----

----

II Preparatory Acts

Committee of the Regions

65th plenary session of 14/15 June 2006

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste and on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste

(2006/C 229/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (COM(2005) 666 final), and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste, (COM(2005) 667 final — 2005/0281 (COD));

Having regard to the European Commission's decision of 5 January 2006, taken under Article 175 and the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

Having regard to its Bureau's decision of 12 April 2005 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission communication Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (COM(2003) 301 final — CdR 239/2003 (1));

Having regard to its outlook report on the Implementation of the Directive on the Landfill of Waste (1999/31/EC) at regional and local level (CdR 254/2005);

Having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 47/2006 rev. 2) adopted on 3 April 2006 by the Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Laust Grove Vejlstrup, Municipal Councillor of Sydthy Kommune (DK/EPP);

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session of 14/15 June 2006 (meeting of 14 June):

1.   Views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

General comments

Aims of the strategy

Actions outlined in the strategy

Implementation, simplification and modernisation of existing legislation

The new framework directive on waste

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Article 5

Article 8

Article 11

Article 12

Article 16

Article 21

Article 25

Article 26

Article 30

Article 32

Annex V

Introduction of life-cycle thinking

Improving the knowledge base

Waste prevention

Towards a European recycling society

Monitoring and evaluation

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Committee of the Regions recommendations regarding the directive

Recommendation 1

Preamble 17(a)

Reason

The proposed classification of incineration with energy recovery as a recovery operation may, in certain countries, trigger an imbalance between the installed incineration capacity and the volumes to be treated, even in cases where the available capacity matches national needs. The competent authorities should, in such situations, be permitted to restrict imports of waste for incineration in order to guarantee treatment opportunities for the waste produced within their area of jurisdiction.

Recommendation 2

Article 1

Reason

Life-cycle thinking is welcomed as a guiding principle. However, life-cycle instruments do not presently represent an operational alternative to the waste hierarchy. It will take many years before a common methodology for the use of these instruments is adopted at Community level. Until then, it is important to clarify the relationship between life-cycle thinking and the politically established waste hierarchy, restating that the latter remains the structuring element of waste policies. The possibilities to derogate from the hierarchy formulated in § 2 (a) and (b) provide for the necessary flexibility and at the same time will promote the further development of life-cycle instruments. In the light of an already established knowledge base, local and regional authorities should play a key role in making such instruments applicable.

The local authorities and waste managers ought to have clear instructions and placing the responsibility for validating the results of life-cycle assessments is an important improvement to the text of the proposal. The review process included in § 3 will ensure that assessments are not used to protect national markets, and that a level-playing field is thus not distorted by the introduction of a life-cycle approach.

Recommendation 3

Article 2, point 5 (new)

Reason

The text of the amendment replicates the text of Article 2, point 2 of the current Waste Framework Directive. It establishes the legal base for the adoption of waste streams specific directives, as the need for adopting additional directives should not be ruled out. The proposed amendment will also provide a legal base for the directives to be proposed in relation to Amendment 9 regarding Article 11. The amendment adds also a requirement concerning the steering of waste. This approach, aimed at harmonising the choice of treatment for specific waste streams, is complementary to the establishment of facility standards in establishing a level playing field.

Recommendation 4

Article 3

Reason

This article should include all the definitions relevant to the provisions of the Directive on Waste. At the same time, these definitions must be consistent with definitions already adopted in existing waste legislation, in particular the Waste Shipment Regulation. This amendment, therefore, proposes:

Recommendation 5

Article 4

Reason

The amendment relating to Article 4 aims at ensuring legal certainty regarding the waste list. The existing waste list has been the object of rolling adaptations through committee procedure and is up to date. And even though the quality of the waste list can always be improved, the efforts invested so far in the elaboration of the list should not simply be discarded. They should, on the contrary, form the basis for further work regarding the elaboration of a waste list and thus provide continuity for the authorities and the operators. With the repeal of Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC, it is important to ensure that the current list remains valid until the new one is adopted and it is important to set a fixed deadline for the elaboration of the new list. Practical experience shows that a list of wastes based on material properties (key criteria: composition and concentration of components) is preferable as it enables a more accurate assessment of the environmental, health, safety and risk implications and makes it easier to decide on disposal procedures. The Commission proposal for the elaboration of a new list is imprecise and it is important to clarify that the list will include non-hazardous waste as well as hazardous waste.

Recommendation 6

Article 5

Reason

The classification of treatment operations strongly influences the ability to plan the medium and long- term capacity requirements. It also determines the terms of competition for the individual treatment facility. This amendment thus calls for the use of a political decision procedure in which the relevant actors are involved. The adoption of a regulation on the classification of waste treatment operations will allow for the choice of efficiency criteria and the setting of the corresponding thresholds to be the object of political scrutiny. At the same time the adoption of such a regulation provides the possibility to adopt measures without leading to too frequent revisions of the Directive on Waste. In the light of the knowledge retained at the local level, and in the light of their responsibilities and competencies in the waste area, local and regional authorities ought as a minimum to be consulted before implementing measures are proposed. The adoption of amendments 5 and 6 will consequently result in Annexes I & II to the Directive on Waste being transferred to Annex I & II of Regulation No Xxxxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on the classification of waste treatment operations.

