----

----

II Preparatory Acts

European Economic and Social Committee

415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the promotion of cooperative societies in Europe

(COM(2004) 18 final)

(2005/C 234/01)

On 23 February 2004, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 14 February 2005. The Rapporteur was Mr Hoffelt.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 120 votes to one, with three abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Gist of the Commission's Communication

2.2.1   Promoting the establishment of more cooperatives in Europe by improving the visibility and characteristics of this sector

The objective, inter alia, is to organise structured exchanges of information and experiences and to promote actions aimed at raising awareness amongst public authorities and private economic operators.

2.2.2   Improving national legislation governing cooperatives

This objective has been formulated in connection with the adoption by the Council in July 2003 of the Regulation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE). The aim is to bring about implementation of the Regulation as regards the measures to be taken under the national laws of the Member States to improve national law in this field and to promote the establishment of ‘model laws’. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission also pays special attention to the situation in the new EU Member States.

2.2.3   The maintenance and improvement of cooperatives' place [in] and contribution to Community objectives

This goal covers, inter alia, agricultural policy in the context of EU enlargement, rural and regional development and the creation of jobs.

3.   General comments

4.   Fields involving cooperatives which need to be fleshed out in a more in-depth manner

4.1   Regulatory environment

4.2   Competition rules, freedom of establishment and tax treatment

4.3   Social responsibility and governance of enterprises

4.3.1   Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

4.3.2   Corporate governance

4.4   Groupings of cooperative enterprises

5.   Comments and recommendations concerning the proposed actions

5.1   Perception and promotion of cooperative practices (Actions 1-2)

5.2   Statistical data (Action 3)

5.3   Training and entrepreneurship (Action 4)

5.4   Business support services (Action 5)

5.5   Access to finance (Action 6)

5.6   Contribution made by cooperatives in a number of particular areas of enterprise policy (Action 7)

5.7   Coherence between national laws, improvement of national laws, drafting of model laws and the European Cooperative Society (Actions 8, 9, 10 and 11)

5.8   Community objectives (Action 12)

6.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  The Cooperative Charter was adopted by the International Cooperative Alliance at its congress in Manchester in 1995.

(2)  Idem.

(3)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 16 June 2004 (CdR 97/2004 fin), rapporteur: Mrs Pellinen (OJ C 318 of 22 December 2004)

(4)  Resolution 56/114 adopted at the 88th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly, held on 19 December 2001

(5)  R193: Recommendation on the Promotion of Cooperatives, adopted at the 90th session of the International Labour Conference on 20 June 2002

(6)  Article III – 142 of the European Convention currently in the process of ratification

(7)  Council Regulation No. 1435/2003, OJ L 207 of 18 August 2003 and Council Directive No. 2003/72/EC, OJ L 207 of 18 August 2003

See also the EESC opinion of 26 May 1992 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society and the Proposal for a Council Directive supplementing the statute with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ C 223 of 31 August 1992)

(8)  EESC's opinion on the Social economy and the single market, rapporteur: J. Olsson, OJ C 117 of 26 April 2000

(9)  Cf. footnote 3

(10)  EESC opinion entitled Economic diversification in the accession countries – role of SMEs and social economy enterprises, rapporteurs: L. Fusco and J. Glorieux, OJ C 112 of 30 April 2004

(11)  Shares in cooperatives could be regarded as capital a) in cases where the issuer retains an unconditional right to refuse to reimburse the shares or b) in cases where, either under national legislation or under the statutes of the organisation concerned, a threshold is established below which the level of capital may not fall.

(12)  In this context, it is a striking fact that the High Level Group of European Company Law Experts, referred to on a number of occasions in the Communication, fails to include any expert in cooperative law

(13)  See the final paragraph of point 3.2.7 of the Commission's Communication

(14)  In Germany, for example, it is not possible to establish cooperatives in the field of the dispensing of prescription drugs

(15)  Article 8(2) of this Council Regulation stipulates that: ‘if national law provides specific rules and/or restrictions related to the nature of businesses carried out by an SCE, or for forms of control by a supervisory authority, that law shall apply in full to the SCE’

(16)  See point 3.2.6 of the Commission's Communication

(17)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions referred to in footnote 3 above

(18)  Green Paper on Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility (COM(2001) 366 final)

(19)  Through the organisation of fair trade networks, the implementation of social impact assessment systems, the establishment of the European grouping of social impact assessment systems, etc.

