH, BRIESCH, van den BURG, BURKHARD, Vasco CAL, CASSINA, CEBALLO HERRERO, CHAGAS, CHEVALIER, CHRISTIE, COLOMBO, DANTIN, DELAPINA, van DIJK, DRIJFHOUT-ZWEIJTZER, DRILLEAUD, ENGELEN-KEFER, ETTY, zu EULENBURG, FORGAS I CABRERA, FRERICHS, FUCHS, GAFO FERNA´ NDEZ, GEUENICH, GLATZ, HAGG, HERNA´ NDEZ BATALLER, JASCHICK, KALLIO, KANNISTO, KIENLE, de KNEGT, KONITZER, KONZ, KORYFIDIS, KUBENZ, LEMMETTY, LIVERANI, LYONS, LO¨ NNBERG, MADDOCKS, MANTZOURANIS, MARGALEF i MASIA´ , MENGOZZI, MERIANO, NILSSON, NYBERG, PELLA- RINI, POMPEN, QUEVEDO ROJO, RAMAEKERS, REUNA, SA´ NCHEZ MIGUEL, SANTILLA´ N CABEZA, SANTOS, SCHMITZ, SEPI, SEQUEIRA, SKOUBY, STOKKERS, STO¨ LLNBERGER, STRASSER, TSIRIMOKOS, TWIST, VOGLER, WAHROLIN, WESTERLUND, WRIGHT, ZUFIAUR NARVAIZA. The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: Mr/Mrs/Miss: ANDRADE, BAGLIANO, BARROS VALE, BEALE, BOUSSAT, BREDIMA SAVOPOU- LOU, BURANI, BYRNE, DE NORRE, DOCK, DONOVAN, FRANZ, GARDNER, GAUDER, GIESECKE, HAMRO-DROTZ, HORNUNG-DRAUS, JOHANSEN, KIELMAN, KONTIO, LEHN- HOFF, LEVITT, LINSSEN, LITTLE, MALOSSE, MEGHEN, MOBBS, MORELAND, MORGAN, NOORDWAL, PIETTE, RAVOET, REGNELL, REITERER, SIMPSON, SIRKEINEN, WALKER, WHITWORTH. The following members, present or represented, abstained: Mr/Mrs/Miss: BENTO GONÇALVES, BOISSERÉE, BROOKES, DECAILLON, HAGEN, LERIOS, NIELSEN, RETUREAU, SOLARI. APPENDIX II to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Following the recorded vote on the opinion as a whole, the following members of the Employers’ Group, who had voted against the opinion, issued the following statement: ‘The Employers’ Group believes that the Committee’s opinion fails to recognize the problems inherent in current social protection regimes and understates the necessity for modernization and improvement. The group fully supports the concept of effective social protection for all our citizens as a key factor in economic performance but equally affirms that strong economic performance is essential to affordable social protection regimes. Current problems in many Member States may be summarized as follows: 1. Social benefit systems have grown piecemeal and are geared to out-dated living standards and employment patterns. 2. A dependency culture has been created as not enough is done to help long-term recipients to break out of their situation. 3. Member States are concerned about spiraling costs in the face of their efforts to control budget deficits. 4. The old-age dependency ratio (65+ as % of 15-64) is estimated to double by the time those starting work today come to retire. C 73/92 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 The group welcomes the Commission’s analysis. It generally supports the proposals for action and hopes that they will be of help to Member States in their efforts to overcome the problems. In particular the group believes that the following aspects should be the subject of detailed consideration: — the benefit structure and the relationship of benefits to one another; — the targetting of benefits to those in greatest need; — helping long-term recipients to equip themselves for employment; — the interface between tax and benefits for the lower paid with better incentives to accept employment; — encouraging individual responsibility; — a gradual move towards long-term funding of at least a portion of retirements benefits; — an increasing partnership between public and private provision. Finally the group applauds the efforts which the Commission is making to remove remaining obstacles to free movement in the field of social protection. ’ Mr/Mrs/Miss: ANDRADE, BAGLIANO, BARROS VALE, BEALE, BOUSSAT, BREDIMA SAVOPOU- LOU, BURANI, BYRNE, DE NORRE, DONOVAN, FRANZ, GARDNER, GAUDER, GIESECKE, HAMRO-DROTZ, HORNUNG-DRAUS, JOHANSEN, KIELMAN, KONTIO, LEHNHOFF, LEVITT, LINSSEN, LITTLE, MALOSSE, MEGHEN, MOBBS, MORGAN, NOORDWAL, RAVOET, REGNELL, REITERER, SIRKEINEN, WALKER, WHITWORTH. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Cooperation with charitable associations as economic and social partners in the field of social welfare’ (98/C 73/23) On 20 March 1997 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in pursuance of Rule 23(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to draw up an Opinion on: ‘Cooperation with charitable associations as economic and social partners in the field of social welfare’. The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was instructed to prepare the Committee’s work on this matter, adopted its opinion on 17 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mrs zu Eulenburg. At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the opinion set out below by 75 votes to six, with seven abstentions. COOPERATION WITH CHARITABLE ASSOCI- ATIONS AS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS Preamble Charitable associations have helped to shape the welfare state in the EU. The wide variety of services and facilities which they provide have historical roots. Economic progress went hand-in-hand with trends entailing social inequality and impoverishment. In the 19th century industrialization led to profound changes in people’s everyday lives. The churches, and their religious com- munities, affluent citizens and aristocrats and a great variety of social organizations, such as workers’ associ- ations were active in the social welfare field. They founded social services and social establishments. In many European countries, the state stood aside, taking action only at a very late stage and in accordance with the different ways in which the social security systems developed in the various states. Charitable associations do not only provide social services and facilities; they also motivate people to work voluntarily for the common good and they see themselves as advocates of the needy. They are thus promoters of social justice. Charitable associations form part of the ‘third sector’, which is highly important to European economies and constitutes an extremely multi-faceted phenomenon for which there is no clear and definitive definition. Differing national mindsets, differences as regards the levels at


title: VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 2460/97 DER KOMMISSION vom 10. Dezember 1997 über die Erteilung von Einfuhrlizenzen für Knoblauch mit Ursprung in China

eurovoc_concepts:
China
bulb vegetable
import licence
quantitative restriction


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying the special incentive arrangements concerning labour rights and environmental protection provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Council Regulations (EC) Nos 3281/94 and 1256/96 applying the scheme of generalized tariff preferences in respect of certain industrial and agricultural products originating in developing countries'

eurovoc_concepts:
agricultural product
developing countries
generalised preferences
industrial product
international standard

formats: html pdf print