Recommendation 7

Article 6

Reason

For the same reasons as put forward in the justification regarding amendment 5, the theme dealt with in this Article should be subject to a political and not just technical debate. The classification of treatment operations, and in this case disposal, strongly influences the ability of competent authorities and of private operators to plan medium and long-term capacity requirements. It also determines the terms of competition for the individual treatment facility.

Therefore the adoption of implementing measures should be subject to a political decision procedure in which the relevant actors are involved. In the light of their responsibilities and competencies in the waste area, local and regional authorities ought as a minimum to be consulted before implementation measures are proposed and be given the opportunity to reflect on the impact assessment that the Commission should carry out prior to putting forward a proposal.

Recommendation 8

Article 9

Reason

The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 22 July 2002) is based primarily on the polluter pays principle. This principle should, as a fundamental principle of environmental policy, be reinstated in the text of the Directive.

Recommendation 9

Article 11, paragraph 1, point c (new)

Reason

It is recommended that the end of waste criteria only apply when waste has undergone treatment. This means that it is not possible to exempt waste from the waste legislation before the moment when it can actually be part of a new production cycle and shows a quality equivalent to virgin material or substances.

Recommendation 10

Article 11, paragraph 2

Reason

Article 11 outlines the end-of-waste criteria and thereby the future scope of waste legislation. The choice of environmental criteria and the level at which they are set is not only a technical issue but a political one as well. Further lack of strict criteria concerning the use of such concept can lead to confusion and even discussions among conflicting interest groups. Implementing measures must therefore be subject to a political debate. Proposing a directive on end of waste enables the avoidance of too frequent revisions of the Directive on Waste. Such proposals having environmental, economic and social consequences, they should be accompanied by an impact assessment including broad consultation among the relevant stakeholders.

Recommendation 11

Article 13

Reason

This article is redundant, as requirements concerning the establishment of a waste list are already included in Article 4.

Recommendation 12

Article 15

Reason

A uniform classification of waste as hazardous or non-hazardous is an important precondition for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93 on trans-frontier shipments of waste. Such classification is the subject of ongoing discussions in the Technical Adaptation Committee. Changes may not be left up to the individual Member State but should first come into force after discussions between representatives of the Member States and the Commission.

Recommendation 13

Article 16

Reason

It is true that only permitted plants may carry out the mixing. However, it should be noted that the provisions of Article 16, point 2 only require illegal mixtures to be separated under conditions that are ‘Subject to technical and economical feasibility criteria to be determined by the Member States’. It should be stated clearly in the directive's text that mixing is forbidden to waste producers, collectors and transporters. Furthermore, mixtures must be treated according to the rules on hazardous waste in order to avoid mixing being carried out with the sole purpose of diluting the pollutants.

Recommendation 14

Article 19, paragraph 1

Reason

In the light of its related environmental implications, Article 19 of the Directive should specify that it is possible to make requirements regarding the quality of the treatment.

Recommendation 15

Article 21

Reason

In accordance with amendments 5, 6 and 9, this amendment calls for the use of a political and not only technical debate. Setting minimum standards for permits designed to ensure that the waste is treated in an environmentally sound manner should be subject to a political decision procedure in which relevant actors are involved. In the light of their responsibilities and competencies in the waste area, local and regional authorities ought as a minimum to be consulted before implementation measures are proposed and be given the opportunity to reflect on the impact assessment that the Commission should carry out prior to putting forward a proposal.

Recommendation 16

Article 26, paragraph 1

Reason

The frequency according to which waste management plans will be revised should be synchronised with that applying to the waste prevention programmes described in Article 29. The review of the waste prevention programmes is foreseen in Article 31 and linked to the reporting requirements stipulated in Article 34, which sets the reporting frequency at three years. By synchronising the revision of both waste management plans and waste prevention programmes as well as the carrying out of sectoral reports, a regular exercise will be established among the relevant authorities and help these meet the reporting requirements of the Directive.

In relation to these criteria, it is important to mention that adequate resources should be allocated to the competent authorities.

Recommendation 17

Article 29, paragraph 1

Reason

As put forward in the justification for amendment 14, the frequency according to which waste prevention programmes will be revised should be synchronised with that applying to waste management plans. The review of the waste prevention programmes is foreseen in Article 31 and linked to the reporting requirements stipulated in Article 34, which sets the reporting frequency at three years. Synchronising the reporting requirements is proposed for the same reasons as those given in the justification for amendment 14.