(20)  Cf. the EESC opinion on the Green Paper entitled ‘Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility’, CESE 355/2002, rapporteurs: Hornung-Draus, Engelen-Kefer, Hoffelt, OJ C 125 of 27 May 2002

(21)  Cf. the EESC opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on modernising company law and enhancing corporate governance in the European Union – a plan to move forward, rapporteur: G. Ravoet, CESE 1592/2003, OJ C 80 of 30 March 2004

(22)  The structure and organisation of auditing cooperatives in a number of EU Member States, such as Germany, illustrate this point

(23)  Cf. the Commission's seminar, held on 23 October 2004, on Satellite Accounts for the Social Economy

(24)  Such as the Leonardo, Socrates and Erasmus programmes

(25)  Cf. footnote 3

(26)  Community support programme for entrepreneurship and enterprise competitiveness (2006-2011)

(27)  Communication from the Commission entitled Action Plan: the European agenda for Entrepreneurship (COM(2004) 70 final). See the EESC opinion on this subject: CESE 1198/2004 of 15 September 2004 – Rapporteur: Mr B. Butters

(28)  Cf. the EESC opinion on the Ability of SMEs and social economy enterprises to adapt to changes imposed by economic growth (OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, rapporteur: L. Fusco)

(29)  See point 3.2.4 of the Commission's Communication

(30)  Under the heading ‘social enterprises’, the Commission points out that in some EU Member States legal forms have been adopted to designate enterprises whose main purpose is to achieve social objectives

(31)  Some national cooperative organisations were even opposed to such a measure

(32)  The term ‘demutualisation’ is generally applied in cases where a cooperative ceases to be an enterprise owned jointly by an association of individuals and passes into the hands of external investors. This happens, for example, in cases where cooperatives are converted into capitalised companies

(33)  For example, under a law recently introduced in Italy cooperatives may issue bonds

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for Directives of the European Parliament and Council re-casting Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the take up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and Council Directive 93/6/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions

(COM(2004) 486 final — 2004/0155 and 2004/0159 (COD))

(2005/C 234/02)

On 13 September 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Ravoet.

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the present opinion by 124 votes to 1.

1.   Content and scope of the proposal

2.   General Observations

3.   Specific observations

The Committee congratulates the Commission for the high quality of the proposal for a Directive. There are a limited number of issues which the Committee feels must be addressed. The quality of the draft legislation reflects the unprecedented level of consultation, including participation in the Basel Committee's impact studies, carried out by the Commission during the process of converting the Basel rules into the EU law. As the representative body for organised civil society in the EU, ECOSOC commends this development and urges the co-legislators to continue to incorporate the views of market participants in the EU legislative process.

3.1   Impact on smaller credit institutions within the EU

3.2   Impact on consumers

The financial stability and greater risk sensitivity provided by the new rules will benefit consumers through increased confidence in the financial system and significantly reduced systemic risk. According to the PWC impact study, the move to a more risk-sensitive regime will reduce overall bank capital held which will in turn precipitate a slight improvement in GDP in the EU. The better targeting of capital in the economy will contribute to the delivery of the EU's wider economic and social objectives.

3.3   Impact on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)

3.4   Removing national discretions in the European Union

The consistent application of proportionate supervisory rules by the Member States would deliver both sound prudential supervision and Single Market objectives. The number and scope of national discretions in the proposed Capital Requirements Directive would undermine consistent application. The Committee firmly believes that national discretions should generally be removed in a defined time frame and welcomes the work that the Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) is doing in this regard. There are a number of national discretions which could significantly distort the Single Market for cross-border banking groups and which will result in instability in the financial system. This would therefore reduce the benefits of the overall framework for depositors and borrowers in the EU by increasing the cost of credit and by limiting choice in financial products.