text: 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/51 extend the Karolus programme for a two-year tran- sitional period, to widen its application during that period to other specified states and to develop a modified programme with a wider scope, and with possible participation of the workers, to take the place of the existing programme at the end of the transitional period. The ESC would wish to be consulted on the form and content of the modified programme in due course. Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying the special incentive arrangements concerning labour rights and environmental protection provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Council Regulations (EC) Nos 3281/94 and 1256/96 applying the scheme of generalized tariff preferences in respect of certain industrial and agricultural products originating in developing countries’ (98/C 73/15) On 14 November 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 External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 November 1997. The rapporteur working alone was Mr Etty. At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes to one with 11 abstentions. 1. General comments 2. Specific Comments In its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a three-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995-1997) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries and the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) extending into 1995 the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3833/90, (EEC) No 3835/90 and (EEC) No 3900/91 applying generalized tariff preferences in respect of certain agricultural developing countries (CES 1159/94), the Committee had already expressed its support for the special incentive arrange- ments which the Commission has now translated into concrete proposals. The Committee strongly welcomes the Commission’s proposals as providing most adequate and effective provisions for positive measures to promote respect for labour and environmental stan- dards in GSP beneficiary countries. originating products in As regards the measures proposed to stimulate 2. 1. compliance with certain international labour standards, the Committee welcomes the strong emphasis given by the Commission in Articles 3, 4 and 5 that as a prerequisite for access to improved preferences, potential beneficiary countries will have to demonstrate that both their law and their practice provide a framework within which freedom of association and abolition of child labour can realistically be guaranteed, as well as to the importance of strict monitoring and cooperation procedures, on-the-spot checks and effective technical assistance to develop suitable administrative and techni- cal monitoring infrastructures (Articles 6 and 7). In this context, we would emphasize the importance of reference to the reports of the competent UN authorities in these areas, namely the Committee on Freedom of Association of the ILO, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the ILO and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. C 73/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 2. 2. The Committee also expresses its concern that the practical application of the new system of incentives detracts from the advantages of the 1995 reform of the overall system, namely simplicity, transparency and reliability. After several decades of cooperation with the beneficiary countries, these factors have proved decisive for the effectiveness of these measures to promote trade. foreseeable future. Furthermore, the Committee hopes that the Member States of the EU will contribute actively to the work on the forthcoming new ILO Convention on the most exploitative and dangerous forms of child labour, due for 1999, that they will ratify it as quickly as possible after its adoption by the International Labour Conference, and that the Council will subsequently include it in the now proposed instrument in addition to ILO Convention 138. This should in no way be endangered. 2. 3. At the same time, however, the Committee expresses its regret and disappointment that the Com- mission proposal restricts the new instrument to these three ILO Conventions on Freedom of Negotiation and Protection of the Right to organize (No 87), on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (No 98), and on Minimum Age (No 138). This is a departure from earlier positions as regards international trade and labour standards, taken by the Commission and supported by the Economic and Social Committee, which included the ILO Conventions on Forced Labour and on the Abolition of Forced Labour (Nos 29 and 105) and on and Occupation) Discrimination (No 111). These three Conventions, together with Convention Nos 87 and 98, are considered to be the basic human rights’ conventions of the ILO. The Commission ignores them in this proposal without giving any explanation. While recognizing that forced labour is already addressed in Article 7 of the existing GSP regulation, the Committee nonetheless feels that the elimination of forced labour could still be rewarded by additional preferences. (Employment Another related point which requires clarifi- 2. 4. cation is that the Commission has included the Minimum Age Convention (No 138) without any further comment. One comment the Committee wishes to make is that, while it fully agrees that the problem of child labour should be addressed in the proposed Council regulation, it is regrettable that four out of the fifteen Member States of the European Union have not ratified the ILO Convention on Minimum Age. Once again the Committee wishes to make the point that in such cases the EU’s demands will be much more credible if all its Member States meet themselves the criteria they wish others to meet. With regard to Convention 111 (Discrimi- nation, Employment and Occupation) the Committee reiterates its earlier observations that three Member States (Ireland, Luxembourg, United Kingdom) have not yet ratified this ILO instrument. Therefore, the Committee urges the Commission to take the initiative for consultations with those Member States, which have not yet been able to ratify Convention No 138, with a view to try and overcome the obstacles to do so in the 2. 5. With regard to the measures proposed to stimu- late compliance with international environmental stan- the Committee understands the difficulties dards, expressed with regard to setting up environmental clauses, but considers that such incentives would still be desirable insofar as they are practicable. It agrees with the Commission’s choice for ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization) standards as the yard- stick to be used. 2. 6. The Committee further welcomes the Com- mission’s proposal (in Articles 3 and 4, and 10 and 11) to publish all applications for the additional preferences in the Official Journal in order to allow for all parties with relevant expertise and information to provide their evidence. We particularly welcome the acknowl- edgement in the Commission’s explanatory memo- randum of the importance of consultation with organ- izations, in particular the ILO, national trade unions and international trade union and employers’ federations as well as specialized NGOs (human rights, environmen- tal In addition to participation in the submission of evidence as indicated in the memorandum, the Committee would propose that the new provisions should allow for the international trade union and employers’ federations to take part in visits to those countries where there are particular doubts about respect for labour rights. This seems appropriate with a view to their role and their experience in the supervising machinery of the ILO. including consumers’ organizations. issues), 2. 