Waste prevention programmes aimed at tackling one of the most significant challenges of waste policies, a reduction in the generation of waste, the revised framework directive should establish milestones against which progress can be assessed. Setting clear reduction targets is also in line with the objectives and priority areas, set out in the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme concerning waste.

Article 29 requires that waste prevention programmes are drawn up at the geographical level most appropriate for their application, and thus it is of importance that adequate resources are allocated to that level.

Recommendation 18

Article 30, paragraph 2

Reason

The establishment of qualitative and quantitative targets at national level may reflect the differences in the state of play in Member States. The monitoring and assessment of progress according to an agreed methodology will enable the further elaboration of prevention policies at Community level.

Recommendation 19

Article 34, paragraph 1

Reason

The frequency according to which sectoral reports ought to be carried out, should, for the same reasons as put forward in amendments 14 and 15, be synchronised with the requirements applying to both waste prevention programmes as well as waste management plans.

Recommendation 20

Article 35

Reason

The Annexes of this Directive play an important role for the future scope of waste legislation. As pointed out in amendments 5 and 6, it is suggested that Annex I and Annex II — outlining the classification of future treatment operations –be transferred to the Annexes of a separate Regulation. However, it is generally important to recognise that adapting the Annexes of this Directive to scientific and technical progress requires a political and not just technical debate. Relevant actors should be involved in this political decision procedure, and in the light of their responsibilities and competencies in the waste area, local and regional authorities ought as a minimum to be consulted before implementation measures are proposed. As mentioned in amendment 5, the relevant actors should also be given the opportunity to reflect on the impact assessment which the Commission should carry out prior to putting forward a proposal regarding such changes to the legislation.

Recommendation 21

Annex I

Reason

Annex I to the Directive on Waste should be transferred to Annex I of Regulation No Xxxxx, and is, in accordance with the justification laid down for amendment 5, to be deleted in this amendment.

Recommendation 22

Annex II

Reason

Annex II to the Directive on Waste should, as stated in the justification for amendment 5, be transferred to a separate Regulation and, in accordance with previous amendments, be deleted.

Brussels, 14 June 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 63.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles

(2006/C 229/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles (COM(2005) 634 final — 2005/0283 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission on 21 December 2005 to consult it on this subject, under Article 175 and Article 265 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision taken by its president on 24 January 2006 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up the opinion on the subject;

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards a thematic strategy on the urban environment (COM(2004) 60 final — CdR 93/2004 fin) (1);

Having regard to its opinion on the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (COM(2001) 370 final — CdR 54/2001 fin) (2);

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament The 2005 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: Initial Stocktaking and Future Orientations (COM(2005) 37 final — CdR 66/2005 fin);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 48/2006 rev. 1) adopted on 3 April 2006 by its Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Ms Karlsson, Municipal Commissioner and Member of Vindeln Municipal Executive Board (SE/ALDE));

Whereas

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 June 2006 (meeting of 15 June):

1.   Committee of the Regions' comments

The Committee of the Regions

General

Other measures for promoting clean road transport

Suggested measures

Implementation of the proposed directive at local and regional level

Follow-up

2.   Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Brussels, 15 June 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)OJ C 43 of 18 February 2005, p. 35.

(2)OJ C 192 of 12 August 2002, p.8.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning

(2006/C 229/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council On key competences for lifelong learning (COM(2005) 548 final — 2005/0221 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 28 November 2005 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 24 January 2006 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing An integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning (CdR 258/2004 fin (1));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission — Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality (CdR 49/2002 fin (2));

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning The seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (CdR 155/2005 fin);

Having regard to its opinion on the Adoption of a multi-annual programme (2004-2006) for the effective integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and training systems in Europe (eLearning Programme) (CdR 73/2003 fin (3));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006 (CdR 248/2003 fin (4));

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013) (CdR 259/2004 fin (5));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication on the follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth. Proposed common objectives for voluntary activities among young people in response to the Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 regarding The framework of European cooperation in the youth field COM(2004) 337 final;

Having regard to the Communication on the follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth — proposed common objectives for a greater understanding and knowledge of youth in response to the Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field COM(2004) 336 final (CdR 192/2004 fin (6));

Having regard to the draft opinion of the Commission for Culture, Education and Research, adopted on 4 April 2006 (CdR 31/2006 rev. 2) (rapporteur: Ms Christina Tallberg, Member of Stockholm County Council (SE–PES));

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14/15 June 2006 (meeting of 14 June):

Content of the Commission Communication

The Lisbon European Council in March 2000 recognised that Europe faces challenges in adapting to globalisation and the shift to knowledge-based economies. It stressed that ‘Every citizen must be equipped with the skills needed to live and work in this new information society’ and that ‘a European framework should define the new basic skills (7) to be provided through lifelong learning: IT skills, foreign languages, technological culture, entrepreneurship and social skills’.