3.4.1   Level of application of capital requirements

3.4.2   Intra-group Exposures

3.4.3   Advanced Measurement Approach for Operational Risk (AMA)

3.4.4   Exposures to institutions under the Standardised Approach to credit risk

Parallel to the new Basel framework, Member States have the discretion to apply one of two methods for determining the risk weight for exposures to institutions (Annex VI, paragraphs 26-27 and 28-31). The approach applied to a credit institution would be determined by its nationality rather than by prudential reasons. Credit institutions operating across borders could be subject to materially different treatment to competitors operating in the same market. This would be inconsistent with Single Market objectives. Therefore, a single approach should be applied in the EU.

3.4.5   Maturity adjustment

Parallel to the new Basel framework, Member States have discretion to apply the effective maturity formula (paragraph 12, part 2, Annex VII) for credit institutions on the Advanced Internal Ratings Based Approach also to institutions on the Foundation Approach. The effective maturity formula aligns the measurement of the capital charge for short-term products more closely with their actual risk profile. Credit institutions operating across borders could be subject to materially different treatment to competitors operating in the same market. Again the Committee believes this to be inconsistent with the Single Market objectives. The national discretion should be removed to ensure that all credit institutions on the Foundation IRB Approach are subject to the same treatment.

3.5   Supervisory cooperation, Pillar 2 and Pillar 3

3.6   Treatment of Investment Firms

The Committee welcomes the inclusion of investment firms in the European framework. It is important for the stability of the European financial system, which is increasingly dependent on the performance of financial markets. The Committee believes that where credit institutions and investment firms are exposed to the same risks they should be subject to the same rule as far as possible.

3.7   Supervisory Disclosure

The Committee fully supports the introduction of a supervisory disclosure regime in the proposal for a Directive. Supervisory disclosure will encourage convergence in the Single Market and inform debate on any necessary changes to the EU capital requirements framework. It will also help to identify material divergences in implementation of the Directive. Delivering a level playing field across the EU is in the interest of both banks and consumers.

3.8   The Trading Book Review

The Basel Committee is undertaking jointly with the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the international body which cooperates on financial market regulation, a review of counterparty risk and Trading Book issues (4). The Committee broadly welcomes the commitment by the Commission to ensure that the results of the Trading Book Review are reflected in the Directive before its implementation. The Committee agrees that the work on double default and counterparty risk should be completed rapidly and incorporated in the Directive using the legislative tools at the disposal of the Commission. However, the matter of the boundary between the Trading Book and the Banking Book is extremely technical and should not be subject to hasty treatment. Incomplete work on this vitally important matter could have a negative impact on European investors in the future. The Committee would welcome a more thorough review of this issue and incorporation into EU legislation at a later date.

3.9   Implementation dates

The Committee believes that the implementation dates of the Directive should be 1 January 2007, rather than 31 December 2006, for the standardised approach and 1 January 2008, rather than 31 December 2007, for the advanced approaches. The requirement to implement the Directive on 31 December would result in burdensome reporting requirements.

3.10   Cyclicality

There are serious concerns that the new framework could have a pro-cyclical effect. This would result in banks limiting lending in times of economic downturn due to the greater levels of capital required in an increasingly risky environment. Although limitations on the availability of credit in periods of stress are inevitable, an increase in these limitations could aggravate recessional tendencies in the economy. The Committee firmly welcomes the requirement under the Capital Requirements Directive to stress-test throughout the economic cycle. The intention to keep the pro-cyclical impact of the framework under review through biennial reports drawn up by the European Commission and submitted to the European Parliament and Council is the minimum action which should be taken regarding pro-cyclicality.