7. The Committee concurs with the Commission that the additional preferences need to be set at a high level in order to provide a genuine incentive to respect the labour and environmental standards concerned. For the same reason, we welcome the proposal that the additional incentives should apply even to countries that have graduated from the basic system. Concerning the likely cost of such measures, we concur with the Commission’s assessment that, given the lack of respect for labour rights and environmental protection in many GSP beneficiary countries, the total impact on the EU is unlikely to be extremely high and will certainly be far 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/53 lower than the figure of ECU 787,7 million (representing a theoretical maximum) mentioned in the Commission’s financial statement accompanying the draft regulation. 2. 8. The Committee does regret, however, the lack of any reference to the least developed countries (LDCs) in the Commission’s draft regulation or even in the explanatory memorandum. For the LDCs, of course, there would be no possibility of providing enhanced benefits, due to the fact that their tariff level is already fixed at zero. This could seriously reduce the scope of the new provisions as LDCs would have no incentive to improve their respect for labour rights and environmen- tal protection. In their case, the Committee would propose that additional measures must be taken in order to provide an incentive for least developed countries to respect labour rights and undertake environmental protection. Specifically, the GSP preference scheme needs to be included in discussions on the possibility of increased development assistance for those countries. In this context the Committee also refers to its Opinion on ‘Development aid, good governance and the role of the socio-economic interest groups’ (1) and the standards for good governance discussed in that text. 2. 9. The Commission’s proposals are slightly ambigu- ous concerning the procedures for suspension or with- drawal of additional GSP benefits (Article 14). The Committee would propose that the procedure for representations should be that any party with a legitimate interest in the case, including representatives of the economic and social interest groups, could make a proposal to open an investigation by the Commission. In order to ensure the good functioning of the new mechanism, we would propose that an application for an investigation should automatically lead to the initiation of an investigation within 30 days, unless good cause to doubt the bona fides of any complaint can be demonstrated. We would also propose that, as under the anti-dumping procedures, provision should be made for interim measures to be taken to suspend countries from additional GSP benefits during the course of an investigation, as this could take some time in order to respect due procedure. 2. 10. The Committee interprets Article 14(1), refer- ring to the total or partial suspension of the additional GSP preferences ‘without prejudice to the possible application of Article 9 of Regulations (EC) Nos 3281/94 and 1256/96’ to refer above all to the case of ‘fraud’. The Committee considers that this provision should be invoked such that any misrepresentation of a product as having been produced in respect of labour rights and/or environmental standards when such is not the (1) OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997, p. 44. case should be considered a case of ‘fraud’ under the terms of the GSP, so causing any country which, having first been granted additional preferences, was then found to be violating labour rights in these areas would stand to lose not just its additional GSP benefits but its entire duty-free access under the GSP. 2. 11. The Committee draws the attention to the fact that current efforts of governments, business, trade unions and NGOs with regard to social labelling and codes of conduct for certain products, containing similar labour and environmental standards as proposed for the new Council regulation might be impaired by the latter’s focus on countries. While the Committee thinks that the country approach is the most practical, it requests the Commission to consider ways and means by which successful self-regulation could be exempted from the suspension or withdrawal procedures foreseen in the present proposal and to draw up a complementary procedure. 2. 12. In view of the large number of GSP beneficiary countries, one might expect a considerable amount of work for the Commission if all countries interested in the new scheme apply rapidly and more or less simultaneously for the new benefits. Under such the Committee would emphasize circumstances, nonetheless the need for a cautious approach by the Commission in order to provide time to properly evaluate respect for the new provisions in potential beneficiaries. We would therefore emphasize the need for an evaluation of the present level of staff resources devoted to the GSP and, if the evaluation finds it necessary, an increase in the number of Commission staff working on the GSP supervisory mechanisms as well as an increased effort as regards adequate training of such staff. In conclusion, the Committee strongly rec- 2. 13. ommends that, while its above comments should be taken into account when it comes to the practical interpretation of the new GSP arrangements, the present Commission proposal for a Council Regulation should be adopted by the Council in its existing form within short. It hopes that the Commission will seriously C 73/54 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 consider including in its proposed instrument the funda- mental ILO Conventions on forced labour and on discriminations, as well as the 1999 new ILO Convention on Child labour in the foreseeable future. Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying Article 6 of Council Regulations (EC) Nos 3281/94 and 1256/96 on multiannual generalized tariff preferences schemes in respect of certain industrial and agricultural products originating in developing countries, excluding the most advanced beneficiary countries from entitlement to generalized tariff preferences’ (98/C 73/16) On 14 November 1997, the Council consulted the Economic and Social Committee, in pursuance of Article 198 of the EC Treaty, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was instructed to prepare the Committee’s work on this subject, adopted its opinion, by a unanimous vote, on 25 November 1997. The rapporteur working without a study group was Mr Giesecke. At its 350th plenary session held on 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December) the Committee adopted the opinion set out below, with 119 votes in favour and 6 abstentions. 1. Introduction The generalized tariff preferences scheme (GSP) 1. 