The Recommendation proposed therefore presents a European reference tool for key competences and suggests how access to these competences can be ensured for all citizens through lifelong learning.

The development of the knowledge society is raising demand for the key competences in the personal, public and professional spheres.

However, the High Level Group on the Lisbon Strategy made it clear in November 2004 that ‘far from enough is being done in Europe to equip people with the tools they need to adapt to an evolving labour market, and this applies to high- and low-skilled positions’.

Many countries have begun basic skills programmes, for example on literacy, numeracy and ICT for adults, often through NGOs. However, a number of countries are not yet in a position that would allow all citizens to learn and update their basic skills.

The ‘Key Competences for Lifelong Learning — A European Reference Framework’ includes knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead people to be more involved in both sustainable development and democratic citizenship. The eight key competences are communication in the mother tongue, ability to communicate in foreign languages, mathematical competence, digital competence, learning to learn, interpersonal, intercultural and social competences, entrepreneurship and cultural expression.

Importance for local and regional authorities

Throughout the European Union the local and regional level has key responsibilities for education, training and developing skills through lifelong learning.

Local and regional authorities are uniquely placed to enter into constructive partnerships with the social partners, institutions and organisations for general and continuing education in order to adapt general education and vocational training courses to specific local needs and requirements.

In addition, various regional and local cooperation projects act as a significant driving force for growth and development.

Education programmes enable the EU to reach out to citizens directly. No other EU endeavour affects so many people each year. The programmes also help to modernise education systems and help individuals update their skills. In view of the local and regional level's responsibilities, regional players should be an important target group for programme activities in the field of education and training (8).

The Regional networks for lifelong learning (R3L initiative), set up by the Commission in cooperation with the Committee of the Regions, is an excellent example of dissemination and development of lifelong learning in Europe. This initially involved a pilot initiative with a separate budget from the main programmes. This has now been included in the proposal for the new Integrated Action Programme in the field of lifelong learning 2007-2013.

1.   Committee of the Regions' general views on the communication

2.   The Commission's proposed recommendations to the Member States

2.8   Commission recommendation 1:

Ensure that initial education and training offers all young people the means to develop the key competences to a level that equips them for adult life, and which forms a basis for further learning and working life;

Committee of the Regions' comments:

2.9   Commission recommendation 2:

Ensure that appropriate provision is made for those young people who, due to educational disadvantages caused by personal, social, cultural or economic circumstances, need particular support to fulfil their educational potential;

Committee of the Regions' comments:

2.10   Commission recommendation 3:

Ensure that adults are able to develop and update the key competences throughout their lives, and that there is a particular focus on target groups identified as priorities in the national, regional and/or local contexts;

Committee of the Regions' comments:

2.11   Commission recommendation 4:

Ensure that appropriate infrastructure for continuing education and training of adults is in place including teachers and trainers, measures to ensure access, and support for learners that recognises the differing needs of adults;

Committee of the Regions' comments:

2.12   Commission recommendation 5:

Ensure the coherence of adult education and training provision for individual citizens via close links to employment and social policies and other policies affecting young people and collaboration with social partners and other stakeholders;

Committee of the Regions' comments:

2.13   Commission recommendation 6:

Use the ‘Key Competences for Lifelong Learning — A European Framework’ in the Annex as a reference tool in developing the provision of key competences for all as part of their lifelong learning strategies.

Committee of the Regions' comments:

3.   Key competences

The European reference framework for key competences covers eight areas:

3.1   Communication in the mother tongue

3.2   Communication in foreign languages

3.3   Mathematical competence and basic competence in science and technology

3.4   Digital competence

3.5   Learning to learn

3.6   Social competence and civic competence

3.7   Enterprise and entrepreneurship

3.8   Cultural expression

3.9   Committee of the Regions' proposals

Brussels, 14 June 2006

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)OJ C 164, 5.7.2005, p. 59.

(2)OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 26.

(3)OJ C 244, 10.10.2003, p. 42.

(4)OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 33.

(5)OJ C 164, 5.7.2005, p. 65.

(6)OJ C 43 of 18.2.2005, p. 42.

(7)  “Basic skills” is generally taken to refer to literacy and numeracy; the Lisbon Council called for adding the new skills needed in a knowledge society such as ICT and entrepreneurship.

(8)  CdR 258/2004 fin.

(9)  CdR 49/2002 fin.

(10)  CdR 49/2004 fin.

(11)  CdR 19/2001 fin.

(12)  CdR 248/2003 fin.

(13)  CdR 151/2005 fin.