3.11   Impact of IFRS on Regulatory Capital

4.   Conclusion

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/regcapital/index_en.htm

(2)  http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs107.pdf

(3)  PriceWaterhouseCoopers was commissioned to carry out the study on Financial and Macroeconomic Consequences of the Proposal Directive by the European Commission.

(4)  Financial Institutions have two primary categories for their assets, the ‘banking book’ and the ‘trading book.’ Most long to medium-term transactions are booked through the banking book (loans, deposits, etc.), while the trading book is a proprietary portfolio for short-term financial instruments held by an institution in its capacity as a dealer. Investment banks place virtually all their financial instruments into the trading book. The boundary between the Banking Book and the Trading Book has never formally been defined.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2000/819/EC on a multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001-2005)

(COM(2004) 781 final — 2004/0272 (COD))

(2005/C 234/03)

On 11 January 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1.   Preface

2.   Historical overview

3.   Introduction

4.   Gist of the Commission proposal

5.   Reasons for the Commission's proposal

6.   The EESC's views

7.   Conclusions and proposals

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ L 333, 29.12.2000. Decision as last amended by Decision No 593/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 268, 16.8 2004, p. 3).

(2)  See also the negative outcome of the JEV Programme and the conclusions of SEC(2004) 1460 of 15.11.2004

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community Air-Traffic Controller Licence

(COM(2004) 473 final — 2004/0146 (COD))

(2005/C 234/04)

On 22 September 2004 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 80 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr McDonogh.

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by126 votes in favour and one abstention.

1.   Introduction

2.   Background

3.   Comments

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Regulation (EC) No. 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 10.) - EESC Opinion: OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, p. 24.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the second ‘Marco Polo’ programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (‘Marco Polo II’)

(COM(2004) 478 final — 2004/0157 (COD))

(2005/C 234/05)

On 15 February 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 February2005. The rapporteur was Mr Levaux.

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 129 votes, with three abstentions.

1.   Introduction: Outline of the Commission's explanatory memorandum

2.   General comments

2.1   Gist of the Committee's conclusions in its Opinion on Marco Polo I

2.2   Evaluation of the initial results of the Marco Polo I programme: 2003-2006

2.3   Ex-Ante Evaluation and Stakeholders' Consultation

2.4   The Marco Polo II programme (2007/2013)

3.   Specific comments on the proposed Regulation on the Marco Polo II programme

3.1   Article 1: Subject matter

3.2   Article 2: Definitions

3.3   Article 3: Scope

3.4   Article 4: Eligible applicants and beneficiaries

3.5   Article 5: Eligible actions and funding conditions

3.6   Article 11: Budget

3.7   Article 14: Evaluation

4.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 March 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch

(COM(2004) 772 final — 2004/0269 (CNS))

(2005/C 234/06)

On 20 January 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Konstantinidis.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 127 votes with 7 abstentions.

1.   Gist of the Commission proposal

2.   General comments

3.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

(COM(2004) 775 final — 2004/0270 (COD))

(2005/C 234/07)

On 16 December 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Chiriaco.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 130 votes to none with three abstentions.

1.   Summary of the Commission's proposal

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  EESC Opinion, rapporteur: Mr Nielsen, OJ C 208 of 3.9.2003.

(2)  Ibid.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the European Social Fund

(COM(2004) 493 final)

(2005/C 234/08)

On 18 November 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 February 2005. The rapporteur was Ms Engelen-Kefer.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1.   Introduction

2.   New objectives of the EU Structural Funds

2.2   Convergence

2.3   Regional competitiveness and employment

2.4   European inter-regional cooperation

3.   Special role of the European Social Fund

4.   Evaluation

Brussels, 9 March 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  See European Commission homepage (Employment and Social Affairs).

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

(COM(2004) 490 final — 2004/0161 CNS)

(2005/C 234/09)

On 10 November 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

In a letter of 21 December 2004, the European Parliament also stated that on 14 December it had decided to consult the Committee on the proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Bros.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to six with eight abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   The Commission proposal

3.   General comments

3.2.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 3: Missions

3.4.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 13: Annual Commission report

Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 70: Resources and their distribution

[...]

Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 53: Protection, upgrading and management of the natural heritage

The support referred to in Article 49(a)(iv) covers environmental awareness actions,and tourism improvements and the drawing-up of protection and management plans relating to NATURA 2000 sites and other places of high natural value.’

3.6.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee (addition of new point 5) of ‘Article 37: Agri-environment and animal welfare payments

[...]

3.7.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 16: Balance between priorities

The Community financial contribution to each of the three objectives referred to in Article 4 shall cover at least 1510 % of the Fund's total contribution to the programme for priority axis I and III referred to in Sections I and III respectively under Chapter I of Title IV and 2520 % of the Fund's total contribution to the programme for the priority axis II referred to in Section II of Chapter I.’

3.10.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 68: European rural development network

A European Network for Rural Development for the networking of national networks, representative economic and social organisations, and administrations active in the field of rural development at Community level and the European Economic and Social Committee shall be put in place in accordance with Article 67(1).’

3.10.2   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 69: National rural network

Each Member State shall establish a national rural network, which gathers together all the representative economic and social organisations and administrations involved in rural development as well as the institution representing organised civil society.’

4.   Specific comments

4.2.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 21: Setting-up of young farmers

(...)

4.2.2   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 23: Use of advisory services

(...)

4.3.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: Article 22: Early Retirement, Section 2, The Transferor — addition of new point d):

4.5.2   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 27: Adding value to primary agricultural and forestry production

(...)

4.6.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 28: Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry

Support provided for in Article 19 (b)(iv), may cover notably land consolidation or operations related to access to farm and forest land, energy supply and water management.’

4.7.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 37: Agri-environment and animal welfare payments

4.10.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: ‘Article 24: Setting-up of management, replacement and advisory services

Support provided for in Article 19 (a) (v) shall be granted in order to cover costs arising from the setting-up and development of management, relief and advisory services. It shall be degressive over a maximum period of five seven years from setting-up.’

4.12.1   Text amendment proposed by the Committee: Article 37(4):

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, pp. 53-59

(2)  Opinion CESE 126/2005 Rapporteur: Mr Kienle

(3)OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, pp. 53-59

(4)OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, pp. 53-59

(5)  Opinion CESE 136/2005, rapporteur: Mr Ribbe.

(6)  Opinion CESE 126/2005, Rapporteur: Mr Kienle

(7)  EESC opinion on New economy, knowledge society and rural development: what prospects for young farmers? Rapporteur: Ms Sanchez Miguel, 17.10.2001; OJ C 36 of 8.2.2002

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment was defeated but obtained at least one quarter of the votes cast:

Amendment 3

Delete points 3.5.3 and 3.5.4.

Result of vote:

For: 31

Against: 69

Abstentions: 10

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The Social Dimension of Globalisation — the EU's policy contribution on extending the benefits to all

(COM(2004) 383 final)

(2005/C 234/10)

On 26 May 2004 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on The Social Dimension of Globalisation — the EU's policy contribution on extending the benefits to all.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 February 2005. The rapporteurs were Mr Tom Etty and Ms Renate Hornung-Draus.

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 9 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 59 votes to 15, with 2 abstentions.

1.   General comments

The European Economic and Social Committee

2.   Specific comments: the EU-policy contribution

3.   Conclusions and recommendations: The way forward

Brussels, 9 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  The following experts participated in the hearing :

(2)  Globalisation, Growth and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy, World Bank, Washington, 2002

(3)  Unions and Collective Bargaining. Economic effects in a global environment, World Bank, Washington, 2003

(4)  The EESC has a structure of follow-up groups, Joint consultative committees, a Round Table and contact groups with different geographical regions of the world.

(5)  Cf.: ‘Decent work’, ILO

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council creating the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007-2013

(COM (2004) 471 final — 2004/0152 (COD))

(2005/C 234/11)

Procedure

On 9 September 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementiond proposaL.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Rodríguez García-Caro.