1. was radically revised in respect of the 1994-1997 period (1). A key aim of the new multiannual scheme was to secure a decisive improvement in the transparency and predictability of the GSP vis-à-vis the earlier quota- and ceiling-based provisions. Transparency and predictability are important to both suppliers and administrations in the poorer developing countries which seek to focus their export drives on transparent markets. These factors are also in the interests of importers in the EU Member States who must have adequate incentives to establish new and stable sources of supply. (1) Cf: Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) applying a three-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995- 1997) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries and the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) extending into 1995 the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3833/90, (EC) No 3835/90 and No 3900/91 applying generalized tariff preferences in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries. COM(94) 337 final. A new possibility has been introduced whereby 1. 2. GSP benefits for developing countries can be tapered off once they have attained a higher level of GNP and exporting capacity. The overall volume of imports subject to preferential regimes should however be maintained, in accordance with the principle of ‘global neutrality’; i. e. the poorer developing countries should benefit from savings in this respect. Provision has also been made for special trade 1. 3. incentives — which have in the meantime been drawn up — to promote good practice by individual developing countries in respect of social provisions and environmen- tal protection. 2. Commission proposal The Commission proposes (2) that South Korea, 2. 1. Singapore and Hong Kong be withdrawn, on the basis of objective and clearly-defined prosperity criteria, from the list of countries benefiting from the GSP. (2) COM(97) 533 final


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund 1996'

eurovoc_concepts:
Cohesion Fund
activity report
environmental protection
implementation of the budget
transport infrastructure

text: C 73/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 amplify its annual report on competition with a review of the state of competition policies in major competitor countries, particularly where their actions may affect the business of EU firms. Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund 1996’ (98/C 73/07) On 25 June 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund 1996’. The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 November 1997. The rapporteur was Mr J. Bento Gonçalves. At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 106 votes with three abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. Scope 2. General comments 2. 1. Improvements in the report The report covers current actions which commenced in previous years together with completed and planned actions, providing a fuller and more comprehensive analysis of the Fund’s main interventions and its positive effects on economic and social cohesion. 1. 2. Structure of the report Reflecting the approach adopted in its earlier opinions on the reports on the cohesion financial instrument and, more recently, on the Cohesion Fund, the Committee is pleased to note the improvements introduced with the present report, particularly in relation to the organ- ization, transparency and scope of its content, providing a clearer picture of how the various projects have been implemented. The comments made by the European Parliament and the ESC in previous years, particularly concerning the analytical description of how conditionality is implemented, and completed actions, are reflected in the structure of the report, with a view to improving information and publicity measures. 1. 2. 1. A separate section has been included on projects implemented in the most remote regions of the Union and on assessing the impact of different aspects of Fund projects. 2. 2. Interaction with other funds Improvements have been noted in comparative pro- cedures on the interaction and complementarity of Cohesion Fund projects with the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF, FIFG), providing a comprehen- sive, overall view of support and its effects on social, economic and environmental aspects. The Commission pays particular attention, 2. 2. 1. when carrying out prior appraisal of investment projects, 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/33 to ensuring that the probable effects are compatible with the investment and do not overlap with resources from other funds. There is also a clear trend in favour of projects which aim to build upon or supplement initiatives supported by other funds and the EIB. The technical and financial content of its opinions has represented important value- added for the Commission. 2. 3. Analysis of results achieved Ex post evaluation reveals significant results being achieved by completed projects in the sphere of transport, pollution reduction, higher quality drinking water and an increase in the number of households to which it is available. Improved treatment of waste water and solid waste are areas in which the Fund has achieved visible results which are in addition clearly understood by local people. 2. 3. 1. 1996 was the first year in which the Commission scrutinized Member State compliance with the conver- gence programmes in the field of public deficit, and also checked on compliance with the conditionality principle in the cohesion countries. 2. 4. 1. O t h e r i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s Other environment-oriented actions are reported, including the following: protection of coastal zones, environmental reafforestation with an impact on pre- venting desertification, protection of habitats and nature conservation. 2. 4. 2. I n f o r m a t i o n l e v e l s o n e m p l o y m e n t The report provides information on estimates of the employment impact of the projects funded, in accordance with the recommendations of the European Parliament and the ESC. 2. 5. Other information Other major points of information included in the report: — no cases of fraud were detected during the course of the various inspections carried out, either by the Member States or by EU missions; — a response was made to the EP’s comments on information and publicity for part-financed projects, using various channels of communication. 2. 3. 2. B a l a n c e s o u r c e s i n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e - 3. Specific comments In overall terms, an almost perfect balance was struck in 1996 between the Fund’s two areas of intervention, the environment and transport: 49,89 % for the environment and 50,11 % for transport infrastructures. Budget implementation in 1996 was close to 100 %, meeting the targets recommended by the Council. 2. 4. Priority areas The Cohesion Fund pays particular attention to a number of priority areas, giving preference to projects involving: — trans-European road and rail networks; — supply of drinking water; — treatment of waste water; — treatment of urban solid waste. 3. 