(14)  Key competence No 8: Cultural expression.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission on Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: a policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing — towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy

(2006/C 229/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the European Commission on Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing — towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy, COM(2005) 474 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 12 October 2005 to consult it on the subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 10 November 2005 to instruct its Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its draft opinion CdR 39/2006 rev. 2 adopted on 6 April 2006 by its Commission for Economic and Social Policy (Rapporteur: Mr Onno Hoes, Member of the Executive of the Province of Noord-Brabant (NL/ALDE);

WHEREAS:

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 June 2006 (meeting of 14 June):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

Cross-sectoral proposals

High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment

Improving sectoral skills

Intellectual Property Rights

Integrated approach to research and innovation

Sector-specific proposals

2.   Further recommendations made by the Committee of the Regions

Europe in 2027 (policy for the future)

Inviting enterprises to ‘Achieve your full potential in Europe’ and pursuing a strategy of interaction with regions

Moving from a sectoral approach to a cluster-based approach (new areas)

Boosting integration more effectively

Removing red tape and promoting access on the part of SMES to EU programmes

Conclusion

In the light of the forthcoming interim appraisal to be carried out by the Commission, the CoR points out that it would very much welcome a response to the proposals and recommendations set out in this opinion. The CoR also urges the Commission to consider introducing a system of annual monitoring. The CoR would be pleased to make known its views in the context of such an annual monitoring exercise.

Brussels, 14 June 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)  The concept of large enterprises in this respect should also be given attention.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism

(2006/C 229/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on A New Framework for Multilingualism (COM(2005) 56 final);

Having regard to the decision of its President of 24 January 2006 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2005 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the opinion on the Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013) (COM(2004) 469 final), (CdR 259/2004 fin) (1);

Having regard to the opinion on the Communication on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006 (CdR 248/2003 fin) (2);

Having regard to the opinion on The Promotion and Protection of Regional and Minority Languages (CdR 86/2001 fin) (3);

Having regard to its draft opinion of the Commission for Culture, Education and Research, (CdR 33/2006 rev. 2), adopted on 4 April 2006 (rapporteur: Mr Seamus Murray, Member of Meath County Council, Member of the Mid-East Regional Authority (IE/UEN-EA));

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14/15 June 2006 (meeting of 14 June):

1.   General Views

The Committee of the Regions

Specific Comments on the Framework Strategy

Actions for a Multilingual Society — Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity in Society

The Committee of the Regions

Actions for a Multilingual Economy

The Committee of the Regions

Actions for Multilingualism in the Commission's Relations with Citizens

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Specific Comments on the Framework Strategy

Actions for a Multilingual Society — Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity in Society

The Committee of Regions

Actions for a Multilingual Economy

Actions for Multilingualism in the Commission's Relations with Citizens

Brussels, 14 June 2006

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)OJ C 164, 5.7.2005, p. 65.

(2)OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 33.

(3)OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 33.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 3rd Maritime Safety Package

(2006/C 229/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

HAVING REGARD TO the letter from the European Commission of 25 November 2005 requesting the CoR's opinion on the 3rd Maritime Safety Package;

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission on The Third package of measures in favour of maritime safety and the seven Directives included: COM(2005) 586 final; COM(2005) 587 final; COM(2005) 588 final; COM(2005) 589 final; COM(2005) 590 final; COM(2005) 592 final; COM(2005) 593 final;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of the Bureau of 12 April 2005 to instruct its Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

HAVING REGARD TO the motion for a European Parliament resolution on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident (2003/2066(INI)), and the work of the MARE Committee (MARE Resolution);

HAVING REGARD TO the opinion expressed by the European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) on behalf of European shipowners associations and their members, and dated, June 2004, and the opinions expressed by the European Seaports Organisation (ESPO), on behalf of European seaports, and dated 10 June 2004 and 10 March 2005, as well as the opinions expressed by INTERTANKO on behalf of its members, dated January 2006;

HAVING REGARD TO the work of the Maritime Safety Umbrella Operation (MUSO) as presented during the seminar addressing: Refuge Area Best Practice: Identification, Planning and Stakeholder Involvement, 23 and 24 February 2006 and the suggestion made during this meeting for the development of a Casualty Management Framework through IMO, that should be incorporated into this Directive;

HAVING REGARD TO the International Maritime Conventions of IMO, including all associated and current assembly resolutions and amendments;

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 43/2006 rev. 2) adopted on 5 April 2006 by its Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Cllr Flo Clucas (UK/ALDE) (Member of Liverpool City Council);

Whereas:

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 June 2006 (meeting of 15 June):

The Committee of the Regions,

believes that the third Maritime Safety Package ‘Erika III’ has the potential to considerably improve the safety of maritime transport:

1.   Proposal for a directive on the responsibility of the flag states

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1.1

Article 1

Reason

Thus far the interpretation of the IMO Conventions has been left to the flag State administrations, or the courts acting on their behalf, causing differing interpretations and varying standards. To harmonise the interpretation of IMO Conventions, the interpretation of IMO of its Conventions ought to be mandatory.