At its 415th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 10 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 196 votes to none, with three abstentions:

1.   Introduction

2.   Content of the proposal

3.   Comments on the Proposal

Brussels, 10 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  CES 769/1986

(2)OJ C 159 of 17.06.1991

(3)OJ C 148 of 30.05.1994

(4)OJ C 158 of 26.05.1997

(5)OJ C 410 of 30.12.1998

(6)OJ C 10 of 14.01.2004

(7)OJ C 116 of 20.04.2001

(8)OJ C 410 of 30.12.1998

(9)  COM (2004) 154 final.

(10)OJ C 116 of 20.04.2001

(11)OJ C 133 of 28.4.1997 - Opinion on the Green Paper on education, training and research: obstacles to cross-frontier mobility

OJ C 149 of 21.6.2002 - Opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

----

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, though rejected, received at least one-quarter of the votes cast:

New point 3.14

The Commission should make sure that the work of National Agencies administrating the Youth programme is coordinated in such a way that the decentralisation of its implementation in Member States does not create new barriers for the access to this programme.

The work and practices of National Agencies should be monitored and evaluated by a Committee composed of European Commission officials and relevant social partners in the course of implementation of the new Youth in Action programme.

Reason

The Youth in Action programme proposal is much more decentralised than the current Youth programme. In the course of implementation national youth agencies of the countries participating in the programme play the major role and render the important decisions, they set national priorities and decide upon many details of the programme implementation. Decentralisation is a big problem for many European youth organisations and networks, due to different national priorities of National Agencies and their different approach to partnership, European youth organisations and their branches from different countries cannot cooperate in a desired manner.

Result of the vote

Votes for: 51

Votes against: 72

Abstentions: 30

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The role of the EIB in public-private partnerships (PPPs) and their impact on growth

(2005/C 234/12)

On 27 April 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion under Rule 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure, on The role of the EIB in public-private partnerships (PPPs) and their impact on growth.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 February 2005 (rapporteur: Mr Levaux).

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March 2005 (meeting of 10 March 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 153 votes in favour and 5 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Issues surrounding PPPs and the EIB's role

2.1   A European history

2.2   Description of the EIB's action plan

3.   The EIB's review of the development of PPPs in Europe

3.1   The characteristics of PPPs

3.2   Drivers for PPP developments in Europe

3.3   PPPs and Value For Money

4.   EIB involvement in PPPs

4.1   Financing principles

4.2   The Bank's exposure to PPPs

4.2.1   EIB exposure by sector

‘In 2003, the Bank provided debt financing of a total of EUR 2.7 billion to 17 new PPP projects. On a portfolio basis, this took EIB's overall nominal and risk weighted exposure to PPPs to EUR 14.7 billion and EUR 5.9 billion respectively. The largest exposure in the PPP portfolio (...)’ is set out in Appendix 3, Table A.

4.2.2   EIB exposure by country

Country exposure is shown in Appendix 3, Table B. ‘Risk-weighted exposure is currently concentrated in the UK, Portugal and Spain’.

4.3   Loan maturities

‘Loans to PPPs are characterised by long amortising maturities’. (Appendix 3, Table C).

4.3.1   Breakdown of EIB exposure by loan maturity

‘As of 31 December 2003, 83 % (nominal) and 87 % (risk-weighted) of PPP exposures related to loans with maturities of 20 years and above. The longest loan maturities are found in social infrastructure (principally hospitals which are characterised by long economic lives and strong public sector covenants) and the urban development and local transport sectors where loan tenors typically range between 25 and 30 years (...)’. The EESC emphasises that because of the long maturities it will be some time before the early PPPs are concluded. It is not therefore possible at this stage to come to a definitive judgment on their value. Furthermore, circumstances inevitably change over such a long timescale. The rigidity of PPPs can therefore restrict the flexibility of the public sector to respond to new developments which are in the public interest. (8)

4.3.2   Future EIB exposure

This displays ‘a trend towards an increase in loan maturities for PPP projects (9). (...) It is also to be noted that such extended terms are becoming the norm required by the public sector, reflecting the need for loans to match, even if conservatively, PPP projects' revenue profiles.’