1. Budget implementation Adjustments were made to the overall budget appropri- ation for the Cohesion Fund in 1996, in view of inflation and the need to transfer ECU 300 000 to the budget line managed by UCLAF (the Anti-Fraud Coordination Unit). After indexation, the commitment appropriations avail- able to the Cohesion Fund in 1996 rose to ECU 2 443,7 million and payment appropriations to ECU 1 919 million. 3. 1. 1. Budget implementation in terms of commit- ments at 31 December 1996 totalled 99,99 % of the appropriations available, or ECU 2 433,64 million. Budget amounted to ECU 1 871,982 million, or 97,75 %. implementation of payment appropriations These figures show very positive budget implementation of the Cohesion Fund by the Member States. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the achieve- ment by both the Commission and the Member States of these high rates of implementation, while ensuring C 73/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 application of the conditionality principle concerning the criteria for the introduction of the single currency. The breakdown by Member State in 1996 was as follows: 3. 2. Distribution by sector The Economic and Social Committee notes that the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Cohesion Fund Regu- lation, to the effect that a suitable balance should be struck between environmental and transport infrastruc- ture projects, were put into practice in 1996. The aim of achieving balance between the two inter- vention areas was discussed in the Committee’s previous opinion (1) and in the opinions of the European Parlia- ment and the Committee of the Regions on the Cohesion Fund reports of 1994 and 1995. Overall financial assistance committed and paid by the Fund in 1996, in percentage terms, was divided as follows: Environment: 49,89 %. Transport: 50,11 %. (1) Opinion on the Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund 1995, OJ C 158, 26. 5. 1997. Member State Environment % Transport % Spain Portugal Greece Ireland 49,44 49,59 53,81 45,07 50,66 50,41 46,19 54,93 Clear movement occurred towards a balance between expenditure on environmental and transport infrastruc- ture projects in all the countries, with greater emphasis, in at least one Member State, on environmental projects. The Committee welcomes this, which reflects one of its recommendations. 3. 3. Distribution by Member State The Committee would also note that budgetary commit- ment appropriations continue at the mid-point of the indicative allocation bands for each of the Member States. Commitment appropriations — 1996: ECU 2 443,7 million Member State Environment (Unit: ECU) % Transport (Unit: ECU) % Total (Unit: ECU) Allocation ESP GR IRL P 663 549 515 49,44 678 383 056 50,66 1 341 932 571 235 865 092 53,81 202 441 610 46,19 438 306 702 54,91 17,94 99 920 131 45,07 121 770 026 54,93 221 690 157 9,07 217 966 578 49,59 221 526 518 50,41 439 493 096 17,99 Total 1 217 301 316 49,86 1 224 121 210 50,14 2 441 422 526 99,91 Tech. ass. — — — — 2 212 643 0,09 Total 1 217 301 316 49,89 1 224 121 210 50,11 2 443 635 169 100,00 Allocation of payment appropriations was adjusted within the established parameters of the indicative allocation for each Member State, in order to redress the situation pointed out in the 1995 report. 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/35 Payment appropriations — 1996: ECU 1 919 million Transport (Unit: ECU) % Total (Unit: ECU) Allocation 1996 % Allocation 1995 % Member State ESP GR IRL P Environment (Unit: ECU) 295 940 565 127 062 978 80 315 065 % 26,61 51,91 42,46 816 116 839 73,38 1 112 057 404 59,4 117 689 309 48,08 244 752 287 108 805 171 57,53 189 120 236 13,07 10,10 65 5 8 22 124 133 591 38,2 200 762 086 61,79 324 895 677 17,36 Total 627 452 199 33,54 1 243 373 405 66,46 1 870 825 604 99,94 100 Tech. ass. — — — — 1 156 625 0,06 Total 627 452 199 33,52 1 243 373 405 66,46 1 871 982 129 100,00 3. 3. 1. D i s t r i b u t i o n s e c t o r i n t h e t r a n s p o r t As highlighted in earlier opinions, the Committee would point to the need for a better balance between different modes of transport, giving priority to those which are most environment-friendly. Commitments for transport projects, by Member State and sector Distribution of commitment appropriations by type of transport Road Rail Ports Airports VTS (1) Member State in % Spain Portugal Greece Ireland 83,6 16,4 — — — 75,5 18,0 6,5 — — 61,3 31,0 — 7,7 — 82,9 6,9 7,0 — 3,3 (1) VTS: vessel traffic systems. 3. 3. 1. 1. Although the report states that ‘. efforts to allocate a higher proportion of finance within the transport sector to rail transport facilities continued’, in line with remarks made by the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in their opinions on the 1994 and 1995 annual reports, it appears that major changes in distribution did not occur. In 1996, the Cohesion Fund allocated a total of ECU 1 224 121 million to transport projects, including com- mitments for new projects or phases of projects under way. The total committed contribution since 1993 of the Cohesion Fund and its predecessor, the financial instru- ment, amounts to ECU 4 219 million. This is a very substantial contribution to the development of the Trans-European Transport Networks in the four cohesion countries, in which an intermodal transport approach has been employed, as advocated by the ESC. 3. 3. 1. 2. Road projects continued to draw the bulk of support in 1996: 78,4 % of the total. Rail projects accounted for only 18,1 % of the committed contri- bution. Port infrastructure projects amounted to 1,9 % of commitments for 1996. Commitments for TENs projects by transport sector Sector Commitments 1996 ECU million % of total Road Rail Ports Airports VTS (1) Total 959,5 222,0 23,0 15,6 4,0 1 224,1 78,4 18,1 1,9 1,3 0,3 100,0 (1) VTS: vessel traffic systems. The Committee notes the reduced support for port infrastructures, and draws the Commission’s attention to this aspect in view of the cohesion countries’ lengthy coastlines and the fact that this type of transport may be more competitive. C 73/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 3. 3. 1. 3. Diversification of modes of transport Diversification of modes of transport should be ensured by the Member States with the help of the EU. This approach would have beneficial effects for various less concentration of pollution; parts of the sector: creation of alternatives in the event of industrial disputes; continued job opportunities in the marine transport sub-sector. The Economic and Social Committee recommends that the Commission urge the countries participating in the Cohesion Fund to lend greater support to rail and maritime transport infrastructures. 3. 3. 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n - t a l s e c t o r quality of life: such investment remains at a very low level given the risks of environmental damage prevailing in some cohesion countries. In this respect, the ESC regrets that some Member States make little use of environmental afforestation, particularly in regions containing extensive areas which have forestry potential but are abandoned and experi- encing soil conservation problems. 