Recommendation 1.2

Article 2

Reason

The Code of Safe Practice for Ships carrying Timber Deck Cargoes should be included in all Directives of the third Maritime Safety Package for the following reasons:

The Code of Safe Practice for Dry Bulk Cargoes should be included in all Directives of the third Maritime Safety Package, as bulk carriers have been found to be some of the most dangerous vessels. Handling dry bulk cargoes safely and correctly including their stowage and trimming, sequence of loading of the cargo holds of the vessel in conjunction with de-ballasting in order not to unduly stress the vessel are important for the safety of the ship. Apart from the fuel oil the vessel carries, some dry bulk cargoes are marine pollutants.

Recommendation 1.3

Article 5

Reason

To stop the undesirable practice of creating the possibility of ‘substandard ships’ by out-flagging to a less demanding register and in case of disputes with the flag State regarding the safety, manning, operation, and maintenance of the vessel.

2.   Proposal for a directive on port state control

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 2.1

Article 5

Reason

Endeavouring to inspect 25 % of the vessels will not change the present situation.

Recommendation 2.2

Article 7

Reason

Any vessel leaving port has to routinely comply with the condition of seaworthiness including cargo worthiness. Existing deficiencies may interfere with complying with these obligations.

Recommendation 2.3

Article 12

Reason

Not every vessel is managed by its owner. Some ships are owned by banks, who elect to have the vessel managed and operated by a ship manager on their behalf.

Recommendation 2.4

Article 20

Reason

Naming them each in the article prevents having the term ‘ship operator’ to be interpreted by the courts to include the offending party. Also, naming them explicitly hopefully ensures that shipowners, ship managers, ship operators, charterers, ships, and terminal operators keep an eye on each other's performance, as being named in the ‘grey or black list’ is detrimental to business.

Recommendation 2.5

Annex VIII C as referred to in Article 8

Reason

Bulk carriers suffer the same ballast tank problems as double hulled tankers do. Ballast tanks are subject to the accumulation of sediments and liable to serious corrosion. Wastage of structural steel, fatigue cracking or buckling of stiffeners affect the safety of the vessel, if they occur can be identified only by a visual inspection, and for this reason should be included in port State control inspections.

3.   Proposal for a directive on a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 3.1 Am. 5

Article 1

Reason

The Commission sets out in the Explanatory Memorandum that there is a clear need of making the existing provisions regarding ships in distress in places of refuge clearer and more focused. Therefore the Commission introduces that the accommodation of a ship in distress in a place of refuge shall be the subject of a prior assessment of the situation and a decision taken by an independent competent authority designated by the Member State.

The introduction of the independent competent authority is recommendable as it will guarantee a more objective decision on where a ship in distress can be best accommodated. This proposal shifts decision making power regarding the accommodation of a ship from the local port authority to a national authority. To maintain some interaction and to establish a relation based on trust between the local port authority and the national authority an obligation to consult the port authority is highly recommendable.

Moreover, as the final decision on accommodating a ship in distress is being made by the independent competent authority, the powers of the port authority can be overruled. The possibility for the national authority to overrule the local port authority can leave the latter with a financial burden of a decision which has not been taken by the port authority. It is not logical that port authorities will need to find compensation for costs and damage which are not caused by their own operations nor resulted from a decision the port authority has taken itself.

It is therefore recommendable that the independent competent authority will be fully liable for his decisions and responsible for compensation.

Recommendation 3.2 Am.6

Article 1

Reason

Already while drawing up a plan for responding to threats presented by ships in distress in the waters of the Member States it is recommendable that the compensation procedure for potential costs and damage occurring as result of ships accommodated in a place of refuge is included.

Local port authorities and communities may be exposed to pollution or other dangers, such as an explosion, while there may be economic damage if the port, bridges, locks or roads are blocked as a result. Such economic damage may be substantial and can increase very fast. The blockade can also have effects beyond the port area as various companies in the hinterland rely on the goods shipped through the port. However, the international funds compensate damage related to oil pollution and do not cover the economic loss ports encounter.

In the absence of insurance requirements for all ships, there is not guarantee that the ship has liability insurances and, even if it has, claimants may not have access to it if the insurer can use any of its defences.

The Directive proposal on civil liability and financial securities of shipowners, will bring substantial improvement to the existing legal framework. However, it is recommendable that the provisions of the Vessel Traffic Monitoring Directive are further improved to ensure that port authorities and local authorities will have clear guarantees that damage and costs related to the accommodation of ships in distress will be fully and promptly compensated.

In this way port and local authorities will be encouraged to play a pro-active role in offering a place of refuge and this will also ensure an effective and efficient cooperation with the independent competent authority the Commission seeks to establish in every Member State.

The Commission has left such compensation for port authorities open in the Third Maritime Safety Package even if the European Parliament explicitly asked the Commission in its 2004 Resolution on Improving Safety at Sea to submit proposals for financial compensation for places of refuge (1).