5.   Lessons learned from the EIB's experience of PPPs

5.1   The selection, appraisal and monitoring of PPP projects

‘Experience has shown the benefits of early dialogue between the Bank and the relevant public authorities to identify the most suitable projects: (...)’, enabling it ‘to focus much of its PPP activity on priority sectors (TENs, education and i2i, health) and in regional development areas. PPPs have made additional demands on the Bank's appraisal, structuring and negotiating capacity (...)’.

5.2   Procurement and state aid issues

5.3   The performance of PPP projects

5.4   Sectoral priorities

6.   Comments on payment in PPP structures

7.   Value added of EIB expertise in PPPs

8.   Conclusions

Brussels, 10 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)The EIB's role in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), European Investment Bank, July 2004. This document was prepared for the EESC study group and can be requested by e-mail from the EESC Secretariat: eco@esc.eu.int.

(2)  EESC opinion - Public/private concessions and partnerships OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005 - on the Green Paper on public-private partnerships and community law on public contracts and concessions – COM(2004) 327 final.

(3)  The i2i programme is designed by the EIB Group to provide mid- to long-term loans, equity participations and counter-guarantee structures, and reflects the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. Further information is available on the EIB website at www.eib.org.

(4)  See the note submitted to the ECOFIN Council of 25 November 2003 – Document CA 03/515.

(5)  EESC opinion - Public/private concessions and partnerships OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005 - on the Green Paper on public-private partnerships and Community law on public contracts and concessions – COM(2004) 327 final.

(6)  For example, in the UK, approximately 60 % of all PPP transactions are accounted for “on balance sheet”.

(7)  Eurostat decision on deficit and debt - treatment of public-private partnerships, news release STAT/04/18 of 11 February 2004.

(8)  In its opinion on Public/private concessions and partnerships, OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005, the EESC decided to conduct a long-term analysis, based on the results gained from experience.

(9)  Nearly 30 % of such future exposures have amortising maturities in excess of 30 years.

(10)  EESC opinion - Public/private concessions and partnerships OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005 - on the Green Paper on public-private partnerships and Community law on public contracts and concessions – COM(2004) 327 final.

(11)  Available at www.nao.org.uk.

(12)  www.tcontas.pt/pt/actos/rel_annual/2003/ra-2003-res.pdf.

(13)  The report is available at www.tcontas.pt.

(14)  EESC opinion - Public/private concessions and partnerships OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005 - on the Green Paper on public-private partnerships and community law on public contracts and concessions – COM(2004) 327 final.

----

APPENDIX 1

to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, though rejected, were supported by at least one-quarter of the votes cast.

Point 4.1.5: After the second sentence, insert the following:

Indeed, in a number of projects it is difficult to identify what risk has been transferred to the private sector.

Reason

To be given orally.

Result of vote:

Against: 69

For: 47

Abstentions: 17

Point 5.3.2: After the second sentence, insert the following:

However, the Treasury Task Force is not regarded by some social partners as an impartial body, given its remit to promote PPPs. Consequently its optimistic assessment is disputed, particularly since most PPPs have not reached maturity and one of the earliest, the Skye Road Bridge, has had to be bought out by the public sector.

Reason

To be given orally.

Result of vote:

Against: 74

For: 48

Abstentions: 13

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The new Member States and the broad economic policy guidelines

(2005/C 234/13)

On 29 January 2004 the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an additional opinion, under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on The new Member States and the broad economic policy guidelines.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Koulumies.

At its 415th plenary session of 9 and 10 March (meeting of 10 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 170 votes to 2 with 5 abstentions:

SUMMARY

The 2003-2005 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines laid down the EU's medium-term economic policy strategy, the three key elements of which are growth and stability oriented economic policy, economic reforms to increase Europe's growth potential and strengthening sustainable development. At the same time the Commission emphasised the scale of the challenges faced by the new Member States. For the EU as a whole, it is to be noted that the effects of enlargement are unevenly distributed.