4. Conclusions 4. 1. The report is informative and well-documented in relation to the material implementation of investment projects, offering physical indicators and descriptive summaries of project location and type. The Committee would however urge the Commission to make the Member States more aware of the need for better regional distribution of resources, with particular attention to the least advantaged inland rural and urban areas. Distribution % Spain Portugal Greece Ireland 4. 2. Most remote regions Water supply and quality control Waste Sewage, treatment Urban environment Reafforestation Coastal zones Others 23 14 45 10 5 4 — 28,1 34,5 33,4 — — — 4,0 30 — 69,5 — — — 51,7 — 45,0 — — — 0,5 3,3 As in its 1995 opinion, the Committee emphasizes the need for greater support for completion of environmental and transport infrastructures in the most remote regions. 4. 3. Diversification of modes of transport Greater diversification of modes of transport is rec- ommended, particularly in the area of maritime transport infrastructures, on account of its environmental benefits and the number of jobs these can provide. The Committee recognizes the improvement in the information generally presented concerning the nature and distribution of investment in this field. 4. 4. Environmental impact studies 3. 3. 2. 1. Better-organized information would facili- tate comparison of Member State action: the Com- mission is therefore urged, in future reports, to stan- dardize and extend the information provided. 3. 3. 2. 2. The priorities for intervention in the environ- mental area continue to be projects for water supply and quality control, evacuation of urban waste water and purification and, in some countries, treatment and appropriate management of solid waste. While acknowledging the impact of this type of project in improving the local quality of life, the Committee would reiterate its recommendation to the Commission and the Member States that they focus more on investment in protection and conservation of natural resources, landscapes of particular ecological value, and The approach adopted by the Commission, of assessing the environmental impact of transport projects prior to approval, in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC, is welcomed. 4. 5. Polluter-pays principle in cross-border projects In the environmental sphere, the polluter-pays principle merits support. The Committee would argue that this principle should also apply in the case of cross-border projects or projects involving waterways which pass through the regions of two or more Member States. Machinery for legal action applicable to the Member States concerned should be devised in order to ensure adoption of this principle. 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/37 4. 6. Analysis of Fund impact 4. 9. Management bodies The Committee approves the efforts made by the Commission relating to implementation of assistance for studies and technical support measures, and ex ante/ex post evaluation of projects. This enables grounds to be given for decisions approving future investment, and its impact to be assessed. 4. 6. 1. The Committee hails the efforts made by the Commission to analyse issues surrounding assessment of the overall socio-economic impact of the Fund in the Member States, and its contribution to Union cohesion and combating unemployment. 4. 6. 2. Publication is awaited of the study by the London School of Economics, although the value of the information already provided on the impact of certain projects on employment is recognized. 4. 6. 2. 1. The Committee recommends that in future reports the Commission should not simply mention studies carried out or under way, but should provide at least a summary of their results and main conclusions. 4. 7. EIB intervention The Committee again expresses its satisfaction at the EIB’s role in funding, assessing and supporting those Cohesion Fund projects in which it is involved. 4. 8. Inspection missions In view of the cost and highly technical nature of technology and equipment, and the scale of environmen- tal projects for water supply and treatment of waste water and urban solid waste intended to improve living conditions, the Committee believes that the creation of independently-run, private and/or inter-municipal management bodies, with the appropriate specialist technical and management skills, might be the best way of maximizing the impact of such projects. 4. 10. Continuation of the Cohesion Fund Returning to arguments expressed previously (1), the ESC is convinced that the Cohesion Fund should continue beyond 1999. With its basic strategic aim of strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the poorer Member States and the most disadvantaged regions within them, the Cohesion Fund should be viewed from a Community standpoint (2). The Commission points in this direction in its Agenda 2000 document, proposing that the Cohesion Fund continue for the beneficiary countries. It is also increasingly necessary to stress complementarity and consistency between the structural policies associ- ated with the various funds in order to bring them closer into line with each other and increase their combined effect, ensuring more harmonious economic and social development. The Committee recognizes the effort made by the Commission to step up inspection missions and checks on Cohesion Fund projects, which the report sets out in detail. However, it would also urge greater involvement of the social and economic interest groups in the monitoring committees, and the use of cross-border committees wherever actions covering more than one Member State are involved. (1) Opinion on the Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund 1995 (CES 321/97); Opinion on the First cohesion report, OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997; Opinion on the future of cohesion and the long-term implications for the Structural Funds, OJ C 153, 28. 5. 1996. (2) In order to improve cohesion within beneficiary Member States and between Member States, Cohesion Fund action must possess a trans-national dimension to the benefit of competitiveness throughout the entire EU economy. Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU - the programme for 1997-2001'

eurovoc_concepts:
European Union
action programme
information system
road safety
statistics