Recommendation 3.3 Am.7

Article 1

Reason

Port Authorities rank among many creditors of the vessel. They have to share, with these various parties, the compensation amount which is available from the international funds or from the ship's insurance. They often stand last in the queue for compensation despite the far reaching responsibility to accommodate a ship in distress. Moreover, the international funds compensate damage related to oil pollution and do not cover the economic loss ports encounter.

Smaller ports and communities affected by damage resulting from obligatory accommodation of a ship in distress may not have the manpower, financial means or legal expertise to be confronted with long lasting legal action against the ship's operator, agent or master to recover costs and damage while not even having the final authority in taking this decision.

4.   Directive establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 4.1

Article 2

Reason

In its Directives on ‘Port State Control’ and ‘Flag State Responsibility’, the Commission rightly described fishing as one of the most dangerous activities. The smaller the vessel, the more accident prone it is with frequent loss of life! For this reason it is proposed to delete item (d) of Article 2 and to investigate accidents and incidents involving fishing vessels in the same thorough way as this Directive proposes to investigate accidents and incidents involving merchant ships.

5.   Directive to establishing common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 5.1

Article 12

Reason

It is believed to more acceptable to the offending party if fines are levied by the European Court of Justice using the advice of the Commission rather than directly by the Commission.

Recommendation 5.2

Article 20

Reason

The period of reclassification is generally four years with a one-year grace. In practice this works out as about five years. At the age of 10, a vessel is no longer as operationally efficient as a newer one. Also steel replacement may be required in bulkheads and stiffeners and pipe work for water ballast and cargo may be in need of replacement, especially the bends. This is the ideal time to sell the vessel on, relatively cheaply, and have the new owner performing and paying the repair work. The new owner is usually a less demanding one and the new flag often a flag of convenience. Equally, the new classification society is not necessarily a ‘recognised organisation’ as defined by the Commission.

6.   Regulation on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents

7.   Directive on the civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 7.1

Article 1

Reason

The term ‘operators and users of ships’ includes charterers other than bare boat charterers who use ships, including substandard ships under time-, trip-, voyage-, and consecutive voyage charters. They must be included in this Directive and bear the same obligations as ‘shipowners’, as defined in this Directive, do, i.e. provide a financial guarantee. After all, it is their oil that causes the pollution! This would have the following effects:

Recommendation 7.2

Article 2

Reason

The possible question as to ‘who is an operator’ should be forestalled.

Local and regional authorities are key players in implementing the strategy whether in cleaning up polluted areas, providing safe havens for vessels, assisting those in difficulty, or where local citizens are themselves seafarers, or rescuers of those in peril. It is disappointing therefore that the 3rd Maritime Safety Package does not give sufficient importance to the role that such authorities can play in achieving the intended results.

Brussels, 15 June 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)  European Parliament Resolution on Improving Safety at Sea – Rapporteur Dirk Sterckx cf.

http://www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/tempcom/mare/pdf/res_en.pdf

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on i2010: Digital Libraries

(2006/C 229/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on I2010 — Digital libraries COM(2005) 465 final;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 24 January 2006 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on i2010 — A European Information Society for Growth and Employment;

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission for Culture, Education and Research, adopted on 4 April 2006 (CdR 32/2006 rev. 1) (rapporteur: Mr Jyrki Myllyvirta, Mayor of Mikkeli (FI/EPP));

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14/15 June 2006 (meeting of 15 June):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions,

Brussels, 15 June 2006

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme Modern SME Policy for growth and employment

(2006/C 229/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme — Modern SME Policy for growth and employment, COM(2005) 551 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 15 November 2005 to consult it on the subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its president of 24 January 2006 to instruct its Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its Opinion on the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (COM(2005) 121 final CdR 150/2005 fin) (1);

Having regard to its Opinion on the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008) (COM(2005) 141 final CdR 147/2005 fin) (2);

Having regard to its Own-initiative opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Competitiveness and Decentralisation (CdR 23/2005 fin) (3);

Having regard to its Draft Opinion CdR 40/2006 rev. 2 adopted on 6 April 2006 by its Commission for Economic and Social Policy (Rapporteur: Mrs Constance Hanniffy, Member of Offaly County Council, Cathaoirleach of the Midland Regional Authority and Member of the Border Midland and Western Regional Assembly, IE/EPP).

adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 June 2006 (meeting of 15 June)

1.   The Committee of the Regions' comments

Giving fresh impetus to SME policy

Promoting entrepreneurship and skills

Improving SMEs access to markets

Cutting red tape

Improving SMEs' growth potential

Strengthening dialogue and consultation with SME stakeholders

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Promoting entrepreneurship and skills

Improving SMEs access to markets

Cutting red tape

Brussels, 15 June 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the EC.

(2)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the EC.

(3)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the EC.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Parliament Resolution on Protection of Minorities and Anti-Discrimination Policies in an Enlarged Europe

(2006/C 229/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the decision of the European Parliament of 8 June 2005 to consult it on the subject, under the fourth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 11 October 2005 to instruct its Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the European Parliament's Resolution on protection of minorities and anti-discrimination policies in an enlarged Europe, T6-0228/2005;

Having regard to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed on 29 October 2004, and in particular to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which constitutes its Part II;

Having regard to Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;

Having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all — A framework strategy COM(2005) 224 final and on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007) Towards a Just Society COM(2005) 225 final — 2005/0107 (COD) (CdR 226/2005 fin);

Having regard to the European Parliament's resolution on homophobia in Europe (RSP/2005/2666);

Having regard to its Opinion on the Green Paper on equality and non-discrimination in an enlarged European Union COM(2004) 379 final (CdR 241/2004 fin) (1);

Having regard to the recommendations of the EU network of independent experts on fundamental rights in the Thematic Comments No 3: The protection of Minorities in the European Union;

Having regard to the reports of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) on the situation of migrants, minorities and Roma specifically;

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 53/2006 rev. 1) adopted unanimously on 7 April 2006 by its Commission for Constitutional Affairs, European Governance and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (rapporteurs: Mr Sovič, Mayor of Maribor and Mr Sinner, Minister of State, Head of the Bavarian State Chancellery;

adopted unanimously the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 June 2006 (meeting of 15 June).

The Committee of the Regions

1.   General remarks

2.   Views and recommendations

2.1   Promoting diversity and intercultural dialogue — decentralised measures

2.2   Using and promoting standards and plans for equal treatment

2.3   Access to language learning, education and the job market

2.4   Access to social housing and public services

2.5   Active access to political and civil life

2.6   Promoting data collection at regional and local level

3.   Final remarks

Brussels, 15 June 2006

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)OJ C 71, 22.3.2005, p. 62.

----

APPENDIX

THE PROTECTION OF MINORITIES AT THE REGIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL: GOOD PRACTICE (1)

Many of the regional and local good practice aimed at improving the situation of minorities and promoting non-discrimination policies are a result of a survey of CoR members and regional and municipal authorities, organisations and associations. The CoR wishes to develop this limited list, and thus utilise it in EU actions promoting standards for equal treatment for all.

1.   Promoting diversity and intercultural dialogue

2.   Using and promoting standards and plans for equal treatment

3.   Access to language learning, education and the job market

4.   Access to housing and public services

5.   Active access to political and civil life

6.   The protection of the Roma minority

Belgium

Czech Republic

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Slovenia

Spain

United Kingdom

----

(1)  Sources: information gathered by the CoR members; ‘Thematic Comments No 3: The protection of Minorities in the European Union’ of the EU network of independent experts on fundamental rights (2005); and the Annual Report of the EUMC, Part II ‘Racism and Xenophobia in the EU Member States trends, developments and good practice’(2005).

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The Commission's contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate and the White paper on a European communication policy

(2006/C 229/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Commission's contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate COM(2005)494 final and the White paper on a European communication policy COM(2006) 35 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 13 October 2005 to consult it on the subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 15 November 2005 to instruct its Commission for Constitutional Affairs, European Governance and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Treaty of Nice (2001/C 80/01);

Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe signed by the Heads of State and Government on 29 October 2004 (IGC 87/04 rev. 1, IGC 87/04 Add. 1 rev. 1, IGC 87/04 Add. 2 rev. 1);

Having regard to the Declaration by the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union on the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (European Council, 16 and 17 June 2005);

Having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission (CdR 197/2005 Item 11) signed on 17 November 2005;

Having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the period of reflection: the structure, subjects and context for an assessment of the debate on the European Union, A6-0414/2005;

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — The Commission's contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate (CESE 1390/2005 fin) (1);

Having regard to its Opinion of 13 October 2005 on The period of reflection: the structure, subjects and context for an assessment of the debate on the European Union (CdR 250/2005 fin) (2);

Having regard to its Opinion of 17 December 2002 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on An information and communication strategy for the European Union (CdR 124/2002 fin) (3);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 52/2006 rev. 1) adopted on 7 April 2006 by the Commission for Constitutional Affairs, European Governance and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (rapporteur: Ms Mercedes Bresso, President of the Piedmont Region (IT/PES);

Whereas:

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 65th plenary session, held on 14-15 June 2006 (meeting of 15 June).

Opinions and recommendations of the committee of the regions

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views on the period of reflection and Plan D

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' views on the European communication policy

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 15 June 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

----

(1)OJ C 65 of 17.3.2006, pp. 92-93.

(2)OJ C 81 of 4.4.2006, pp. 32-36.

(3)OJ C 73 of 26.3.2003, pp.46–52.

----