Most of the new Member States would probably like to join the euro zone as quickly as possible. Meeting the conditions for entry into the euro zone requires that they pursue disciplined and sustainable economic policies. The Stability Pact will have to be reformed if it is to operate effectively in the long term. The reform must be implemented in such a way that it safeguards the long-term conditions for EU economic growth and reinforces the commitment of all Member States to common goals. The requirement to improve competitiveness applies to all Member States. For the new Member States, achieving the current level of productivity in the EU-15 will not be enough in the longer term. Much more needs to be invested in ICT, R&D and education and training throughout the EU. In addition to economic and social sustainability, it is important to ensure sustainable environmental development. It is important for the new Member States to improve, inter alia, efficiency in energy use.

It is self-evident that the gaps in living standards between the EU-15 and the new Member States will not be closed quickly. The gaps will probably take decades to disappear. Demographic trends are one of the major challenges facing the EU as a whole and various measures therefore need to be taken to encourage higher birth-rates. Steps should be taken to mobilise all potential workers in the Union as quickly as possible, in particular to enable women and young people to enter the labour market and remain there long term. Older workers must be encouraged to stay in work. It is important to complete the internal market and actively promote good economic governance.

1.   References to the new Member States in previous broad economic policy guidelines and opinions

2.   The broad economic policy guidelines in the new Member States

3.   Economic performance and the effects of enlargement

3.1   Economic performance and prospects in the new Member States

3.2   Macro-economic effects of enlargement in the EU

4.   Specific issues

4.1   Joining the euro zone

4.2   Stability and Growth Pact

4.3   Differences in economic well-being and employment (3)

4.4   Competitiveness and productivity

4.5   Sustainable environmental development

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 10 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)Better governance in the EU, EESC opinion – OJ C 74 of 23.3.2005, adopted 15 September 2004.

(2)  See the last opinion on the subject: Budgetary policy and type of investment, EESC opinion – OJ C 110/19 of 30.4.2004, pp. 111-115.

(3)  The Committee would nevertheless draw attention to the fact that to deal with the issue of standard of living correctly, it would be preferable to refer to the concept of ‘available household income’. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the statistics. The Committee would use this opportunity to call again for a strengthening of the EU's statistical machinery and greater cooperation between the competent national institutions and EUROSTAT.

(4)European business competitiveness, EESC opinion – OJ C 120 of 20.5.2005.

----

----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European transport networks and energy and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95

(COM(2004) 475 final — 2004/0154 (COD))

(2005/C 234/14)

On 9 March 2005 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 February 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 415th plenary session of 10 March 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes to 8, with 6 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Current situation

3.   The Commission's proposal

4.   General comments

5.   Specific comments and conclusions

Brussels, 10 March 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Primary energy demand per unit of GDP at market exchange rate.

(2)  European Union Energy and Transport Outlook 2000/2004.

(3)  Communication of 23 April 2003: Developing the trans-European transport network: Innovative funding solutions Interoperability of electronic toll collection systems.

(4)  Exploratory opinion on the Revision of the list of trans-European network (TEN) projects up to 2004 (OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004) and the opinion on the General rules for granting Community financial aid/TEN (OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002).

(5)  Exploratory opinion on the Revision of the list of trans-European network (TEN) projects up to 2004 (OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004). In its opinion, the EESC envisaged a levy of 1 cent per litre on all fuel consumed in EU-25 for all transport of passengers or goods. At current consumption rates (approximately 300 million tonnes), the fund would receive some EUR 3 billion per annum.

----

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the european economic and social committee

The following proposal for amendment was rejected, but received at least a quarter of the votes cast.

Point 5.2

Amend as follows:

Reason

As the rapporteur very rightly states, the Member States retain the right of decision on tax questions. The Committee cannot and will not propose tax changes in the Member States.

Outcome of the vote:

For: 43

Against: 65

Abstentions: 9

----