text: C 73/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 3. 6. The Committee notes that, subsequent to the drawing-up of the draft directive and indeed only two weeks prior to the adoption of this opinion, the Assembly of the IMO adopted on 27 November 1997 a further Resolution on the implementation of the ISM Code. The Committee expects that the Commission will take the terms of this resolution into account in furthering the implementation of the directive. Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU — the programme for 1997-2001’ (98/C 73/19) On 16 April 1997 the European 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 Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Ghigonis. At its 350th plenary session of 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 79 votes to one, with five abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The Commission launched a first action pro- gramme on road safety (1) in 1993. Significant progress has been achieved, due in large part to the role of the Commission and the European Parliament as road safety champions. Nevertheless, the situation remains far from satisfactory, as illustrated by the 45 000 people killed and 1,6 million injured each year. 1. 2. In its present communication the Commission therefore proposes an additional strategy to accelerate improvement in road safety. This three-pronged strat- egy, based on the principle that the high cost of accidents (roughly ECU 1 million per fatality) should be fully taken into account in the safety policies of Member States, comprises the following elements: — gathering and dissemination of information and best practice, notably through the setting-up of an EU road safety information system; — accident avoidance measures; for example curbing of alcohol and drug/medicine use by drivers, and the application of telematics; — tools to reduce the consequences of accidents when they occur, including the development of safety rating programmes and submission of proposals for various technical measures. The key elements of the 1997-2001 programme 1. 3. are: — a Commission recommendation to fully take into account the very high costs of road accidents in a more widespread application of cost-benefit assess- ments for road safety measures; — an integrated EU information system including information on accident statistics, exposure data, implementation of road safety measures, research, best practice and the application of existing legis- lation; (1) Communication from the Commission for a first action programme on road safety (COM(93) 246 final). — measures to combat fatigue and the use of alcohol, medicines and drugs while driving; 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/67 — application of technology and telematics to ensure safer driving; — coordination and support of safety rating systems in order to provide scientifically correct information to consumers on the safety aspects of vehicles. 1. 4. Lastly, the Commission will arrange for the resources required to implement the programme to be made available through the usual procedures and will monitor the road safety situation in the EU as well as report on the progress of the programme in due course. of which is to allow the Member States to take the most appropriate measures on the basis of a more thorough knowledge of past experience and the results of detailed statistical analysis. They will then have a better under- standing of the role played by different factors in road safety. It also takes the view that Community action should embrace the adoption of coordinated standards, controls and penalties in areas such as vehicle roadwor- thiness, granting and withdrawal of driving licences, and professional drivers’ driving time and rest stops, with the aim of encouraging road safety and harmonizing the conditions of competition. Increased harmonization of road signs is also needed and should be included. 2. General comments 2. 1. Overall objective 2. 1. 1. The Committee fully supports the initiatives designed to promote road safety, and welcomes the Commission communication and the conclusions of the Transport Council meeting of 17 and 18 June 1997. 2. 1. 2. The decline in accidents achieved in recent years is encouraging and maintaining this trend should be a priority. In the Committee’s opinion, therefore, the European Union’s priorities should be the coordination of initiatives, a better understanding of the problems and how to solve them, and fostering greater commitment on the part of both politicians and road-users. 2. 2. Subsidiarity Article 75 of the Maastricht Treaty explicitly 2. 2. 1. includes road safety in the transport policy objectives, thus confirming and reinforcing Community responsi- bility in this area. The Committee would nonetheless note that the subsidiarity principle should be brought to bear in the promotion of road safety, and not merely on formal grounds, as a matter of principle. There are in fact considerable climatological and cultural differences within the EU, and even basic factors such as road-user education, infrastructure and levels of vehicle ownership vary. At the same time, however, there is a constantly growing international dimension to road safety, fuelled by tourism, the movement of goods and Community technical standards. This internationalization of road safety means that the principle of subsidiarity must be employed in order to achieve specific results, not just to pay lip-service to lofty principles. With this in mind, the Committee recommends that the Member States accept in word and in deed Community responsibility in this field, insofar as justified by the legal framework created by the Maastricht Treaty. 2. 3. General criticisms 2. 3. 1. The Committee would, however, point out that the promotion of road safety must take into account the economic needs and budgetary restrictions of Member States. This means that certain measures are politically easier to take, even if others might be more effective. We must be careful that this does not lead to infrastructure not being improved, road-users — learner drivers, for instance — not being properly trained, or measures that are too strict or not strict enough. In addition, it is important that measures designed to improve road safety do not distort competition in any way. As part of this, and given the full range of interests involved, the Committee would endorse an action plan providing clear and quantifiable advantages at EU level and supported by the grass-roots players — political decision-makers, administrations and scientific insti- tutions as well as the private sector. As far as the main causes of accidents are concerned, the Committee takes the view that more attention should be paid to high and inappropriate speeds and drink-driving. Drivers over the alcohol limit are respon- sible for at least 20 % of serious and fatal injuries in the EU. The Committee thus urges that the Council adopt the draft directive on blood alcohol levels without delay, and that this should be merely the first stage in reducing such levels. For these reasons, the Committee supports the 2. 2. 2. approach proposed by the Commission, the main feature The Committee asks the Commission to consider, at the earliest opportunity, the use of numerical targets for the reduction of fatalities in the European Union against C 73/68 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 which the progress of improved road safety can be judged. 2. 3. 2. The Committee would also like to point out that certain aspects have been either totally omitted from the communication or dealt with only briefly. Given the importance of the human factor, it believes that great efforts should be made to encourage people to behave in a safe manner. The issue of safe driving is often not sufficiently addressed either in initial driver training or in the criteria for issuing driving licenses. Checks, campaigns and financial penalties are other key elements in influencing driver behaviour. More emphasis should be placed on finding out who is it would be responsible for accidents. In addition, valuable to carry out road safety assessments before investments in infrastructure are made. These would give maintenance programmes direction and structure. 2. 3. 3. Finally, the Committee is disappointed that the many interesting proposals in the communication are only contained in the annexes, and that priorities or the trade-off between costs and benefits are not specified. 2. 3. 4. The Committee believes that the estimated cost of ECU 1 million for each person killed on the roads should give greater impetus to strengthening the priority given to road safety at political level. It should encourage decision-makers to choose effective measures. However, care must be taken to ensure that the figure is not misused to replace the most costly measures, such as certain costly changes to infrastructure, by less expensive measures. Road safety depends on complex relationships between vehicle quality, infrastructure and behaviour. There is a risk that politically expedient choices could be made which would eventually be to the detriment of an all-round advanced system. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. The CARE programme and its use (point 2. 2 of the communication) 3. 1. 1. The CARE database should facilitate a much greater understanding of the causes of accidents and in this way provide a basis for legislative and related non-legislative measures. Even if budgetary constraints prevent detailed and systematic analysis of the data by a Community institution, the various national adminis- trations and scientific, occupational and commercial institutions in the EU must have access to it in order to set priorities for action and decide on future legislation. 3. 1. 2. The procedure for registering and monitoring data on accidents should be designed in such a way that checks can be made to see that the expected advantages have been secured when a new piece of legislation affects the arrangements. Without retrospective action of this kind, the foundations of the legislative programme will not be as strong as desired and it will not be possible to ensure that the political will to improve the situation has been duly harnessed. 3. 2. Harmonization (point 3. 1 of the communication) 3. 2. 1. The Committee believes that it is vital that legislative measures adopted by the EU are implemented and upheld uniformly. Lack of harmonization in this area could create or worsen distortions of competition, especially in road transport. 3. 3. Quantified objective (point 3. 2 of the communi- cation) The Committee is disappointed that, lacking 3. 3. 1. the means to achieve it, the Commission is unable to fix a quantitative objective for accident reduction. The Committee is in favour of such objectives at a national level, and also — as soon as possible — at European level, as this would necessitate a greater effort to reduce road accidents. 3. 4. Cost/Benefit (point 3. 3 of the communication) Subject 3. 4. 1. to the observation contained in point 3. 5. 1 below, the Committee supports the use of the cost/benefit formula for decision-making and in deciding the priority to be given to various road safety measures. It supports the Commission’s approach, based on economic costs and losses, as long as this is not used to justify cancelling initiatives which would improve road safety but do not fulfil the condition of ECU 1 million for each life saved. 3. 5. Safety performance (point 3. 5 of the communi- cation) 3. 5. 1. The Committee welcomes and endorses the Commission’s positive attitude to the role of cham- pioning safe vehicle construction and test programmes carried out by private organizations (EuroNCAP — new vehicle assessment programmes) to gauge the safety performance of vehicles. The results of such tests could be an effective tool to promote the marketing of safer vehicles: the industry has in fact responded in a very encouraging manner to the commercial pressures brought about by systems which inform consumers about vehicle safety. Progress is made very much earlier in this way than through legislative channels. 3. 5. 2. The Committee notes — as does the Com- mission — that there is a problem where differences arise between (a) statutory testing and the test methods of private organizations and (b) the test methods of the various private organizations themselves. 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/69 3. 5. 3. In this connection, the Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to encourage statutory tests and those carried out by consumers’ organizations to be brought more into line, without however calling for the Commission’s endeavours to restrict the competence and responsibility of the private organizations concerned. 3. 5. 4. Nevertheless, the Commission should not hesi- tate to bring forward legislative proposals. Two areas for consideration are front underrun protection for heavy goods vehicles and daytime running lights on motorcycles and cars. 3. 6. The 1997-2001 programme 3. 6. 1. A n n e x I I I , f i e l d 1 While the Committee welcomes the objective of a cost/benefit analysis of road safety measures, it considers unrealistic the idea of making a like-for-like comparison between, for example, education in primary schools and an obstacle detection system. It also notes that results of comparisons can vary greatly between countries, and so would recommend that the terms of reference of these studies in the FM5s be sufficiently clear. Brussels, 10 December 1997. 3. 6. 2. A n n e x I I I , f i e l d 1 Although the Committee welcomes the wide range of the measures set out in the communication, it would have preferred priorities to be clearly set out. While recognizing that using the CARE database will enable these priorities to be defined more accurately, it would wish to draw attention to the results of research and studies that are currently available. The Committee would especially stress the importance of direct action to influence road users in order to boost the impact of improvements to infrastructures and vehicle safety, particularly in the shape of more stringent checks on driving behaviour and vehicle inspections, backed by a policy to raise awareness. Publicity is in fact the only tool available if legislative measures are difficult to institute or monitor, such as for instance in the area of tiredness affecting non-professional drivers. e x t e r n a l 3. 6. 3. T h e d i m e n s i o n a n d f u n d i n g The Committee supports the notion of an external dimension, mainly to ensure that users of Community infrastructure coming from third countries do not pose a significant risk. The Committee points out the importance of having a Community budget on a par with the expectations created by the communication. It invites the Council and the European Parliament to increase the relevant budget lines in order to avoid the possibility that new expenditure allocated to collecting and analysing data could mean less money is available in 1998 and 1999 for education and the dissemination of information. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS