# Official Journal C 14/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 14 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6315 January 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 14

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6315 January 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| 2020/C 14/01 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The European Pillar of Social Rights — evaluation of the initial implementation and recommendations for the future (own-initiative opinion) | 1 |
| 2020/C 14/02 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Implementation of the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration based on EU values (own-initiative opinion) | 24 |
| 2020/C 14/03 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Developing synergies across different circular economy roadmaps (own-initiative opinion) | 29 |
| 2020/C 14/04 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on 10 years of Eastern Partnership: reflecting on achievements and shaping the future policy of the EaP (own-initiative opinion) | 34 |
| 2020/C 14/05 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on International trade and tourism — A global sustainable development agenda (own-initiative opinion) | 40 |
| 2020/C 14/06 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Digitalisation, AI and Equity — How to strengthen the EU in the global race of future skills and education, while ensuring social inclusion  (exploratory opinion at the request of the Finnish Presidency) | 46 |
| 2020/C 14/07 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Summary of the costs and benefits of investments in occupational safety and health (OSH) (exploratory opinion requested by the Finnish Presidency) | 52 |
| 2020/C 14/08 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The changing world of work and the longevity/ageing population — The preconditions for ageing workers to stay active in the new world of work  (exploratory opinion requested by the Finnish Presidency) | 60 |
| 2020/C 14/09 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Social dimension of fisheries (exploratory opinion) | 67 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

2020/C 14/01

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The European Pillar of Social Rights — evaluation of the initial implementation and recommendations for the future (own-initiative opinion)

1

2020/C 14/02

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Implementation of the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration based on EU values (own-initiative opinion)

24

2020/C 14/03

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Developing synergies across different circular economy roadmaps (own-initiative opinion)

29

2020/C 14/04

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on 10 years of Eastern Partnership: reflecting on achievements and shaping the future policy of the EaP (own-initiative opinion)

34

2020/C 14/05

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on International trade and tourism — A global sustainable development agenda (own-initiative opinion)

40

2020/C 14/06

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Digitalisation, AI and Equity — How to strengthen the EU in the global race of future skills and education, while ensuring social inclusion  (exploratory opinion at the request of the Finnish Presidency)

46

2020/C 14/07

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Summary of the costs and benefits of investments in occupational safety and health (OSH) (exploratory opinion requested by the Finnish Presidency)

52

2020/C 14/08

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The changing world of work and the longevity/ageing population — The preconditions for ageing workers to stay active in the new world of work  (exploratory opinion requested by the Finnish Presidency)

60

2020/C 14/09

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Social dimension of fisheries (exploratory opinion)

67

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| 2020/C 14/10 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment (COM(2019) 178 final) | 72 |
| 2020/C 14/11 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (COM(2019) 208 final — 2019/0101 (COD)) | 78 |
| 2020/C 14/12 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States to cover serious financial burden inflicted on them following a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union without an agreement  (COM(2019) 399 final — 2019/0183 (COD)) | 84 |
| 2020/C 14/13 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — More efficient decision-making in social policy: Identification of areas for an enhanced move to qualified majority voting  (COM(2019) 186 final) | 87 |
| 2020/C 14/14 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Reflection Paper Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030 (COM(2019) 22 final) | 95 |
| 2020/C 14/15 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council — A more efficient and democratic decision making in EU energy and climate policy (COM(2019) 177 final) | 105 |
| 2020/C 14/16 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Aviation Strategy for Europe: Maintaining and promoting high social standards  (COM(2019) 120 final) | 112 |
| 2020/C 14/17 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering Germany to amend its existing bilateral road transport agreement with Switzerland with a view to authorising cabotage operations in the course of international road passenger transport services by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries (COM(2019) 221 final) and Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement with Switzerland authorising cabotage operations in the course of international road passenger transport services by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries (COM(2019) 223 final) | 118 |
| 2020/C 14/18 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Guidance on the Regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union (COM(2019) 250 final) | 122 |
| 2020/C 14/19 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020)  (COM(2019) 397 final — 2019/0180 (COD)) | 129 |
| 2020/C 14/20 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters  (COM(2019) 398 final — 2019/0187(COD)) | 130 |
| 2020/C 14/21 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/501 and Regulation (EU) 2019/502 as regards their periods of application  (COM(2019) 396 final — 2019/0179 (COD)) | 131 |

III   Preparatory acts

European Economic and Social Committee

2020/C 14/10

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment (COM(2019) 178 final)

72

2020/C 14/11

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (COM(2019) 208 final — 2019/0101 (COD))

78

2020/C 14/12

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States to cover serious financial burden inflicted on them following a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union without an agreement  (COM(2019) 399 final — 2019/0183 (COD))

84

2020/C 14/13

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — More efficient decision-making in social policy: Identification of areas for an enhanced move to qualified majority voting  (COM(2019) 186 final)

87

2020/C 14/14

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Reflection Paper Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030 (COM(2019) 22 final)

95

2020/C 14/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council — A more efficient and democratic decision making in EU energy and climate policy (COM(2019) 177 final)

105

2020/C 14/16

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Aviation Strategy for Europe: Maintaining and promoting high social standards  (COM(2019) 120 final)

112

2020/C 14/17

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering Germany to amend its existing bilateral road transport agreement with Switzerland with a view to authorising cabotage operations in the course of international road passenger transport services by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries (COM(2019) 221 final) and Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement with Switzerland authorising cabotage operations in the course of international road passenger transport services by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries (COM(2019) 223 final)

118

2020/C 14/18

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Guidance on the Regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union (COM(2019) 250 final)

122

2020/C 14/19

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020)  (COM(2019) 397 final — 2019/0180 (COD))

129

2020/C 14/20

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters  (COM(2019) 398 final — 2019/0187(COD))

130

2020/C 14/21

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/501 and Regulation (EU) 2019/502 as regards their periods of application  (COM(2019) 396 final — 2019/0179 (COD))

131

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/1

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The European Pillar of Social Rights — evaluation of the initial implementation and recommendations for the future’

(own-initiative opinion)

(2020/C 14/01)

Rapporteur: Bernd SCHLÜTER

Co-rapporteur: Cinzia DEL RIO

| Plenary Assembly decision | 24.1.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure
  Own-initiative opinion |
| Section responsible | Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 10.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 117/44/3 |

Plenary Assembly decision

24.1.2019

Legal basis

Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Own-initiative opinion

Section responsible

Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

10.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

117/44/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | Believing that a realistic future for the European Union can only be based on marrying a sound economic basis with a strong social dimension (1), the EESC has consistently advocated upward convergence and a more effective social policy at both EU and Member State levels (2). The European Social Model (ESM) should also be strengthened and updated as an international reference. The effective implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) of 2017, reaffirms the shared commitment to the ESM in the framework of a new socially inclusive strategy. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | When taking action to implement the EPSR, through both policy programmes and legislative initiatives at EU and national level, the targets and principles of the Treaties, the distribution of competences between EU Institutions and Member States (MS) and, where appropriate, the non regression clause, have to be respected in a balanced way. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | European legislation in appropriate areas should set a framework with general common standards, respecting the specific national situations and social systems and recognising effective and enforceable social rights for citizens at EU and national level. The targets of the Pillar should be respected in all areas of EU policy by using the horizontal clause (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EPSR is currently being implemented through legislative and non-legislative measures, through specific funding and through changes in the Semester process, which should be aimed at triggering upward convergence, setting minimum social standards to create a common level playing field. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | It is important to establish and adopt basic standards for reliable and effective social protection systems (4) and fundamental services of general interest, which should be assessed on a regular basis by independent evaluators. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The Commission and the European Parliament should propose mechanisms for the proper involvement of all the representative social stakeholders, including the social partners and civil society organisations, at all relevant levels in the implementation of the EPSR (5). Particular attention should be paid to the different roles and the strengthening of collective bargaining at national level, which can anticipate or be an alternative to legislation in specific areas of the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The implementation of the EPSR requires a robust budgetary base and investment at EU and MS level, through proper funding in the MFF, by means of a ‘golden rule’ for public investment with a social objective and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), which can be more clearly focused towards the EPSR and appropriate taxation policies (6). |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The European Semester and the National Reform Programmes — which apply equally to non-euro-area countries — and the Social Scoreboard are a key instrument for the implementation and monitoring of the Pillar (7). |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | A new European Semester process should achieve social objectives in the framework of a social imbalance monitoring and new, measurable indicators should be introduced, together with targeted social Country Specific Recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | Regular monitoring of the implementation of the EPSR, with a binding consultation of social stakeholders, should be promoted; the EESC proposes the establishment of a EU Social Policy Forum linked to the Semester process. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC has already called for a clear and coordinated roadmap setting priorities for the implementation of the Pillar and the enforcement of existing social rights and standards. Fundamental needs and rights especially of vulnerable groups, disparities of opportunities, income and wealth within and between MS, inclusion policies and appropriate conditions for public and not-for-profit-services and social enterprises should be addressed as a priority. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | This opinion sets out general guidelines, gives a general evaluation of the first steps and offers recommendations for the main instruments. It provides an update on the progress made at EU level on the measures adopted and instruments available, divided into the three main areas of the EPSR – equal opportunities and access to labour market, fair working conditions and social protection and inclusion — and puts forward proposals for the next steps. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

2.   Context and guidelines for implementation

| 2.1. | The EPSR was solemnly proclaimed at the Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth in Gothenburg on November 2017. It stems from the overarching principles of the European Treaties, which enshrine the fundamental rights of citizens, whose enforcement remains the responsibility of all relevant players. Articles 9 and 151 of the TFEU set out the objectives of the European Social Model, which need to be adapted to the changes that have been taking place in the world of work and in our societies in the framework of a new socially inclusive strategy. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The EU and MS have progressively introduced and improved policies aimed at achieving better working and living conditions for their citizens with a European social model being a tool of competitiveness for the EU economy, while acknowledging that its implementation and updating remains a target in the EU. Great disparities exist between and within EU Member States, between social groups and social security systems. Many countries are facing challenges, some EU countries have more inclusive social systems, but others do not fulfil fundamental needs. The EPSR should lead MS and the EU level to provide modern solutions to current problems faced by European citizens and to guarantee a level playing field for sustainable enterprises in global competition. The EPSR is a political commitment and should engage EU institutions, MS, social partners, civil society organisations and all other relevant stakeholders in their respective competences in a spirit of mutual respect and for the direct benefit of all citizens. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The recent ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work adopted at the International Labour Conference identifies some important lines of action, and sets forth measures that would modernise labour law and prevent exclusion, and it also envisages a set of investments in people's capacities, in the institutions of work and in decent and sustainable work that would shape the best environment for companies to thrive and for people to progress towards fairer working and living conditions, respecting national contexts and the specific role of social partners. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The UN 2030 Agenda puts forward 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the EU has committed to achieving by 2030, and the implementation of the EPSR will contribute to this. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.4.1. | The EESC believes that a realistic future for Europe can only be based on marrying a sound economic basis with a strong social dimension. It is convinced that the European Union needs a renewed consensus on a sustainable economic and social strategy to deliver its promise to work for balanced economic growth and social progress leading to the increased wellbeing of its citizens (8). |
| --- | --- |

2.4.1.

| 2.4.2. | In the Sibiu Declaration of 9 May 2019 (9), the EU Member States committed themselves to deliver where it matters most and to continue to be big on big matters and always uphold the principle of fairness. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.2.

| 2.5. | At EU level, the EPSR is being implemented so far through:






  a) | legislative and non-legislative measures, with an emphasis placed on the enforcement and examination of the existing Social Acquis, to be updated where necessary, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.5.

a)

legislative and non-legislative measures, with an emphasis placed on the enforcement and examination of the existing Social Acquis, to be updated where necessary,

| b) | through specific funding, and |
| --- | --- |

b)

through specific funding, and

| c) | through some initial changes in the Semester process. |
| --- | --- |

c)

through some initial changes in the Semester process.

2.6.   Legislative and non-legislative measures at EU and national levels

| 2.6.1. | Open, dynamic and mobile labour markets are needed to support new and more diverse career paths and smooth transitions between jobs, sectors and employment statuses. Action is required to close labour market mismatches. Education and training systems need to be better tailored to labour market needs. Reforms should look at positive measures to promote active ageing of the workforce, make pension systems sustainable and adequate, and integrate migrants into the workforce. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.1.

| 2.6.2. | When taking action to implement the Pillar, the EU and its MS will make use of all policy tools they consider necessary to achieve their common objectives, including policy programmes and legislative measures. The subsidiarity and proportionality principle and binding treaties' values, targets and principles will determine at what level such actions should be undertaken, prioritising the level which offers the best added value for the concerned stakeholders and contributes to the effective implementation of the EPSR. The distribution of competences, and where appropriate, the non regression clause, should be respected. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.2.

| 2.6.3. | As a matter of participatory democracy and better regulation the EU and the MS will consult the social partners beforehand, according to Articles 153-155. Whether, during such consultation, the social partners show the intention to act autonomously in a system of social dialogue, the EU and the MS will refrain from intervening in the policy area concerned insofar as the social partners are able to deliver and achieve the objectives of the action concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.3.

| 2.6.4. | The remit and participation of other relevant stakeholders, such as public social services, associations of not-for-profit social services and housing providers, public insurances, social economy enterprises, welfare and youth organisations, social service consumers and representatives of vulnerable groups, have to be taken into account when implementing the EPSR. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.4.

| 2.6.5. | MS, EU Institutions, social partners and civil society organisations should monitor the implementation of the EPSR and the effectiveness of existing measures. EU Institutions should support the MS and the social stakeholders at national level when implementing the EPSR. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.5.

| 2.6.6. | European legislation in appropriate areas should set a framework with general and clear common standards, respecting the specific national situations, able to adapt to the diversity of social systems and the role of stakeholders, and recognising effective and enforceable social rights for citizens at EU and national level, and include a European added value (10). The targets of the Pillar should be respected in all areas of EU policy, including by using the horizontal clause (Article 9 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.6.

| 2.6.7. | The implementation of the EPSR aims at triggering upward convergence, improving social and labour market conditions for European workers and citizens, improving and creating effective and reliable social security systems (11), and modern, scientific-based, quality-evaluated social and health services, especially public and not-for-profit services, setting minimum standards to combat social dumping and at the same time creating a level playing field for performing economies, employment and sustainable enterprises, while enhancing citizens' trust in the EU. Social policy strategies should include the interests of SMEs and fair market conditions for them. It is important to establish and approve basic standards for services of general interest like housing, water and social services, which should be assessed on a regular basis, including by independent evaluators (research institutes, academies, etc.) who can be supported financially and their reports made public. Fundamental needs of citizens and vulnerable groups and dangerous disparities of opportunities, income and wealth within and between the MS need to be addressed as a priority. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.7.

| 2.6.8. | Particular attention should be paid to the different role of collective bargaining at national level and collective agreements, which can anticipate legislation or be an alternative to it by regulating specific areas of the labour market and of employment relationships. Thus social partners can play a role in the implementation process proving that they can obtain the same legal effect. In some MS, collective bargaining processes are not structured and collective bargaining coverage is very weak, and therefore disparities persist in the granting of the social rights enshrined in the EPSR. In such cases the law should intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.8.

| 2.6.9. | The quadripartite declaration ‘A new start for social dialogue’ encourages the development of effective collective bargaining. The social partners' joint commitment to the implementation of the EPSR is mirrored in the Joint working programme of the European social partners 2019-2021, which will be implemented also at the national levels contributing to the national reform process. The 2019-21 work programme will deliver specific proposals on subjects that are related to the implementation of the EPSR such as negotiations for an autonomous framework agreement on digitalisation, including possibilities and modalities for connecting and disconnecting as well as improving the performance of labour markets and social systems, and skills development (12). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.9.

| 2.6.10. | The role of civil society must be better recognised and reinforced. Civil dialogue needs to be strengthened to ensure that people, including young people (13) and those in vulnerable situations or facing discrimination, feel that they are able to participate in the design, implementation and review of policy-making processes (14). The EESC is just now launching the national debates in selected EU Member States on how to achieve better involvement of the civil society in the European Semester circle (15). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.10.

| 2.6.11. | The Commission has taken practical measures to put the Pillar into practice at European level and has recently published an updated factsheet containing the legislative and non-legislative initiatives adopted so far (16). The EESC has already called for a clear and coordinated roadmap (17) setting priorities for the implementation of the Pillar. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.11.

| 2.6.12. | Measures for implementation of the EPSR should be based on a scientific analysis of the present legal and practical situation of social and health policies in MS and at EU level and should involve social stakeholders. The EESC proposes the establishment of an EU Social Policy Forum: the EU needs a permanent forum for communication, best practice, evaluation, expert seminars, social programmes, compliance with EU and MS rules and reform projects for MS and EU policies. As better enforcement of existing social rights remains a matter of concern, the Commission and MS must improve compliance with the EU rules. The new Forum should be linked closely to the EESC and the Semester process. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.12.

| 2.6.13. | Non-legislative measures, which can be complementary tools for the effective implementation of the EPSR, include soft law instruments such as mutual recognition of well performing systems, common incentives, the open method of coordination, mutual learning, peer reviews, the engagement of MS in the media, as well as disincentive programmes (18). The EESC welcomes initiatives aimed at mobilising civil society and stakeholders, which could be supported financially, such as Stand Up for the Social Pillar (19). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.13.

2.7.   Financial policies and the coherent and targeted use of the EU funds

| 2.7.1. | To be properly implemented, the EPSR needs budgetary space and investments at both the European and national levels; it should be embedded in economic, financial and budgetary policies, and the future EU strategy with a holistic and coherent approach. The goal of higher productivity and less income disparity through education, empowerment and social inclusion plays a key role here (20). The implementation of the EPSR should constitute one of the guiding principles for the definition of the next EU Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF). This requires a coherent use of funds and making the Pillar a compass for the operational programmes and a tool to determine the impact of the Structural and Investment Funds, the ESF+ and the InvestEU fund and all other relevant EU budget headings. The criteria to access the EU funds should refer in a constructive and appropriate way to the Pillar's rights and principles, while taking into account national situations and the contributions of all social stakeholders. EU funds should not replace public financing of modern, good quality and accessible social security systems by and within the MS. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.1.

| 2.7.2. | The negotiations for the next MFF should aim to secure proper funding for employment and social policies. EU budget and debt rules (21) should be revised to respect fundamental rights as well as the targets of the Treaties and of the EPSR. Performing economies, debt control and social targets should be in an appropriate balance. As the EESC has stated repeatedly (22), more public investment within the MS can also be facilitated by means of a ‘golden rule’ for public investment with a social objective, which would allow more flexibility in budget rules. Increasing income levels, sustainable growth, stronger social cohesion and preventing exclusion are joint targets to consider. More public investment can also be supported, especially by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), which can be more clearly focused towards objectives highlighted in the EPSR (23). Appropriate taxation policies, geared, inter alia, towards effectively combating tax fraud, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, should make it possible to raise additional funds to contribute to the financing of the EPSR (24). |
| --- | --- |

2.7.2.

2.8.   The European Semester

| 2.8.1. | The EPSR affects European economic governance. It is already embedded in the milestone documents of the European Semester and was the subject of country-specific recommendations (CSRs) in 2018. The 2019 Joint Employment Report (25) (JER) gained a prominent role in the EU Semester together with the Annual Growth Survey (AGS). |
| --- | --- |

2.8.1.

| 2.8.2. | The EESC considers the European Semester and the National Reform Programmes –which apply equally to non-euro-area countries — a key instrument for the implementation and monitoring of the Pillar (26). A reference framework, benchmarks and coordinated policy exchanges to support Member States, EU-Institutions and social partners' efforts to improve the performance of employment and social policies may be necessary to achieve progress.
  The Social Scoreboard should regularly monitor progress in the implementation of the Pillar in both the JER and the country reports. It should work in an integrated manner with the already existing Employment Performance Monitor (EPM) and Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM) developed by the MS. It can be improved, since its benchmarking technique (based on the distance from EU averages) may provide an overly optimistic representation of the social performance of MS. The 14 scoreboard indicators and subindicators (35 in all) should be subject to continuous revision, involving the social partners and civil society organisations, to adapt them to the political objectives and changing socio-economic situations in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.2.

The Social Scoreboard should regularly monitor progress in the implementation of the Pillar in both the JER and the country reports. It should work in an integrated manner with the already existing Employment Performance Monitor (EPM) and Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM) developed by the MS. It can be improved, since its benchmarking technique (based on the distance from EU averages) may provide an overly optimistic representation of the social performance of MS. The 14 scoreboard indicators and subindicators (35 in all) should be subject to continuous revision, involving the social partners and civil society organisations, to adapt them to the political objectives and changing socio-economic situations in Europe.

| 2.8.3. | A new European Semester should achieve social objectives in the framework of social imbalance monitoring to rebalance the predominance of fiscal and macroeconomic requirements. The Social Scoreboard should monitor and target all of the Pillar's rights and principles, and include improved and new measurable indicators. Such indicators could include, besides statistics, real access to quality based social services, enforceable social rights, social and labour integration of migrants, collective bargaining coverage, participation of social stakeholders in the Semester process and access to apprenticeships and quality higher education. The Commission should monitor the implementation of the national reform plans in close cooperation with the social partners and relevant civil society organisations, thereby promoting social country-specific recommendations. The number and structure of recommendations should be appropriate and monitor the progress made on the priorities indicated in the roadmap. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.3.

| 2.8.4. | The involvement of the social partners should be strengthened in line with the provisions of the TFEU, enabling them to be consulted on the design and implementation of economic, employment and social policies according to national practices. The timely and meaningful involvement of the social partners is essential to improve engagement in policies, thereby facilitating their successful implementation in a way that balances the interests of workers and employers. Cooperation between the social partners can be a driving force for successful, sustainable and inclusive economic, employment and social inclusion policies (27). Consultation of the social partners should be mandatory (28). |
| --- | --- |

2.8.4.

| 2.8.5. | The participation of civil society organisations, service provider associations and public insurances has also proved to be effective in designing policies that implement the EPSR through the European Semester. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.5.

| 2.8.6. | Considering the increasing role that the EU Semester plays in guiding the spending of the EU budget, this should not happen to the detriment of current or future clauses that ensure transparency, openness and accountability in the planning and spending of the EU budget. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.6.

| 2.8.7. | Well-designed benchmarks can act as a compass for the necessary national reforms aimed at increasing the performance of labour markets and of social systems. There should be a clear prioritisation of the issues covered, focusing on those that will have a positive impact on competitiveness and employment, and the sustainability, effectiveness, inclusiveness and efficiency of social systems. This exercise should be a joint endeavour on the part of the Council, Commission, Member States and social partners. Likewise, national social partners should be fully involved by national governments when implementing the pillar's principles and rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.7.

3.   State of implementation and proposals for next steps

| 3.1. | Based on the context and guidelines for implementation, and with reference to the points 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 concerning the distribution of competences between EU Institutions and MS and the involvement of all stakeholders, this chapter identifies some priorities that should be addressed in the months to come. However, this is not an exhaustive set of actions that would be needed to implement the Pillar. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

3.2.   Equal opportunities and access to labour market

| 3.2.1. | A Directive on Work-Life Balance was adopted in 2019 and should bring tangible benefits to families, especially women and children, introducing a minimum standard for parents and carers. The national social partners according to Article 153 of the TFEU have a crucial role to play in ensuring through collective agreements its swift transposition, adapting the EU law to the actual needs of the country, while respecting agreements or legislation that already fulfil the standards of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.1.

| 3.2.2. | When implementing the Work-Life Balance Directive, particular attention should be paid to viable and fair solutions for adequately compensating employees who use parental leave, as well as with regard to flexible working conditions, and including a possible revision of the Barcelona targets. Affordable child- and other care services should also be considered with a view to supporting families. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.2.

| 3.2.3. | The EESC has called for an integrated gender equality strategy (29). In the light of the Joint Declaration by the European ministers on Gender Equality (30), the EESC calls for gender pay gaps to be eliminated (31). In particular, the needs of SMEs have to be addressed in order to ensure that excessive administrative burdens are avoided. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.3.

| 3.2.4. | It remains crucial to recognise the need to consider and address the implications of wage gaps on the future pensions of women, pension gaps and their higher poverty risk. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.4.

| 3.2.5. | The EESC underlines once again that labour market participation and quality of work can improve thanks to increased investment in active labour market policies and by setting common standards for the effective functioning of public employment services (PES) (32). This also applies to not-for-profit employment services, with the aim of reducing the timeframe in transitions, ensuring the use of acquired skills, supporting more and diverse career paths and heading towards stable employment (33). Combating long-term unemployment, integrating migrants in the labour market and reintegrating people who are experiencing discouragement is another key policy area which needs urgent targeted measures, which may include the right of workers to receive support for job-seeking, training and requalification. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.5.

| 3.2.6. | Ensuring a right to lifelong learning for everyone should be on the EU agenda (34). The national education, training and apprenticeship systems should be further developed with focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) areas and development of dual systems which will lead to better matching of labour market needs. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.6.

3.3.   Fair working conditions

| 3.3.1. | In the short run, the focus should be on monitoring the implementation of the revised Posting of Workers Directive, affirming the equal treatment principle, and the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, setting minimum rights for all employment relationships, together with the establishment of a European Labour Authority, which aims to improve enforcement of the EU Acquis and the effectiveness of labour inspections. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1.

| 3.3.2. | The EESC recommends that employee involvement in companies be reinforced, especially with a view to increasing productivity and managing the introduction of new technologies, and harnessing the impact on the organisation of work and the workforce's skills. In this context, the EESC looks forward to the outcome of the negotiations between the European social partners on the Framework Agreement on Digitalisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.2.

| 3.3.3. | The EESC supports the development, in the framework of social dialogue at appropriate national and European levels, of adequate measures on ‘just transitions’ introducing measures and actions to manage, change and grant minimum protection in cases of reorganised workplaces or collective dismissals stemming from (technological, demographic, globalisation, climate change, circular economy) transitions, including the right to engage in collective bargaining to anticipate change and provide support to affected workers (evolution of the Directive on Collective Dismissals (35)). The EESC also looks forward to the adoption by the co-legislators of the European Globalisation Fund. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.3.

| 3.3.4. | Employee involvement in corporate governance, as part of their rights to information and consultation, should be adapted to the new legal framework on non-financial information (36) and with a view to dealing with the necessary due diligence in the accountability requirements of enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.4.

| 3.3.5. | The EESC considers it useful to set benchmarks that help assess the adequacy of low wages in order to prevent poverty among wage-earners, including by promoting analysis and the exchange of good practices through the available mutual learning processes and by introducing common standards to set transparent and predictable minimum wages, where they exist and if the social partners want them. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.5.

| 3.3.6. | Also taking into account the importance given to health and safety in the ILO Centenary Declaration, the EESC recommends taking action to ensure that workers can benefit from the best technologies to improve health and safety in the workplace and prevent accidents, taking into due account the impact this can have on privacy and performance control. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.6.

| 3.3.7. | All Member States should have the same opportunity to count on effective collective bargaining systems. Where necessary, legal and operational frameworks should be built or improved to perform free, autonomous and effective collective bargaining. Legal and operational frameworks should be supported by means of suitable resources for capacity building for the social partners in the ESF+, and promoting social dialogue and involvement of the social partners, especially in the EU Semester. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.7.

3.4.   Social protection and inclusion

| 3.4.1. | The EPSR provides measures to guarantee social protection for everyone living in the EU. Social policies at EU and MS level contributed to the improvement of the European social model which has to be updated based on the targets of the EPSR. The balance between individual responsibility — of workers and enterprises with social contributions — and solidarity needs to be ensured in order to meet the new challenges arising from the impact of globalisation, digitalisation, climate change and labour mobility. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.1.

| 3.4.2. | Particularly important are the principles and rights connected to the fundamental needs and equal opportunities of vulnerable groups addressed in chapter 3 of the Pillar, such as disadvantaged children and young people and people without sufficient resources. An effective Agenda for people with disabilities is an essential target of the EESC (37). Fundamental rights and principles are not being implemented in all Member States. An adequate minimum income (14) in combination with active support for employment (4), adequate old age income (15), access to education and training (1), housing and assistance to the homeless (19) are not all guaranteed across the EU, nor are reliable and effective benefits and services. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.2.

| 3.4.3. | The potential of innovation through new technologies and digitalisation should be used for public services and the social economy while respecting citizens' rights (38). At the same time, social and cultural challenges that may be created by commercial digital platforms (39) and competition imbalances should be addressed to regain a fair base for SMEs, to achieve local wellbeing and also social inclusion in disadvantaged regions. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.3.

| 3.4.4. | In some MS, solidarity-based benefits and services are not granted to everybody and are not subject to legal action. Alongside good practices and progress, the Country Reports also show poorly coordinated and integrated social policies, inadequate systems, a high risk of poverty, no active inclusion, substantial regional differences and a lack of investment in and access to healthcare and other services of general interest. To deal with this problem, public authorities and recognised, not-for-profit services should be provided with appropriate conditions to guarantee the delivery of good quality public services. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.4.

| 3.4.5. | The EESC welcomes the Council Recommendation on Access to social protection for workers and the self-employed, which addresses gaps in access to social protection facing people employed in non-standard contracts and in various forms of self-employment. This should be combined with further measures to implement the Recommendation, like an assessment according to the monitoring framework agreed upon in the Recommendation and on the basis of action plans submitted by Member States and contributions by social partners and civil society organisations. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.5.

| 3.4.6. | Reinforcing the capacity of Member States to activate social transfers to fulfil the basic needs of people from birth to old age is urgently needed too. This involves:






  — | adopting a European Framework Directive on a minimum income to stem poverty and promote an inclusive labour market (40), |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.4.6.

—

adopting a European Framework Directive on a minimum income to stem poverty and promote an inclusive labour market (40),

| — | exploring the possibility of setting common minimum standards in the field of unemployment insurance in the EU Member States (41), |
| --- | --- |

—

exploring the possibility of setting common minimum standards in the field of unemployment insurance in the EU Member States (41),

| — | ensuring the accessibility to social and political functions for persons with disabilities, |
| --- | --- |

—

ensuring the accessibility to social and political functions for persons with disabilities,

| — | revisiting the ‘cost of ageing’ formula and transforming it into a ‘dignity of ageing’ concept that puts the adequacy of pensions, health services and long-term care at the heart of economic governance without neglecting the focus on sustainability of the pension systems, |
| --- | --- |

—

revisiting the ‘cost of ageing’ formula and transforming it into a ‘dignity of ageing’ concept that puts the adequacy of pensions, health services and long-term care at the heart of economic governance without neglecting the focus on sustainability of the pension systems,

| — | creating specific programmes for public housing and housing accessibility in favour of low-income households, |
| --- | --- |

—

creating specific programmes for public housing and housing accessibility in favour of low-income households,

| — | investing in childcare facilities in the direct interest of children and disadvantaged young people; the EESC welcomes the proposal of the Commission and EP to introduce a child guarantee; and |
| --- | --- |

—

investing in childcare facilities in the direct interest of children and disadvantaged young people; the EESC welcomes the proposal of the Commission and EP to introduce a child guarantee; and

| — | ensuring access to quality education for all and extending the youth guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

—

ensuring access to quality education for all and extending the youth guarantee.

| 3.4.7. | The EESC asks the EU co-legislators to resume the negotiations on the revision of Regulation 883 on the Coordination of Social Security Systems, and asks the Member States to accelerate the implementation of the European Accessibility Act. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.7.

| 3.4.8. | The role of social services, social economy enterprises and not-for-profit organisations should be promoted with targeted measures and specific funding. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.8.

3.5.   Cross-cutting measures

| 3.5.1. | The EPSR should reshape the features and requirements of better regulation at EU and national level, so that all criteria, including the cost-benefit analysis, fully reflect the economic, social and environmental impact in the areas under regulation, addressing also the impact on SMEs. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.1.

| 3.5.2. | Specific resources, including specific budget lines, should be made available to local authorities, the social partners and other civil society organisations to encourage and support the action they need to take to implement the EPSR (conferences, studies, training, information, exchange of experts, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

3.5.2.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145, points 1.2 and 2.2.

1

(2)  E.g. in its opinions OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 40; OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145 and OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 135.

2

(3)  Article 9 TFEU.

3

(4)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 40.

4

(5)  As listed in point 2.6.3.

5

(6)  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1, point 1.5 and point 1.6.

6

(7)  OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10, point 6.3.1.

7

(8)  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145, point 2.2.

8

(9)  https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/05/09/the-sibiu-declaration/

9

(10)  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 28, point 3.3.

10

(11)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 40.

11

(12)  European Social Dialogue, Work Programme 2019-2021.

12

(13)  The importance of engaging young people in the dialogue was raised in several national debates in Slovenia, for example.

13

(14)  OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10.

14

(15)  OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10.

15

(16)  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/european_pillar_one_year_on.pdf

16

(17)  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145, point 1.3.

17

(18)  This refers to the better regulation toolbox of complementary or alternative measures to hard legislation.

18

(19)  https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/stand-social-pillar-alliance-social-economy-enterprises-trade-unions-and-civil-society

19

(20)  OJ C 271, 19.9.2013, p. 91, point. 2.3.

20

(21)  OJ C 177, 18.5.2016, p. 35.

21

(22)  OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 1, points 1.8 and 3.6; OJ C 327, 12.11.2013, p. 11; OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 95, point 1.4, OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 21; OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1, point 3.14 and OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 24, point 1.8.

22

(23)  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1, point 1.5.

23

(24)  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1, point 1.6.

24

(25)  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6167-2019-INIT/en/pdf

25

(26)  OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10, point 6.3.1.

26

(27)  OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p.32, point 3.3.2.

27

(28)  OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 32, point 3.3.5.

28

(29)  OJ C 240, 16.7.2019, p. 3, point 1.3.

29

(30)  Joint Declaration on ‘Gender Equality as a Priority of the European Union today and in the future’ signed on the occasion of the Informal Meeting of Gender Equality Ministers on 12 October 2018 in Vienna.

30

(31)  OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 26, points 3.1.1 and 3.1.3.

31

(32)  The EESC has adopted a specific opinion on PES (OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 46).

32

(33)  OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 46.

33

(34)  OJ C 237, 6.7.2018, p. 8, point 4.10.

34

(35)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16).

35

(36)  Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups (OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 1).

36

(37)  SOC/616 Shaping the EU agenda for disability rights 2020-2030 (ongoing).

37

(38)  OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 1.

38

(39)  OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 17.

39

(40)  OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 1.

40

(41)  The EESC is preparing an opinion SOC/583 on ‘Common minimum standards in the field of unemployment insurance in EU Member States’ (ongoing).

41

---

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

Point 2.3

Amend as follows:

| 2.3 | The recent ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work adopted at the International Labour Conference (ILC) identifies some important lines of action for the ILO. In the declaration, the ILC also calls upon all members, taking into account national circumstances, to work individually and collectively, on the basis of tripartism and social dialogue, and with the support of the ILO, to further develop its human-centred approach to the future of work. The declaration touches upon issues such as, and sets forth measures that would modernise labour law and prevent exclusion, and it also envisages a set of investments in strengthening people's capacities and
  , in the institutions of work and promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all in decent and sustainable work that would shape the best environment for companies to thrive and for people to progress towards fairer working and living conditions, respecting national contexts and the specific role of social partners. |
| --- | --- |

2.3

Reason

The proposed modifications aim to ensure that the text of the paragraph corresponds to the content of the ILO Centenary Declaration. Furthermore, for the purposes of this opinion, see the general statement on how ILO Members should work - individually and collectively - to support their approach to future of work.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 56 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 121 |
| Abstentions | 3 |

In favour

56

Against

121

Abstentions

3

Point 2.5

Amend as follows:

| 2.5 | At EU level, the EPSR is being implemented so far through: |
| --- | --- |

2.5

| a) | legislative and non-legislative measures, with an emphasis placed on the enforcement and examination of the existing Social Acquis, to be updated where necessary, |
| --- | --- |

a)

legislative and non-legislative measures, with an emphasis placed on the enforcement and examination of the existing Social Acquis, to be updated where necessary,

| b) | through specific funding, and |
| --- | --- |

b)

through specific funding, and

| c) | through some initial changes in the Semester process. |
| --- | --- |

c)

through some initial changes in the Semester process.

Reason

This point talks about what kind of measures have been taken at EU level so far to implement the EPSR. Thus it is not logical to refer to updating of the existing acquis.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 56 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 124 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

56

Against

124

Abstentions

2

Point 2.6

Amend as follows:

| 2.6 | General comments on
  Legislative and non-legislative measures at EU and national levels |
| --- | --- |

2.6

Reason

The main heading and the subheading of this section is proposed to be modified so that it reflects the text that is proposed to be added in the new points proposed below.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 126 |
| Abstentions | 8 |

In favour

49

Against

126

Abstentions

8

First new point before current 2.6.1

Add a first new point before current 2.6.1:

The basic premise for the implementation – general approach

Reason

The main heading and the subheading of this section is proposed to be modified so that it reflects the text that is proposed to be added in the new points proposed below.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 55 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 119 |
| Abstentions | 5 |

In favour

55

Against

119

Abstentions

5

New point after point 2.6.1

Add a new point after current point 2.6.1:

The basic premise must be that issues lacking a clear transnational dimension within the area of labour law are more appropriately dealt with at national level. EU legislation, which builds on a one-size-fits-all-model, and does not take into consideration differences between character and size of businesses, sectors or traditions and systems in Members States must be avoided. It also undermines the possibility for trade unions and employer associations to negotiate agreements that are tailor-made for different industries, particularly important in countries where the social partners have a high degree of freedom to regulate on working and employment conditions, both independently and as a complement to national legislation.

Reason

To be given orally.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 51 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 116 |
| Abstentions | 6 |

In favour

51

Against

116

Abstentions

6

Point 2.6.4

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.4 | MS,
  and EU Institutions, social partners and civil society organisations should monitor the implementation of the EPSR and the effectiveness of existing measures in the framework of the European Semester, while ensuring the involvement of social partners and civil society organisations. EU Institutions should support the MS and the social stakeholders at national level when implementing the EPSR. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.4

Reason

This modification is introduced to reflect the fact that in the monitoring of the implementation of the EPSR, the role of the EU and the Members States on one hand and the role of social partners and civil society on the other differs.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 54 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 120 |
| Abstentions | 1 |

In favour

54

Against

120

Abstentions

1

Point 2.6.5

Delete the current point:

| 2.6.5 | European legislation in appropriate areas should set a framework with general and clear common standards, respecting the specific national situations, able to adapt to the diversity of social systems and the role of stakeholders, and recognising effective and enforceable social rights for citizens at EU and national level, and include a European added value (1). The targets of the Pillar should be respected in all areas of EU policy, including by using the horizontal clause (Article 9 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.5

Reason

To be given orally.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 48 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 123 |
| Abstentions | 5 |

In favour

48

Against

123

Abstentions

5

Point 2.6.5

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.5 | European legislation in appropriate areas should set a framework aiming at
  with general and clear common
  feasible standards, respecting the specific national situations, able to adapt to the diversity of social systems and the role of stakeholders, and recognising effective and enforceable social rights for citizens at EU and national level, and include a European added value (2)
  . The targets of the Pillar should be respected in all areas of EU policy, including by using the horizontal clause (Article 9 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.5

Reason

When the aim is to respect the diversity among the Member States in the field on social system one cannot call for general or common standards.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 48 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 120 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

48

Against

120

Abstentions

4

Point 2.6.6

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.6 | The implementation of the EPSR aims at triggering upward convergence in terms of employment and social outcomes, improving and adapting social and labour market conditions for European workers and citizens, improving and creating effective, sustainable and reliable social security systems (3), and modern, scientific-based, quality-evaluated social and health services, especially public and not-for-profit services, aiming at fair working conditions
  setting minimum standards to combat social dumping and
  while at the same time creating a level playing field for performing economies, employment and sustainable enterprises, and
  while enhancing citizens' trust in the EU. Social policy strategies should include the interests of SMEs and fair market conditions for them. It is important to establish and approve basic standards for services of general interest like housing, water and social services, which should be assessed on a regular basis, including by independent evaluators (research institutes, academies etc.) who can be supported financially and their reports made public. Fundamental needs of citizens and vulnerable groups and dangerous disparities of opportunities, income and wealth within and between the MS need to be addressed as a priority. Social inclusion based on equal opportunities and fair living conditions should be promoted by all Member States
  . |
| --- | --- |

2.6.6

Reason

The implementation of the EPSR should result in upward convergence of employment and social outcomes as it is the outcomes that determine whether policy choices have been successful. As stated in the preamble of the EPSR (point 12), ‘The aim of the European Pillar of Social Rights is to serve as a guide towards efficient employment and social outcomes when responding to current and future challenges (...).’ The text should also mention adapting social and labour condition (not only improving) as such adaptations may be necessary as a result of changes in our societies and working life. Social security systems must be reliable and effective, but also sustainable.

The EPSR is not about setting minimum standards to combat social dumping so this part should be deleted.

The list of issues that should be addressed as priorities should not include issues not covered by EPSR’s principles (e.g. disparities of wealth and income within or between Member States).

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 53 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 115 |
| Abstentions | 3 |

In favour

53

Against

115

Abstentions

3

Point 2.6.7

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.7 | Particular attention should be paid to the different role of collective bargaining at national level and collective agreements, which can anticipate legislation or be an alternative to it by regulating specific areas of the labour market and of employment relationships. Thus social partners can play a role in the implementation process proving that they can obtain the same legal effect. In some MS, collective bargaining processes are not structured and collective bargaining coverage is very weak, and therefore disparities persist in the granting of the social rights enshrined in the EPSR. In such cases the law should intervene. The EESC therefore encourages MS to strengthen the capacities of national social partners. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.7

Reason

We propose to delete the end of the second sentence as it is not at all clear what is meant by ‘obtaining the same legal effect’. National systems vary in terms of the respective roles of collective bargaining and legislation in regulating the labour market, in the levels at which bargaining is conducted (cross-sectoral, sectoral, company and workplace, regional, occupational), and in the way in which negotiations at different levels may interrelate (articulation) [source Eurofound].

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 59 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

59

Against

114

Abstentions

2

Point 2.6.8

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.8 | The quadripartite declaration ‘A new start for social dialogue’ encourages the development of effective collective bargaining. The social partners' joint commitment to the implementation of the EPSR is mirrored in the Joint working programme of the European social partners 2019-2021, which will be implemented also at the national levels contributing to the national reform process. The 2019-21 work programme addresses the following six priorities: digitalisation; improving the performance of labour markets and social systems; skills; addressing psychosocial aspects and risks at work; capacity building for stronger social dialogue; the circular economy
  will deliver specific proposals on subjects that are related to the implementation of the EPSR such as negotiations for an autonomous framework agreement on digitalisation, including possibilities and modalities for connecting and disconnecting as well as improving the performance of labour markets and social systems, and skills development (4)
  . |
| --- | --- |

2.6.8

Reason

It is important to make sure that the text of the opinion follows the formulations used in the European Social Partners’ work programme. (For instance connecting and disconnecting are mentioned in the work programme in the context of statement about organising a joint fact-finding seminar where they will explore different experiences).

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 53 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 115 |
| Abstentions | 6 |

In favour

53

Against

115

Abstentions

6

Point 2.6.10

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.10 | The Commission has taken practical measures to put the Pillar into practice at European level and has recently published an updated factsheet containing the legislative and non-legislative initiatives adopted so far (5) . The EESC has already indicated that it believes that a clear roadmap for the implementation of the EPSR would help to foster convergence and achieve its objectives.
  called for a clear and coordinated roadmap (6) setting priorities for the implementation of the Pillar. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.10

Reason

We propose to use the exact wording from the opinion SOC/564.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 50 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 113 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

50

Against

113

Abstentions

4

Point 2.6.11

Amend as follows:

| 2.6.11 | Measures for implementation of the EPSR should be based on a scientific analysis of the present legal and practical situation of social and health policies in MS and at EU level and should involve social stakeholders. The EESC could act as a facilitator.
  The EESC proposes the establishment of an EU Social Policy Forum: t
  The EU needs to encourage ways
  a permanent forum for communication, exchange of best practice, evaluation, expert seminars, social programmes, compliance with EU and MS rules and reform projects for MS and EU policies. As better enforcement of existing social rights remains a matter of concern, the Commission and MS must improve compliance with the EU rules. The new Forum should be linked closely to the EESC and the Semester process. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.11

Reason

It is not at all clear what is meant with the reference to creating ‘a EU social policy forum’. There is no need for creating new instruments/platforms and the reference to the forum should be deleted. What is important is the consultation and involvement of relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the EPSR.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 52 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 3 |

In favour

52

Against

114

Abstentions

3

Point 2.7.2

Amend as follows:

| 2.7.2 | The negotiations for the next MFF should aim to secure proper funding for employment and social policies. EU budget and debt rules (7) should be revised to respect fundamental rights as well as the targets of the Treaties and of the EPSR. Performing economies, debt control and social targets should be in an appropriate balance. As the EESC has stated previously
  repeatedly (8)
  , financing the implementation of the Social Pillar will also depend heavily on resources available at the Member-State level. It will require funding from state budgets for investment and also for the running costs of activities over the next few years. This may be constrained by EU budget and debt rules (9). As has already been stressed repeatedly by the EESC (10), consideration should be given to ways of enhancing the flexibility permitted within these, for example by means of a ‘golden rule’, which would allow public investment with a social objective in order to achieve the aims of the Social Pillar, notably by: increasing income levels, stronger social cohesion and preventing the exclusion of otherwise disadvantaged groups who cannot otherwise play a full part in society, while generating sustainable economic growth. more public investment within the MS can also be facilitated by means of a ‘golden rule’ for public investment with a social objective, which would allow more flexibility in budget rules. Increasing income levels, sustainable growth, stronger social cohesion and preventing exclusion are joint targets to consider. More public investment can also be supported, especially by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), which can be more clearly focused towards objectives highlighted in the EPSR (11). Appropriate taxation policies, geared, inter alia, towards effectively combating tax fraud, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, should make it possible to raise additional funds to contribute to the financing of the EPSR. Ensuring efficient use of additional funding requires the implementation of the action programmes and roadmaps for the implementation of the Social Pillar as an integral part of the European Semester, and in particular the development of National Reform Programmes and convergence programmes (12)
  . |
| --- | --- |

2.7.2

Reason

It is important to use the exact wording of the opinion referred to ensure a better balance in the text and also to refer to the statements made in earlier opinions about the implementation of the Pillar as part of European Semester.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 55 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 112 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

55

Against

112

Abstentions

4

Point 2.8.4

Amend as follows:

| 2.8.4 | A new European Semester cycle should achieve social objectives in the framework of comprehensive
  social imbalance monitoring to rebalance the predominance of fiscal and macroeconomic requirements. The Social Scoreboard should monitor and target all of the Pillar's rights and principles, and include improved and new measurable indicators. Such indicators could include, besides statistics, real access to quality based social services, enforceable social rights, social and labour integration of migrants, collective bargaining coverage, participation of social stakeholders in the Semester process and access to apprenticeships and quality higher education. The Commission should monitor the implementation of the national reform plans in close cooperation with the social partners and relevant civil society organisations, thereby promoting social country-specific recommendations. The number and structure of recommendations should be appropriate and monitor the progress made on the priorities indicated in the roadmap. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.4

Reason

It is unnecessary to talk about a ‘new’ European semester as the European Semester was introduced already in 2010. Furthermore there is no need to seek for a ‘new’ European Semester while all efforts should be focused on ensuring the effective and result-oriented functioning of the existing European Semester. One should rather refer to the new European Semester cycle. The EPSR is accompanied by a ‘Social Scoreboard’ which tracks trends and performances across EU countries in three areas related to the principles under the Pillar. The Scoreboard feeds into the European Semester of economic policy coordination and serves to assess progress towards ‘a social “triple A”’ for the EU as a whole. This means there is a comprehensive monitoring taking place.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 117 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

49

Against

117

Abstentions

4

New point before current point 3.1

Add a new point before current point 3.1:

The EESC has already stressed in its related opinion (13) that the Pillar could provide a good opportunity to demonstrate that the EU level is still capable of delivering a proper response, where appropriate, to the challenges faced by ordinary people, while fully respecting the division of competences and the principle of subsidiarity.

Reason

This sentence outlines what must be kept in mind as regards to implementing EPSR and next steps: that EPSR could be a good opportunity to show that EU is able to provide proper response where action is appropriate. At the same time, it underlines the importance of full respect of division of competence and the principle of subsidiarity.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 50 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

50

Against

114

Abstentions

4

First new point after current point 3.1

Add a first new point after current point 3.1:

The synergy between EU and national social policy and actions is essential. Because the EU social model is based on different national models, which must be preserved, the EU needs to respect national competences and the diversity of Member States' social systems, which are based on deeply rooted political choices and societal models. The main task of the EU should therefore be to provide the best possible conditions for its Member States and social partners and to support them in their efforts to put in place identified reforms.

Reason

It is necessary to underline the importance of synergy between EU and national social policy and actions also in the text of the conclusions and recommendations. The preamble of the EPSR clearly states that ‘Delivering on the European Pillar of Social Rights is a shared political commitment and responsibility. (...).’ Furthermore, the preamble explicitly refers to respecting division of competences and taking due account of different socio-economic environments and the diversity of national systems, including the role of social partners, and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 45 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 116 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

45

Against

116

Abstentions

4

Point 3.2.2

Amend as follows:

| 3.2.2 | When implementing the Work-Life Balance Directive, particular attention should be paid to viable, affordable and fair solutions for adequately compensating employees who use parental leave, as well as with regard to flexible working conditions that are adapted to the needs of the workplace
  , and including a possible revision of the Barcelona targets. Affordable child- and other care services should also be considered with a view to supporting families. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.2

Reason

Solutions adopted in the Member States in the implementation of the Work-Life Balance Directive as regards adequately compensating employees using parental leave must also be affordable. Any solutions as regards flexible working conditions need to take into account also the needs of the workplace.

As Barcelona target were set by the European Council (in 2002), their possible revision is not linked to the implementation of the WLB Directive – thus this part should be deleted.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 109 |
| Abstentions | 5 |

In favour

49

Against

109

Abstentions

5

Point 3.2.3

Amend as follows:

| 3.2.3 | The EESC has called for an integrated gender equality strategy (14). In the light of the Joint Declaration by the European ministers on Gender Equality (15), the EESC calls for unjustified gender pay gaps to be eliminated (16). In particular, the needs of SMEs have to be addressed in order to ensure that excessive administrative burdens are avoided. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.3

Reason

This addition makes the text more accurate. The measures to combat pay gap must be directed towards fighting unjustified pay gaps.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 45 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 5 |

In favour

45

Against

114

Abstentions

5

Point 3.2.5

Amend as follows:

| 3.2.5 | The EESC underlines once again that labour market participation and quality of work can improve thanks to increased investment in active labour market policies and by setting common standards for the effective functioning of public employment services (PES) (17). This also applies to not-for-profit employment services, with the aim of reducing the timeframe in transitions, ensuring the use of acquired skills, supporting more and diverse career paths and heading towards sustainable jobs
  stable employment (18). Combating long-term unemployment, integrating migrants in the labour market and reintegrating people who are experiencing discouragement is another key policy area which needs urgent targeted measures, which may include the right of workers to receive support for workers in terms of job-seeking, training and requalification. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.5

Reason

The first modification follows the text of the quoted opinion. As for the urgent targeted measures, this would be better formulated in ‘an active manner’. It is about offering support for workers for job-seeking, training and requalification, not about formulating this in terms of ‘a right’.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 47 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 110 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

47

Against

110

Abstentions

2

Point 3.2.6

Amend as follows:

| 3.2.6 | Ensuring access a right to lifelong learning for everyone should be on the EU agenda (19). The national education, training and apprenticeship systems should be further developed with focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) areas and development of dual systems which will lead to better matching of labour market needs. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.6

Reason

We should focus on promoting policies that ensure that everyone has access to lifelong learning. Furthermore, while the quoted opinion refers to importance of lifelong learning and promoting participation in lifelong learning, it does not seem to state that right to lifelong learning should be on the EU agenda.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 48 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 116 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

48

Against

116

Abstentions

2

Point 3.3.1

Amend as follows:

| 3.3.1 | In the short run, the focus should be on monitoring the implementation of the revised Posting of Workers Directive, which ensures the protection of posted workers during their posting, linked to the provision of services
  affirming the equal treatment principle, and the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, setting minimum rights for all employment relationships, together with the establishment of a European Labour Authority, which aims to improve enforcement of the EU Acquis and the effectiveness of labour inspections. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1

Reason

The modified wording describes the purpose of the Posting of Workers Directive.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 43 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 118 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

43

Against

118

Abstentions

2

Point 3.3.2

Amend as follows:

| 3.3.2 | The EESC encourages recommends that employee involvement in companies be reinforced, especially with a view to the overall aim of increasing productivity and supporting managing the introduction of new technologies, and harnessing the impact on the organisation of work and the workforce's skills. In this context, the EESC looks forward to the outcome of the negotiations between the European social partners on the Framework Agreement on Digitalisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.2

Reason

The proposed modifications aim to emphasise the importance of employee involvement in relation to supporting the introduction of new technologies.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 46 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 118 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

46

Against

118

Abstentions

4

Point 3.3.3

Amend as follows:

| 3.3.3 | The EESC supports the development, in the framework of social dialogue at appropriate national and European levels, of adequate measures on ‘just transitions’ introducing on the one hand measures and actions facilitating
  to manage, change and on the other hand
  grant minimum
  adequate protection in cases of reorganised workplaces or collective dismissals stemming from (technological, demographic, globalisation, climate change, circular economy) transitions, including the support
  right to engage in collective bargaining, to anticipation
  e
  of change and provision
  de
  of support to affected workers (evolution of the Directive on Collective Dismissals (20)). The EESC also looks forward to the adoption by the co-legislators of the European Globalisation Fund. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.3

Reason

One should delete references to ‘the right to engage in collective bargaining’ and ‘evolution of Directive on Collective Dismissals’ as any text on EESC's views on the implementation of the EPSR should be linked to highlighting issues that Member States should be taking into account in their efforts to develop their labour markets and/or social protection systems.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 109 |
| Abstentions | 1 |

In favour

49

Against

109

Abstentions

1

Point 3.3.4

Amend as follows:

| 3.3.4 | Employee involvement in corporate governance, as part of their rights to information and consultation, should be assessed in the light of
  adapted to the new legal framework on non-financial information (21)
  and with a view to dealing with the necessary due diligence in the accountability requirements of enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.4

Reason

Modification proposed to keep the text at a more general level. It is too early to talk about adaptation of the new legal framework on non-financial information.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 1 |

In favour

49

Against

114

Abstentions

1

Point 3.3.5

Amend as follows:

| 3.3.5 | The EESC considers it useful to set benchmarks that help assess the adequacy of low wages in order to prevent poverty among wage-earners, including by promoting analysis and the exchange of good practices through the available mutual learning processes and by introducing common standards to set transparent and predictable minimum wages, where they exist and if the social partners want them. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.5

Reason

Introducing common standards to set minimum wages is not desirable nor acceptable as wages are a matter that must be subject to national level discussions.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 51 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

51

Against

114

Abstentions

2

Point 3.4.6

Amend as follows:

| 3.4.6 | Reinforcing the capacity of Member States to activate social transfers or other measures to fulfil the basic needs of people from birth to old age is urgently needed too. This involves: |
| --- | --- |

3.4.6

| — | supporting and strengthening also at the European level the efforts of the Member States to develop and update
  adopting a European Framework Directive on a minimum income systems to stem poverty and promote an inclusive labour market (22); |
| --- | --- |

—

supporting and strengthening also at the European level the efforts of the Member States to develop and update
  adopting a European Framework Directive on a minimum income systems to stem poverty and promote an inclusive labour market (22);

| — | exploring the possibility of developing
  setting common principles
  minimum standards in the field of unemployment insurance in the EU Member States (23); |
| --- | --- |

—

exploring the possibility of developing
  setting common principles
  minimum standards in the field of unemployment insurance in the EU Member States (23);

| — | ensuring the accessibility to social and political functions for persons with disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensuring the accessibility to social and political functions for persons with disabilities;

| — | revisiting the ‘cost of ageing’ formula and transforming it into a ‘dignity of ageing’ concept that puts the adequacy of pensions, health services and long-term care at the heart of economic governance without neglecting the focus on sustainability of the pension systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

revisiting the ‘cost of ageing’ formula and transforming it into a ‘dignity of ageing’ concept that puts the adequacy of pensions, health services and long-term care at the heart of economic governance without neglecting the focus on sustainability of the pension systems;

| — | creating specific programmes for public housing and housing accessibility in favour of low-income households; |
| --- | --- |

—

creating specific programmes for public housing and housing accessibility in favour of low-income households;

| — | investing in childcare facilities in the direct interest of children and disadvantaged young people; the EESC welcomes the proposal of the Commission and EP to introduce a child guarantee; and |
| --- | --- |

—

investing in childcare facilities in the direct interest of children and disadvantaged young people; the EESC welcomes the proposal of the Commission and EP to introduce a child guarantee; and

| — | creating a genuine European area of learning, facilitating
  ensuring access to quality education for all and extending the youth guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

—

creating a genuine European area of learning, facilitating
  ensuring access to quality education for all and extending the youth guarantee.

Reason

As EPSR is about guiding Member States in developing their social systems, this should be focus of the bullet point on minimum income. Furthermore, the opinion referred to has as an annex a counter opinion expressing a different view.

As there is no concrete Commission proposal on the child guarantee, it is premature to express support to it.

Reference should also be made to the need to create a genuine European area of learning.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 51 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 112 |
| Abstentions | 2 |

In favour

51

Against

112

Abstentions

2

Point 1.1

Amend as follows:

| 1.1 | Believing that a realistic future for the European Union can only be based on marrying a sound economic basis with a strong social dimension (24), the EESC has consistently advocated upward convergence in terms of employment and social outcomes and a more effective social policy at both EU and Member State levels (25). The European Social Model (ESM) should also be strengthened and updated as an international reference. The effective implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) of 2017, reaffirms the shared commitment to the ESM in the framework of a new socially inclusive strategy. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

Reason

What is relevant for the strong social dimension is upward convergence of employment and social outcomes since it is the outcomes that determine whether policy choices have been successful. This has also been made clear in the preamble of the EPSR which states in point 12 that ‘The aim of the European Pillar of Social Rights is to serve as a guide towards efficient employment and social outcomes when responding to current and future challenges (...).’

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 47 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 116 |
| Abstentions | 1 |

In favour

47

Against

116

Abstentions

1

Point 1.3

Delete the current point:

| 1.3 | European legislation in appropriate areas should set a framework with general common standards, respecting the specific national situations and social systems and recognising effective and enforceable social rights for citizens at EU and national level. The targets of the Pillar should be respected in all areas of EU policy by using the horizontal clause (26). |
| --- | --- |

1.3

Reason

To be given orally.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 48 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 123 |
| Abstentions | 5 |

In favour

48

Against

123

Abstentions

5

Point 1.3

Amend as follows:

| 1.3 | European legislation in appropriate areas should set a framework aiming at feasible
  with general common standards, respecting the specific national situations and social systems and recognising effective and enforceable social rights for citizens at EU and national level. The targets of the Pillar should be respected in all areas of EU policy by using the horizontal clause (27). |
| --- | --- |

1.3

Reason

When the aim is to respect the diversity among the Member States in the field on social system one cannot call for general or common standards.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 48 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 120 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

48

Against

120

Abstentions

4

Point 1.4

Amend as follows:

| 1.4 | The EPSR is currently being implemented through legislative and non-legislative measures, through specific funding and through changes in the Semester process, which should be aimed at triggering upward convergence in terms of employment and social outcomes and at the same time aiming at feasible, setting minimum social standards to creating
  e a common level playing field. |
| --- | --- |

1.4

Reason

The implementation of the EPSR should result in upward convergence of employment and social outcomes as it is the outcomes that determine whether policy choices have been successful. This has also been made clear in the preamble of the EPSR which states in point 12 that ‘The aim of the European Pillar of Social Rights is to serve as a guide towards efficient employment and social outcomes when responding to current and future challenges (...).’

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 47 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 116 |
| Abstentions | 1 |

In favour

47

Against

116

Abstentions

1

New point after current point 1.4

Add a new point after current point 1.4:

The basic premise must be that issues lacking a clear transnational dimension must be dealt with at national level. The primary role of the EU should be to provide incentives, information and know-how for Member States and social partners to design, implement and evaluate policies addressing the structural labour market challenges they face.

Reason

To be given orally.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 113 |
| Abstentions | 3 |

In favour

49

Against

113

Abstentions

3

New point after current point 1.4

Add a new point after current point 1.4:

The synergy between EU and national social policy and actions is essential. Because the EU social model is based on different national models, which must be preserved, the EU needs to respect national competences and the diversity of Member States' social systems, which are based on deeply rooted political choices and societal models. The main task of the EU should therefore be to provide the best possible conditions for its Member States and social partners and to support them in their efforts to put in place identified reforms.

Reason

It is necessary to underline the importance of synergy between EU and national social policy and actions also in the text of the conclusions and recommendations. The preamble of the EPSR clearly states that ‘Delivering on the European Pillar of Social Rights is a shared political commitment and responsibility. (...).’ Furthermore, the preamble explicitly refers to respecting division of competences and taking due account of different socio-economic environments and the diversity of national systems, including the role of social partners, and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality..

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 45 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 116 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

45

Against

116

Abstentions

4

Point 1.7

Amend as follows:

| 1.7 | The implementation of the EPSR requires a robust budgetary base and investment at EU and MS level, through proper funding in the MFF, by means of a ‘golden rule’ for public investment with a social objective and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), which can be more clearly focused towards the EPSR and appropriate taxation policies (28). As earlier stated by the EESC, financing the implementation of the Social Pillar will also depend heavily on resources available at the Member-State level. It will require funding from state budgets for investment and also for the running costs of activities over the next few years. This may be constrained by EU budget and debt rules. As has already been stressed repeatedly by the EESC, consideration should be given to ways of enhancing the flexibility permitted within these, for example by means of a ‘golden rule’, which would allow public investment with a social objective in order to achieve the aims of the Social Pillar (29). |
| --- | --- |

1.7

Reason

It is important to use the exact wording of the opinion referred to ensure a better balance in the text.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 55 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 112 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

55

Against

112

Abstentions

4

Point 1.9

Amend as follows:

| 1.9 | A new European Semester cycle
  process should achieve social objectives in the framework of a social imbalance
  comprehensive monitoring carried out as part of the process, and new, measurable indicators should be introduced, together with targeted social Country Specific Recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

1.9

Reason

It is unnecessary to talk about a ‘new’ European semester as the European Semester was introduced already in 2010. One should rather refer to the new European Semester cycle. Furthermore, there is no need to seek for a ‘new’ European Semester while all efforts should be focused on ensuring the effective and result-oriented functioning of the existing European Semester. The EPSR is accompanied by a ‘Social Scoreboard’, which tracks trends and performances across EU countries in three areas related to the principles under the Pillar. The Scoreboard feeds into the European Semester of economic policy coordination and serves to assess progress towards ‘a social “triple A”’ for the EU as a whole. This means there is a comprehensive monitoring taking place.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 49 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 117 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

49

Against

117

Abstentions

4

Point 1.10

Amend as follows:

| 1.10 | Regular monitoring of the implementation of the EPSR, with a binding
  regular consultation of social stakeholders, which could be facilitated by the EESC should be promoted; the EESC proposes the establishment of a EU Social Policy Forum linked to the Semester process. |
| --- | --- |

1.10

Reason

The meaning of the word ‘binding’ is unclear in this context and it should be replaced by the word ‘regular’. It is not at all clear what is meant with the reference to creating ‘a EU social policy forum’. There is no need for creating new instruments/platforms and the reference to the forum should be deleted. What is important is the consultation and involvement of relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the EPSR.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 52 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 114 |
| Abstentions | 3 |

In favour

52

Against

114

Abstentions

3

Point 1.11

Amend as follows:

| 1.11 | The EESC has already

  indicated that it believes that a clear roadmap for the implementation of the EPSR would help to foster convergence and achieve its objectives (30). The EESC has also

  called for a clear and coordinated roadmap setting priorities for the implementation of the Pillar and the enforcement of existing social rights and principles
  standards. Fundamental needs and rights especially of vulnerable groups, disparities of opportunities, income and wealth within and between MS, inclusion policies and appropriate conditions for public and not-for-profit-services and social enterprises should be addressed as a priority. |
| --- | --- |

1.11

Reason

We propose to use the exact wording from the SOC/564 opinion. The list of issues that should be addressed as priorities should not include issues not covered by EPSR's principles (e.g. disparities of wealth and income within or between Member States).

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | 50 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 113 |
| Abstentions | 4 |

In favour

50

Against

113

Abstentions

4

---

(1)  


  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 28

  , point 3.3.

(2)  


  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 28, point 3.3.

(3)  

  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 40.

(4)  European Social Dialogue, Work Programme 2019-2021.

(5)  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/european_pillar_one_year_on.pdf

(6)  

  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145, points 8.3 and 1.3.

(7)  

  OJ C 177, 18.5.2016, p. 35
  .

(8)  

  OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 1
  points 1.8 and 3.6;
  OJ C 327, 12.11.2013, p. 11
  ; Annual Growth Survey 2018, point 1.4, not yet published;
  OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 21
  ; and
  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1
  , point 3.14 and
  OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 24
  , point 1.8.

(9)  

  OJ C 177, 18.5.2016, p. 35
  .

(10)  

  OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p.1
  , point 1.6; Euro area economic policy 2018, points 1.8 and 3.6;
  OJ C 327, 12.11.2013, p. 11
  , point 1.4,
  OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 21
  .

(11)  

  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1
  , point 1.5.

(12)  

  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1
  , point 1.6.

(13)  

  OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 10–26
  .

(14)  

  OJ C 240, 16.7.2019, p. 3
  , point 1.3.

(15)  Joint Declaration on ‘Gender Equality as a Priority of the European Union today and in the future’ signed on the occasion of the Informal Meeting of Gender Equality Ministers on 12 October 2018 in Vienna.

(16)  

  OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 26
  , points 3.1.1 and 3.1.3.

(17)  The EESC has adopted a specific opinion on PES,
  OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 46

  .

(18)  

  OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 46
  .

(19)  

  OJ C 237, 6.7.2018, p. 8
  , point 4.10.

(20)  
  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

(21)  Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups.

(22)  

  OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 1
  .

(23)  
  The EESC is preparing an opinion SOC/583 on ‘Common minimum standards in the field of unemployment insurance in EU Member States’

(24)  

  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145
  , points 1.2 and 2.2.

(25)  E.g. in its opinions
  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 40
  ;
  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 145
  and
  OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 135

  .

(26)  
  Article 9 TFEU.

(27)  Article 9 TFEU.

(28)  

  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1
  , point 1.5 and point 1.6.

(29)  

  OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 1
  , point 3.1.4 (and the references therein).

(30)  

  OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p.145
  , point 8.3

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/24

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Implementation of the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration based on EU values’

(own-initiative opinion)

(2020/C 14/02)

Rapporteur: José Antonio MORENO DÍAZ

| Plenary Assembly decision | 24.1.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 32(2) |
| Section responsible | Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 8.7.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 138/3/8 |

Plenary Assembly decision

24.1.2019

Legal basis

Article 32(2)

Section responsible

Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

8.7.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

138/3/8

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC notes the lack of progress made by the EU in delivering a common migration policy: this undermines solidarity between Member States and, at the same time, affects the proper fulfilment of responsibilities under international law. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The United Nations assumes that a multilateral approach must be taken to managing migration: the United Nations Global Compact (1) for safe, orderly and regular migration includes some priority areas for dialogue and global management in the field of migration. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The Compact is in fully line with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which includes — as its main values — respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC notes that the Compact posits migration and asylum as an international and multilateral issue, with the aim of promoting greater collaboration and dialogue between the countries of origin, destination and transit involved in migratory flows, in order to promote orderly, safe and regular migration. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC notes that the Global Compact is a non-binding instrument that does not create new obligations for EU Member States and its content builds fully on the principles and values of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC regrets the fact that the Compact has not been approved by all Member States and believes that it would have been an excellent opportunity to make progress on establishing a single EU voice on migration on the global stage. The EESC is therefore of the view that all EU Member States should ratify the Compact, and also recommends that the EU clarify and build on the Compact’s objectives using appropriate mechanisms. The EESC believes it would be useful to explore opportunities to participate in the consultations and intergovernmental negotiations leading to the development of the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) as well as in the forum itself, which will be the UN mechanism for monitoring the Global Compact. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC recognises efforts made by EU citizens, social partners and civil society organisations, who have effectively put EU values, and therefore the objectives of the Compact, into practice through their commitment and activities. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC reiterates its concern that far-right political forces are trying to turn migration into a problem that generates tension and fuels hate speech, creating a more divided, confrontational EU that is not able to provide adequate proposals. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | In December 2018, the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration (hereinafter referred to as ‘Global Compact’) was adopted in Marrakesh, Morocco. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The Global Compact is a non-binding agreement that aims to identify key issues relating to migration management, both for countries of origin and transit and destination countries. It also seeks to launch a constructive and practical global debate on the governance of migration. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The Global Compact is the result of two previous initiatives: the first of these is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which Member States have endorsed and which includes a shared strategic approach (2). The second is the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which sets out the political will of world leaders to save lives, protect human rights and share responsibility for managing migration at global level. It has been approved by the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The Compact was adopted by 164 countries in Marrakesh on 10 December 2018, and approved by the UN General Assembly on 19 December of the same year, with 152 votes in favour, 12 abstentions and 5 votes against (Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland and the United States of America). |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The work taking place under the auspices of the UN Compact consists of continuing to establish a Global Network on Migration and holding the International Migration Forum every four years, with the first session due to take place in 2022. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

3.   The EU legal framework and the EESC’s work on migration

| 3.1. | Article 2 TEU stipulates that ‘the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail’. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | In March 2018, the European Commission presented a proposal for a decision to the Council on the adoption of the Compact (3), considering it to be in line with progress made by the EU in the area of immigration and asylum. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | In the proposal for a decision, the Commission notes that the Compact establishes a list of shared objectives on safe, orderly and regular migration and that it does not create any legal obligations under national or international law, nor does it intend to do so. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC has always put forward ‘key ideas’ with regard to considering migration as a normal occurrence throughout history and human development, as well as the need to manage migratory flows into the EU in a legal, efficient, orderly and safe way, whether people are migrating for economic reasons or for reasons of international protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | In this spirit of fostering an open, constructive and multidisciplinary debate, since 2015 the EESC has been developing the European Migration Forum (EMF) as a place where civil society organisations, alongside EU institutions and political players at various levels from EU Member States, meet to discuss migration (4). |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC has also been at the forefront in drawing up opinions on migration, particularly in recent years (5). |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The European Commission, via the 2015 European Agenda on Migration, has sought to improve the regulatory framework both on economic migration and on international protection. It has met with severe opposition from the Council, which has prevented the development of new tools, and has faced particular obstacles from some Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | Frustration ensues when taking stock of what has been achieved since 2015 and this should lead to a constructive reflection process, since the only progress made has been in the usual sense of cracking down on irregular immigration, pursuing trafficking networks and sealing borders. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

4.   The EESC’s position on the provisions of the Global Compact

| 4.1. | The preamble of the Global Compact states that ‘refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times’. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The Compact recognises that ‘respect for the rule of law, due process and access to justice are fundamental to all aspects of migration governance. This means that the State, public and private institutions and entities, as well as persons themselves are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international law’. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The Global Compact includes 23 objectives for orderly, safe and regular migration and points out on several occasions that all of them must be carried out in accordance with the competences and will of states. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | Objective 1: ‘Collect and utilise accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies’. The EESC emphasises that it is Eurostat’s aim to collect data to facilitate understanding of the reality in Europe and to help compare Member States, with the objective of improving the quality of public action (6). |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | 2: ‘Minimise the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin’, which links up with the objectives of the 2004 Hague Programme and the 2015 EU Trust Fund for Africa, with regard to which the EU has stressed the need to establish a comprehensive migration policy that covers all stages and addresses the ‘root causes of migration’ (7) among other issues. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | 3: ‘Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration’. In this regard, the EESC notes the European Commission’s work on developing regular migration pathways through pilot projects (8) and on providing information about, and raising awareness of, the risks of irregular routes (9), particularly for the most vulnerable migrants. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | 4: ‘Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation’. The EESC points out that Article 79(2)(a) TFEU provides for the adoption of measures to establish the ‘standards on the issue by Member States of long-term visas and residence permits’, and that access to the Schengen area assumes possession of the required documentation. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | 5: ‘Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration’. With regard to this point, the EESC encourages the Commission to step up development of regular pathways, some of which were mentioned in the last State of the European Union debate (10). |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | 6: ‘Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work’. The EESC has stressed on several occasions, in line with the fundamental International Labour Organization conventions and with the SDGs, the importance of decent work and access to it for foreign workers (11). |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | 7: ‘Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration’. Again, the EESC highlights the guiding principles set out in Article 2 TEU and the objective of the common immigration and asylum policy to reduce the vulnerabilities of migrants, children or those seeking international protection (12). |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | 8: ‘Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants’. The EESC regrets the attitude of some Member States towards rescuing people who are shipwrecked, observes that Member States made a commitment to respecting the international law on rescue at sea and assistance to shipwrecked persons and notes the operations carried out by the EU to this end. In addition, the EESC would like to highlight the work of individuals and organisations who help and save lives, sometimes even in spite of threats and criminalisation imposed by certain EU governments (13). |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

| 4.12. | 9: ‘Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants’. The EESC highlights that this is an objective of the Facilitation Directive (14) (although it regrets that the derogation for humanitarian aid provided for in the directive has not been sufficiently implemented) and of the EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

| 4.13. | 10: ‘Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration’. The EESC notes that this is a priority (15), which also involves Europol and has formed the basis for operations (which could be improved) such as EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia. |
| --- | --- |

4.13.

| 4.14. | 11: ‘Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner’. The EESC points out that this is one of the European Union’s main objectives, as stated in Article 67 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.14.

| 4.15. | 12: ‘Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral.’ The EESC notes that this is one of Frontex’s tasks, but points out that taking precautionary measures has not always meant a better capacity for political response. |
| --- | --- |

4.15.

| 4.16. | 13: ‘Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives’. The EESC notes that the directive on returns (16) already states that detention should be linked to a returns procedure, limited to certain circumstances and allow for safeguards such as a judicial review. This directive also states that the detention period may not exceed six months (17). |
| --- | --- |

4.16.

| 4.17. | 14: ‘Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle’. The EESC considers it necessary to explore the possibilities opened up by the European Parliament’s legislative initiative on humanitarian visas (18), which would offer the opportunity to those seeking international protection to apply for a visa at EU embassies or consulates abroad. |
| --- | --- |

4.17.

| 4.18. | 15: ‘Provide access to basic services for migrants’. The EESC stresses that, since 1999, the European Union has been working to ensure fair treatment of third country nationals who reside legally in its Member States. The Committee also notes a report by the WHO-Europe (19) which highlighted that there is no public health without refugee and migrant health. |
| --- | --- |

4.18.

| 4.19. | 16: ‘Empower migrants and societies to realise full inclusion and social cohesion’. The EESC highlights the importance of social inclusion of migrants in European societies, which has been a priority for the European Union since Tampere. Many key initiatives have been developed in this area, including the 2016 Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals (20). |
| --- | --- |

4.19.

| 4.20. | 17: ‘Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration’. The EESC has on many occasions reiterated the importance of combating discrimination in all fields and of promoting action against xenophobia and racism. The work of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights is key in this area. In this connection (21), the EESC stresses the need to develop a new narrative that provides European society with a proper impression of migration, through the use of an educational and didactic discourse that eliminates falsehoods and hate speech about migration, while encouraging a new narrative in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

4.20.

| 4.21. | 18: ‘Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences’. The adoption of the common basic principles on the integration of migrants in 2004 emphasised the importance of employment and education in promoting the integration of foreign persons in the European Union. The recognition of experience, diplomas and skills is key in this respect and the EESC considers it essential that progress be made in terms of including foreign persons in the European Union’s recognition and approval procedures, in line with the proposals set out by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) in its 2007 report (22). |
| --- | --- |

4.21.

| 4.22. | 19: ‘Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries’. In recent years, the European Commission has recognised the role of diasporas as a link between the situation in Europe and that of their countries of origin. For example, diasporas were taken into account in the last call by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), particularly as they are credible interlocutors to talk about migrant pathways at the point of origin. The EESC believes that the potential of diasporas can be further explored and greater advantage taken of the shared opportunities created by them (23). |
| --- | --- |

4.22.

| 4.23. | 20: ‘Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants’. The EU is working to achieve financial inclusion, both with regard to the financial integration of foreign nationals resident in EU countries and financial strengthening of neighbouring countries (24). The EESC considers it imperative that equality in this area continue to be guaranteed for the resident foreign population. The role of remittances should be promoted in order to ensure they have a positive impact, both on their destination and their origin, as pointed out by the European Investment Bank (25). |
| --- | --- |

4.23.

| 4.24. | 21: ‘Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration’. Return and readmission policies are key to the development of the common immigration policy. The EESC would like to point out the need to always ensure that these instruments are developed, as laid down in European legislation, with the utmost respect for both individual and procedural guarantees. In turn, the EESC reiterates the need to facilitate safe and dignified reintegration, as set out in the EU-IOM Joint Initiative for Migrant Protection and Reintegration (26). |
| --- | --- |

4.24.

| 4.25. | 22: ‘Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits’. Intensive work has been carried out in this area from an intra-community perspective. The EESC considers it essential to make further progress in areas relating to portability of rights that guarantee safer mobility, and to explore initiatives such as the Multilateral Ibero-American Social Security Agreement (27), which involves the Member States of Spain and Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

4.25.

| 4.26. | 23: ‘Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration’. This has been a substantial pillar of European immigration and asylum policy since its inception. |
| --- | --- |

4.26.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  UN Resolution 73/195.

1

(2)  COM(2016) 0739 final.

2

(3)  COM(2018) 167 final.

3

(4)  In 2015, the EMF addressed the management of mixed flows arriving in the Mediterranean, in 2016 labour migration and integration, in 2017 access for migrants in the EU to rights and services and in 2018 integration of migrants into the labour market. In April 2019, the question tackled was how to ensure legal and safe pathways to the EU.

4

(5)  OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 184; OJ C 125, 21.4.2017, p. 40; OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 97; OJ C 34, 2.2.2017, p. 144; OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 75; OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 19; OJ C 71, 24.2.2016, p.46.

5

(6)  Eurostat — Statistics on migration and the migrant population.

6

(7)  OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1.

7

(8)  COM(2017) 558 final.

8

(9)  COM(2017) 558 final.

9

(10)  European Commission — State of the Union 2018 — Enhancing safe and legal pathways to Europe.

10

(11)  For example, the EESC’s opinion on ‘The post-2015 objectives in the Euro-Mediterranean region’ (OJ C 383, 17.11.2015, p. 44).

11

(12)  COM(2015) 240 final.

12

(13)  See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/536490/IPOL_STU(2016)536490_EN.pdf and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/608838/IPOL_STU(2018)608838_EN.pdf

13

(14)  Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28.11.2002.

14

(15)  ‘The EU’s global engagement to counter human smuggling and trafficking networks’, March 2019.

15

(16)  OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.

16

(17)  OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 53.

17

(18)  2018/2271 (INL) ‘Humanitarian visas’.

18

(19)  World Health Organization — Report on the health of refugees and migrants in the WHO European Region.

19

(20)  COM(2016) 377 final.

20

(21)  OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 1.

21

(22)  See https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ECRE-Submission-in-response-to-the-European-Commission-s-Green-Paper-on-the-Future-of-the-CEAS_September-2007.pdf, COM(2007) 301 final. The topic has been already pointed out in COM(2016) 377 final.

22

(23)  EU Publications ‘How West African migrants engage with migration information en-route to Europe’.

23

(24)  EU initiative on financial inclusion.

24

(25)  FEMIP — Study on improving the efficiency of workers’ remittances in Mediterranean countries.

25

(26)  EU - IOM joint initiative for migrant protection and reintegration.

26

(27)  OISS — Multilateral Ibero-American Social Security Agreement (link in Spanish and Portuguese only).

27

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/29

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Developing synergies across different circular economy roadmaps’

(own-initiative opinion)

(2020/C 14/03)

Rapporteur: Cillian LOHAN

| Plenary Assembly decision | 24.1.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure
  Own-initiative opinion |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 4.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 26.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 144/2/8 |

Plenary Assembly decision

24.1.2019

Legal basis

Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Own-initiative opinion

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

4.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

26.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

144/2/8

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The first phase of the circular economy has been a huge success. The concept is being mainstreamed in the business sector in particular, with private companies moving ahead of policy-makers in seeing the potential of work based on a circular economy model. EU initiatives have kick-started this and been a driving force for action. The circular economy has already moved beyond recycling and waste management into a new and more critical stage. The EESC encourages the incoming Commission in 2019 to ensure that this broadening of the concept is reflected in any new circular economy package. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The circular economy is a practical means of achieving broader international policy goals such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement. It can also contribute to the Global Climate Action Agenda through the active participation of non-state actors, including local and regional governments and civil society organisations as represented by the three groups of the EESC. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform (ECESP) and its Coordination Group have a crucial role to play in developing the next stages and implementing the circular transition, by acting as an information hub through the ECESP website. The Platform also provides strong networking opportunities and encourages synergies, and is well positioned to design a template for a circular economy roadmap that could be made freely available. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The ECESP secretariat, which the EESC manages, has put civil society and stakeholders at the heart of the Platform’s decision-making. The EESC supports a stakeholder-led initiative, and encourages stakeholders to identify and signal the practical barriers faced by civil society in driving the circular economy agenda. The ECESP is ideally placed for this, working with the secretariat to propose solutions to such barriers. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | Support for roadmaps, and support for creating synergies, must be complemented by research and development, the appropriate regulatory environment, education across all stakeholders, and information on access to financial support for transitioning to circularity. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | There are obvious barriers to achieving a circular economy, despite the successes to date. These include political, public perspective, infrastructural governance, and financial barriers. The ECESP must identify and flag up any other barriers when proposing solutions to policy-makers. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | Following the adoption by the European Commission of the EU Action Plan on the Circular Economy, the EESC continues its efforts to support the transition to a circular economy in Europe through strong engagement of civil society to ensure that the transition is effective, equitable and just. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | This own-initiative opinion builds on the study commissioned by the Committee on circular economy strategies and roadmaps in Europe, which seeks to identify synergies and potential for cooperation and alliance-building. These can be found at all levels and between all players — policy-makers, businesses, workers, consumers, and members of the public. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The circular economy is a practical means of achieving broader international policy goals such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement. It can also contribute to the Global Climate Action Agenda through the active participation of non-state actors, including local and regional government and civil society organisations as represented by the three groups of the EESC. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The first phase of the development of the circular economy has been a huge success. The concept is being mainstreamed in the business sector in particular, with private companies moving ahead of policy-makers in seeing the potential of work based on a circular economy model. EU initiatives have kick-started this and been a driving force for action. The circular economy has already moved beyond recycling and waste management into a new and more critical stage. The EESC encourages the incoming Commission in 2019 to ensure that this broadening of the concept is reflected in any new Circular Economy package. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

3.   What are the characteristics of a roadmap?

| 3.1. | Circular economy roadmaps and strategies help to outline and define what a country, region or city wishes to achieve, and the steps needed to get there. These are often comprehensive documents that address the transition from a linear to a circular model in value chain stages such as production, consumption, waste management, secondary raw materials, innovation and investment. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Such documents often relate to activities designed to meet international objectives, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change or the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as well as addressing global challenges such as resource scarcity and the limitations of the current economic model for the environmentally and socially sustainable management of resources. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | Circular economy roadmaps and strategies tend to have a thematic focus linked to the territorial aspects of a particular locality, region or Member State. For example, in Extremadura in Spain the conservation of land for pasture is viewed as a key component of the region’s long-term economic performance; in the Finnish national strategy there is a strong focus on forestry. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Strategies and roadmaps that are strongly inclusive consider the value-chain approaches within a sector, such as manufacturing, agriculture, food and water management. Stakeholder inclusiveness is important for identifying key stakeholders in the transition to a circular economy, and several strategies and roadmaps approach inclusiveness through horizontal topics that can be grouped according to whether they are technical, product-focused, network-focused or based on territorial development. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | How inclusive of stakeholders a strategy or roadmap is can also be seen in terms of how integrated the thematic and sectoral approaches are. Some strategies aim to introduce the concept of circularity and so have a broad focus for stakeholders in order to encourage participation and involvement in the transition. Others are more sector-focused and have a narrower base of stakeholders that are relevant to targeted sectoral loops. The most common form of strategy to date is one that is all-encompassing — incorporating multiple sectoral loops and encouraging partnerships. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

4.   European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform

| 4.1. | The ECESP was established in 2016 as a joint initiative between the EESC and the European Commission following a proposal from the EESC in its opinion (1). It is a European-level network of networks bringing together stakeholders from all over the EU and facilitating dialogue, sharing of best practices and identification of policy gaps. The Platform comprises a coordination group with representatives from academia, civil society and local government, and existing national or sectoral networks. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The ECESP has become an important hub for information and networking in the context of European circular economy initiatives. It has an active coordination group of 24 member organisations and a busy website with an average of 7 000 visitors per month. It also holds an annual two-day conference that is regularly oversubscribed. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC provides the secretariat for the ECESP, bringing added value to the Platform. As the home of civil society in the EU, the EESC has developed expertise in finding a strong common voice from among diverse groups. The Committee builds consensus across its broad range of members through its legislative work. These core attributes have helped ECESP members to fully express themselves and engage with the Platform without the process being overly institutionalised. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The ECESP can play a role in fostering the development of new circular economy strategies in two ways: (1) by providing a platform for the publication of strategies and roadmaps, making documents easy to find and reference, and (2) by facilitating the networking of stakeholders both within and between territories. Through the secretariat, the Platform can maximise the potential of linking those active in implementation at local and Member-State level with policy-makers at EU level. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | Through this networking, the Platform can also encourage the inclusion of a broad range of civil society stakeholders in the transition to a circular economy, and at an early stage of roadmap design and development. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | The ECESP provides a unique infrastructure where a consistent and coordinated approach to design and implementation of new economic models can be achieved in the EU. It has become a model for other platforms where civil society organisations run the secretariat and stakeholders take it in turns to chair a coordination group. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The EESC emphasises that all stakeholders need to be consulted at every stage of strategy and roadmap development — from design to implementation and monitoring of progress. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | The EESC, in its unique position as a partner of the Platform and provider of the Platform’s secretariat, can further encourage this inclusive approach by providing an adaptable model strategy that can inspire the developers of circular economy strategies and roadmaps. This model strategy has been developed and published as part of a study commissioned by the Committee (2). |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Developing strong strategies requires robust science and research to underpin decision-making. This is one of the foundations of innovation, and will require a strong mix of public and private investment to achieve. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

5.   Key lessons from the study

| 5.1. | ‘Circular economy’ is a broad term that encapsulates changes across the use of materials, business models, production models, the bioeconomy, the flow of stock, secondary raw material markets, and the role of consumers. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | Strategies need to reflect this broad range, but are most effective when they are focused on a specific area, one that is relevant for the geographical spread of the strategy. For example, in an agricultural region a circular economy strategy will focus on the bioeconomy and the role of agriculture and natural ecosystems in circularity. In a region with more waste production, a strategy will focus on how best to re-frame waste as a valuable secondary raw material. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | The existence of an EU-level action plan has encouraged the development of national-level plans. There are significant clusters of strategies in certain regions. Where national strategies have been adopted, local or regional strategies are more likely to occur. The EESC encourages all Member States to produce and implement national strategies that are in line with the EU’s circular economy initiatives. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | In 80 % of cases there is a lack of civil society consultation in the scoping and design stage of strategies. The ECESP and the EESC highlight the work being done by civil society organisations in this area and the expertise that is available. The EESC recommends a coordinated approach to developing an engagement process for all stakeholders at the earliest stage of strategy design. This could be produced by the ECESP, or as a joint project with the Committee of the Regions, the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The scope of strategies is determined at the earliest stage. It is critical to ensure that the interconnected nature of the circular economy and the cross-disciplinary requirements for effective implementation are recognised at the scope-setting stage. The circular economy has already moved beyond recycling, and strategies should reflect this. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | Strategies should be developed with scalability and transferability in mind. The early strategies do not seem to consider these elements. A more coordinated approach to developing new strategies or revising existing ones would certainly help in achieving this. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | Good governance is important. Roadmaps need to ensure ownership, either by an established unit in an organisation or by a newly created one. Such a unit would foster networking, produce knowledge and communication, monitor progress, and ensure the strategy is regularly updated. Such an approach helps to ensure that roadmaps are living documents that are acted upon. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

| 5.8. | The circular economy has a strong role in agriculture. Traditional family-owned and family-operated farms have been (and in some cases still are) models of efficient use of resources in harmony with nature. The EESC calls for EU funding to support circularity in the agricultural sector, at all levels and on all scales. The bioeconomy is a subsector of circularity. Biological flows and material flows combine to create the interconnected wheels of the circular economy. Roadmaps for agricultural regions can help those areas to have a coordinated approach and to ensure that the competitive advantage of being circular is fully realised. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

| 5.9. | Other focuses for roadmaps may include remanufacturing or repair. New business and ownership models, plus implementation of strong eco-design, can provide opportunities for jobs and regional prosperity in relation to remanufacturing of goods. |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

| 5.10. | Communicating accurate and clear information to consumers is an essential part of a strong roadmap. Cultural barriers to transitioning to the use of circular goods, or to the use of secondary materials, need to be addressed through communication. For consumers, remanufactured goods are often of the same functional standard but more sustainable than those made from virgin raw materials. Concerns about quality and consumer rights should be a part of any successful roadmap. |
| --- | --- |

5.10.

| 5.11. | An important element of successful implementation of the circular economy will be to incorporate a coordinated approach to educating the public, from schoolchildren to consumers, about the advantages and the principles of circularity. Education across all stakeholders is an essential part of achieving a successful and inclusive transition. |
| --- | --- |

5.11.

| 5.12. | Training, communication and knowledge-sharing can be strengthened through the use of the peer-to-peer learning resources available from the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.12.

6.   Barriers to successful roadmaps

| 6.1. | Roadmaps in themselves are not enough to deliver enhanced progress towards circularity. A number of barriers that need to be overcome. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | Political: lack of political backing.






  — | Strategies existing in a political void — not linked to other policies and not part of a coherent, wider circular strategy. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.2.

—

Strategies existing in a political void — not linked to other policies and not part of a coherent, wider circular strategy.

| 6.3. | Public: lack of public awareness and understanding of the concept of the circular economy. Fear of the implications for all stakeholders of transition, from producers and manufactures to end-users and consumers.






  — | One way of overcoming this fear is to bring people together to share knowledge and experiences. This is a function of the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and is supported by the work of its Coordination Group members, for example the French Institut national de l’économie circulaire (INEC) and their work in mapping circular economy networks in Europe. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.

—

One way of overcoming this fear is to bring people together to share knowledge and experiences. This is a function of the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and is supported by the work of its Coordination Group members, for example the French Institut national de l’économie circulaire (INEC) and their work in mapping circular economy networks in Europe.

| 6.4. | Infrastructure governance framework: lack of provisions for scalability and transferability.






  — | Roadmaps need to be tailored to a specific territorial context. The appropriate regulation needs to be in place and be implemented. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.4.

—

Roadmaps need to be tailored to a specific territorial context. The appropriate regulation needs to be in place and be implemented.

| 6.5. | Financial: there can be a lack of economic incentives both for businesses to transition and for users to switch to circular products and services. Ultimately circular consumer options will be more economically competitive, but incentivisation may be required for the initial transitional phase. Access to relevant funding must be clearly communicated and the application process made easy and understandable. |
| --- | --- |

6.5.

| 6.6. | The EESC calls on the ECESP to address these fundamental barriers, identify others, and propose specific solutions to policy-makers on how to best address the key issues. |
| --- | --- |

6.6.

Brussels, 26 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  EESC opinion on ‘Circular Economy Package’ (OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 98).

1

(2)  Circular economy strategies and roadmaps in Europe: Identifying synergies and the potential for cooperation and alliance building — Study.

2

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/34

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘10 years of Eastern Partnership: reflecting on achievements and shaping the future policy of the EaP’

(own-initiative opinion)

(2020/C 14/04)

Rapporteur: Indrė VAREIKYTĖ

| Plenary Assembly decision | 20.2.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure
  Own-initiative opinion |
| Section responsible | External Relations |
| Adopted in section | 5.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 26.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 155/3/6 |

Plenary Assembly decision

20.2.2019

Legal basis

Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Own-initiative opinion

Section responsible

External Relations

Adopted in section

5.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

26.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

155/3/6

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) believes that the Eastern Partnership (EaP) is a much-needed and potentially successful initiative of the EU and calls for the newly-elected European Parliament and the European Commission to fully commit to it. The EESC also commits to remaining highly involved in building stronger and more democratic societies in the neighbouring countries (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | While the prime achievements of the EaP are the association agreements (AA), including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) and visa-free travel agreements with Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (Associated TRIO), more and better targeted progress is expected from the partnership during the next decade. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The Committee highlights that while the Associated TRIO have shown higher progress and willingness to introduce reforms, together with Armenia following the good example, Belarus and Azerbaijan have mainly stagnated and, in some instances, moved further away from the definition of democracy. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC believes that the EU is first of all a union of values, thus the relations with its neighbours should also be based upon the same values and become conditional. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The Committee identifies the following as major challenges ahead within the EaP: effective implementation of AA/DCFTA and other related commitments, strengthening the rule of law, the implementation of judicial reforms and the fight against corruption; further protecting the environment and actively tackling climate change; increasing societal resilience by countering hybrid threats and disinformation; strengthening the environment for civil society and a free and independent media; and stepping up EU engagement to help improve the lives of citizens affected by the conflicts in the region. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC recommends that the Commission set up tailor-made objectives and deliverables for each partner country for the next period of the EaP. Civil society’s participation in this process will be crucial in order to have an additional instrument to actively monitor progress. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC suggests setting a schedule for compulsory consecutive progress assessments to encourage the EaP governments to create their own plans in addition to bilateral roadmaps and to carry out and monitor the implementation of deliverables and objectives. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The Committee also recommends progressively increasing the amount of indicators and data the EaP countries are required to submit to Eurostat. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | In the light of disinformation promoted by Russian Government and aggressive Chinese and Russian investment project campaigns, and other threats in the region, the EU institutions must rethink the communication strategy for the EaP region in order to reach citizens. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC believes that more focus and tools are required to improve the skills of civil society organisations (CSOs), public servants and political leaders in the EaP countries, as well as to build the capacities of trade unions and business associations. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The Committee believes that higher priority should be given to remedying skills gaps and mismatches in the EaP countries, improving the general effectiveness of education, and to strengthening the links between education, research and innovation, in order to enhance cooperation between the public and private sectors. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | Even though trade between the EaP countries and the EU is increasing, intraregional trade should be strengthened in order to ensure trade income diversification and sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | The EESC strongly believes that there has to be a mandatory legal framework that would enable civil society to access information, hold the government accountable and take part in policy-making processes in each of the EaP countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

| 1.14. | The Committee strongly supports the motion to introduce enhanced dialogue on AA/DCFTA related reforms between the EU and the Associated TRIO, to include comparative elements in the AA country specific recommendations and to synchronise their release to foster positive competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.14.

2.   General remarks

| 2.1. | Launched in 2009 as a joint policy initiative, the EaP aims to deepen and strengthen relations between the European Union, its Member States and its six Eastern neighbours: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | Within this framework, all partners agreed to deliver tangible benefits for the daily lives of their citizens by strengthening institutions and good governance, ensuring the rule of law and its enforceability, implementing key judicial reforms, fighting against corruption; increasing engagement with civil society, empowering women and ensuring gender balance, strengthening strategic communication and supporting plurality and independence of the media; helping small and medium-sized businesses grow, attracting investments, creating quality jobs in new sectors, increasing trade opportunities by supporting access to new markets; improving transport links and infrastructure, boosting energy resilience and efficiency, as well as the use of renewable energy; and investing in young people’s skills, entrepreneurship and employability. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | While the three AA/DCFTA and visa-free travel agreements with the signatory states are highly commendable achievements, regrettably, the general progress observed in most of the aforementioned areas is moderate, with no previously set deliverables as yet fully achieved. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The EESC believes that the EU is first of all a union of values (2), and thus its relations with its neighbourhood should also be based upon those same values. There should be more conditionality in the EaP and clear, mutually agreed pathways with the EaP countries to ensure human rights, civil, media and press freedoms, the rule of law, transparent governance, gender equality, social dialogue, environmental protection and other basic values, without which the Europe of today would be unimaginable. The whole region will benefit most when the EU’s neighbouring democracies are on a par with the EU. Partner states should also present a timeline for ratifying all 18 International Human Rights Treaties (3) and gaining (or maintaining) the ‘A’ accreditation status from the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (4). |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The Committee recognises the need for clear and measurable deliverables and recommends the Commission setting tailor-made objectives and deliverables for each partner country for the next period of the EaP. It is crucial to ensure that the future objectives and deliverables focus not only on the economic indicators, but also on social prosperity and well-being. Focusing only on economic development has proven to not yield the anticipated results. For example, the total amount of EU grants to Ukraine will reach EUR 4,8 billion by 2020 (5), yet it remains the poorest country in the region. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Civil society’s participation in this process will be crucial in order to make the planned reforms less vulnerable to election cycles and political shifts. The transformation process and the implementation of the necessary reforms can only be done by involving the social partners and civil society organisations in the legislative process, reforms and their implementation. To that end, business associations and support organisations should be involved in the processes of designing and implementing the strategies for economic development and regional cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | In order to be fully implemented and sustainable, deliverables need to have strong local ownership. If they are not identified, discussed, supported and implemented in cooperation with local civil society, the results achieved might easily be reversed. Furthermore, so far the main actors responsible for implementation have been the European Commission and the relevant EaP ministries, while the governments, which have to ensure continuous political will for reforms, are not yet included among the main actors when it comes to reaching the targets (6). |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | When planning the next set of long-term objectives, more attention should be given to monitoring the progress of their implementation. So far, the assessment has mainly been carried out by the European External Action Service (EEAS) and civil society in the EaP countries. The EESC suggests setting a schedule for compulsory consecutive progress assessment to encourage the EaP governments to create their own plans in addition to bilateral roadmaps and to carry out and monitor the implementation of deliverables and objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | The EESC recommends considering progressively increasing the amount of indicators and data EaP countries are required to submit to Eurostat, in order to ensure closer monitoring of the progress on key reforms and ensure more transparent and objective assessment. The AA/DCFTA countries should have a clear timeline to eventually reach the same level of data deliverance to Eurostat as the EU Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | In order to measure the impact of civil society’s involvement in EaP reforms, the Committee proposes preparing a comparative analysis, which would measure the differences in achievements and civil society’s impact in the countries with domestic advisory groups (DAGs) and the rest of the EaP partners. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

| 2.11. | The Committee strongly believes that the current priority for the newly-elected European Parliament and the European Commission is to reach a consensus on the association and, possibly, membership prospects for the EaP states, which are willing and able to join the EU within the foreseeable future. Both the progress and planning towards this are severely hindered by the lack of a clear vision on what is the final objective and the prize for all the efforts for each partner country if it fully implements the objectives and deliverables set out. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

| 2.12. | In the longer term, the EaP strategy after 2020 could entail the liberalisation of some services, including financial services, accession of the associated countries to the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) and, through the AA/DCFTA, to the European Economic Area (EEA), deepening integration in the field of the digital market, e.g. in data transmission, and extending the freedom of movement for professionals through the conclusion of agreements with the EU on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. |
| --- | --- |

2.12.

| 2.13. | Promotion of EU values was and remains the key idea behind EaP policy. The support for closer relations and, eventually, EU membership remains high among EaP citizens; however, changing people’s mentality requires long-term efforts. While the importance of respecting the rule of law, paying taxes and avoiding a grey economy is recognised by most EU citizens, in EaP countries, due to the economic situation, people struggle every day to survive and thus do not prioritise accepting certain EU values. |
| --- | --- |

2.13.

| 2.14. | In order to improve the management and increase the effectiveness of the support schemes and instruments aimed at ensuring inclusive participation of civil society in the overarching processes of the EaP, consideration should be given to concentrating such instruments under the EESC due to its unparalleled capacities, experience in the field, institutional history and societal permeability. |
| --- | --- |

2.14.

| 2.15. | In the light of the fact of disinformation promoted by Russian Government, as well as the aggressive information campaigns of Chinese and Russian investment projects, and other threats in the area, have an enormous impact on society, the EU institutions must rethink the communication strategy for the EaP region. One of the proven ways to spread information about the values, goals, impact and good examples of cooperation with the EU is to empower local CSOs by simply helping them to achieve a better impact in their everyday work. |
| --- | --- |

2.15.

| 2.16. | The EU should continue to contribute to a peaceful settlement of conflicts in the EaP region. Approaches such as the European Partnership for the Peaceful Settlement of the Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (EPNK), where CSOs from EU Member States and EaP countries join together in a common effort to build mutual understanding of and confidence in the settlement process, should be multiplied. |
| --- | --- |

2.16.

3.   Society

| 3.1. | The most recent funding schemes for EaP organised civil society organisations has a condition — for civil society to work on AA implementation and reforms, CSOs have to become agents of the EU and sometimes work on topics that are not natural for them. Due to this condition, CSOs are simply applying for funding that is available, instead of focusing on their goals and what is needed for society, and are thereby turning into another service provider. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | EU CSOs report, and comparative data confirm (7), that the majority of their EaP counterparts lack even basic project management skills, including how to prepare project proposals and budgets. Therefore, the role of EU organisations in delivering results related to monitoring reforms, preparing shadow reports, analyses on different issues and recommendations remains very important. The EESC believes that less qualified CSOs in EaP countries should not be ignored or unappreciated, but simply that expectations regarding them should be realistic: they are important actors in their communities, but they should not be expected to do what experienced European organisations are capable of delivering. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC therefore recommends that the Commission, in partnership with the EU Member States, establish an accessible educational programme focusing on improving the skills of the representatives of CSOs, public servants and leaders of the EaP countries. Such a programme could also address the lack of competencies which the representatives of CSOs face when entering public service, as was the case after the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine and the Velvet Revolution in Armenia. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Furthermore, the Committee believes that priority should be clearly given to the support schemes and partnership inclusion for youth organisations in the EaP states and to further supporting their participation in international cooperation and mobility programmes (e.g. Youth in Action and Erasmus+). The establishment of European schools, such as the one in Tbilisi, Georgia, in the rest of the EaP states could be a good start in order to boost the standard of education in the image of the best examples from the EU Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC believes that the social cohesion agenda must remedy skills gaps and mismatches in the EaP countries to improve the general effectiveness of education by adapting the best examples and systems from their EU counterparts. The quality of education enabling innovation is still low within the region and there is therefore a need to reform the educational systems and involve relevant civil society organisations and practitioners in designing curricula. It is necessary to improve links between education, research and innovation to enhance cooperation between the public and private sectors (8). |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The Committee welcomes the involvement of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and its Pan-European Regional Council (PERC) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) in building the capacity of independent trade unions in the EaP countries. Such projects and initiatives are important for the promotion of the European social model, including social dialogue and social security as well as collective bargaining. The existence of strong independent trade union organisations is crucial for successful sustainable growth and social progress resulting from the transformation processes linked to the implementation of association or partnership agreements. Strong trade unions are also a precondition for a successful and vibrant civil society. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

4.   Economy

| 4.1. | Building economic resilience and improving competitiveness are at the heart of the EU’s cooperation with EaP countries, with the focus on working together to create jobs and develop stronger, more diversified, vibrant and sustainable economies. Significant progress has been made in this area, including the increase in trade between all six partner countries and the EU. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The EESC finds that commitments to harmonise digital markets within the EaP region are not yet effectively implemented, thus hindering progress and the development of digital services. At the same time, the EESC applauds the consensus reached on plans for a roaming agreement for the region by 2020, which would not only increase access to communications for people, but could also boost tourism and have wider economic benefits. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Even though the trade between the EaP countries and the EU is increasing, more effort should be given to strengthen intraregional trade, in order to ensure trade income diversification and sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC believes that regional trade integration leading to a common economic space, free roaming, a common migration area, synchronisation of electricity networks, the development of independent clean energy sources and conversion of agriculture standards to EU standards should be considered and developed as the most important economic projects common both to the EaP partners and to the EU as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The Committee stresses the need to develop independent business associations and support organisations in the region. Such organisations need to be more and better involved in business development and DCFTA implementation. At the same time, EaP SMEs need to establish associations and/or umbrella organisations, which would represent their interests and make them stronger when it comes to advocating their interests in the legislative process and securing a share in local and EU markets. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

5.   Governance

| 5.1. | Scaling up efforts in the area of strengthening institutions and good governance is a top priority for the EU in the EaP countries where challenges remain. In particular, more efforts need to be made regarding the rule of law, the implementation of key judicial reforms, and in the fight against corruption. These are the preconditions for citizens’ trust in the state, long-term stability and an investment-safe climate. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The Committee draws attention to the fact that legislation for mandatory government consultations with the public only exist in the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. There has to be a mandatory legal framework that would enable civil society to access information, hold the government accountable and take part in policy-making processes. In addition, in order to strengthen civil society organisations, the governments of EaP countries need to commit to more consistent and direct support for CSOs. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | Regarding capacity building, institutions in EaP countries that are well-functioning and capable of carrying out the necessary reforms are more crucial than ever, thus twinning arrangements between them (e.g. a network of food safety agencies, standardisation bodies, anti-corruption agencies, etc.) should be formalised and possibly supported by the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | Joint capacity building, twinning and networking arrangements, sharing of practices, and development of joint approaches and tools could be all supported through a joint association facility. Consideration could also be given to financing the reform teams along the lines developed for Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The EESC also underlines the need to assist the EaP governments and civil society in developing the tools necessary to assess and address gender inequalities. It is crucial to ensure that support to state statistical offices covers the collection of trade and gender statistics, including through specific questions in household and business surveys, and specific indicators to monitor trade-related impacts over time. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

6.   Connectivity

| 6.1. | The EU’s work with partner countries to improve transport links and infrastructure, boost energy resilience and efficiency, as well as the use of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in significant progress. Continuing to invest in these areas will lead to greater sustainable economic development and concrete benefits for the lives of citizens by creating alternative energy sources, reducing energy dependence on predominantly single supplier and consumption. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | The Committee therefore stresses the importance of further energy diversification, reducing CO2 emissions and setting up effective national emissions monitoring mechanisms, as well as of stepping up action on biodiversity protection and sustainable forest management. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

7.   Association agreements/Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area

| 7.1. | The Committee strongly supports the motion to introduce enhanced dialogue on AA/DCFTA related reforms between the EU and the Associated TRIO, the inclusion of comparative elements in the AA country specific recommendations and the synchronisation of their release to foster positive competition, as this already proved effective in accelerating progress in central and eastern Europe. |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

| 7.2. | Further institutionalising cooperation among the Associated TRIO and the EU is recommended, particularly at the executive level. Creating a joint executive group and some sub-groups echoing the institutionalisation process at the level of parliaments could be a good starting point. It could be followed by similar groupings of organised civil society within the EaP civil society platforms, business associations and support organisations, trade unions and others. Experience and networks created through the GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development cooperation could be used as an example. The support of the EU and its individual Member States would lend significant support to such institutionalisation. |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

| 7.3. | Due to its complexity, AA/DCFTA is difficult to implement as it requires significant political, financial and human resources and is full of challenges, especially as it is directed towards market reforms, while the main genuine expectations of the EU reforms are the rule of law and good governance. The Committee believes that it is crucial to reflect such expectations and support the implementation of the AA/DCFTA with parallel initiatives to strengthen the associated democracies. Additional support mechanisms, which would only be provided following the full implementation of mutually agreed objectives within such parallel initiatives, could be considered and would also serve as an additional motivator. |
| --- | --- |

7.3.

| 7.4. | The EESC also highly recommends regularly addressing women’s labour rights and wage issues, particularly in industry and services sectors where the biggest — and most varying — gaps appear to occur. The AA/DCFTA approximation agenda offers a comprehensive approach in terms of legislative action and enforcement of international conventions, including on gender and anti-discrimination. It is crucial to monitor this process, improve the collection of sex-disaggregated statistics on employment and wages, and support women’s groups in advocating their interests. |
| --- | --- |

7.4.

Brussels, 26 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  Over the last decade, the EESC has adopted more than a dozen opinions on various aspects of the EaP. It has also established a permanent Eastern Neighbours Follow-up Committee, formed bilateral civil society platforms of EU-EaP countries, as well as domestic advisory groups (DAGs), and organised the EaP Business Forums alongside the EaP summits.

1

(2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2016/C 202/02).

2

(3)  https://indicators.ohchr.org

3

(4)  https://nhri.ohchr.org/

4

(5)  Rebuilding Ukraine: An assessment of EU assistance, Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2018.

5

(6)  EaP CSF policy brief, Joint Staff Working Document, ‘EaP — Focusing on key priorities and deliverables — Assessment and recommendations by the civil society’, 2017.

6

(7)  Ukraine Analytica, Issue 3 (13), 2018.

7

(8)  http://eu4business.eu/files/medias/regional-position-paper_final_kyiv-21-june-2017-2_0.pdf

8

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/40

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘International trade and tourism — A global sustainable development agenda’

(own-initiative opinion)

(2020/C 14/05)

Rapporteur: Alfred GAJDOSIK

| Plenary Assembly decision | 24.1.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure
  Own-initiative opinion |
| Section responsible | Section for External Relations |
| Adopted in section | 5.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 26.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 134/0/4 |

Plenary Assembly decision

24.1.2019

Legal basis

Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Own-initiative opinion

Section responsible

Section for External Relations

Adopted in section

5.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

26.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

134/0/4

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) strongly underlines the complex ties between tourism and international trade in general. As tourism is growing at a faster rate than the overall economy, it is clearly an important driver of employment and economic growth. As such, tourism and international trade are determining factors in achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs) (1). It therefore proposes that the stakeholders responsible in the economic sectors concerned be explicitly involved in achieving the SDGs through relevant statements of commitment, for example by creating decent and sustainable jobs as part of SDG 8. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC draws attention to the importance of financial planning for implementing political priorities and underlines the significance of budgets as the most efficient means of implementing policy. It therefore calls for consideration to be given to the importance of tourism, not least by revising the latest proposal for the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) to incorporate a separate budget line for tourism. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC finds it regrettable that a separate objective for tourism has yet to be included in the European Structural and Investment Funds regulations, and that tourism has only been taken into account as a means or sector. The fact that the regulations provide for investment opportunities in smart tourism is to be welcomed but, in the EESC’s view, this does not go far enough to take account of the macroeconomic, social and cultural importance of tourism, including in terms of its external impact. The EESC therefore calls for tourism to be included as a thematic objective under the European Structural and Investment Funds. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The relatively low barriers to market entry in the tourism sector must not be economically and socially detrimental to those working in tourism. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC calls for measures to harmonise or recognise training, professional standards and vocational qualifications in tourism, that consolidate efforts to introduce a European vocational qualifications passport and promote lifelong learning in tourism. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | Since it is clear that international tourism, aside from being important economically, also plays a significant role in promoting understanding among peoples and breaking down prejudices and therefore strongly supports the external impact of the EU, particular forms of tourism such as cultural tourism and social tourism should be supported through specific measures. Furthermore, the EESC draws attention to the need to promote tourism relating to health, sport, agriculture, the environment, etc. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | It is of utmost importance and crucial to guarantee decent and sustainable jobs in this sector, through collective agreements and in line with SDG 8. The EESC asks for all forms of illegal and or precarious work in the tourism sector to be eradicated. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The sustainability of tourism is also heavily dependent on choosing forms of transport that are as environmentally friendly as possible; particular attention should therefore be paid to the prudent and responsible use of means of transport. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | With this opinion, the EESC wishes to stress the close link between tourism and international trade and underline their shared importance in achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | International trade has a long tradition, but its particular social and political significance has increased substantially over the course of history. While international trade has traditionally been governed by bilateral treaties, multilateral treaties have become increasingly common since the Second World War. Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a trading framework has been in place to regulate international trade. In the context of this framework the European Commission has, since 2011, been supporting the EU’s external trade through a new generation of trade agreements that aim to strengthen economic and trade relations with certain trading partners. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The tensions between free trade and protectionism also show that international trade can also be used as an element of political influence. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Tourism is the third largest sector in the international balance of trade: it accounts for 10,4 % of global GDP (10,3 % in the EU) and creates 313 million jobs around the world. One in every eleven jobs worldwide is linked to tourism. For a third of developing countries, tourism is the main export commodity and therefore has a considerable bearing on these countries’ economies. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | Tourism is therefore instrumental in achieving the sustainability goals, though it should be borne in mind that global tourism is responsible for 8 % of greenhouse gas emissions. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | At global level, tourism contributes to economic and social integration in rural areas and the outermost regions. However, undesirable knock-on effects such as the loss of agricultural land, threats to nature conservation and air pollution must be taken into account and avoided insofar as possible. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | In 2017, international tourism accounted for 1.32 billion arrivals worldwide (+ 7 %) and 671 million arrivals across Europe, with Europe’s market share being 51 % (+ 8 %). However, according to a long-term prospective study by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), tourism in Europe will grow less strongly in the period up to 2030, with an estimated 744 million tourists (+ 1,8 %) and an overall market share of 41,1 %. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | The Lisbon Treaty (1 December 2009) created the EU’s own legal basis for tourism (2). Accordingly, in 2010 the Commission published a communication entitled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe’ (3). However, neither the current 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF), nor the latest proposal for the 2021-2027 period provide for a separate budget line for tourism. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | Nevertheless, given that in recent years employment and thus economic growth in tourism in the EU has been continually stronger than in other economic sectors, then – on the basis of the available data – further steps to consolidate the external tourism policy as well as corresponding budgetary measures at Community level are not only justified, but also urgently needed. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | The Committee warmly welcomes the Council’s conclusions of 27 May 2019 (4) in which, in the light of the challenges faced by the tourism sector (digitalisation, sustainability and sector-specific knowledge and skills), it sets out concrete proposals with regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and calls for appropriate measures to support tourism in order to maintain the EU’s role as a world market leader in tourism. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

| 2.11. | Tourism has great potential to create jobs. The fact that, globally, the tourism sector employs on average more women and young people than other sectors is also important when it comes to achieving the sustainable development goals, particularly numbers 5 and 10. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

| 2.12. | Wages and salaries in the tourism and hospitality sector are below the median wage in most countries. Appropriate measures should therefore be put in place to ensure adequate remuneration across all categories of employment in the sector. This is all the more important as working conditions in the tourism sector are often extremely harsh, and the social partners’ agreements on minimum wage and maximum working time as well as the rules on occupational safety and health are in practice often not respected. It is therefore urgently necessary to create decent and sustainable jobs in the sector in line with SDG 8. In order to so do, in the Committee’s view, it is necessary to improve the basic conditions, agree clear collective agreements and support the digitalisation of the sector. |
| --- | --- |

2.12.

3.   Tourism and the economy

| 3.1. | The importance of tourism as a key driver of economic growth therefore goes far beyond the tourism sector itself and touches on international trade and distribution, but also all areas of the public and private sectors, as well as agriculture and transport. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Furthermore, for many regions – such as small islands or isolated mountain areas – tourism is one of the very few and in some cases the only economic activity in today’s international division of labour. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | Moreover, tourism has helped many regions to breathe new life into areas that have gone into decline. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

4.   Tourism and sustainability

| 4.1. | Tourism’s competitiveness is closely linked to its sustainability, as the attractiveness and quality of a tourist destination depend to a large extent on both its natural and cultural environment and its integration into local infrastructure. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The sustainability of tourism is based on several factors, such as:






  — | the responsible use of natural resources (particularly water); |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2.

—

the responsible use of natural resources (particularly water);

| — | the use of clean energy sources; |
| --- | --- |

—

the use of clean energy sources;

| — | consideration of the environmental impact of tourism activities; (e.g. waste disposal, increased pressure on land and water); |
| --- | --- |

—

consideration of the environmental impact of tourism activities; (e.g. waste disposal, increased pressure on land and water);

| — | the conservation of biodiversity; |
| --- | --- |

—

the conservation of biodiversity;

| — | the protection of cultural heritage; |
| --- | --- |

—

the protection of cultural heritage;

| — | the preservation of high-quality sustainable jobs created by tourism; |
| --- | --- |

—

the preservation of high-quality sustainable jobs created by tourism;

| — | taking account of the impact on the local population; |
| --- | --- |

—

taking account of the impact on the local population;

| — | staff development |
| --- | --- |

—

staff development

| — | transport. |
| --- | --- |

—

transport.

| 4.3. | Sustainable tourism was identified as a key sector in the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production (10YFP). Accordingly, as a sector of the future, sustainable tourism has the potential to become not only the standard for the industry as a whole, but also to get national economies across the world involved (5).
  In the Committee’s view, this potential should be used by those responsible for international trade and tourism in order to find ways and means of contributing efficiently to achieving the sustainable development goals (in this context particularly goals 3, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 15) and to work towards partnerships in line with goal 17. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

In the Committee’s view, this potential should be used by those responsible for international trade and tourism in order to find ways and means of contributing efficiently to achieving the sustainable development goals (in this context particularly goals 3, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 15) and to work towards partnerships in line with goal 17.

| 4.4. | The economic importance of tourism, which accounts for a 17 % share of employment worldwide (of which 44 % is female), plays a major role in many areas of sustainability policy. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | As an overarching economic activity, tourism has an environmental, social and cultural dimension in addition to an economic dimension, and is therefore a key factor in achieving the sustainability goals. In this connection, the revenues generated from the sector can have an instrumental role in supporting the sustainable management of the tourism areas. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | One approach to be adopted involves not only analysing the negative impact of tourism, but also looking at its positive influence in various areas (environmental, social, etc.). This form of ‘impact tourism’, which was developed in Slovenia and is based on 10 + 1 ‘impact indicators’, also takes into account the positive impact of tourism in all key areas of life (6). |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | New technologies have led to structural changes in the economy, particularly for smaller organisations. In the context of tourism, this concerns not only the services that are on offer, but also marketing and booking behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | A particular problem for the tourism sector as a whole is the worldwide increase in bookings on various private platforms. This new form of marketing undisputedly offers advantages for non-professional operators and areas that are underdeveloped or entirely undeveloped in terms of tourism. However, from a macroeconomic point of view, it is not acceptable for private operators to obtain competitive advantages owing to the fact that they may pay no or only minimal taxes or that they are not bound by the usual strict hygiene and safety requirements in place in the tourism sector. As such, it would be necessary, for example, for registration obligations and evaluation criteria applicable to those providing commercial accommodation also to apply to these providers. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

5.   Tourism and the environment

| 5.1. | In principle, a sustainably successful tourism policy and effective environmental protection are not contradictory, and should be understood and implemented as complementary and mutually supportive measures. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | A clear problem associated with growing international tourism is the use of various means of transport (ships, planes, buses and cars) and their environmental impact. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | Large tour operators should be reminded of and required to play their role as part of a responsible sustainability policy, and should employ dedicated staff to address environmental issues, who take into account sustainability objectives when giving advice and planning. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | ‘Overtourism’ has already become a problem for some regions, jeopardising not only the quality of life of the local population but also the environment. Since there is no uniform definition of ‘overtourism’, the term remains vague and cannot be easily applied. However, the problem is not new. Between 1980 and 1990, the concept of the ‘Mallorca effect’ was employed to come up with ideas for how to fit as many people as possible onto a beach without excessive side effects. International tourism organisations primarily work on giving examples of best practice so as to provide points of reference and guidance to the regions concerned. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The Committee also suggests that the major international tourism associations also agree on a code of conduct on the marketing of tourist destinations. This code of conduct should take into account the environment and sustainability, but also tackle overtourism, which has implications for the environment and sustainability, among other things. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

6.   Tourism and ethics

| 6.1. | Tourism refers to national as well as transnational and international flows of people and services and, in addition to being relevant economically, it also has an impact on the social and cultural life of people who are not involved in the sector in tourists’ countries of origin and destination. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | The UNWTO, which is an international forum for tourism policy and an interface for international communication between relevant public authorities, took up this point and in 1999 published a ‘Global Code of Ethics for Tourism’ (7), which includes 10 principles and 49 paragraphs dealing in detail with the very diverse aspects of global tourism (8). The Code of Ethics is therefore also referred to as the ‘rules for ethical conduct in tourism’. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | The provisions of this Code of Ethics reflect the complexity of the sector by addressing not only economic, social and cultural aspects, but also respect for fundamental and human rights (see measures against child abuse, child labour and sexual exploitation of children in tourism). |
| --- | --- |

6.3.

| 6.4. | As this Code of Ethics is only a recommendation and signatories are not obliged to comply with it, in September 2017 the UNWTO put forward the International Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics (9), which was signed by more than half of its members. This convention is inspired by the Code of Ethics and is not substantially different, but has the advantage that signatories are obliged to comply with it. |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

7.   Tourism and culture

| 7.1. | One of the main drivers of tourism is the cultural goods of the destination country. |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

| 7.2. | Cultural tourism increases interest in foreign cultures, promotes understanding among peoples and helps break down prejudices. |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

8.   Tourism and demography

| 8.1. | Demographic trends also have an impact on tourism: the age pyramid, with a significant proportion of increasingly mobile older people in predominantly secure income groups, has led to an upswing in travel by older people. Travel by older people now makes up a significant proportion of tourism, particularly group tourism, and in some areas has also led to changes in how travel companies design their offers. This is also due to the fact that older people often book longer holidays and are dependent on the seasons only to some extent. This was also taken into account at the summit of the World Tourism Organization, with particular attention paid to tourism for older people. |
| --- | --- |

8.1.

| 8.2. | Through its ‘Calypso – Tourism for All’ initiative, the European Commission has contributed to the sustainable growth of social tourism by supporting measures to develop tourism for older people, as well as for underprivileged groups. This has led to new tourism offers but also to greater use of off-season periods. In this regard, it would be useful to share this experience with partners outside the European Union and to promote tourism on both sides. |
| --- | --- |

8.2.

| 8.3. | In addition to the current demographic factors, other specific forms of tourism have also developed, such as pilgrimages. |
| --- | --- |

8.3.

9.   Tourism and training

| 9.1. | In view of market developments and rising consumer expectations, the tourism sector in its diversity has special training requirements ranging from relevant language and computer skills to economic skills and gastronomic knowledge. |
| --- | --- |

9.1.

| 9.2. | Many EU countries have different forms of education and training paths of varying duration, which makes mutual recognition more difficult. Setting certain training standards could improve the career opportunities of various professionals both in the Community and abroad. It will only be possible to permanently reduce the shortage of skilled workers in the sector through generally binding training requirements in conjunction with the abovementioned improvements to basic conditions in the industry. |
| --- | --- |

9.2.

| 9.3. | Promoting the value of jobs in tourism as a long-term career option would also be beneficial insofar as working conditions in tourism are often more difficult than in other sectors. |
| --- | --- |

9.3.

10.   Tourism and digitalisation

| 10.1. | Digitalisation has far-reaching implications for the tourism sector, not only for the behaviour of tourists, but also for tourism operators. |
| --- | --- |

10.1.

| 10.2. | Online tourism is becoming increasingly popular, as are online evaluations: in Germany alone, 40 % of all trips were booked online in 2017. This will open up new markets for SMEs, which will, however, also need financial support for this innovation. |
| --- | --- |

10.2.

| 10.3. | At the same time, electronic networks and digitalisation have also had a huge influence on the internal processes of tourism businesses: for example, nowadays even small businesses are usually required to offer their visitors internet access at the very least. |
| --- | --- |

10.3.

| 10.4. | Digitalisation will also play an important role in innovative forms of cooperation in the area of tourism, which in turn can have a significant impact on how tourist destinations develop. Many modern technologies (e.g. AI, VR, AR, blockchain) can help the most remote locations to become interesting destinations. In order to take advantage of the new opportunities, the tourism sector needs to be more focused on research and development. |
| --- | --- |

10.4.

| 10.5. | Cultural tourism could also benefit from digitalisation as virtual reality could also provide incentives to travel. |
| --- | --- |

10.5.

Brussels, 26 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  Sustainable development goals:

1

Goal 1: No poverty

Goal 2: No hunger

Goal 3: Good health and well-being

Goal 4: Quality education

Goal 5: Gender equality

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy

Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth

Goal 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure

Goal 10: Reducing inequality

Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities

Goal 12: Sustainable consumption and production

Goal 13: Climate action

Goal 14: Life below water

Goal 15: Life on land

Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions

Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals

(2)  Article 195 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

2

(3)  COM(2010) 352 final

3

(4)  Council document 9707/19 of 27 May 2019, ‘The competitiveness of the tourism sector as a driver of sustainable growth, jobs and social cohesion in the EU for the next decade’

4

(5)  See the 2017 report of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad): ‘Tourism for Transformative and Inclusive Growth’.

5

(6)  https://www.impact-tourism.net/

6

(7)  https://www.tourism-watch.de/en/node/4597

7

(8)  Principles of the Global Code of Ethics:

8

Article 1: Tourism’s contribution to mutual understanding and respect between peoples and societies

Article 2: Tourism as a vehicle for individual and collective fulfilment

Article 3: Tourism, a factor of sustainable development

Article 4: Tourism, a user of the cultural heritage of mankind and contributor to its enhancement

Article 5: Tourism, a beneficial activity for host countries and communities

Article 6: Obligations of stakeholders in tourism development

Article 7: Right to tourism

Article 8: Liberty of tourist movements

Article 9: Rights of the workers and entrepreneurs in the tourism industry

Article 10: Implementation of the principles of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism

(9)  UNWTO Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics

9

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/46

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Digitalisation, AI and Equity — How to strengthen the EU in the global race of future skills and education, while ensuring social inclusion’

(exploratory opinion at the request of the Finnish Presidency)

(2020/C 14/06)

Rapporteur: Tellervo KYLÄ-HARAKKA-RUONALA

Co-rapporteur: Giulia BARBUCCI

| Request by the Finnish Presidency of the Council | Letter, 7.2.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 10.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 118/0/0 |

Request by the Finnish Presidency of the Council

Letter, 7.2.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

10.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

118/0/0

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | Skills and competences play a key role in ensuring the EU’s success in global competition with respect to digitalisation and AI. In addition to ensuring high-level talent, there is a need for society as a whole to be equipped with the necessary understanding, knowledge and skills for the ‘AI era’, so as to make full use of the overall potential and to keep everyone on board. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC calls on the EU to take a comprehensive approach to education and training policy, considering its two-way linkages with other areas such as data, research, innovation and industrial policy, as well as economic and social policy. As this also requires the necessary public and private investment, the EESC repeats its recommendation for reforms to create a favourable environment for private-sector investment and for the implementation of a ‘golden rule’ allowing funding from Member States’ budgets for socially and economically productive investment that does not threaten future budget sustainability (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC finds intensive cooperation between Member States to be crucial for success in the global race. Networking of European universities should be encouraged to enhance AI-related competences. Cooperation in the field of vocational training also needs to be enhanced. The EESC calls for an increased allocation of EU funds to support the necessary reforms, cross-border exchange and cooperation in education and training, including retraining workers to overcome the digital transition. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | As stated in the European Pillar of Social Rights, the EESC emphasises that access to continuous and lifelong learning must be an individual right for everyone in order to cope with digital and AI developments, shape progress and keep ‘humans in command’ (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The Committee suggests developing an EU strategy to enhance continuous, learner-centred learning, with digitalisation and the deployment of trustworthy AI at its heart. The strategy should outline the necessary arrangements to meet the objective set out in point 1.4, taking into account differences in national systems. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC deems that the AI era requires a strong foundation in cross-cutting skills such as logical reasoning, critical thinking, creativity and interaction skills. It also needs solid competences in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and in arts and social sciences. Ethical thinking and an entrepreneurial approach are also a central part of skills and competences of the AI era. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | Inclusiveness requires that everyone has access to digital and AI technologies and to the necessary skills, irrespective of gender, age or socioeconomic background. The role of public education is essential here. Non-formal education also plays a significant role in enhancing inclusiveness and active citizenship. Special attention should be paid to ensuring the skills of women and girls, as well as elderly people. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | Competitiveness requires both top-level talent and a broad base of educated and skilled people. Professional qualifications must be adjusted constantly to match new developments and the competences needed. The EESC believes that new world-class talent can be best promoted through research projects. Cooperation projects with industry are one way of keeping talent in the EU and attracting foreign talent. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC stresses that close cooperation is vital between policymakers, education providers, social partners and other civil society organisations with respect to digitalisation and AI and the related education and skills development. As the social partners play a specific role defined by the Treaty regarding labour-related issues, they should be involved, in accordance with relevant national rules, in decisions concerning investments, technologies and the organisation of work. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | The rapid progress in digitalisation and AI challenges the EU to be well equipped to succeed in global competition. The improvement of skills and competences plays a key role here and requires the active development of education and training, which should also help people meet evolving demand and shape progress, by following its different forms and implications. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | This exploratory opinion is a response to the Finnish EU Presidency’s request concerning ‘how to strengthen the EU in the global race of future skills and education, while ensuring social inclusion’ in the context of digitalisation and AI. To illustrate a future-oriented approach, the concept of the ‘AI era’ is used here. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The EESC has previously provided several opinions that deal with the implications of digitalisation and AI for future work, skills demand and investment needs, as well as the ethical aspects of AI (3). This opinion concentrates on the interlinkage of digital and AI-related skills, competitiveness and inclusiveness (not considering other future skills that will be needed e.g. to respond to climate change). |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Digitalisation and AI are linked in several ways with education and skills development. They generate new demand for skills and competences, and also enable new ways of learning and teaching. Digital and AI techniques can also be used to anticipate changes in work and everyday life and thus in education and training needs. Moreover, education and training enable people to shape digital development. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | Digitalisation and AI are also linked with inclusiveness in a number of ways. For example, they help people with disabilities to work and better manage their lives. They can also help reduce people’s isolation. On the other hand, inclusiveness requires that everyone has access to these technologies and the necessary skills, irrespective of gender, age or socioeconomic background. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Education in general is a competence of the Member States. There are, however, different kinds of cooperation such as the exchange of good practices. Work is also being carried out towards a European Education Area, built on the Erasmus+ programme and other EU funding instruments. Recognition of professional qualifications is another key form of cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | To respond to the question on digital and AI related skills and education from the points of view of both success in global competition and social inclusiveness, the EESC considers the following three questions:






  — | What kind of skills and competences are most valid in the AI era? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.7.

—

What kind of skills and competences are most valid in the AI era?

| — | How would these skills and competences be best acquired and enhanced? |
| --- | --- |

—

How would these skills and competences be best acquired and enhanced?

| — | What kind of policies are needed at national and EU levels to promote this progress? |
| --- | --- |

—

What kind of policies are needed at national and EU levels to promote this progress?

3.   What kind of skills and competences are most valid in the AI era?

| 3.1. | Given that digitalisation and particularly AI have considerable implications for people’s everyday lives, and for the development of businesses, jobs and the work of the future, development and progress are needed at several cognitive levels. On one hand, it is about awareness, knowledge and understanding, and on the other hand about competences and skills. High-level competences and talents are necessary for success in global competition, but success also requires a comprehensive base of educated and skilled people. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | It is obvious that people are not largely aware of the opportunities that digitalisation, AI and robotics provide to assist them, while concerns related to jobs, safety and privacy are clearly in evidence. That is why there is a need for greater awareness of the opportunities presented by digitalisation and AI for society at large. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | More knowledge of the nature and functioning of AI is also necessary for people’s understanding and own critical thinking regarding where and how AI can be used. The need for greater understanding applies to employers and enterprises, employees, consumers and policymakers alike. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | Moreover, the AI era calls for a capacity for ethical thinking in order to guide the development and use of digital solutions and AI in line with human rights. Besides human considerations, one should understand the environmental and climate aspects related to digitalisation and AI – both the opportunities these technologies provide and the risks they entail. These ethical and other considerations must be realised through participatory governance, which means involving civil society and the social partners in the different fields and processes. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The urgent short-term needs for developing competences and skills are related to narrowing the skills gap and correcting the skills mismatch in the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | As it is ever more difficult to prepare for certain professions in the long-term, professional qualifications have to be adjusted constantly to match new developments and be based on a set of skills and competencies that are needed irrespective of exact developments. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | It is relevant to ask which skills bring added value over machines and robots and which skills we want to keep anyway. This highlights the need for a strong foundation in cross-cutting skills such as logical reasoning, critical thinking, creativity and interpersonal and interaction skills. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | It is also necessary in both the short and long term that the whole of society possesses at least basic digital skills. In addition to digital and AI literacy, general skills should include the ability to apply AI in creating and implementing innovative solutions in everyday life and work. This holds for people of all ages and all backgrounds, as well as people with disabilities, given the opportunities AI provides for them. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The AI era emphasises the role of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), but also that of arts and social sciences. It also stresses the need for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary competences to understand systemic phenomena and multidimensional problems that digitalisation and AI can be used to solve. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The change in work also emphasises the importance of entrepreneurial skills. They are needed not only by actual entrepreneurs but by everyone, to be able to manage one’s own work and life. These rapid changes also require adaptability and resilience at work and in society at large. Companies must seek ways to guarantee training for workers to facilitate such transitions in the world of work. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | Diverse cooperation, communication and teaching skills are also needed in the AI era: Cooperation and communication between humans and intelligent systems, such as AI and robotics, become more general both at work and in everyday life. Moreover, AI and robotics are increasingly being taught, instead of programming only. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | In addition to increased knowledge, competences and skills across the whole of society, high-level talent is needed to enable the EU to succeed in global competition and be at the forefront of innovation and investment in digitalisation and AI. Besides AI developers, more talented individuals and professionals are needed to apply AI in specific sectors, from manufacturing to services. All this requires advanced scientific, mathematical and technical competences. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | Solid business skills are also a necessity to make use of the business opportunities provided by digitalisation and AI, for example in scaling up businesses. Given that trustworthy AI could be a competitive edge for the EU, ethics should be an essential part of the competences of all AI developers and users. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | To succeed in the skills race, it is important to make full use of the whole potential of society. Special attention should be paid to women’s and girls’ digital skills and interest in STEM in order to get them more involved in the progress of digitalisation and AI. This would improve conditions in several sectors and in the economy and society as a whole, and help overcome gender bias related to data and technology. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

4.   How would the skills and competences of the AI era be best acquired and enhanced?

| 4.1. | It is obvious that enhancing the skills and competencies of the AI era requires reforms in current education and training systems, together with the necessary funding to accompany this. On the other hand, digitalisation and AI imply such huge changes that the whole idea of learning and teaching must be thought of in a new way. It is therefore crucial to prepare teachers and all educators for the new thinking and culture. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Continuous learning must be a right for everyone, in order to cope with current and future developments in economy and society and to be able to shape progress; it should follow the principles of ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘leaving no one behind’. Continuous learning is about learning for work, but also contributes to personal and professional fulfilment, social inclusion and active citizenship. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Primary education should provide pupils with basic digital skills, but above all must lay the basis for continuous learning. It should thus equip everyone with the competences and skills of learning-to-learn and of developing deeper skills for the AI era, including an understanding of social and ethical aspects and of how to keep ‘humans in command’. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | Instead of considering learning as a ‘pipeline’ of different educational efforts, one should aim towards ‘learning design’ for individuals. Learning design for the AI era calls for proper methods for assessing individual learning needs and an adapted supply of learning opportunities, while safeguarding the specific role of public education. In addition, it requires new kinds of activity by people to set objectives for themselves. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | AI itself provides opportunities for more learner-centred learning. AI-assisted learning design can analyse the demand for skills and competences, enable self-assessment, help create individual learning paths and combine formal, non-formal and informal learning choices. AI can also be used to provide content for learner-centred education and training. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | To enable more personalised learning paths and enhance opportunities for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional studies, education institutions should provide modular learning elements that can be combined flexibly. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | In addition to basic education and vocational training, there is a clear need for upskilling and reskilling. This kind of learning increasingly takes place in the context of work. Cooperation between education institutions and social partners, by creating networks that cover both large companies and SMEs, is vital to enhance the training that is needed in workplaces. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | As the number of people taking part in continuous learning is increasing all the time, easily scalable methods are needed. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) provide one promising opportunity here. They can be used for example to increase general knowledge on AI (such as the Elements of AI course created in Finland) or to improve skills and competences in the application of AI and the use of e.g. virtual or augmented reality. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Non-formal education is key to furthering inclusive education systems and a key avenue for lifelong and lifewide learning. More emphasis should therefore be placed on assessing and validating the outcomes of non-formal education and informal learning as comparably as possible and supporting all stakeholders in this respect, as proposed by the EESC in its earlier opinion (4). |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | Youth organisations have an important role to play in empowering young people as workers and citizens. They provide education that caters to individual needs and are thus able both to reach out to young people that formal education providers do not reach and to complement formal education by providing a different set of skills and competences. |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | There is a positive match between the soft skills required by employers and those developed through youth organisations. Non-formal education also plays a significant role in reskilling and upskilling, and in the development of digital skills among older people. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

| 4.12. | Success in the global race for talent will require cooperation in both research and education. Research projects are an efficient form of higher education and a good way of promoting new world-class talent. Networks of connected research excellence centres and innovation hubs are important means of sharing competences. Where research projects rely on cooperation between universities and industries, talent often moves to work for enterprises. High-level research projects may thus also help keep talent in the EU and attract foreign talent. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

5.   What kind of policies are needed to enhance the skills and competences of the AI era?

| 5.1. | The EESC believes that investment in education and training must be a central part of strategies on digitalisation and AI, and that digitalisation and AI should be an essential dimension of future-oriented education policy and systems. The EU should strive to be a global frontrunner here. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | Digitalisation and AI have raised the importance of continuous learning to a new level, which is one of the central ways of strengthening the EU in the global race of skills and education and of doing so inclusively. The EESC suggests developing an EU strategy outlining the arrangements needed to enhance continuous, learner-centred learning, with digitalisation and the deployment of trustworthy AI at the heart of the strategy, and taking into account the differences in national systems. The ambition of the EU Education Area should be raised accordingly: it is not enough that one quarter of people be engaged in continuous learning; this must be a right for everyone. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | The EESC calls for close cooperation between Member States in education and training. Full use must be made of common education and training programmes, including AI master’s and doctoral degree programmes. The EESC sees the European universities’ network initiative as a good way of enhancing high-level AI-related competences. International cooperation with leading research and education organisations on trustworthy AI is also needed, and cooperation in the field of vocational training needs to be encouraged. Moreover, recognition of qualifications should be further promoted to enable flexible mobility of workers between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | The EESC calls for increased allocation of EU funds to initiatives in AI-related education and training. The possibilities provided by the Erasmus+ programme and other funding instruments should be explored further to strengthen cross-border exchange and cooperation. Increased funding of research programmes, such as the initiative for a European network of AI excellence centres funded through Horizon 2020, is also essential in generating and attracting high-level talent. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The European Social Fund and the Globalisation Adjustment Fund should also be used to support the inclusive development of digital and AI skills, including a well-communicated programme to support workers in acquiring new skills to cope with the digital transition. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | Data and digital infrastructure play a key role in enabling the use of digital tools and AI in education and learning. The availability, quality, reliability, accessibility, interoperability and free flow of data are therefore vital for education and learning in the AI era. This needs to be considered in data policy, together with data protection and privacy aspects. Investment in digital infrastructure in all areas is also vital in order to enhance digital opportunities for education and learning and to avoid digital divide. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | Investment in AI-related innovation is another field closely connected to education. More resources must be allocated to innovation by both public and private sectors. The EU must also pay due attention to an industrial strategy, ensure a favourable environment for European industries and promote mission-oriented innovation and investment to respond to the main economic, social and environmental challenges. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

| 5.8. | All in all, the EU needs a comprehensive approach to education and training policies, considering its strategic role and two-way linkages with other policies, including economic and social policy. The necessary public and private investment must support this and should be facilitated through reforms to create a favourable environment for private sector investment, an adequate EU budget and a commitment to a ‘golden rule’ allowing funding from Member State budgets for a socially and economically productive investment that does not threaten future budget sustainability (5). Correspondingly, education and skills should have a significant role in the European Semester. The first-ever joint meeting of the EU education and finance ministers during the Finnish EU Presidency should be an appropriate booster for this. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

| 5.9. | Finally, the Committee stresses the importance of closely involving civil society in the development of education and training policy and related policies, and in designing and implementing new education and training programmes, including ethical aspects. Cooperation is needed between governments, education institutions, social partners, consumer organisations and the other civil society organisations concerned. |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

| 5.10. | The social partners have a specific role as defined by the Treaty. As they have a particular function regarding labour-related issues, they should be involved, in accordance with relevant national rules, in decisions concerning investments, technologies and the organisation of work. The EESC notes that digitalisation is one of the six priorities addressed in the European social dialogue work programme 2019-2021. |
| --- | --- |

5.10.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 24.

1

(2)  European Pillar of Social Rights principle 1. Education, training and life-long learning: Everyone has the right to quality and inclusive education, training and life-long learning in order to maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully in society and manage successfully transitions in the labour market.

2

(3)  OJ C 240, 16.7.2019, p. 51, OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 16, OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 292, OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p.1, OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 41, OJ C 367, 10.10.2018, p. 15, OJ C 434, 15.12.2017, p. 36, OJ C 288, 31.8.2017, p. 43.

3

(4)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 49.

4

(5)  OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 24.

5

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/52

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Summary of the costs and benefits of investments in occupational safety and health (OSH)’

(exploratory opinion requested by the Finnish Presidency)

(2020/C 14/07)

Rapporteur: Adam ROGALEWSKI

Co-rapporteur: Ana BONTEA

| Referral | Finnish EU Presidency, 7.2.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 10.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 26.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 149/14/3 |

Referral

Finnish EU Presidency, 7.2.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

10.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

26.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

149/14/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | This opinion identifies new challenges in the area of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH), such as job quality, equality, digitalisation and climate change, which should play an important role not only in discussions on the benefits of investments in OSH but more generally in the future EU OSH policy. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC stresses the important role played by the social partners and civil society organisations in developing and implementing sustainable OSH policies. Investments in OSH will only deliver benefits if there is sound social dialogue and extensive collective bargaining coverage. It is important to promote the role of workplace health and safety committees and workers’ representatives. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | Many studies as well as the experience of the social partners and civil society organisations have shown that investments in OSH contribute not only to enhanced wellbeing for workers and entrepreneurs but also to high returns, particularly in terms of cost reduction, greater productivity and sustainability of social security systems. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | There is a clear economic justification for societal investment in OSH, given that 3,3 % of European GDP is spent each year on dealing with occupational injuries and diseases. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the costs caused by work-related accidents and illness falls not only on public health systems but also on workers and their families (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC calls for more public and private investment in OSH and more financial incentives for companies investing in OSH. Public investments should be tailored to the needs of specific types of labour market actors, with a particular focus on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Larger companies with greater financial capacity should promote and invest in OSH, including in their supplier network. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC calls for a holistic approach to investment in OSH. Special attention should be given to topics such as psychosocial risks, Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs), circulatory diseases and cancer, given their links to the world of work, society and the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EU needs to invest in mental health in the European population. More jobs are becoming emotionally demanding, particularly in the growing service sector, and all actors in the labour market — including SME entrepreneurs — are experiencing stress. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC calls for more comprehensive studies to better understand the benefits of investment in OSH. To this end Member States must demonstrate greater transparency with regard to sharing statistical information on work-related diseases and infections as well as aligning the recognition and registration of occupational diseases. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC calls on the EU, the Member States and all other relevant actors to promote the exchange of good practices in OSH, particularly financial incentives for companies investing in OSH. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC underlines the influence of working conditions, including gender equality on workers’ health and wellbeing. Investments in OSH should be approached from the perspective of job quality. Standard working conditions and gender equality provide the best prevention of psychosocial risks, thus leading to enhanced wellbeing and higher productivity. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | The EESC is concerned that access to OSH and thus the benefits of OSH investment are not evenly distributed throughout the EU Member States. Initiatives should take into account dimensions such as gender, ethnicity, age and disability and link the OSH strategy to the debate on equality. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The process of digitalisation could bring many positive developments in the area of OSH. However, the EESC is very concerned that some new types of work created by digitalisation could fall outside the scope of OSH regulations. All working people in the EU should be protected by OSH legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | The EESC underlines that OSH not only provides benefits for the EU economy but is also a fundamental labour right. Promoting OSH standards should not be limited to the Member States but should cover all countries worldwide, in particular those with which the EU has ratified trade agreements or has other forms of cooperation such as with countries from the Eastern Partnership or the Southern Neighbourhood. European investments should favour companies which have sound OSH policies and endorse OSH in their supply chains. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

2.   Background

| 2.1. | Each year, there are over 3,2 million non-fatal accidents in the European Union and nearly 4 000 people die in accidents. At a conservative estimate, 100 000 people die as a result of work-related cancer. Many accidents are unreported and the real numbers are likely to be much higher. For instance, data on workers who have died on the way to work are not included in this figure, nor are the number of work-related suicides. Some workers do not report non-fatal work accidents (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | 24,2 % of workers consider that their health at work is at risk, while 25 % state that their work has a primarily negative effect on their wellbeing (3). 7,9 % of the workforce suffered from occupational health problems, 36 % of which resulted in absence from work for at least four days a year (4). |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | For 30 years, the EU has had a system of legislation aiming to protect workers against accidents and other forms of work-related ill-health. The basis of the EU OSH acquis is Article 153 of the TFEU and the European Framework Directive (89/391/EEC). The directive established general principles for managing health and safety and is applicable to all employees in sectors of activity across the EU. In addition, the EU has adopted 23 individual directives on OSH. Recently, the European Pillar of Social Rights referred to OSH in its tenth principle. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Various European surveys show that there have been improvements in OSH but the total cost burden of accidents at work and occupational ill-health remains high. According to EU-OSHA estimates, 3,9 % of global GDP and 3,3 % of European GDP are spent on dealing with occupational injuries and diseases. This percentage differs between countries, depending on their economy, legislative framework and prevention incentives. The main cost driver is work-related cancer, followed by MSDs (5). |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | Studies show that ensuring good OSH management in SMEs and family farms remains a significant challenge. For instance, the 2014-2020 EU framework on Health and Safety at Work identifies the enhanced capacity of SMEs to put in place effective and efficient risk prevention measures as one of the key strategic objectives for OSH. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | Research into the contexts and arrangements for OSH in SMEs in the EU points to a ‘general and multifaceted lack of resources’ (6), forcing a substantial proportion of SMEs to pursue ‘low road’ business strategies. The key characteristics of such companies are a weak economic position; concerns about economic survival; lack of investment in OSH; limited knowledge, awareness and competence in the field of OSH. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | Many studies as well as the experience of the social partners and civil society organisations suggest that investment in OSH contributes not only to enhanced wellbeing of workers but also produces a high rate of return, particularly in terms of cost reduction, greater productivity and sustainability of social security systems (7). Finnish studies have revealed that there can be positive profitability effects even without immediate measurable productivity effects, which indicates that the economic benefit mechanisms of OSH are more subtle than is often assumed (8). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Given that workers and their families cover a larger share of costs related to occupational diseases or accidents there is clear economic justification for societal investment in OSH (9). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC welcomes the fact that in some Member States schemes have been put in place to financially reward organisations for having safe and healthy workplaces and calls on more Member States to introduce similar schemes. These incentives include lower insurance premiums, tax breaks or state subsidies, and make the schemes economically beneficial for insurers by reducing the number, severity and cost of claims. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC believes that incentive schemes should not only reward past results of good OSH management (such as few accidents), but should also reward specific prevention efforts that aim to reduce future accidents and ill health. Apart from financial schemes, special attention should be given to existing voluntary sectoral initiatives towards industrial product management and performance excellence (10). |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | Considering the overall downward trend in the number of accidents causing injuries and deaths at work, the EESC suggests focusing more on work-related illnesses such as cancer, circulatory diseases, MSDs and those illnesses linked to psychosocial risks which are the most deadly and the most common causes of sick leave in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC calls for a more holistic approach to investment in OSH. This approach should avoid over-generalisation and, given the limited resources, should focus initially on the most effective ways to improve OSH policies. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | Investments in OSH should be analysed within the context of a discussion on job quality. Data from Eurofound demonstrate that casual employees have the lowest access to information about OSH risks (11). Furthermore, precarious types of employment as well as unemployment contribute to mental ill health. Standard working conditions and gender equality provide the best prevention of psychosocial risks, thus leading to enhanced wellbeing and higher productivity. To this end, the EESC endorses the recent Eurofound study which suggests that: ‘when country-level factors of potential importance for the relationship between working conditions and workers’ health and well-being are considered, analysis shows that higher union density, greater employment protection and more gender equality are associated with higher rewards, more work resources and less work extensity. Member States should, therefore, be encouraged to invest in initiatives that boost union density, employment protection and gender equality, and so contribute to a healthier workforce in the medium and long term’ (12). |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | More comprehensive studies are needed to make the benefits of investment in OSH more visible. The Committee welcomes recent studies and calls for more in-depth studies that help to raise awareness about the importance of investment in OSH and contribute to more efficient allocation of resources by focusing on the areas where investments can bring the greatest and quickest returns. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | Recognition and registration of occupational diseases in the EU need to be aligned and that related data collection needs to be introduced in order to follow trends at EU level. In the EESC’s view, lack of alignment of the recognition of occupational diseases may lead to discrimination against some companies and workers in the EU, whose countries have either higher or lower levels of recognition of occupational diseases. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | Furthermore, there is a need for greater transparency among Member States in sharing statistical information on work-related diseases and infections. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | The EESC suggests that relevant EU bodies should, together with Eurostat and the Member States, work towards establishing a sound system of information and data collection, building on the pilot project on European Occupational Diseases Statistics. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | Given that education and prevention are a key part of investment in OSH, the EESC draws particular attention to health and safety trade union representatives or other volunteers. It is important to promote the role of workplace health and safety committees and workers’ representatives and, if required, to improve the legal protection of workers’ representatives. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | The EESC has previously recommended that relevant OSH, prevention, enforcement and research bodies should have sufficient financial and human resources to carry out their duties (13). |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | The EESC is concerned that access to OSH is not evenly distributed throughout the EU Member States, and therefore neither are the benefits of OSH investment. Different initiatives should take into account dimensions such as gender, ethnicity, age or disability and link the OSH strategy with the debate on equality. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | The EESC underlines that OSH does not only provide benefits for the EU economy but is also a fundamental labour right. Promoting OSH standards should not be limited to the Member States but cover all countries worldwide, in particular those with which the EU has ratified trade agreements or has other forms of cooperation such as with countries from the Eastern Partnership or the Southern Neighbourhood. European investments should favour companies which have sound OSH policies and endorse OSH in their supply chains. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

4.   Importance of investments in OSH for SMEs

| 4.1. | SMEs face a range of intervention costs for OSH: initial investments (purchasing new equipment, installation, adaptation, training), recurring costs (maintenance, recurring equipment, training costs in terms of money and time), and costs of OSH services. Most SMEs have limited economic and managerial resources, and it is therefore necessary to provide low-cost or free OSH programmes and tools in order to reach a larger proportion of SMEs. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The policies must be tailored to the needs, business setting and context of SMEs including family farms, at sectoral, subsectoral and work process level. Relevant business organisations and social partners can help tailor them to the needs and requirements of SMEs. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | SMEs need more support to provide sound OSH. This includes: |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.3.1 | Financial support (financial incentives), tailored guidance and advice; |
| --- | --- |

4.3.1

| 4.3.2 | Support from labour inspectors, who should play a more pertinent role in raising awareness about OSH legislation and providing support and advice; |
| --- | --- |

4.3.2

| 4.3.3 | Tailored, practical and cost-effective tools; |
| --- | --- |

4.3.3

| 4.3.4 | Raising awareness among employers and workers, the exchange of good practices; |
| --- | --- |

4.3.4

| 4.3.5 | The ‘think small first’ principle, the provisions of Small Business Act and functions of the SME-Envoys should be applied consistently, while avoiding unnecessary/disproportionate burdens with a view to improving compliance; |
| --- | --- |

4.3.5

| 4.3.6 | Better cooperation and partnerships to support SMEs, especially at regional/local level with all relevant stakeholders such as the social partners, insurance bodies and public authorities. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.6

| 4.4. | Intermediaries of various kinds are often preferred by SMEs. However, face-to-face meetings are also expensive, and it is therefore crucial to find cost-efficient solutions. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | EU-OSHA and the Enterprise Europe Network can offer practical support — such as free user-friendly tools and information and advice — and should continue to extend the special programmes in this area. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

5.   Specific comments

| 5.1. | Psychosocial risks are among the most challenging and growing health and safety concerns at work and even SME entrepreneurs experience high levels of stress (14). Although tackling stress and psychosocial risks are costly, research shows that ignoring them are more expensive for businesses and economy. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The EESC stresses the need for further discussion and research on burnout in order to put in place relevant strategies to prevent it. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | Similarly, the EU needs to focus on reducing presenteeism. Presenteeism may not only increase the likelihood of health impairments, it may also reduce workers’ productivity (15). |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | Although men and women work in the same workplaces they can face different risks due to different biology, demands or exposure. Therefore, the EESC calls for a more ‘gender sensitive’ approach to investment in OSH. In particular, significant attention should be given to preventing MSDs and cancer among women. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | In accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and in line with previous opinions, the EESC calls for greater attention to people with disabilities, in all its forms. The EESC stresses that the link between disability and the labour market does not only concern measures to ensure the right to access such as quotas, incentives or tax breaks but also a greater commitment to the prevention of health risks for disabled people in all kinds of working environments. Investments in OSH should be tailored to the needs of disabled people. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | Special attention should be given to mobile, migrant and seasonal workers, as due to language and other barriers they are more likely to have an accident at work. Many of them, particularly irregular migrants, are not adequately covered by social systems and data reporting. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | The EESC notes that in the specific context of rapid ageing of the European population, OSH is a key issue, in which the EU has an important role to play. For example, older workers have a much higher risk of fatal work accidents than younger workers although they are less subject to non-fatal accidents at work. In addition, they experience a much higher burden of long-latency diseases such as work-related cancer or circulatory diseases. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

| 5.8. | Companies with a supplier network have greater capacity to invest in OSH (16), and have a responsibility to promote and invest in OSH to provide a safe and healthy environment for all workers in their supply chains. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

| 5.9. | Public bodies must offer free high-quality IT tools to enterprises to help assess occupational risks. These tools must also be simple and practical and meet the expectations of enterprises precisely. They should be integrated into broader initiatives to mobilise the sectors concerned and be accompanied by campaigns promoting risk prevention efforts. Involvement of the social partners and workers is indispensable. Businesses should be able to make use of stakeholders as OSH experts. |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

| 5.10. | The EESC notes that innovations in the field of tackling cancer could bring great benefits to patients, but they also pose challenges to current OSH standards. Scrutiny of adherence to high levels of OSH in the field of nuclear medicine and cytotoxic drugs across hospitals is essential to realise the potential of cancer therapies without endangering healthcare professionals. |
| --- | --- |

5.10.

| 5.11. | Knowledge is increasing about some genetic conditions that predispose people to malignant tumours, while the type and time of onset of the cancer that may or will actually develop are unknown. On the other hand, an increasing number of environmental, work-related circumstances are known to be carcinogenic. A combination of these two factors most likely increases the risk of developing cancer. It is useful for workers to know what type of malignant DNA structure they may have, while responsible employers should inform workers about the possible risk factors present at their workplace. |
| --- | --- |

5.11.

| 5.12. | Sound return-to-work policies and practices need to be promoted to keep workplaces sustainable. For workers wishing to return to work, appropriate rehabilitation processes should be put in place, including e.g. adaptation of their workplace. |
| --- | --- |

5.12.

| 5.13. | The EESC firmly believes that climate change will require OSH strategies to be adjusted. Increasing temperatures or unusual natural disasters will be a real threat to the working conditions of the EU population. |
| --- | --- |

5.13.

6.   Digitalisation and OSH

| 6.1. | The process of digitalisation could bring many positive developments in the area of OSH. For instance, robots may be used for high-risk work in mining or construction, or IT technologies will improve the way OSH surveillance is organised. Digitalisation can also ease psychosocial risks caused by monotonous work, while older or disabled people could benefit from a digital assistance system. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | On the other hand, the EESC is concerned about the negative effects of digitalisation on OSH and workers. Significant risks have already been demonstrated across digitalised workplaces, such as work intensification, stress and psychosocial violence (17). Furthermore, in the future we can expect to see accidents caused by Artificial Intelligence, which we need to prevent. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | Digitalisation has also increased the ability to be constantly connected to work through emails and other forms of communication, which can blur the borders between private and professional lives and make people more dependent on IT technology. In particular, younger people are more likely to be dependent on IT technology and social platforms, which can have adverse implications for their health and safety. The EESC calls on the social partners to develop adequate measures to protect workers’ health from these risks, taking account of the need to ensure work-life balance. Civil dialogue also has an important role to play in this regard. One example of those measures is the ‘Right to Disconnect’, recently introduced in France, and applied in some sector and enterprise-level agreements in certain EU countries. |
| --- | --- |

6.3.

| 6.4. | The EESC is very concerned that some new forms of work created by digitalisation (such as work platforms or the gig economy) could fall outside the scope of OSH regulations, which were designed to protect workers in standard forms of employment. This development could lead to the unacceptable situation whereby some new type of workers such as platform workers in Europe are not adequately protected. All workers in the EU should come under the protection of OSH legislation. In that respect, the EESC agrees with the Council Conclusions (18) which stated that ‘new forms of work should not reduce or detract from the employer’s responsibility to ensure OSH of workers in every aspect related to that work’. |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

Brussels, 26 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/value-occupational-safety-and-health-and-societal-costs-work/view

1

(2)  Communication on an EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020 (COM(2014) 332 final).

2

(3)  Eurostat (2015), Accidents at work statistics (ESAW): http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hsw_mi07&lang=en

3

Accidents at work statistics (ESAW)

(4)  EU Labour Force Survey 2013.

4

(5)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/international-comparison-cost-work-related-accidents-and

5

(6)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/contexts-and-arrangements-occupational-safety-and-health-micro

6

(7)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/reports/the-business-case-for-safety-and-health-cost-benefit-analyses-of-interventions-in-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises, EU-OSHA report from July 2019.

7

(8)  Murphy, R. and Cooper, C. (2000), Healthy and productive work.

8

Healthy and productive work

(9)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/value-occupational-safety-and-health-and-societal-costs-work/view

9

(10)  Such an example is Responsible Care® which is the ethical framework of the European and Global Chemicals Industry for improving safe production, handling and use of chemicals across the supply chains.

10

(11)  See Annex.

11

(12)  Eurofound (2019), Working conditions and workers’ health, Publications Office of the European Union, p. 51.

12

(13)  OJ C 288, 31.8.2017, p. 56.

13

(14)  European Working Condition Survey 2015.

14

(15)  Eurofound (2019), Working conditions and workers’ health, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

15

Working conditions and workers’ health

(16)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/literature_reviews/promoting-occupational-safety-and-health-through-the-supply-chain/view

16

(17)  ILO (2019) The Threat of Physical and Psychosocial Violence and Harassment in Digitalized Work.

17

The Threat of Physical and Psychosocial Violence and Harassment in Digitalized Work.

(18)  EPSCO 9686/19, 13 June 2019.

18

---

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure):

Point 3.12

Amend as follows:

Given that education and prevention are a key part of investment in OSH, the EESC draws particular attention to health and safety trade union representatives or other volunteers. It is important to promote the role of workplace health and safety committees and workers’ representatives and, if required at the national level, to improve the legal protection of workers’ representatives with adequate legal protection for them.

Reason

To be given orally.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 86 |
| Abstentions | : | 10 |

In favour

:

50

Against

:

86

Abstentions

:

10

Point 5.12

Amend as follows:

Optimising the rehabilitation and return to work of workers affected by cancer is therefore important both to improve the well-being of this vulnerable group and to reduce the societal and financial impacts of cancer on European enterprises and society at large. Sound return-to-work policies, instruments, interventions and practices need to be promoted to keep workplaces sustainable. For workers wishing to return to work, appropriate rehabilitation processes should be put in place, including e.g. adaptation of their workplace.‘The facilitators for implementing successful programmes are the legal possibilities of offering part-time work and incentives for the employer to support’ (1)

  the rehabilitation and return to work after a cancer diagnosis. SMEs should receive help in making work requirements more flexible, together with support and information in this area.

Reason

The impact of cancer on a person’s daily life is immediate and striking. The diagnosis usually results in long periods of sickness absence because of medical treatments and functional restrictions. Although, in general, cancer management has improved over the past three decades and the overall number of people who survive cancer is increasing, many cancer survivors still face long-term symptoms and impairments after their treatment ends, such as fatigue. These symptoms and impairments can affect the work ability of cancer survivors, making it more difficult to remain in or re-enter the job market. Research shows that most cancer survivors are able to remain in or return to work, but that overall the risk of unemployment among cancer survivors is 1,4 times higher than among people who have never been diagnosed with cancer. Instruments, practices, policies and interventions aimed at the promotion of rehabilitation and return to work are clearly important.

Companies with fewer than 250 workers (SMEs) lack information and resources for the rehabilitation and return to work of workers affected by cancer strategies or programmes, and support and education for such enterprises are needed. Grouping SMEs for OSHA information/assistance is valuable because SMEs could learn from each other and together it is easier to access this kind of help from occupational health services. However, stakeholders also see the small size of SMEs as an advantage, as such companies provide a more family-like atmosphere, which may create a more supportive environment for workers with cancer returning to work.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 49 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 106 |
| Abstentions | : | 10 |

In favour

:

49

Against

:

106

Abstentions

:

10

---

(1)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/executive-summary-rehabilitation-and-return-work-after-cancer-0

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/60

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The changing world of work and the longevity/ageing population — The preconditions for ageing workers to stay active in the new world of work’

(exploratory opinion requested by the Finnish Presidency)

(2020/C 14/08)

Rapporteur: Irinel Eduard FLORIA

Co-rapporteur: Vladimír BÁLEŠ

| Request from the Finnish Presidency of the Council | Letter, 7.2.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
  Exploratory opinion |
| Bureau decision | 19.2.2019 |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 10.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 131/0/3 |

Request from the Finnish Presidency of the Council

Letter, 7.2.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Exploratory opinion

Bureau decision

19.2.2019

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

10.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

131/0/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The Committee welcomes the Finnish Presidency's focus on the economy of the well-being of people, including the elderly, and believes that this is a positive step towards achieving a better balance between demographic trends, the labour market and society. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | Member States have acknowledged the issue of the ageing population and have taken certain measures in recent years, but these measures appear to be isolated and their impact has not been gauged. Furthermore, the impact of technological advances and the changing nature of work bring increased complexity to the issue. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The social partners, in cooperation with governments, are key to facilitating the implementation of measures at different levels. Civil society and the European social partners should play an important role in encouraging longer active working lives. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | Policy action and funding at EU level could help overcome these barriers, but will need to take account of country differences in terms of demography, the economy, employment and working conditions. Member States should make use of European funds to finance measures, while the responsibility for supporting longer working lives should be shared between governments, businesses and individuals. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The Commission supports the Member States' actions in effectively addressing the ageing challenge through a variety of initiatives and programmes (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | Comprehensive strategies focused on developing national policies for active ageing are required because the demographic and employment challenges can only be tackled holistically. The specific recommendations proposed for tackling the challenges of active ageing are as follows: |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.6.1. | Strengthen social dialogue and the involvement of all stakeholders in developing integrated strategies and national policies for active ageing; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.1.

| 1.6.2. | Develop employment and skills through lifelong learning; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.2.

| 1.6.3. | Promote dynamic careers and dynamic work; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.3.

| 1.6.4. | Stimulate senior entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.4.

| 1.6.5. | Fight all types of discrimination, particularly age and gender discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.5.

| 1.6.6. | Implement knowledge transfer/sharing initiatives; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.6.

| 1.6.7. | Implement flexible work arrangements and better working conditions; |
| --- | --- |

1.6.7.

| 1.6.8. | Promote solidarity between generations and change attitudes towards ageing. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.8.

| 1.7. | All measures should be constantly monitored and the impact on older workers' participation in the labour market should be properly evaluated. Having a clear picture of the impact of such measures would further encourage Member States to disseminate and share best practices on active ageing. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

2.   Context

| 2.1. | The EU's most important contribution in the field of employment of older workers is the Equal Treatment Directive (2), which prohibits age discrimination in most areas of employment. However, the directive has not been effective in eliminating hidden age discrimination in the labour market, which is a phenomenon that discourages many older people from even looking for work. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | At European level, the Europe 2020 Strategy includes a strong focus on job creation and sets the objective of reaching full employment by 2020. While the Europe 2020 Strategy is approaching its end, it did not focus strongly on older workers as a particular category. The European Pillar of Social Rights changed the approach to active ageing, as it mentions many aspects important to enabling the employment of older workers. However, the Pillar of Social Rights lacks an implementation mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | As part of the next long-term EU budget, the Commission has proposed the Digital Europe programme, an EU programme focused on building the EU's strategic digital capacities and on facilitating the wide deployment of digital technologies. This programme would shape and support the digital transformation of Europe's society and economy and would ensure that European citizens have the necessary skills to face the digital transformation. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The EU's population structure is changing and will be ‘turning increasingly grey’ in the coming decades. The total EU population will increase from 511 million in 2016 to 520 million in 2070, but the working-age population (15-64) (3) will decrease significantly from 333 million in 2016 to 292 million in 2070 due to changes in fertility, life expectancy and migration flow dynamics (4). The total labour supply for those aged 20 to 64 is projected to fall significantly after 2070, by 9,6 % in the EU. The rise in the proportion of older people in the EU's population should not unthinkingly be equated with a corresponding increase in the burden on social security systems, for instance reaching the conclusion that existing pension schemes will not be viable in the future. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The key factor in financing social security systems is not the demographic dependency ratio, but rather the economic dependency ratio. The growth in aggregate labour productivity is another key factor, making it possible to increase the size of the ‘cake’ to be shared not only between workers but also between workers and non-workers (5). |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The demographic challenge can also be seen as an opportunity to enhance the competitiveness of the European economy. As new markets for goods and services will appear due to the ageing population, companies should incorporate this phenomenon into their innovation strategies to deliver innovative services and products (silver economy). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | For the EU as a whole, life expectancy at birth is expected to increase by 7,8 years for men and 6,6 years for women by 2070 (6). The positive evolution of people living longer and healthier lives is not, however, aligned with the duration of their professional lives. Lack of workplaces and appropriate active labour market policies and measures, health issues, lack of relevant skills, as well as unsatisfactory work-life balance are important reasons for a premature departure from the labour market. At the same time, exposure to age discrimination or negative stereotyping influences early labour market exit decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | The gender perspective on older workers' jobs and working conditions should be considered. Over the past decade, the ‘semiretirement’ trend has become still more widespread among women than men (7). |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | Due to the heavy strain put on active individuals, a stigma might form towards the elderly, who may be perceived as a burden. However, this stigma is not limited to social groups; it also extends to some employers who might perceive the aged workforce and retired population as lacking in energy, hard to train and ‘unemployable’. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | It is essential to combat discrimination and negative value judgments against older workers. Older workers are not necessarily less productive than younger ones, but they do have different abilities and competences, with their main strengths being professional knowledge and experience. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

3.   General comments regarding the use of technology by the elderly

| 3.1. | The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the rapid development and integration of new technologies in society and industry are currently having an unprecedented impact on the world of work. A variety of manual and cognitive tasks are increasingly being performed by machines and algorithms, or in some cases even automated completely. At the same time, the inclusion of these new technologies in business models across different industries is giving rise to many new jobs and redefining the tasks of many more. These developments point to the fact that global and regional labour markets will inevitably undergo major transformation in the coming years. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Technological advances have a significant impact on the economy in general, and they put considerable pressure on the labour market, since employers will be able to replace some of their current workforce with technology (where applicable), retraining some people for new jobs and seeking a highly skilled workforce able to implement, use and adapt technologies. In this context, the elderly workforce will become even more vulnerable. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | Embracing technology allows seniors to become part of the online world, taking advantage of all that it offers. In the EU, 87 % of people aged 75 years and over have never been online (8). Senior citizens might not be familiar with terms and concepts related to digital media, and some of them often face physical challenges such as vision or hearing impairments, as well as a lack of understanding of or familiarity with technology. E-exclusion can be one of the major obstacles to increasing the rate of employment among older people and that specific initiatives should be taken to develop older peoples' ICT skills (9). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

4.   Measures to promote active ageing taken by the Member States

| 4.1. | Several European countries have developed strategies containing policy measures intended to encourage longer working lives (10). As these national initiatives are typically developed in consultation with the social partners and provide multi-annual frameworks for anticipating and managing demographic ageing, they could be instrumental in the development and implementation of an integrated approach to active ageing. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Research conducted by Eurofound (11) shows that national strategies for active ageing exist in a number of countries and have contributed to increased awareness of the demographic challenges. A review of the national reports suggests that the countries' active labour market policies have contributed to promoting the skills development and employment of older workers, although little or no information is available on the quality and sustainability of these jobs. Most initiatives have focused so far on remedial measures, such as providing wage subsidies for hiring older workers, raising the average retirement age and limiting early retirement. Such measures on their own need careful consideration and analysis of the economic and social impact and may be insufficient to allow older workers to successfully extend their working careers. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | In terms of effectiveness, although generally considered to be successful, most of these measures and programmes have not been formally evaluated. In this context, the Committee stresses the importance of analysing and evaluating the impact of the measures on the participation of older workers in the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

5.   Specific recommendations for tackling the challenges of active ageing

| 5.1. | A number of measures identified that would support an active ageing agenda within the European Union are set out below: |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | Strengthen social dialogue and the involvement of all stakeholders in developing integrated strategies and national policies for active ageing. In order to encourage a longer active working life, governments, employers, NGOs, trade unions and workers themselves must pool responsibility and efforts. Stakeholders at all levels have to play a key role in developing, negotiating, implementing and evaluating measures to adapt the world of work in order to allow elderly people to remain active for longer in the labour market. Nevertheless, this should not put more pressure on older people or cause distress to people who are no longer capable of working. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | Improving employability and skills development through lifelong learning is a key policy tool to keep older workers in the labour market, since workers' participation in training declines as they get older and it is more difficult for older workers who become unemployed to find a new job. Lifelong learning and adult education have proven to enhance not only economic participation, but also quality of life, health and adaptability. Lifelong learning and active ageing should not only address present-day older workforces; targeted initiatives should also address young people, students and even children, in order to create awareness about the future of the workplace and the importance of a lifelong learning mindset. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.3.1. | Improving employability and skills development through lifelong learning could be achieved by: |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.

| 5.3.1.1. | Safeguarding public financing and allocating necessary resources for a proactive labour market policy to reintegrate older unemployed people into the labour market, including advice and support for job-seekers, and reduce the risk of long-term unemployment; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.1.

| 5.3.1.2. | Strengthening the role of public employment services to provide a full range of advisory and support services for job-seekers, as well as tailor-made placement support (e.g. state-subsidised employment, transitional support and guidance and non-profit social projects) and preventive and rehabilitation measures to support long-term reintegration; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.2.

| 5.3.1.3. | Supporting the introduction of measures by companies, through collective agreements or by law, to achieve higher participation of older people in lifelong training (e.g. incentives to remedy the low level of participation in in-service training, especially among underskilled workers, provision of the necessary funding to improve the skills of the over-45 age group and improving the legal framework for training leave); |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.3.

| 5.3.1.4. | Strengthening the role of NGOs in supporting adult learning programmes and allowing them to become partners with governments to implement large-scale educational initiatives for older people; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.4.

| 5.3.1.5. | Increasing older people's access to digital technology, including by adapting equipment and software to their specific needs (e.g. multilingual software), as well as providing access to the internet as a right to a universal service based on the criterion of affordability; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.5.

| 5.3.1.6. | Offering more training opportunities, making use of the European Social Fund and focused on developing transversal skills, ‘learning to learn’ abilities and ICT skills for the over-45 age group; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.6.

| 5.3.1.7. | Recognising new skills, acquired formally or informally, by means of certificates and qualifications; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.7.

| 5.3.1.8. | Conducting awareness-raising campaigns targeting young people, students and children on the importance of a lifelong learning mindset in the context of the future of work and active ageing; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.8.

| 5.3.1.9. | Developing the capability of the EU Member States to gather, analyse and interpret statistical data regarding labour market trends, older workers' employment rate and people's skills gap, as well as other changes in society; |
| --- | --- |

5.3.1.9.

| 5.4. | Promoting dynamic careers and dynamic work should be another focus area. Lifelong learning and increased life expectancy will mean that over their lifetimes, people will embark on more than one career. It is expected that people will work throughout their lives with multiple sabbaticals and gap years for learning, retraining and travelling. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.4.1. | In this respect, the main initiatives for promoting dynamic careers and dynamic work should include: |
| --- | --- |

5.4.1.

| 5.4.1.1. | Anticipating emerging jobs and careers to which workers could transition during their lifetime; |
| --- | --- |

5.4.1.1.

| 5.4.1.2. | Improving the career counselling offered by public employment services to guide workers through the challenging process of continuous upskilling and reskilling; |
| --- | --- |

5.4.1.2.

| 5.4.1.3. | Giving tax incentives for businesses to invest in lifelong training and development programmes for employees as well as in attracting and hiring older employees; |
| --- | --- |

5.4.1.3.

| 5.4.1.4. | Organising job and career fairs, ‘over-50 discussion groups’ and creating job centres targeting older people; |
| --- | --- |

5.4.1.4.

| 5.4.1.5. | Creating working groups of older workers to develop strategies for attracting and retaining experienced older people in the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.1.5.

| 5.5. | Promote entrepreneurship among older people, which is an effective way of prolonging working life, reducing unemployment among older people and enhancing the social inclusion of older people. Many older people may wish to remain economically active and choose self-employment as an alternative to organised employment. Senior entrepreneurship is in fact a constant concern for the European Commission, which has several initiatives in this area (12). |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.5.1. | Such entrepreneurship could be stimulated through policies focused on the following aspects: |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.

| 5.5.1.1. | Providing training, mentoring and counselling in order to develop entrepreneurship skills and encouraging seniors who want to start a business and support those who are already active in this field; |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.1.

| 5.5.1.2. | Supporting the creation of business networks by providing both physical and virtual places where senior entrepreneurs, institutions and young entrepreneurs meet and explore potential ways of collaborating and supporting intergenerational exchanges; |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.2.

| 5.5.1.3. | Ensuring access to financing schemes for starting a business and guaranteeing loans with lower interest rates for starting up businesses; |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.3.

| 5.5.1.4. | Establishing European support programmes to stimulate senior entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.4.

| 5.5.1.5. | Implementing awareness campaigns on the benefits of senior entrepreneurship for society and the economy in general, but also for older people themselves. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.1.5.

| 5.6. | Older workers are increasingly perceived by employers as loyal, experienced, dependable and highly attached to their work. However, there is still the prejudice that older workers are not interested in developing their skills and are not open to change. The preconception that older workers are poorer performers than young workers has been found to be untrue and when they are less productive this is generally because they have not been offered training. Even though older workers may have less physical or cognitive abilities, they compensate by tapping into their years of experience. Similar research has shown that women are slightly more likely than men to face age discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.6.1. | Solutions fighting age and gender discrimination should cover the following aspects: |
| --- | --- |

5.6.1.

| 5.6.1.1. | Adopting tighter legislation combating all forms of discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

5.6.1.1.

| 5.6.1.2. | Conducting research to establish whether the low employment rate among older people is an effect of discrimination in the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

5.6.1.2.

| 5.6.1.3. | Planning initiatives and campaigns on upskilling women to facilitate their return to work after a break; |
| --- | --- |

5.6.1.3.

| 5.6.1.4. | Promoting recruitment based on the skills needed and selection on merit; |
| --- | --- |

5.6.1.4.

| 5.6.1.5. | Basing redundancy decisions on objective, job-related criteria to ensure the skills needed are retained and ensuring that retirement schemes are applied fairly. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.1.5.

| 5.7. | Implementing knowledge sharing/transfer initiatives should be another focus area. In the context of demographic change, identifying effective ways to transfer knowhow and experience between generations is another challenge. On the one hand, knowledge transfer from younger to older generations plays a key role in fostering intergenerational understanding and re-skilling older workers. On the other hand, the transfer from older to younger generations can preserve older workers' skills and help older workers and retired people maintain a sense of meaning and purpose, preventing their social exclusion. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

| 5.7.1. | Knowledge sharing/transfer initiatives should cover the following aspects: |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.

| 5.7.1.1. | Encouraging ongoing mentoring and reverse mentoring relationships between older and younger workers, focused on IT and digital skills, transversal skills and customer relations skills, as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.1.

| 5.7.1.2. | Putting in place training programmes with older workers as training instructors, such as on-the-job training, classroom learning, simulators and e-learning, supported by skills practice by younger workers and feedback; |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.2.

| 5.7.1.3. | Creating knowledge networks and communities of practice; |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.3.

| 5.7.1.4. | Using knowledge management systems to document and preserve the knowledge of older workers; |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.4.

| 5.7.1.5. | Implementing awareness-raising measures with the aim of acknowledging older workers' experience and promoting the transfer to younger workers of the professional skills built up over their working lives, including different possibilities regarding the balance between ages within teams; |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.5.

| 5.7.1.6. | Collaborating with education institutions or public employment services to ease transitions into and within the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.1.6.

| 5.8. | Encouraging older workers to remain active in the labour market can also be done by providing flexible work arrangements and better working conditions to support their work-life balance. Nevertheless, flexible work arrangements should be implemented with caution, in order to prevent potential abuse. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

| 5.8.1. | These issues should be tackled through social dialogue and collective bargaining at the level closest to the situation in question. The right to return to the original working pattern should be guaranteed and these types of arrangements should take into consideration the needs of both employers and employees (13). |
| --- | --- |

5.8.1.

| 5.8.2. | If the participation rate of elderly people is to be raised, then it is necessary to ensure that people can work longer. The employment rate of older people cannot be increased just by keeping them healthy and fit for work and making their labour attractive to employers. The actual jobs available for older people must become more attractive. Job quality therefore plays a key role in whether older workers return to the labour market or stay there. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.2.

| 5.8.3. | Implementing flexible work arrangements and better working conditions could be achieved by: |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.

| 5.8.3.1. | Promoting the development of health-enhancing working time models that are negotiated between the social partners at sectoral and company level and applying them over the entire career span (e.g. sabbaticals, training leave) to support work-life balance; |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.1.

| 5.8.3.2. | Introducing flexible arrangements for older workers, such as flexible working hours, shorter working weeks, teleworking, part-time work and a programme of gradual cessation of work; |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.2.

| 5.8.3.3. | Establishing a European support programme for the use of flexible arrangements for older workers by employers; |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.3.

| 5.8.3.4. | Ensuring that employers who use flexible work arrangements for older workers in certain working positions have a voice in policy making; |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.4.

| 5.8.3.5. | Adapting current health and care systems to meet future demands. National policies and social partner initiatives have focused on promoting the concept of ‘work ability’; |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.5.

| 5.8.3.6. | Adapting jobs, working conditions and working environment to accommodate workers of different ages (especially in the case of hazardous jobs), while bearing in mind that the demanding nature of work may impose limitations and ensure these limitations are properly monitored and managed; |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.6.

| 5.8.3.7. | Introducing effective prevention strategies and risk assessment, taking into account existing legislative obligations. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.3.7.

| 5.9. | Promoting solidarity between generations and changing attitudes towards ageing could be achieved in the following ways: |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

| 5.9.1. | Developing and implementing information and awareness-raising campaigns on demographic changes and anti-discriminatory practices with the aim of promoting a change in attitude towards the older workforce and the importance of staying in work for longer. These campaigns should be supported by all stakeholders, including businesses, government offices, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

5.9.1.

| 5.9.2. | Promoting the concept of the ‘silver economy’ and the associated opportunities and benefits. |
| --- | --- |

5.9.2.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  2012 European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (evaluation report), European Commission, 2014.

1

2012 European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (evaluation report)

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23).

2

(3)  https://data.oecd.org/pop/working-age-population.htm

3

(4)  The 2018 Ageing Report Economic & Budgetary Projections for the 28 EU Member States (2016-2070), European Commission, 2018.

4

The 2018 Ageing Report Economic & Budgetary Projections for the 28 EU Member States (2016-2070)

(5)  Future of work: a lifecycle approach, European Commission, 2018.

5

Future of work: a lifecycle approach

(6)  The 2018 Ageing Report Economic & Budgetary Projections for the 28 EU Member States (2016-2070), European Commission, 2018.

6

The 2018 Ageing Report Economic & Budgetary Projections for the 28 EU Member States (2016-2070)

(7)  A gender perspective on older workers' employment and working conditions, Patricia Vendramin & Gerard Valenduc, 2014.

7

A gender perspective on older workers' employment and working conditions

(8)  Digital economy and society statistics – households and individuals, Eurostat, 2018.

8

Digital economy and society statistics – households and individuals

(9)  OJ C 228, 22.9.2009, p. 24.

9

(10)  https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/ageingandemploymentpolicies.htm

10

(11)  Role of governments and social partners in keeping older workers in the labour market, Eurofound, 2013.

11

Role of governments and social partners in keeping older workers in the labour market

(12)  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/promoting-entrepreneurship/we-work-for/seniors_en

12

(13)  OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 44.

13

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/67

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social dimension of fisheries’

(exploratory opinion)

(2020/C 14/09)

Rapporteur: Gabriel SARRÓ IPARRAGUIRRE

| Referral | European Commission, 27.3.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Plenary Assembly Decision | 14.5.2019 |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted in section | 4.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 137/0/1 |

Referral

European Commission, 27.3.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Plenary Assembly Decision

14.5.2019

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted in section

4.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

137/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | Sustainable competitiveness needs to take into consideration two new dimensions — environmental and social (1). The EESC considers it crucial that fisheries policies be drawn up not only from an environmental perspective, but also from one that takes account of the overall importance of fishing, its impact on the rest of the economy and its role in maritime safety, in supplying healthy and wholesome food and in enabling populations to remain in vulnerable areas (2). The EESC underlines the importance of small-scale fisheries and the need to ensure a conductive legislative environment that enables this sector to act sustainably and to provide jobs which are especially important in many coastal communities. The role of women and the importance of their contribution has to be better recognised, in seeking to achieve gender equality. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC recommends ensuring legislative consistency between measures to conserve marine biological resources and standards of maritime safety and working conditions by means of impact evaluations concerning: (i) employment, (ii) pay, (iii) construction and seaworthiness of fishing vessels, (iv) decent living and working conditions, and (v) skills acquisition and certification for fishermen. It also calls for closer coordination between the various public administrations at all levels in the interests of the comprehensive management of the sector. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC urges the European Commission to include in its work programme a proposal for a directive to incorporate the International Maritime Organization’s International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel into the acquis communautaire in order to guarantee harmonised training and certification standards and enhanced maritime safety in the fishing sector. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC calls on all social actors and institutions to promote a better image of fishing as a career and employment option for both qualified personnel and crew members., and to address the social deprivation and poor living and working conditions prevalent in many fishing communities and port towns. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC urges the European Commission to table the necessary amendments to the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation so that, where improvements in living conditions and safety on board fishing vessels are concerned, gross tonnage and power are not taken into account for the purposes of calculating fishing capacity (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC calls on the Member States to ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No 188, providing the necessary resources for it to be transposed into national legislation and applied effectively and, where appropriate, delegating inspection and document issuance functions to classification societies, given the current problems in coordinating these functions in some countries. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC would remind the Member States of the importance of transposing Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 (4), which incorporates ILO Convention No 188 into the Union’s acquis, into their national law before 15 November 2019. It similarly urges the Commission to present, as quickly as possible, a proposal for an accompanying directive to include control and enforcement provisions, as was done for the maritime transport sector, in order to establish a harmonised inspections system. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC recommends greater consistency between fisheries and trade policies. As a result, countries engaged in illegal fishing and serious labour abuses should not enjoy preferential access to the EU market. In this regard, tariff preference tools, such as autonomous quotas, should not be granted for products from these countries either. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

2.   Introduction and background

| 2.1. | Fishing is a traditional occupation with deep cultural roots, and is crucial in many EU coastal communities as a vital source of food and nutrition, jobs, trade, economic well-being and leisure. There is no denying of the urgency of regenerating fish stocks and environmental resources, but, as pointed out by the EESC in previous opinions, for many years international efforts have been entirely focused on ensuring environmental sustainability, paying scant attention to the economic aspect and even less to the social and maritime safety aspects. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | In spite of continuous technical progress, however, fishing is still seen as a high-risk activity due to factors such as weather conditions, its physical demands and a constantly-changing working environment. This view is backed by the statistics, which confirm that fishing is a dangerous occupation compared to other sectors. In the EU specifically, figures published by EMSA (5) on accidents in the maritime sector reveal that nearly 120 fishing vessels were lost at sea between 2011 and 2017. 2016 was a particularly disastrous year with as many as 525 marine casualties and incidents reported, entailing 55 fatalities among fishermen at sea, 30 very serious casualties, 184 injured and 14 vessels were lost. This shows that large numbers of fishermen continue to be seriously injured or even lose their lives while working at sea to earn a living and serve society by supplying food. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The EMSA report nevertheless points out that 63 % of accidents that took place on board fishing vessels were attributed to human error, in the majority of cases (65 %) in the course of fishing operations. These data highlight the importance of training and skills-building for crews in the fisheries sector as a whole, not only for vessels with a length of 24 metres or more. Self-employed fishers and owners of small vessels that work alongside their crew should also have access to training, not only as craftsmen but also as business managers. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Total full-time equivalent employment in the EU fleet has fallen by 1,3 % in each half-year since 2008 (6), partly as a result of the reduction in fleet capacity. Indeed, in spite of EU enlargements, the number of EU vessels in 2018 stood at 81 644, i.e. 22 203 fewer than in 1996, and of these only 65 400 are still operating. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | Notwithstanding the above, average full-time equivalent pay has risen by 2,7 % each year. In terms of economic performance, the EU fleet continues to make record net profits, amounting to EUR 1 300 million in 2016 (7). These good results are mainly due to competitive first sales prices, low fuel prices, the improved operational efficiency of vessels and the growth of a number of significant stocks. It should however be pointed out that the data suggest that the fleets of five Member States experienced net losses in 2016 (Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Lithuania and Malta). The data also indicate that in 2016 the small-scale coastal fleet generated net profits of EUR 132 million, a significant improvement on 2015 (+ 36 %). This fleet segment however displayed net losses in seven Member States in 2016. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | In spite of this positive trend, together with favourable social agreements and efforts to improve pay, on-board living conditions, comfort and telecommunications, fishing remains unattractive to younger people. This is sometimes because the job involves working in a hostile natural environment, sometimes because crew cannot balance work and family life, and sometimes because there has been a failure to publicise the improvements brought about: in any case, it is clear that even during the recent economic crisis, it has not been possible to attract younger workers to the sector. The fishing profession is not taken up by many would-be entrepreneurs to start their own business; in some countries, the owner of a small vessel does not have access to early retirement, even if he works under the same hard conditions as his employees. Social issues are not only limited to on-board fishing conditions. Living conditions onshore also have to be improved. Some studies have shown that fishing communities and port towns often face a high level of poverty, lack of public services, and poor living conditions. Likewise, the role of women, especially collaborative spouses, in the sector’s prosperity is underestimated. More research is needed on these social aspects. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | For all these reasons, the Committee urges the European Commission to promote, propose and publicise the measures needed not only to ensure maritime safety and decent working conditions, but also to attract the skilled workforce that is crucial to the survival and growth of a sector that is strategic for Europe. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

3.   General observations

| 3.1. | The EESC calls for a responsible and comprehensive common fisheries policy. Marine biological resource conservation measures must consequently be coherent, and never run counter to decent working and living conditions on board fishing vessels, safety at sea or the training and skills acquisition of fishermen. It may not be possible to eliminate the inherent dangers of the sea, but it certainly is possible to reduce the risks of accidents and improve on-board conditions if the competent authorities display the necessary commitment to regulating the fishing industry and making it safer. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC points out to all the Member States and to the European Union that they are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which places an obligation on flag States to ensure safety at sea through their domestic legislation, based on internationally-agreed standards, although flag States can of course also introduce their own measures to ensure safety at sea. While the Member States have taken their obligation to regulate the social dimension of the maritime transport sector very seriously (in part due to the legislative work accomplished by the EU), the rate of ratification of international conventions on safety and working conditions in sea fishing remains very low. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | For this reason, the Committee highlights the need to continue promoting the application of existing international legislative instruments, such as ILO Convention No 188, which governs living and working conditions on board fishing vessels, the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing, the Cape Town Agreement for the safety of fishing vessels and the 1995 IMO International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC highlights the importance of ensuring social responsibility throughout the fisheries sector value chain, and points to the European social dialogue model as a benchmark for guaranteeing decent working conditions in the fisheries sector. In this regard, it congratulates the European social partners who, under the terms of Article 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), negotiated and proposed Directive (EU) 2017/159 transposing ILO Convention No 188 into Union law. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.4.1. | The Committee regrets, however, that self-employed fishermen could not be covered by the directive’s scope, due to the social partners’ lack of remit to negotiate on this point. For this reason, and given the large number of self-employed fishermen in the EU, it is necessary for the Member States to ratify Convention No 188. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.1.

| 3.4.2. | Moreover, the Committee urges the Commission to complete the process of regulating the fisheries sector by means of an accompanying directive including control and enforcement provisions, in order to ensure an inspection system that does not discriminate between different European fleets or waters when it comes to interpreting and applying the directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.2.

| 3.5. | A recent European Parliament study on training of fishers (8) concluded that the absence of a common standard for the training and certification of fishermen in the EU (9) has safety implications not only for them, but also for other users of EU waters. This legislative loophole can be remedied by applying the STCW-F Convention. The EESC therefore urges the Commission to take steps to transpose the STCW-F Convention into Union law, in order to enhance safety at sea for fishing, which is widely recognised as one of the most dangerous occupations. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC urges the European Commission to promote maritime and fisheries training as a means of professionalising and upskilling the sector in order to encourage high-quality jobs. In this regard, vocational training should opt for an empirical, hands-on approach without diminishing the high level of skills required by those working in the maritime sector, drawing on models such as the dual vocational education system. To this end, the Committee calls for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to be used more intensively, for the range of possible objectives to be broadened, and for the integration of the ESF as an additional fund for training to be authorised, with a special focus on small-scale fishing. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC points out that incorporating the Convention into the Union acquis would bring numerous benefits for the sector, as it would enable free movement of workers to be guaranteed by issuing a certificate of competence valid throughout the EU (in contrast to the current situation), it would make it easier for fishermen to move between fishing and other maritime occupations and it would enable harmonised training programmes to be implemented in the EU. However, if the Convention is to be applied properly, European guidelines still need to be laid down on medical checks for fishermen to certify their fitness. Such guidelines are also needed to comply with the provisions of Article 10 of Convention No 188 on work in fishing, according to which no fishermen shall work on board a fishing vessel without a valid medical certificate. With this in view, the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for Sea Fisheries will develop guidelines for medical checks for fishermen in 2019-2020. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | In keeping with the above, the EESC considers it a priority to make fishing more attractive as an occupation, attracting talent and facilitating the entry of young people to a profession which employs more than 150 000 crew members, through the cooperation of public administrations and key players in the sector in the training and employment fields. This is needed in order to respond to the shortage of crews, a problem that jeopardises the sector’s viability, and which has now been identified as the most serious difficulty facing the European fishing fleet. The industry indicates that if short- and medium-term solutions are not found, many vessels will have to remain in port. For this reason, strategic plans for the social dimension need to be implemented in order both to attract European workers to the fisheries sector and to facilitate the recruitment of third-country nationals. The EESC recommends promoting sea-going and fishing careers, and publicising fishing as a decent occupational option, offering a wealth of opportunities to young people. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The failure to promote the fisheries sector socially has resulted in a lack of interest among EU citizens in joining the profession. This has in turn pushed up the employment of migrant fishermen (from non-EEA countries) in EU waters who, in certain cases and countries, easily fall victim to employment abuses (10). The specific character of the fisheries sector, in which work is carried out at sea for lengthy periods, means that migrant fishermen are particularly vulnerable. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | In order to address this issue, and in keeping with the ILO Resolution adopted at the 2017 tripartite meeting on issues relating to migrant fishers (11), the EESC considers that it is essential to develop general principles and operational guidelines for fair labour market services in the fishing sector, including: (a) sufficient and suitable guidance for fishing vessel owners and (cross-border) labour market services; (b) model contracts for (cross-border) labour market services in the fishing sector; (c) sufficient and suitable guidance for fishers seeking jobs on board (foreign) fishing vessels; and (d) complaints mechanisms. With this in view, the European Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for Sea Fisheries will develop guidelines on the decent employment of migrant fishermen in 2019-2020. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

| 3.11. | Likewise, the Committee calls on the EU Member States to ratify, apply and enforce ILO Convention No 188. It also urges the European Commission to compile data and statistics on the situation of migrant fishers in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

| 3.12. | According to Article 22 of the CFP Regulation, the Member States must strive to achieve a stable and enduring balance between the fishing capacity of their fleet and their fishing opportunities. To this end, the Member States are to ensure that their fleets’ fishing capacity at no time exceeds the maximum capacity limits set in terms of gross tonnage (size) and kW (power). In a recent study on the social impact of these limits, co-funded by the EU (12), the European social partners indicated that the gross tonnage limitation has a negative impact on crew safety and comfort and on fish quality as it penalises initiatives to add extra safety, comfort and quality measures to ships since the extra cubic metres involved have to compete with e.g. hold volume, volume of engine room or fuel tanks. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

| 3.13. | In the light of the previous point, the EESC urges the European Commission to identify alternative formulas for measuring fishing capacity formulas, similar to those in Norway and Iceland, which exclude areas set aside for relaxation, comfort and recreation from the calculation, on the basis of factors such as allocated quota or size of vessel. Also in this regard, an increase in the gross tonnage of vessels should be permitted when the additional volumes are a response to the need to improve the safety and comfort of crews. |
| --- | --- |

3.13.

| 3.14. | Similarly, the EESC points out that both Convention No 188 and Directive (EU) 2017/159 lay down a legal obligation to provide more space for housing crew members on new fishing vessels (built since 15 November 2019). A recent study in France also reported an increase in working time and a reduction in rest time, generating an increased occupational health and safety risk for fishermen. Comparable findings have been published by the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands and by AZTI in Spain, confirming a deterioration in working conditions. |
| --- | --- |

3.14.

| 3.15. | Moreover, the EESC emphasises that the landing obligation requires more room for storing by-catches that can no longer be discarded at sea, and generates greater fuel consumption due to the restricted space for target species, together with additional costs relating to unloading, manual classification, weighing and processing (13). It also points out that this creates a hazard to on-board safety and vessel stability, as it results in both more numerous and higher stacks of crates in the hold, entailing a danger of suspended loads falling. |
| --- | --- |

3.15.

| 3.16. | In addition, fish that are too small cannot be marketed for direct human consumption. This leads to fish being wasted, especially in the southern EU Member States which do not have fishmeal plants, and reduces the income of fishers, who receive a derisory price for these catches. |
| --- | --- |

3.16.

| 3.17. | This reveals a legal conflict between Article 15 of the CFP on the landing obligation and Convention No 188, particularly its rules on rest hours (Article 14). The EESC urges the European Commission to carry out an impact analysis and to propose appropriate measures to resolve the legal inconsistencies between the various legal instruments adopted by the EU, inconsistencies for which fishermen are paying the price. |
| --- | --- |

3.17.

| 3.18. | The average age in years of ships in the European fleet is 23, with extreme cases such as Spain which still has more than 2 500 vessels that are more than 40 years old. The vast majority of these vessels are small, using small-scale gear. The EESC considers that a fleet renovation and modernisation plan needs to be implemented in order to guarantee on-board safety, better living conditions and the best possible working conditions for crews. Such a plan could be put in place with the use of financial instruments and with the European Investment Bank (EIB) facilitating access to finance for fishing companies. The future EMFF should also include assistance for fleet renovation and modernisation without increasing fishing capacity. |
| --- | --- |

3.18.

| 3.19. | Lastly, the EESC would turn to the European Union’s trade policy. More than 60 % of the fish consumed on the EU market currently comes from third countries. Many of these imports of fish products are subject to trade agreements granting tariff preferences, especially to developing countries (GSP, economic partnership agreements, etc.). In some instances, these preferences are negotiated with third countries that do not meet social and environmental sustainability standards equivalent to those that European producers must meet under EU regulations (14). This leads to unfair competition and loss of competitiveness for European businesses. The EU’s efforts to make fishing and seafood production sustainable and socially responsible are in consequence incompatible with the import of products from certain countries which display little or no respect for sustainability or social responsibility. |
| --- | --- |

3.19.

| 3.20. | The EU must use its trade policy to ensure that similar environmental and social sustainability standards are applied to both European and foreign operators, opening up the internal market only to compliant products. The EU would otherwise be sending the wrong message to the international community, rewarding those who have done least for the sustainability of fish stocks and fair treatment of people. |
| --- | --- |

3.20.

| 3.21. | The EESC recommends greater consistency between fisheries and trade policies. As a result, countries engaged in illegal (IUU) fishing and serious labour abuses should not enjoy preferential access to the EU market: the opposite should be the case. Neither should autonomous tariff quotas apply to products from countries identified as being involved in IUU fishing (for example, Thailand was pre-identified by the European Commission and given a yellow card). The EESC suggests only using these instruments when our markets cannot be sufficiently supplied by European products, and not in order to import unsustainable products at even lower prices. Moreover, the effect of this tariff instrument is that greater pressure is put on EU producers’ prices. |
| --- | --- |

3.21.

| 3.22. | Facilitating access to fish at fair prices to people with an insufficient intake of omega-3 and other nutrients should be considered a social policy with and immediate impact on the costs of the healthcare system. Many EU countries still have to increase their seafood culture in order to develop a diverse and healthy diet. |
| --- | --- |

3.22.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  EESC opinion on Listening to the citizens of Europe for a sustainable future (Sibiu and beyond) (OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 37).

1

Listening to the citizens of Europe for a sustainable future (Sibiu and beyond)

(2)  EESC opinion on Fisheries control (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 118).

2

Fisheries control

(3)  EESC opinion on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 104).

3

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

(4)  OJ L 25, 31.1.2017, p. 12.

4

(5)  http://www.emsa.europa.eu/emsa-documents/latest/item/3156-annual-overview-of-marine-casualties-and-incidents-2017.html

5

(6)  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/2018-annual-economic-report-eu-fishing-fleet-stecf-18-07

6

(7)  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/2018-annual-economic-report-eu-fishing-fleet-stecf-18-07

7

(8)  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/617484/IPOL_STU(2018)617484_EN.pdf

8

(9)  Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications has mandatory requirements for freshwater fishing, but the requirements for fishing at sea have not yet been set.

9

(10)  EESC opinion on a Multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea (OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 109).

10

Multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea

(11)  https://www.ilo.org/sector/activities/sectoral-meetings/WCMS_552792/lang–en/index.htm

11

(12)  http://www.chil.me/download-file/4bd3f613-0ecc-455b-a6ec-60262363eb24/analysis-on-gross-tonnage-and-propulsion-power-ceilings

12

(13)  EESC opinion on the Landing obligation (OJ C 311, 12.9.2014, p. 68).

13

Landing obligation

(14)  EESC opinion on Fisheries control (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 118).

14

Fisheries control

---

III Preparatory acts

European Economic and Social Committee

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/72

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment’

(COM(2019) 178 final)

(2020/C 14/10)

Rapporteur: Denis MEYNENT

| Referral | European Commission, 3.6.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Single Market, Production and Consumption |
| Adopted in section | 3.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 99/0/0 |

Referral

European Commission, 3.6.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Single Market, Production and Consumption

Adopted in section

3.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

99/0/0

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1 | European regulation is an essential factor in integration. Proportionate regulation guarantees legal protection and certainty for all European stakeholders and citizens (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.1

| 1.2 | The Committee calls for the continuation of the Better Regulation programme to be conditional on certain substantive improvements (see the recommendations below). It suggests that responsibility for the programme could be entrusted to a vice-president of the new College of Commissioners. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

| 1.3 | The EESC points out that better regulation is not a substitute for political decisions and must on no account lead to deregulation or reduce the level of social, environmental and consumer protection and protection of fundamental rights (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.3

| 1.4 | The use of Better Regulation tools must be a means of ensuring that the sustainability of measures taken is effectively built into EU policy frameworks. |
| --- | --- |

1.4

| 1.5 | The EESC calls on the Commission to review the guidelines and criteria in its Better Regulation toolbox, with a view to incorporating into evaluation processes the sustainable development goals (SDGs) set out in the Horizon 2030 programme. A “sustainability check” should be explicitly included in the Better Regulation toolbox. |
| --- | --- |

1.5

| 1.6 | The EESC again calls for the European impact assessment and evaluation ecosystem to keep evolving in order to strengthen its quality and encourage the active participation of organised civil society in designing and implementing legislation (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.6

| 1.7 | Impact assessments must always give priority to a cost-benefit approach based on reliable and verifiable data as well as to a qualitative approach, in the interest of the stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

1.7

| 1.8 | The EESC calls on the Commission to establish a smart evaluation matrix which will allow dynamic modelling of the impact of substantial amendments by the co-legislators and stakeholders, illustrating the impact of certain parameters such as emission rates, percentages and quantitative thresholds or ceilings, along with qualitative data. The EESC calls for a pilot project on smart modelling to be rolled out. |
| --- | --- |

1.8

| 1.9 | Impact assessments must be integrated, taking account of all criteria. Top of the list of criteria are social protection, consumer protection and employment, along with the SDGs, health, the environment, climate, regional impact, SMEs and micro-enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

1.9

| 1.10 | The EESC would like a vigorous SME-friendly initiative (Act Small First) to be implemented with a view to achieving this objective, and calls for the Think small first principle and the SME test to be evaluated. The goal here will be to make these tools more effective and to design SME-compatible legislation so that SMEs can develop within the single market on the basis of complete legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.10

| 1.11 | The impact assessment methodology must be transparent and shared with the other institutions and consultative bodies so that they can formulate amendments and opinions which are considered in advance. |
| --- | --- |

1.11

| 1.12 | Impact assessments must be carried out independently and objectively and must analyse and, where appropriate, propose alternatives, highlighting the pros and cons of the various scenarios. |
| --- | --- |

1.12

| 1.13 | The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), which is responsible for quality control, is a valuable body that has proven its worth in the impact assessment system. It should play a greater role in developing an integrated approach. |
| --- | --- |

1.13

| 1.14 | The review clauses should be drafted so as to enable the Commission and Member States to oversee implementation of the legislation concerned and carry out an integrated assessment of the impact of that legislation on stakeholders. |
| --- | --- |

1.14

| 1.15 | The EESC has ensured that it is closely informed about the situation on the ground and has access to a vast network of contacts and to its members' expertise. It would prioritise ex-post and qualitative assessments so as to determine the impact of legislative action or of a European policy and to pass on the grassroots experience of European economic and social partners (4). |
| --- | --- |

1.15

| 1.16 | The EESC is of the opinion that the consultations should more closely involve civil society organisations, by establishing some form of collaborative partnership. |
| --- | --- |

1.16

| 1.17 | Questionnaires should be open-ended, enabling respondents to give more detailed replies. The Committee asks the Commission to take a qualitative approach to responses, allowing more room for a nuanced evaluation of the results. |
| --- | --- |

1.17

| 1.18 | The Committee considers that the innovation principle has no legal basis and is particularly vague, it therefore follows that its use should be envisaged only in very specific circumstances where this will yield added value, except in relation to the efficient operation of the single market and social, environmental, consumer and health protection. The Committee reiterates its commitment to applying the precautionary principle (Article 191 TFEU), and considers that an own-initiative opinion should be drawn up on the content and use of the innovation principle and the compatibility of these two principles. |
| --- | --- |

1.18

| 1.19 | The method for reducing unnecessary costs must be based on a case-by-base evaluation of the existing legislation aimed at identifying what can be simplified, streamlined or abolished, rather than on ex-ante targets set at political level. |
| --- | --- |

1.19

| 1.20 | The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to specify the criteria used to determine whether a regulatory or administrative burden is helpful or unnecessary, with due regard for the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.20

| 1.21 | The EESC calls for a balanced, clear assessment of the REFIT platform. It considers that the platform needs to be provided with rules and resources which will enable it to respond to submissions more rapidly, while clarifying its working methods. |
| --- | --- |

1.21

| 1.22 | The platform's mandate must be reviewed so that REFIT becomes a two-way street, in other words an exercise that does not conclude in advance what course regulation should take: extending, complementing, amending or repealing legislation (5). |
| --- | --- |

1.22

2.   Gist of the communication

| 2.1 | The Commission believes that better regulation has improved the way policy is made and should remain at the heart of its working methods. It points out that this is not a hidden deregulatory agenda. Despite the encouraging results, the Commission has produced a critical assessment of its action. |
| --- | --- |

2.1

| 2.2 | The positive elements include higher participation of citizens, stakeholders and civil society in Commission consultations. |
| --- | --- |

2.2

| 2.3 | As regards impact assessments, the Commission considers that the economic, social and environmental impacts of its initiatives are now systematically discussed. |
| --- | --- |

2.3

| 2.4 | As far as evaluations of EU legislation are concerned, the Commission welcomes the fact that three quarters of the impact assessments carried out are now accompanied by an evaluation of the policy or sector concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.4

| 2.5 | The Commission gives a positive assessment of the REFIT programme. The Commission presented 150 measures to simplify EU legislation between 2015 and 2018. |
| --- | --- |

2.5

| 2.6 | Notwithstanding this positive assessment, the Commission identifies a number of possible improvements and sets out various specific commitments, including stepping up collaboration with the EESC and the CoR, enhancing quality control of public consultations, and assessing subsidiarity and proportionality in greater detail, e.g. using the common “grid” proposed by the subsidiarity and proportionality task force. |
| --- | --- |

2.6

3.   Committee evaluation

| 3.1 | A large number of projects have been led by the Commission and other bodies (Coreper, RSB, OECD) to assess the EU's progress in three areas:






  — | impact assessments; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1

—

impact assessments;

| — | consultation of stakeholders, civil society and citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

consultation of stakeholders, civil society and citizens;

| — | simplification and reduction of the regulatory burden. |
| --- | --- |

—

simplification and reduction of the regulatory burden.

However, despite the Commission's continual efforts, some difficulties remain.

| 3.2 | Impact assessments |
| --- | --- |

3.2

| 3.2.1 | Proliferation of economic criteria: over the years, a series of economic evaluation criteria have been added (competitiveness test, digital test, SME test, future-proof legislation, innovation principle). This increase in criteria creates three difficulties: prioritising them, positioning them in relation to social and environmental criteria (what, ultimately, is the decisive criterion?), and making the exercise essentially more bureaucratic. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.1

| 3.2.2 | Largely cost-oriented methodology: the various tools in the toolbox (6) available to the Commission to assess the impact of an initiative are static and cost-oriented, consisting in just a series of general questions without highlighting the issue of quality or envisaging alternative scenarios. The tools are juxtaposed and do not allow for an integrated approach combining costs and benefits and geared towards territorial cohesion, sustainable development and competitiveness. Finally, there is no tool specifically dedicated to the environment and to climate. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.2

| 3.2.3 | Impact assessments not carried out for delegated acts and implementing acts: these acts have considerable scope and play a crucial role in EU legislation. In 2018, there were 861 implementing acts, 96 delegated acts and 72 legislative acts (7). The Commission acknowledges that due to time and money constraints, the number of impact assessments carried out in relation to delegated acts is low. The EESC also considers that it should be consulted in the delegation procedure just as it is for legislative acts, as well as on any amendments to these acts, given their economic and social consequences (8). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.3

| 3.2.4 | Impact assessments not carried out on substantial amendments by the co-legislators: despite point 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (9) requiring the Council and the Parliament to carry out an impact assessment when they make substantial amendments to the Commission's proposal, the Council has never carried out an impact assessment on a substantial amendment by one or more Member States. In fact, it has neither the budget nor the operational capacity to do so. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.4

| 3.2.5 | Outsourcing of Commission impact assessments: carrying out impact assessments systematically involves a cost and is leading to their partial privatisation. What guarantee do we have that impact assessments are carried out under independent and objective conditions when the Commission unit carrying out the impact assessment also drafts the legislative proposal? |
| --- | --- |

3.2.5

| 3.2.6 | The role of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB): the RSB scrutinises the quality of impact assessments. Its positive opinion is needed for the College of Commissioners to approve a proposal. In 2018, 28 % of impact assessments received a negative opinion from the RSB on quality grounds. The RSB members should be praised for their professionalism, since they have demonstrated their independence. However, the general public are still not aware of how useful the RSB and its aims are. The RSB could play a greater role in developing an integrated approach to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of impact assessments. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.6

| 3.2.7 | The ex-post evaluation of the impact of EU legislation on the functioning of the single market is the guarantee of good governance. A review clause makes it possible to check that the legislation in question has been properly implemented and to enhance, amend or adapt given legislation in the light of scientific findings, feedback from the field or consultation of the social partners. However, several recent examples show that review clauses are not always drafted in a way that ensures that the Commission and the Member States will carry out an integrated analysis of the impact of the legislation concerned. What is more, the European Court of Auditors has pointed out that the content of review clauses is not always clear, particularly when it comes to identifying the requested output and the appropriate point at which to carry out an ex-post review (10). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.7

| 3.3 | Introduction of the innovation principle |
| --- | --- |

3.3

| 3.3.1 | This principle was introduced in November 2014 on the initiative of the European Risk Forum and was approved by the Council in 2016, under the Dutch presidency. It requires any new legislative proposal to be assessed from the perspective of its (positive) impact on innovation, in order to create future-proof legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.1

| 3.3.2 | Since then, the promoters of this principle have sought to integrate it into the EU legislative acquis. In 2019, the innovation principle crept into the Horizon Europe programme (2021-2027) in the form of a recital. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.2

| 3.3.3 | It should be noted, however, that the innovation principle is not clearly defined:






  — | the innovation principle has no legal basis, unlike the precautionary principle (Article 191 TFEU) to which it is sometimes compared; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.3.3

—

the innovation principle has no legal basis, unlike the precautionary principle (Article 191 TFEU) to which it is sometimes compared;

| — | it is particularly vague: what kind of innovation does it cover – scientific, technical, organisational, social? |
| --- | --- |

—

it is particularly vague: what kind of innovation does it cover – scientific, technical, organisational, social?

Empirically, academic research shows that regulation is not detrimental to innovation. Quite the contrary, "it appears that regulation is in fact beneficial to innovation and that this impact is all the more pronounced the closer the sector is to the technological frontier" (11). In its judgment in Case T-521/14 (Sweden v Commission), the Court of Justice of the EU confirmed the primacy of scientific criteria over any subjective assessment of the obligations imposed on the European legislator in the name of innovation or other requirements.

| 3.3.4 | The Committee calls for the Commission to take these comments into account in the forthcoming communication on the innovation principle, mentioned in the Commission's Industry 2030 paper (12). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.4

| 3.3.5 | The EESC believes that an own-initiative opinion on the innovation principle and in particular on its compatibility with the precautionary principle would be timely. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.5

| 3.4 | Public consultations |
| --- | --- |

3.4

| 3.4.1 | Despite these genuine efforts, the consultation procedure is still bedevilled by critical flaws:






  — | business federations top the list of respondents by a significant margin (42,9 %) (13). The response rate from large companies or business federations was even 60 % in the case of the REFIT platform; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.4.1

—

business federations top the list of respondents by a significant margin (42,9 %) (13). The response rate from large companies or business federations was even 60 % in the case of the REFIT platform;

| — | due to a lack of resources the social partners in general, and worker and consumer representatives in particular, are disadvantaged compared to multinationals and the big employers' federations, despite having a recognised and legitimate role in the decision-making process (see Article 154 TFEU); |
| --- | --- |

—

due to a lack of resources the social partners in general, and worker and consumer representatives in particular, are disadvantaged compared to multinationals and the big employers' federations, despite having a recognised and legitimate role in the decision-making process (see Article 154 TFEU);

| — | the questionnaires are closed-ended, often requiring yes/no answers, which leaves little room for precise evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the questionnaires are closed-ended, often requiring yes/no answers, which leaves little room for precise evaluation;

| — | the culture of responding to surveys is often limited to certain Member States, resulting in a truncated picture of the situation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the culture of responding to surveys is often limited to certain Member States, resulting in a truncated picture of the situation;

| — | the responses are processed in a standardised way, which produces a static approach to findings and makes it impossible to analyse the responses in an intelligent or nuanced manner or to weight the findings of the consultation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the responses are processed in a standardised way, which produces a static approach to findings and makes it impossible to analyse the responses in an intelligent or nuanced manner or to weight the findings of the consultation.

| 3.5 | Reducing unnecessary regulatory burden |
| --- | --- |

3.5

| 3.5.1 | In November 2018, the Commission published its 2018 annual burden survey (14), which presents an overview of the EU's simplification efforts.
  Despite the promises, the report lists measures which are yet to materialise and results that derive more from growth of the digital economy than from advances in the fight against red tape (e.g. the Fisheries Control Regulation and the company law package). |
| --- | --- |

3.5.1

Despite the promises, the report lists measures which are yet to materialise and results that derive more from growth of the digital economy than from advances in the fight against red tape (e.g. the Fisheries Control Regulation and the company law package).

| 3.5.2 | The OECD's 2019 report on better regulation (15) is also partly devoted to this issue. The OECD seems to call for partial dismantling of the Community acquis and of Member States' legislation in order to reduce the regulatory burden and regulatory costs, without first answering the question of what cost savings are required and at what point protection systems (social, environmental and territorial) could be at risk. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.2

| 3.5.3 | The REFIT platform was set up in May 2015 to enable public authorities, citizens and stakeholders to contribute to improving European legislation. In the Committee's opinion certain issues cast a shadow over its proceedings:






  — | a redundant process: the Member States' group in the platform partly duplicates the work of the approximately 200 Council working groups; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.5.3

—

a redundant process: the Member States' group in the platform partly duplicates the work of the approximately 200 Council working groups;

| — | a slow process: it often takes several months to adopt an opinion as the two groups, which meet only once and do not engage in any real dialogue, rarely reach a common position; |
| --- | --- |

—

a slow process: it often takes several months to adopt an opinion as the two groups, which meet only once and do not engage in any real dialogue, rarely reach a common position;

| — | an asymmetric process: most of the submissions originate from the employers sector, i.e. business groups or chambers of commerce (as evidenced by the statistics published by the Commission itself), and few are from civil society or the social partners. While the Commission and the Member States are represented, the EP is absent; |
| --- | --- |

—

an asymmetric process: most of the submissions originate from the employers sector, i.e. business groups or chambers of commerce (as evidenced by the statistics published by the Commission itself), and few are from civil society or the social partners. While the Commission and the Member States are represented, the EP is absent;

| — | a body with no real expertise: on what scientific basis are the members of the platform able to analyse the very different proposals received? The only real expertise is in the hands of the Commission, which has sometimes taken advantage of this fact to push through its own proposals; |
| --- | --- |

—

a body with no real expertise: on what scientific basis are the members of the platform able to analyse the very different proposals received? The only real expertise is in the hands of the Commission, which has sometimes taken advantage of this fact to push through its own proposals;

| — | a lesser role for the EESC and the CoR compared to other stakeholders, which has the effect of diluting the opinions that the Committees could deliver; |
| --- | --- |

—

a lesser role for the EESC and the CoR compared to other stakeholders, which has the effect of diluting the opinions that the Committees could deliver;

| — | a marked imbalance between outcomes and costs: the cost of the platform seems disproportionate to the results achieved to date; |
| --- | --- |

—

a marked imbalance between outcomes and costs: the cost of the platform seems disproportionate to the results achieved to date;

| — | the skewed nature of the platform: the Committee calls for a two-way street – in other words, an exercise that does not conclude in advance what course regulation should take: extending, complementing, amending or repealing legislation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the skewed nature of the platform: the Committee calls for a two-way street – in other words, an exercise that does not conclude in advance what course regulation should take: extending, complementing, amending or repealing legislation.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  See point 1.1 of OJ C 434, 15.12.2017, p. 11.

1

(2)  See point 1.4 of OJ C 81.2.3.2018, p. 81.

2

(3)  OJ C 434, 15.12.2017, p. 11.

3

(4)  OJ C 303, 19.8.2016, p. 45, par. 1.9.

4

(5)  OJ C 303, 19.8.2016, p. 45, par.1.11.

5

(6)  Better Regulation Guidelines, European Commission, SWD(2017) 350 final, 7 July 2017.

6

Better Regulation Guidelines

(7)  Source: Statistics on legislative acts - EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/statistics/legislative-acts-statistics.html).

7

(8)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 145.

8

(9)  Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making of 13 April 2016 (OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1).

9

(10)  European Court of Auditors: Ex-post review of EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete (2018).

10

Ex-post review of EU legislation: a well-established system, but incomplete

(11)  Lilas Demmou, Bruno Amable, Ivan Ledezma. “L'impact de la réglementation sur l'innovation: une analyse des performances selon la proximité à la frontière technologique” [The impact of regulation on innovation: an analysis of performance based on proximity to the technological frontier]. Economie et prévision, 2013, p. 11. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01614139

11

Economie et prévision

(12)  Page 21.

12

(13)  SWD(2019) 156 final (accompanying the Commission communication under discussion) Taking Stock of the Commission's Better Regulation Agenda, 15.4.2019.

13

Taking Stock of the Commission's Better Regulation Agenda

(14)  The European Union's efforts to simplify legislation, November 2018.

14

The European Union's efforts to simplify legislation

(15)  2019 OECD report on Better regulation practices across the European Union.

15

Better regulation practices across the European Union

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/78

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information’

(COM(2019) 208 final — 2019/0101 (COD))

(2020/C 14/11)

Rapporteur working alone: Jorge PEGADO LIZ

| Consultation | European Parliament, 15.7.2019
  Council, 24.6.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 114 TFEU |
| Section responsible | Single Market, Production and Consumption |
| Adoption in section | 3.9.2019 |
| Adoption in plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 107/1/1 |

Consultation

European Parliament, 15.7.2019

Council, 24.6.2019

Legal basis

Article 114 TFEU

Section responsible

Single Market, Production and Consumption

Adoption in section

3.9.2019

Adoption in plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

107/1/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC notes that the cities of Paris, Brussels and Madrid have, in the General Court, contested Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 (1), resulting in a decision of 13 December 2018 by that Court to partially annul that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC notes that the Court granted the Commission sufficient time to rectify the shortcomings allegedly found in the regulation in a way that would not prevent the market from operating normally — by February 2020, irrespective of the appeal lodged by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC wishes to highlight the scale of Dieselgate, which it has already addressed in a number of opinions and regrets that the Commission was not able to anticipate these events by means of effective measures from the outset. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The Committee also remains mindful that, despite its insistent calls for more than 20 years, the EU has not been able (or willing) to adopt an effective instrument for group action capable of dealing with situations such as this. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC further considers that the solution put forward in this proposal should not be limited to dealing with an issue of form, without genuinely serving the applicants’ interests. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The Committee also fears that, by empowering the Commission to issue delegated acts under the terms it sets out, the proposal would undermine not only the effectiveness of the legislation but also the intentions of the legislator when establishing these delegated acts. The EESC therefore believes that it should revisit its opinions on secondary acts in a new own-initiative opinion in the light of the most recent interinstitutional agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC also hopes that the Commission will ensure that Regulations (EU) 2017/1154 (2) (3rd package) and (EU) 2018/1832 (3) (4th package) will not be subject to the same procedure as that currently in force. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC, in view of the number of legislative measures adopted in this field (around 100), calls on the Commission, in accordance with the principles of the Better Regulation Agenda, to consider the possibility/need for a compilation/codification in this area. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | Lastly, the EESC calls on the Commission to consider the proposals it makes in this area, with a view to ensuring greater speed of implementation and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

2.   The Dieselgate scandal and collective redress for consumers

| 2.1. | In September 2015, it was made public that the VW Group appeared to have manufactured and sold vehicles that it had equipped with software designed to manipulate laboratory tests for monitoring motor vehicle emissions (4). |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | By doing so, the company was harming millions of consumers across the world who had purchased such vehicles, believing that these complied with legal pollutant emissions limits and that they would be more sustainable, in terms of both the environment and fuel consumption. Through its conduct, the company will also have caused serious damage to people’s health and to the environment in general. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | It was established that as a result of the company’s actions and on the basis of requirements for laboratory testing, the difference between emissions values for laboratory tests and those carried out in real driving conditions corresponded to an increase of between 10 and 40 times for nitrogen oxide emissions. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | The company also admitted that it had installed this device in some 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide. As a result of this scandal, the European Commission and a number of Member States opened administrative and criminal proceedings to sanction the company for its behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The EESC points out that millions of consumers have not been properly compensated for the damage they have suffered, and that there is still no information on the effects of the monitoring measures carried out by the Member States’ authorities. Nor is information available on the recall procedures put in place by the company, in particular as regards the effects that remedying the lack of conformity will have on vehicles’ subsequent performance. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | A number of European-level consumer and environmental organisations have used collective redress schemes and have brought legal cases against Volkswagen and SEAT, but only at national level and by means of differing judicial procedures. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | Without prejudice to these cases, many of these consumers may never be compensated for the damage they have suffered, due to the lack of a European collective redress scheme. Moreover, the Commission’s recent proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (5) does not fully address the need for consumers to be properly compensated. Such a response would have been crucial in this particular case, as it would make it possible to compensate consumers who have suffered harm and who are fully reliant on the measures and decisions taken in the Member States. It is hoped that the ongoing negotiations with the EP and the Council will soon be completed, providing a more useful version of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

3.   European Commission measures and EESC opinions

| 3.1. | To deal with this scandal, the EU institutions have tried to tackle, remedy and put an end to this situation (6). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | Following on from the work of the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector (EMIS), which started on 17 December 2015 and concluded on 2 March 2017 (7), the Commission has adopted several flagship measures, including the Real Driving Emissions (RDE) test procedure (8), established and developed by Commission Regulations (EU) 2016/427 (9) (1st package), (EU) 2016/646 (10) (2nd package), (EU) 2017/1154 (11) (3rd package) and (EU) 2018/1832 (12) (4th package). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC has, especially since 2006, stated its views on the issue of exhaust emissions, specifically particulates (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC), highlighting some of the shortcomings of the schemes successively proposed and advising on more reliable testing measures (13). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | However, as regards the regulations referred to in point 3.2 above, the EESC was not asked to issue an opinion, as this is not mandatory for acts of the type adopted by the Commission under Articles 296 and 297 TFEU (in contrast, for example, to Articles 38, 46, 95, 113, 115, 164, 166, 169, 177, 182, 188, 192, 194, 203, 336 and, in particular, Article 304 of that Treaty). |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | Nevertheless, on 26 June 2016, the Ville de Paris (Case T-339/16), on 29 June 2016, the Ville de Bruxelles (Case T-352/16) and on 19 July 2016, the Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Case T-391/16), brought actions against the Commission under Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2016/646 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) because, in their view and to summarise, the Commission is found to lack competence due to its inappropriate use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny instead of the ordinary legislative procedure; there has been an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by amending an essential element of a basic act in breach of the formalities laid down for its adoption and an infringement of primary and secondary legislation and general principles of EU law, e.g. Articles 3, 11, 114(3) and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, along with Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (14), Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (15) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (16); and lastly, it has misused its powers insofar as the Commission’s aim to increase NOx emission limit values does not reflect the provisions of EU law or those issued by the Commission and does not correspond to EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | In its judgment of 13 December 2018, the General Court decided to combine the three cases and, in summary, to uphold the actions with regard to the following points:






  — | ‘[the only provision which must be annulled] is point 2 of Annex II [...], in so far as it sets, in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 [of 18 July 2008, implementing Regulation (EC No 715/2007], the value of the final CF pollutant conformity factor and the value of the temporary CF pollutant conformity factor for the mass of the oxides of nitrogen.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.6.

—

‘[the only provision which must be annulled] is point 2 of Annex II [...], in so far as it sets, in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 [of 18 July 2008, implementing Regulation (EC No 715/2007], the value of the final CF pollutant conformity factor and the value of the temporary CF pollutant conformity factor for the mass of the oxides of nitrogen.’

| — | ‘[Orders] the effects of the provision annulled pursuant to paragraph 1 of the operative part of this judgment to be maintained pending the adoption, within a reasonable period, of new legislation replacing those provisions; that period may not exceed 12 months from the date on which the present judgment takes effect.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

‘[Orders] the effects of the provision annulled pursuant to paragraph 1 of the operative part of this judgment to be maintained pending the adoption, within a reasonable period, of new legislation replacing those provisions; that period may not exceed 12 months from the date on which the present judgment takes effect.’

4.   The Commission Proposal

4.1.   Rationale and basis for the proposal

| 4.1.1. | In May 2017, the European Commission presented a series of measures to modernise European transport and mobility, which included reducing CO2 emissions, air pollution and congestion, as well as removing red tape for businesses. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.1.

| 4.1.2. | Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 had already been adopted in 2007, laying down rules for the type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6), requiring new light vehicles to comply with certain emissions limits. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.2.

| 4.1.3. | As a result of the Dieselgate scandal, the Commission carried out a detailed analysis of the testing procedures and type-approval requirements and concluded that the emissions generated in real on-road driving conditions by Euro 5 and 6 vehicles significantly exceeded the emissions measured in the New European Regulatory Driving Cycle, in particular as regards NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.3.

| 4.1.4. | The Commission deemed it necessary to set quantitative RDE requirements in order to limit exhaust emissions under all normal conditions of use, in accordance with the emission limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. This led to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/646 which amended Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 by revising the values for conformity factors on the basis of the emissions measured in the tests, using a comitology procedure to do so. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.4.

| 4.1.5. | This amendment, relating to the second phase of the RDE procedure, required tests measuring NOx emissions to be mandatory for new vehicle-types from September 2017 and for all vehicles from September 2019, and it was accepted by the EP and the Council (17). |
| --- | --- |

4.1.5.

| 4.1.6. | In December 2018, following an appeal by the cities of Paris, Madrid and Brussels, the General Court annulled some of the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/646 on the specific grounds that the so-called ‘conformity factors’ should not have been adopted by a comitology procedure, but under the ordinary legislative procedure. The annulment was partial and did not affect the testing procedure for real-condition driving, which remains in force. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.6.

| 4.1.7. | However, the Court postponed the effects of the partial annulment until February 2020 in order to enable the Commission to comply with the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.7.

4.2.   Content and purpose of the proposal

| 4.2.1. | In order to avoid placing an excessive burden on manufacturers who have already designed their vehicles under the previously adopted RDE procedure, the Commission has submitted this legislative proposal, with the aim of:






  — | restoring the previously adopted conformity factors; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2.1.

—

restoring the previously adopted conformity factors;

| — | granting the Commission the power to revise down the conformity factors set by the legislator annually, in order to reflect progress made on the accuracy of portable measuring equipment. |
| --- | --- |

—

granting the Commission the power to revise down the conformity factors set by the legislator annually, in order to reflect progress made on the accuracy of portable measuring equipment.

| 4.2.2. | The Commission argues that, in its annulment, the General Court did not call into question the technical justification of the conformity factors. Therefore, and as there is still a discrepancy between the emissions measured under real driving conditions and those measured in the laboratory, conformity factors are proposed, thereby amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.2.

| 4.2.3. | The conformity factors would be introduced in two stages: in the first stage, a temporary conformity factor should be applied, while in the second stage, only the final conformity factor should be used, with the Commission then having the task of regularly monitoring the final conformity factors in line with technical developments. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.3.

| 4.2.4. | Furthermore, the Commission would be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the detailed rules on the specific procedures, tests and requirements for type-approval. The Commission would also be delegated the power to supplement Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 with these revised rules, as well as the test cycles used to measure emissions. The proposal also includes the possibility to amend this Regulation in order to revise the final conformity factors downwards, to recalibrate particulate mass-based limit values and to introduce particle number-based limit values. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.4.

| 4.2.5. | This proposal would again oblige manufacturers to demonstrate that all new vehicles sold, registered or put into circulation in the European Union comply with the limits set. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.5.

| 4.2.6. | Even before presenting its proposal, the Commission appealed against the decision of the General Court of the CJEU, considering that its previous regulation did not affect essential elements, namely the conformity factors set, but only the criteria for their measurement. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.6.

5.   General comments

| 5.1. | It does not fall within the role or the competence of the EESC to meddle in a legal conflict between EU institutions, in particular where the issue is the subject of an appeal pending before the CJEU. The EESC does have the right, however, to state its views on the framework put forward in the Commission’s proposal and to what it extent it achieves the proposed objectives. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | It is true that the proposal in question amends formal shortcomings relating to the lack of competence and the infringement of various provisions of primary law concerning the improper use of an unlawful procedure. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | As far as substantive aspects are concerned, the EESC, in accordance with its opinions on delegated acts (18), doubts that the chosen solution of giving the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts in areas where the General Court has considered that only the legislator may amend essential elements, a power that the Commission seems to want to claim for itself, reflects the legal aim of delegated acts. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | The EESC is pleased to note that the time limits have been maintained for the implementation of the proposal, and will continue covering new types of vehicles as has been the case since 1 September 2017 and be applicable to new vehicles from 1 September 2019. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | It questions the legal effectiveness of the measures, however, given that this legislative procedure lacks certainty, which may in fact, jeopardise the measure’s entry into force in September, not to mention the questions already surrounding the retroactive effects of the measure. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | This situation becomes even more complex as the appeal that has been lodged now means that a final decision on the issue raised before the General Court has been postponed indefinitely. The very need for approval of the current proposal may even be questioned, whether or not the CJEU rules in favour of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | The only justification for the proposal lies in its attempt to ensure a degree of legal security and certainty for manufacturers, who may then, if they wish, continue with the production of their vehicles; it does not, however, eliminate the effects that the CJEU ruling could have on its duration, which could place orders and the supply of components at risk. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

| 5.8. | In any event, the EESC highlights the need for RDE tests already published on official websites (19) to allow consumers access, to enable them to cross-reference this information with that on the environmental performance of vehicles stemming from Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (20). The inclusion of this information could help consumers make their choices based on the environmental impact of vehicles that have been purchased. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

| 5.9. | The EESC also hopes that the Commission will to be able to ensure the proposal’s compatibility with the different RDE acts, bearing in mind that the proposal refers to the second package and therefore does not call into question the two subsequent acts, which include the particle number coverage in tests, the refinement of testing methods (RDE act 3) and the possibility of independent third-party testing for checks on vehicles already in circulation (Act 4 RDE). |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

| 5.10. | Without prejudice to the specific nature of the proposal, the EESC urges the Commission to take into account the practices adopted in countries outside the European area, in particular the US-experience, specifically in terms of compliance criteria and penalties for non-compliance by manufacturers (21). |
| --- | --- |

5.10.

| 5.11. | The EESC recognises that the Dieselgate scandal has not only highlighted a set of flaws with regard to NOx emissions, but it has also shown that millions of consumers have purchased vehicles that do not match the information provided on them, with the vast majority not having been individually compensated for the damage they have suffered. |
| --- | --- |

5.11.

| 5.12. | It is important that the Commission ensure full compensation for the damage of all injured parties or at least the existence of a European collective redress scheme that is effective, useful and timely and includes compensation to consumers for damage to environmental health. This cannot be said of the scheme provided for in the proposal for a Directive on representative actions. |
| --- | --- |

5.12.

6.   Specific comments

6.1.   Article 1(3)

| 6.1.1. | The EESC considers that the conformity factors set out in Table 2 of Annex I could still be deemed unambitious with regard to ensuring a reduction in NOx emissions, given that the scientific evidence and the factors proposed in 2018 today look rather conservative. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.1.

| 6.1.2. | The Committee also emphasises the importance of these factors being assessed on a regular basis, no less than once per year, in order to ensure that technological developments are taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.2.

6.2.   Article 1(4)

| 6.2.1. | The EESC acknowledges the need for the manufacturer to equip vehicles in such a way that components likely to affect emissions are designed, constructed and installed so as to enable the vehicle, in normal use, to comply with this proposal, but stresses that this information should be available not only to consumers at the time of sale, but also to the administrative authorities, for monitoring purposes. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.1.

| 6.2.2. | The EESC recommends that, as the term ‘normal use’, is a conformity requirement, and in order to avoid any uncertainty about its interpretation, it should be defined in a legal text and not merely in subjective interpretations by the Commission itself (22). |
| --- | --- |

6.2.2.

6.3.   Article 1(5)

| 6.3.1. | The EESC considers that the six-month deadline for manufacturers to provide conformity information seems excessive, given the sector’s environmental protection obligations, and therefore suggests that the deadline should not exceed 3 months. |
| --- | --- |

6.3.1.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ L 109, 26.4.2016, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, 7.7.2017, p. 708.

2

(3)  OJ L 301, 27.11.2018, p. 1.

3

(4)  These tests had been carried out by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the company was forced to admit that it had installed a ‘defeat device’ in vehicles, which would use a software algorithm to detect when the vehicle was going to be tested for polluting emissions.

4

(5)  COM(2018) 184 final — 2018/0089 (COD); EESC opinion: OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 66.

5

(6)  See the list of legislative measures at https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/legislation/motor-vehicles-trailers_en

6

(7)  EP Report A8-0049/2017, which concluded, in summary, that ‘the Commission lacked the political will and decisiveness to act upon the seriousness of the high NOx emissions and to give priority to the protection of public health of citizens that was at stake;’ and in particular ‘failed to use the means at its disposal, at the level of the TCMV and of the RDE-LDV working group, to advance the decision-making process and ensure a timely adaptation of the type-approval tests to reflect real world conditions, as required by Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.’

7

(8)  This test procedure is supposed to better reflect the actual emissions on the road and reduces the discrepancy between emissions measured in real driving conditions and in a laboratory, and uses portable on-board emission analysers to measure emissions during an on-road test.

8

(9)  OJ L 82, 31.3.2016, p. 1.

9

(10)  OJ L 109, 26.4.2016, p. 1.

10

(11)  OJ L 175, 7.7.2017, p. 708.

11

(12)  OJ L 301, 27.11.2018, p. 1.

12

(13)  See, in particular: OJ C 311 , 12.9.2014, p. 55; OJ C 251, 31.7.2015, p. 31; OJ C 227 , 28.6.2018, p. 52; OJ C 367 , 10.10.2018, p. 32 and OJ C 440 , 6.12.2018, p. 95.

13

(14)  OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1.

14

(15)  OJ L 171, 29.6.2007, p. 1.

15

(16)  OJ L 199, 28.7.2008, p. 1.

16

(17)  See ECA Briefing paper February 2019 — The EU’s response to the ‘dieselgate’ scandal: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/BRP_Vehicle_emissions/BRP_Vehicle_emissions_EN.pdf

17

The EU’s response to the ‘dieselgate’ scandal

(18)  OJ C 67, 6.3.2014, p. 104; OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 145; OJ C 288, 31.8.2017, p. 29; OJ C 345, 13.10.2017, p. 67.

18

(19)  See https://www.acea.be/publications/article/access-to-euro-6-rde-monitoring-data

19

(20)  OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.

20

(21)  Article 85 of the new Regulation (EU) 2018/858 currently allows the Commission to impose fines on producers of up to EUR 30 000 per vehicle.

21

(22)  See for example the answer given by Commissioner Bieńkowska to a parliamentary questions (question P-006693-16): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-8-2016-006693-ASW_EN.html

22

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/84

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 in order to provide financial assistance to Member States to cover serious financial burden inflicted on them following a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union without an agreement’

(COM(2019) 399 final — 2019/0183 (COD))

(2020/C 14/12)

Rapporteur-general: Ioannis VARDAKASTANIS

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 13.9.2019
  European Parliament, 16.9.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 175(3) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Bureau decision | 24.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 144/0/6 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 13.9.2019

European Parliament, 16.9.2019

Legal basis

Articles 175(3) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Bureau decision

24.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

144/0/6

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC believes that the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are essential to the functioning of the European Union. It is important, therefore, that in the event of the United Kingdom leaving the EU without an agreement on 31 October, all Member States stay united and face the consequences and challenges of this decision together. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC understands that the proposal is part of a package of contingency measures for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom without an agreement, that was adopted by the Commission on 4 September 2019 following a call from the European Council to explore all possibilities for existing funds to be used to help alleviate potential financial burdens on Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC agrees with the addition to the Regulation establishing the EU Solidarity Fund of the stipulation that the notion of ‘major disasters’ covers natural disasters as well as situations where serious financial burden is inflicted on a Member State as a direct consequence of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union without an agreement, provided that this remains a one-off event within the time-limit of 2020. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The EESC proposes that the Commission consider creating an EU instrument that can deal with such political situations and crises in the future. However, if such a new instrument were put in place, it should only be for exceptional situations and be decided formally, case by case. The specific conditions for which compensation can be granted should be defined clearly. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The EESC strongly believes that the Commission should take all the necessary steps to ensure that the extension of the scope does not lead to a situation that would put at risk the ability of the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to respond to unforeseen events connected with natural disasters. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC believes that the envisaged date of 30 April 2020 is rather late and therefore calls on the Commission to speed up the procedure for the decisions on mobilising the funds in the event that the UK leaves the EU with no agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC welcomes the increase in the advance payments from the current level of 10 % of the expected amount to 25 %, but more needs to be done so that the response is rapid and effective. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC considers that the Commission should pay particular attention to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as they are the most vulnerable to the challenges of Brexit. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

2.   General comments

| 2.1. | The EU Solidarity Fund was created in 2002 to support Member States and accession countries in situations of major disasters caused by natural events such as floods, storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, forest fires or drought. It can be mobilised upon an application from the country concerned if the disaster is of a dimension justifying intervention at European level. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The EESC agrees that the EUSF is a tangible expression of EU solidarity, whereby Member States stay united and agree to support one another by making additional financial resources available through the EU budget. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | As of 1 November 2019 the United Kingdom will be a third country unless it ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement by 31 October 2019 or requests a third extension, to which the European Council (Article 50) agrees by unanimity. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | In the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, all EU primary and secondary law will cease to apply to it from that moment onwards. There will be no transition period, as provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. This will cause significant damage for citizens, businesses and public services and would have serious economic and financial impact. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The EESC believes that while Brexit without an agreement will be a one-off event, its disruptive effects could constitute a major disaster. Although it is difficult to assess exactly, it will have a significant impact on the economy, the labour market and public finances, especially in the short term. Moreover, it is fair to make the assumption that some sectors and areas and some Member States may be more impacted by the event of withdrawal without an agreement than others. The EESC believes that it would be justified to invoke the solidarity principle, together with the subsidiarity principle, in order to mitigate those effects. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The EESC therefore welcomes the proposal to modify Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the EU Solidarity Fund (1) in order to extend its scope to cover certain types of additional public expenditure and to broaden the notion of ‘major disasters’ to cover not only natural disasters but also situations where serious financial burden is inflicted on a Member State as a direct consequence of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom without an agreement. As this is a one-off situation, the available appropriations for this goal must be limited to half of the maximum available amount for the years 2019 and 2020. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

3.   Specific comments

| 3.1. | The EESC has been in favour of the EUSF since it was first proposed and has encouraged the Commission to make all the necessary amendments so that the fund can become a more effective support mechanism for Member States, candidate countries and neighbouring countries in the event of a natural disaster. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC agrees with the extension of the scope of the Regulation, warning that this must remain a one-off event. It therefore proposes that consideration be given to creating an EU instrument that can deal with such political situations and crises in the future. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC is of the view that the Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that extension of the scope does not lead to a situation in which the ability of the EUSF to respond to unforeseen events connected with natural disasters is put at risk. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC understands that the threshold of EUR 1,5 billion in 2011 prices or 0,3 % GNI for Member States to be eligible to apply for assistance has been set so cases are put forward in which the Member State in question cannot carry the financial burden that it has suffered (‘serious financial burden’) alone. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC invites the Commission to provide draft guidelines to assist Member States in calculating the serious financial burden caused by Brexit without an agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC calls on the Commission to speed up the procedure for the decisions on mobilising the funds. It believes that the envisaged date of 30 April 2020 is rather late. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EESC believes that the increase in the advance payments from the current level of 10 % of the expected amount to 25 % is one step to speed up the procedure, but more needs to be done so that the response is rapid and effective. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC requests that steps be taken to ensure that, following the parallel BREXIT-related amendment to the European Globalisation Fund (EGF), there are no overlaps with EUSF reimbursements, as this could lead to the duplication of funds. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

| 3.9. | The EESC is of the view that the economic cost from a Brexit with no agreement will be particularly high for sectors that are most exposed to the United Kingdom. This may be the case, for example, of agri-food exporters targeting the UK market, fishing businesses who depend on access to UK waters and tourist businesses in regions that are popular with UK tourists. Special attention should be paid to such problems and appropriate allocations for mitigating these effects should be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

| 3.10. | The EESC considers that organised civil society should play a vital role in the determination of the effects caused by a Brexit with no agreement. The Commission should encourage Member States to consult relevant organisations when preparing the applications. |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

1

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/87

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — More efficient decision-making in social policy: Identification of areas for an enhanced move to qualified majority voting’

(COM(2019) 186 final)

(2020/C 14/13)

Rapporteur: Christian BÄUMLER

| Consultation | European Commission, 3.6.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in section | 10.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 83/32/1 |

Consultation

European Commission, 3.6.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in section

10.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

83/32/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) stresses that in times of rapid change it is crucial for the EU, together with its Member States, to be able to adopt efficient and effective policy measures in all relevant policy areas in line with the recognised competences. This approach should include a related discussion on the need for action at European level, with due regard to the principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The EESC believes that the involvement of the European Parliament at a high level, in line with the provisions of the Treaty, is important in the legislative process, including in particular in the area of social policy, as social policy issues affect social cohesion and a highly competitive social market economy, in accordance with the objectives set out in the Treaty (Article 3 TEU). |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | Considering that the EESC has in previous opinions (1) already argued for unanimity requirements at EU level to be reviewed and recently reiterated this particularly in the area of taxation policy, (2) it welcomes the fact that the Commission is driving the discussion on existing barriers in legislation and in this communication has started the discussion on possibilities of extending qualified majority voting in the area of social policy. The EESC at the same time stresses that the Treaty-based role of the EU in the social policy area is to support and complement the activities of the Member States in the fields defined by Article 153(1) TFEU. This reflects the diversity of national social systems and traditions and implies the leading role of the Member States in designing and implementing their actions in the field of social policy and labour markets. The qualified majority procedure is based on a culture of compromise. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | For the EESC, it is clear that also when using qualified majority voting, the EU remains committed to the subsidiarity principle and, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, concentrates on areas in which shared objectives cannot be achieved more effectively at national, regional or local level. The same applies to the principle of proportionality, according to which the content and form of EU measures must not go beyond the objectives set out in the Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | Article 151 TFEU establishes the objective of social policy as "the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions [...] while the improvement is being maintained". The EESC stresses that, in accordance with Article 153(2) TFEU, this is to be pursued with directives on minimum rules, taking into account national circumstances, and these must not hamper the creation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. It further stresses that, in accordance with Article 153(4) TFEU, the right of Member States to feel committed to a higher level of national protection, and the power of the Member States to determine the principles of their social security systems – whatever the voting method – should not be affected. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The EESC stresses that the agreements concluded by the social partners and implemented at EU level make an important contribution to developing EU legislation in the area of social policy. In the light of the debate on the possible transition from the unanimity procedure to qualified majority voting, it calls for guarantees that the social partners will continue to be fully involved in policy making, including social policy making, and that their autonomy in the implementation and potential revision of their autonomous agreements will be respected. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC notes that, within a given policy area, decisions are currently subject to either unanimity or qualified majority voting. This leads to inequality in the development of social standards and to gaps in social protection. The EESC therefore supports a full transition to qualified majority voting for legislation in the area of non-discrimination and for recommendations on social security and protection of workers. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC also points out that the EU has developed measures to protect vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and part-time workers, when employment has terminated. This calls for a minimum set of procedural and protection rights to be guaranteed at European level and for a transition to qualified majority voting. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC stresses that the representation and collective management of the interests of employers and employees are crucial for the cohesion of society, the retention and creation of good jobs and the competitiveness of EU businesses. Here, too, the EU must, as far as is objectively necessary, examine to what extent qualified majority voting can boost opportunities for developing the social partnership in a future-oriented way. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC recommends moving to qualified majority voting for the employment conditions of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU, to avoid unequal treatment and to bolster social cohesion. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | In the context of the ongoing debate on the transition to qualified majority voting, the EESC agrees with the considerations of the Commission with regard to opting for the general "passerelle clause" set out in Article 48(7) TEU in cases where qualified majority voting is applied, as this requires both a unanimous decision by the European Council and the support of all national parliaments and the consent of the European Parliament, thereby providing broad democratic legitimacy. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

2.   General comments

| 2.1. | The EESC shares the Commission's view that the EU and all its Member States face common challenges concerning the impact of new technologies, increasing competitive pressure in the globalised economy, new forms of work, and demographic trends. In order to preserve and develop the European social model for future generations, measures are needed at European and national level across a wide range of policy areas, in line with the recognised competences. Measures to strengthen social cohesion and social inclusion, as well as to counter discrimination are important in this ambit. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The EESC stresses that in times of rapid change it is crucial for the EU, together with its Member States, to be able to adopt efficient and effective policy measures. This should include an appropriate examination of whether and at what level action is necessary, giving due consideration to the subsidiarity principle, and the choice of suitable tools and efficient decision-making processes, through which the EU is able to support and complement national policies. This should involve analysing in detail the impact on the economy, public finances and the role of the social partners in each Member State. All Member States must at all times have sufficient opportunities to be involved in decision-making. The common goal should be to achieve good results both at EU level and in individual Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | The EESC stresses that the EU needs an efficient and flexible decision-making process to ensure that legislation and non-binding instruments, such as coordination frameworks and recommendations, can keep pace with economic and social developments. Considering that the EESC has, in previous opinions, already argued for the unanimity requirements in EU law-making to be reviewed, (3) it welcomes the fact that the Commission is driving the discussion on existing barriers in policy making and, in this communication, has also launched the discussion on possibilities of extending qualified majority voting in the area of social policy. The EESC at the same time stresses that the Treaty-based role of the EU in the social policy area is to support and complement the activities of the Member States in the fields defined by Article 153(1) TFEU. This reflects the diversity of national social systems and traditions and implies the leading role of the Member States in designing and implementing their actions in the field of social policy and labour markets. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | In the EESC's view, according to the Treaties the EU's role is to support the activities of the EU Member States and complement them in the areas set out therein (Article 153(1) TFEU). This reflects the variety of national social systems and traditions, and implies that Member States have a leading role to play and a high degree of sovereignty in European cooperation when it comes to devising and implementing measures in the area of social policy and labour markets. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The EESC stresses that the majority of EU legislation on social policy has been adopted using qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | However, the EESC points out that, in contrast, according to the Treaty on European Union a certain number of social policy areas continue to require unanimity in the Council: non-discrimination (Article 19(1) TFEU); social security and social protection of workers (except for the purpose of free movement of workers) (Article 153(1)(c) TFEU); protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated (Article 153(1)(d) TFEU); representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers (Article 153(1)(f) TFEU) and conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally resident in Union territory (Article 153(1)(g) TFEU). While Article 19 TFEU provides for the consent of the European Parliament to be obtained, this is not the case for Article 153(1)(c), (d), (f) and (g). |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | The EESC believes that the involvement of the European Parliament at a high level, in line with the provisions of the Treaty, in the legislative process is important, in particular in the area of social policy, as social policy issues involve decisions that directly impact ordinary people and affect social cohesion and a highly competitive social market economy, in accordance with the objectives set out in the Treaty (Article 3 TEU). |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | The EESC welcomes the fact that, in this communication, the Commission has also launched the discussion on extending decision-making by qualified majority in the area of social policy, as is the case particularly in the area of taxation policy (4). The qualified majority procedure is based on a culture of compromise. It presupposes a debate and enables pragmatic results to be achieved that take account of the interests of the EU as a whole. The prospect of qualified majority voting acts as a catalyst for finding a solution that is acceptable to all parties, by involving all stakeholders in pursuit of a compromise. |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

| 2.9. | The EESC points out that in its new Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 the EU has committed itself to implementing the Pillar of Social Rights at EU and Member State level. In this connection, due attention should be paid to each level's respective responsibilities. |
| --- | --- |

2.9.

| 2.10. | For the EESC, it is essential that when using qualified majority voting, the EU remains committed to the subsidiarity principle and, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, concentrates on areas in which shared objectives cannot be achieved more effectively at national, regional or local level. The same applies to the principle of proportionality, according to which the content and form of EU measures must not go beyond the objectives set out in the Treaties. These principles should be clarified when discussing qualified majority voting. |
| --- | --- |

2.10.

| 2.11. | Article 151 TFEU establishes the objective of social policy as "the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions [...] while the improvement is being maintained". The EESC stresses that Article 153(2) TFEU sets out criteria that pertinent EU measures in the area of social policy must fulfil. For example, directives primarily include minimum rules, taking into account national circumstances, and are not supposed to hamper the creation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. The EESC stresses that the right of Member States to feel committed to a higher level of national protection, and the right of the Member States to determine the principles of their social security systems – whatever the voting method – must not be affected. |
| --- | --- |

2.11.

| 2.12. | The EESC also notes that in the preamble to the European Pillar of Social Rights the Commission, the EP and the Council confirmed that account should be taken of the diversity of national systems, including the role of the social partners (point 17) as well as of the Member States' national identities and their right to define the fundamental principles of their social security systems (point 19). |
| --- | --- |

2.12.

| 2.13. | The EESC stresses that the agreements concluded by the social partners and implemented at EU level under Article 155 TFEU make an important contribution to developing EU legislation in the area of social policy. It welcomes the fact that, according to the communication, the social dialogue outcomes and directives enjoy equal treatment in terms of being adopted. For the possible transition from the unanimity procedure to qualified majority voting, it calls for guarantees that the social partners will continue to be fully involved in policy making, including social policy making, and that their autonomy in the implementation and potential revision of their autonomous agreements will be respected. Social dialogue plays an important role in social protection. It also delivers social progress in the EU through autonomous legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.13.

| 2.14. | The EESC agrees with the Commission and believes that the enhanced cooperation tool does not provide an alternative to qualified majority voting. The enhanced cooperation tool may lead to fragmentation of the single market and to EU citizens being treated differently depending on the Member State in which they live, particularly when it comes to social policy issues. |
| --- | --- |

2.14.

| 2.15. | On the other hand, the EESC believes that the European Semester is another effective and useful tool for achieving more and better convergence and making progress in national reforms, with the support and guidance of the Member States and the social partners, not least through "shared learning". This also respects the letter and spirit of Article 156 TFEU. The EESC highlights the efforts made as part of the European Semester to develop improved methods for coordinating national employment and social protection policy and reform, and at the same time to include the national social partners effectively in the work of the EU. The European Pillar of Social Rights, which serves as a guide for reforms, would therefore contribute to establishing a roadmap for better convergence and greater cohesion between the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.15.

3.   Specific comments

| 3.1. | The EESC notes that, within a given policy area, decisions are currently subject to unanimity or qualified majority voting. This leads to inequality in the development of social standards and to gaps in social protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The EESC points out that there is extensive EU legislation implementing the principle of equality between men and women and equal treatment on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, among other things. This is a major success story of the EU, which is also an international standard setter in this area. However, EU law only ensures equal treatment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the context of employment and occupation. A directive comprehensively prohibiting discrimination in the EU would be extremely complex and therefore unlikely to be achievable through unanimity voting. However, the EU has made a commitment to this end under the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. This objective has been bolstered by the new Strategic Agenda 2019-2024. The EESC supports a full transition to qualified majority voting for legislation on non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The EESC draws attention to the fact that, in accordance with Article 48 TFEU, the EU may act by a qualified majority to adopt measures in the field of social security for the purpose of providing free movement of workers. On the other hand, unanimity is required for recommendations on social security and worker protection. Transitioning to qualified majority voting would be logical and appropriate. The question also arises as to why the Commission does not consider more extensive legal tools here, instead of limiting itself to the goal of making recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EESC recognises that protecting workers in the event of dismissal has always been a key feature of national labour law. However, the EESC also recognises that the EU has now developed measures to protect vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and part-time workers. This calls for at least a minimum set of procedural and protection rights to be guaranteed at European level in order to ensure that these safeguards do not prove ineffective. The European Pillar of Social Rights provides for rights to information for workers who have been made redundant, and for access to effective and impartial dispute settlements, remedies and compensation where applicable. This calls for a transition to qualified majority voting to enable such a directive to be implemented. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The EESC stresses that it is crucial to have a sound legal framework for the representation and collective management of employer and employee interests for the cohesion of society, the creation of high-quality jobs and the competitiveness of EU businesses. Businesses in the single market are working more and more closely together at cross-border level. The Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council, which was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, applies to undertakings and groups of undertakings in the EU. In contrast, unanimity continues to apply in other areas of EU law on employee participation. Here, too, the EU must, as far as is objectively necessary, examine to what extent qualified majority voting opens up new opportunities for a future-oriented social partnership. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | The EESC recommends moving to qualified majority voting for the employment conditions of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU. The employment conditions of EU and non-EU nationals must be consistent if social cohesion is not to be compromised. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | In the context of the ongoing debate on the transition to qualified majority voting, the EESC agrees with the considerations of the Commission with regard to opting for the general "passerelle clause" set out in Article 48(7) TEU, in cases where qualified majority voting is applied, as this requires both a unanimous decision by the European Council and the support of all national parliaments and the consent of the European Parliament. This would ensure broad democratic legitimacy and meet constitutional requirements at national level. This would not be true in the case of the "passerelle" via Article 153 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The EESC notes that a question remains unanswered by the Commission communication. It is not clear whether the decision to transfer a certain legal base from unanimity to qualified majority voting is taken once and for all or on a case-by-case basis. The EESC asks the Commission to clarify whether the use of the general "passerelle clause" in Article 48(7) TEU involves a blanket transition to qualified majority voting or case-by-case decisions. Whichever the case, the EESC contends that it must be ensured that the use of the "passerelle clause" results in more efficient deliberations and decision-making and does not create any further obstacles. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  See these EESC opinions: OJ C 230, 14.7.2015, p. 24; OJ C 434, 15.12.2017, p. 18; OJ C 271, 19.9.2013, p. 23; OJ C 332, 8.10.2015, p. 8.

1

(2)  EESC opinion "Taxation – qualified majority voting" (OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 90).

2

(3)  See footnote 2.

3

(4)  See footnote 1.

4

---

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the debate (Rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure):

1.   Point 2.8

Amend as follows:

The EESC welcomes the fact that, in this communication, the Commission has taken the initiative to open the debate and explain how a shift to also launched the discussion on extending decision-making by qualified majority in the area of social policy could look without precipitous propos

  als., as is the case particularly in the area of taxation policy (1). The qualified majority procedure is based on a culture of compromise. It presupposes a debate and enables pragmatic results to be achieved that take account of the interests of the EU as a whole. The prospect of qualified majority voting acts as a catalyst for finding a solution that is acceptable to all parties, by involving all stakeholders in pursuit of a compromise.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 36 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 74 |
| Abstentions | : | 2 |

In favour

:

36

Against

:

74

Abstentions

:

2

2.   New point after 2.8

Add a new point after 2.8:

On the other hand, the rationale of unanimity in the decision-making is based on the need to preserve national control of relevant provisions of social policy in the EU Treaty and prevent intrusion into core elements of national social systems for which the Member States together with social partners are responsible in the first instance.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 82 |
| Abstentions | : | 3 |

In favour

:

31

Against

:

82

Abstentions

:

3

3.   Point 3.1

Amend as follows:

The EESC notes that, within a given policy area, decisions are currently subject to unanimity or qualified majority voting. The EESC finds that the apportionment between qualified majority voting and unanimity laid down in the social chapter of the EU Treaty is still relevant as it reflects the diversity and heterogeneity of the national social systems of the Member States e.g. in social protection, regarding the role of social partners and regarding the role of labour law and collective agreements. This leads to inequality in the development of social standards and to gaps in social protection.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 32 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 74 |
| Abstentions | : | 3 |

In favour

:

32

Against

:

74

Abstentions

:

3

4.   Point 3.2

Amend as follows:

The EESC points out that there is extensive EU legislation implementing the principle of equality between men and women and equal treatment on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, among other things. This is a major success story of the EU, which is also an international standard setter in this area. However, EU law only ensures equal treatment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the context of employment and occupation. These directives were adopted unanimously. A directive comprehensively prohibiting discrimination in the EU would be extremely complex, which explains the long procedure and slow progress and therefore unlikely to be achievable through unanimity voting. However, the EU has made a commitment to this end under the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. This objective has been bolstered by the new Strategic Agenda 2019-2024. The EESC supports a full transition to qualified majority voting for legislation on non-discrimination.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 78 |
| Abstentions | : | 2 |

In favour

:

31

Against

:

78

Abstentions

:

2

5.   Point 3.4

Delete as follows:

The EESC recognises that protecting workers in the event of dismissal has always been a key feature of national labour law. However, the EESC also recognises that the EU has now developed measures to protect vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and part-time workers. This calls for at least a minimum set of procedural and protection rights to be guaranteed at European level in order to ensure that these safeguards do not prove ineffective. The European Pillar of Social Rights provides for rights to information for workers who have been made redundant, and for access to effective and impartial dispute settlements, remedies and compensation where applicable. This calls for a transition to qualified majority voting to enable such a directive to be implemented.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 35 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 77 |
| Abstentions | : | 2 |

In favour

:

35

Against

:

77

Abstentions

:

2

6.   Point 3.5

Delete as follows:

The EESC stresses that it is crucial to have a sound legal framework for the representation and collective management of employer and employee interests for the cohesion of society, the creation of high-quality jobs and the competitiveness of EU businesses. Businesses in the single market are working more and more closely together at cross-border level. The Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council, which was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, applies to undertakings and groups of undertakings in the EU. In contrast, unanimity continues to apply in other areas of EU law on employee participation. Here, too, the EU must, as far as is objectively necessary, examine to what extent qualified majority voting opens up new opportunities for a future-oriented social partnership.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 34 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 84 |
| Abstentions | : | 2 |

In favour

:

34

Against

:

84

Abstentions

:

2

7.   Point 3.6

Delete as follows:

The EESC recommends moving to qualified majority voting for the employment conditions of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU. The employment conditions of EU and non-EU nationals must be consistent if social cohesion is not to be compromised.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 30 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 85 |
| Abstentions | : | 1 |

In favour

:

30

Against

:

85

Abstentions

:

1

8.   Point 1.7

Amend as follows:

The EESC notes that, within a given policy area, decisions are currently subject to either unanimity or qualified majority voting. This leads to inequality in the development of social standards and to gaps in social protection. The EESC therefore supports a full transition to qualified majority voting for legislation in the area of non-discrimination and for recommendations on social security and protection of workers. The EESC finds that the apportionment between qualified majority voting and unanimity laid down in the social chapter of the EU Treaty is still relevant as it reflects the diversity and heterogeneity of the national social systems of the Member States e.g. in social protection, regarding the role of social partners and regarding the role of labour law and collective agreements.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 32 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 74 |
| Abstentions | : | 3 |

In favour

:

32

Against

:

74

Abstentions

:

3

9.   Point 1.8

Delete as follows:

The EESC also points out that the EU has developed measures to protect vulnerable workers, such as pregnant women and part-time workers, when employment has terminated. This calls for a minimum set of procedural and protection rights to be guaranteed at European level and for a transition to qualified majority voting.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 36 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 81 |
| Abstentions | : | 1 |

In favour

:

36

Against

:

81

Abstentions

:

1

10.   Point 1.10

Delete as follows:

The EESC recommends moving to qualified majority voting for the employment conditions of third-country nationals legally residing in the EU, to avoid unequal treatment and to bolster social cohesion.

Outcome of the vote

| In favour | : | 30 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Against | : | 85 |
| Abstentions | : | 1 |

In favour

:

30

Against

:

85

Abstentions

:

1

---

(1)  
  See footnote 1.

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/95

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Reflection Paper “Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030”’

(COM(2019) 22 final)

(2020/C 14/14)

Rapporteur: Cillian LOHAN

Co-rapporteur: Peter SCHMIDT

| Referral | European Commission, 12.3.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Bureau decision | 11.12.2018 – enlargement 22.1.2019 |
| Sections responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 28.6.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 26.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 168/3/5 |

Referral

European Commission, 12.3.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Bureau decision

11.12.2018 – enlargement 22.1.2019

Sections responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and Information Society

Adopted in section

28.6.2019

Adopted at plenary

26.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

168/3/5

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | Sustainable Development must be at the heart of the future of Europe. While appreciating the comprehensive analysis in the Reflection Paper, its description of the challenges, the direction in which to move and the potential for Europe that it shows, the EESC is concerned that the pace of transition towards sustainability, globally and within Europe, falls short of what is needed to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that we agreed upon. The urgency of addressing today’s environmental, social and economic challenges is not matched by political action. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | Sustainable Development is a common goal on a global scale; it requires common effort of all nations to achieve sustainable use of natural resources and prosperity for all people. Europe cannot achieve it alone, but the EU can and should use its weight as biggest trade block and as big importer of bio-based resources to push globally for sustainable sourcing, thus supporting maintaining global biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital for our common future. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | Sustainable Development is about the future of people; the economy should, within the planetary boundaries, work for society to deliver prosperity and equity, now and for future generations. The Agenda 2030 is a people-centred project designed to leave no one behind. The launch of a European Green and Social Deal will be an important element in the transformation of European economies in a radically more sustainable direction. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The time for reflection has passed: it is now high time for action. The EESC wants to see an urgent move to develop and deliver an EU-wide, overarching, long-term Sustainable Development Strategy accompanied by a comprehensive implementation plan to achieve the SDGs by 2030. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | The Sustainable Development Strategy should encompass both EU internal and external action and promote maximum coherence between them. The implementation plan should integrate sustainability in all policy areas, outline key actions which the EU will undertake to implement the SDGs, a clear timetable and roadmap, concrete targets and indicators, and the main roles and responsibilities of all EU institutions, agencies and actors. Cornerstones of the implementation should be innovation, sustainability-oriented international cooperation and trade agreements, and mobilisation of business and civil society. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The establishment of a governance and coordination framework alongside the strategy for implementing the 2030 Agenda is necessary to ensure that the SDGs are at the centre of all policies. In particular, the EU Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 should have been based on the SDGs and the European Parliament should play a prominent role. The new Commission should be organised around the implementation and mainstreaming of the SDGs, as laid out in the Commissioners’ Mission Letters. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

| 1.7. | The EESC calls on the Commission to move beyond GDP growth policy. The use of GDP as a measure of prosperity ignores important elements of social and environmental costs and benefits. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The EESC recognises that there are leaders within the business community on integration of sustainability. Many businesses are actually ahead of the policies. Policy needs to create the stable environment and certainty to ensure best practice becomes common practice. This will make business capable of delivering sustainable solutions. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The EESC calls for all existing EU policy and budgetary/financial frameworks and tools (such as the European Semester, Better Regulation, MFF, etc.) to be urgently aligned with the achievement of the SDGs. Credible sustainability-proofing methodologies should be identified or developed at EU level to ensure that budgetary/financial instruments, policy frameworks, and impact assessment approaches support SDG implementation in the EU’s internal and external action. New tools, such as measures of ‘distance to targets’ and new indicators, should also be developed. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | The EESC was the first EU institution to have a body dedicated to advancing sustainable development – the Sustainable Development Observatory – and is committed to promoting and mainstreaming the SDGs in a more comprehensive manner throughout its opinions as well as in its internal functioning and structure. It will therefore launch an internal reflection on aligning its internal governance with the SDGs. |
| --- | --- |

1.10.

| 1.11. | Structured involvement of civil society is necessary and a clear mandate for civil society’s participation in the development, implementation and monitoring of the strategy should be provided. The important role played so far by the Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSP) should be reviewed with the involvement of all stakeholders and lessons learnt from the success of other relevant multi-stakeholder forums, specifically the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform. The MSP should be upgraded and brought into a formal and interinstitutional consultation framework, as recommended by the European Parliament (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | Sustainable Development has the potential to be a tool for social solidarity and can counter the rise in populist anti-establishment feelings of citizens who are disconnected from decision-making and power. It must not be an elitist agenda but a people-centred project, aiming at making sustainable consumer choices accessible and affordable. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | The long-awaited Reflection Paper ‘Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030’ was published on 30 January as part of the debate on the future of Europe as well as of the EU’s commitment to deliver on the UN SDGs, including on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The EESC has been at the forefront of calling for the development of an ambitious, overarching EU Sustainable Development Strategy for several years and has put forward proposals on the necessary policy and governance measures to achieve the SDGs in many of its opinions across sectors. While contributing to the discussion on the Reflection Paper, the current opinion builds on previous EESC work and aims to set out a vision and make concrete proposals for the necessary governance reforms, tools and mechanisms underpinning an overarching strategy that will be by its nature long-term. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | A growing number of social and ecological indicators point to the need for urgent action and a rapid transition to sustainability on the part of the EU and other global actors. A recent UN IPCC report warns that humanity has approximately 11 years to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases and prevent a rise in global temperatures or trigger dangerous and potentially irreversible levels of climate breakdown (2). Alongside the climate emergency, other environmental challenges, such as biodiversity loss and air pollution, are of increasing concern for our citizens and require urgent action. Social inequalities are also rising in Europe. Nearly one quarter of our children and young people are at risk of poverty or in poverty (3), and millions of young people cannot find decent work to start shaping their adult life. Certain minority groups have further levels of exclusion, for example people with disabilities. Nationalist and populist movements are thriving across Europe and fundamental values and rights are challenged in several Member States (MS). The very foundations of the EU are being called into question. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The time for reflection has passed, and it is time for action. The publication of a Reflection Paper on sustainability should have been timed to coincide with the launch of the SDGs in 2015. The EESC wants to see an urgent move to design and deliver an overarching EU-wide Sustainable Development Strategy and an Implementation Plan, as recommended in previous opinions (4) and as mandated by EU Council Conclusions in 2017, 2018 and April 2019 (5). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The Reflection Paper sets out different possible scenarios for achieving sustainability. The reality is that a hard choice between scenarios is not realistic. Only Scenario 1 provides for an overarching strategy, but this scenario would also need elements of the other two scenarios to be effective. On overarching strategy is essential, and a coordinated political approach is a pre-requisite to achieving a sustainable future. This opinion further develops some of the ideas that are sketched out in Scenario 1. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The urgent requirement for more ambition and rapid implementation expressed in this Opinion should not be mistaken for a lack of appreciation of any progress that has been made to date. The EESC welcomes the analysis provided by the Reflection Paper and the recognition of policy foundations for a sustainable future as well as of horizontal enablers for the sustainability transition. However, the urgency from concerned citizens and experts is not matched by political action. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The EU has taken a lead in terms of policy initiatives on sustainability. However, for a variety of complex reasons, implementation has not matched these initiatives. The EU has one of the world’s largest ecological footprints and CO2 emissions per capita. Even within its own borders, the EU is not on track to achieve environmental sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | It is not enough to create a low-carbon, resource efficient and more social Europe; a sustainable Europe will need to take into account the environmental and social impact beyond its borders due to its imports. If the EU wants to be a global leader as described in the Reflection Paper, then the EU must understand and take seriously its responsibility and impact on a global level. In this connection, the Committee sees the EU’s ongoing negotiations with the Mercosur countries as almost a litmus test for a new trade policy geared to sustainable development. It therefore supports the call by those groups who are clearly urging that such a treaty should not be concluded without, for example, the committed involvement of all parties in implementing the climate agreement, conserving tropical rainforests and/or taking on board the interests of indigenous peoples – or, at least, that a termination clause must be included that takes effect if such recognised and fundamental sustainability efforts are violated. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

| 3.6. | As a continent that has been in the lead in the extraction and use of natural resources, and with high rates of consumption, Europe can provide valuable lessons in the actions that have been taken to improve resource efficiency and reduce its impact on the environment, and other efforts made to achieve change, including in social protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | The EU must frame and implement a model of sustainable development that demonstrates to the rest of the world, how the continuous pursuit of real sustainability promotes social cohesion, advances economic development, ensures ecological well-being, facilitates inclusive governance and leaves no one behind. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

4.   Fostering a systemic approach to sustainable development

| 4.1. | The Reflection Paper does not go far enough in stressing that a paradigm shift and a systemic approach are needed to address today’s unprecedented challenges. The definition of Sustainable Development is already agreed. However, there is a need to ensure it is fully and consistently implemented through policy and regulation and that its principles are enforced. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The definition used by the UN and the EU is from the Bruntland’s Commission: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (6). |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | Since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, Sustainable Development has been referred to as having three pillars, environment, social and economic, and that each pillar should be respected and considered in decision-making. Sustainable Development is enshrined under Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union as one of the EU’s long-term goals. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The diagram known as the ‘wedding cake’ below illustrates that Sustainable Development is about people, and an economy should work for society to deliver prosperity, equity and an environment that provides quality of life. This diagram links the layers to the internationally agreed SDGs (7). |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

Image 1

| 4.5. | The key principle of sustainable development is the integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns into all aspects of decision-making. Two principles set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – the precautionary principle (8) and the polluter pays principle (9) – are applied in this context and must be used to ensure that the most vulnerable do not bear the cost of environmental damages. Inherent in sustainability is the concept of intergenerational equity. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | A fourth dimension of sustainable development has to be recognised as well – that of governance going through all the three economic, social and environmental layers. The EU should reinforce the important paradigmatic shift of Agenda 2030 towards a more participatory model of multi-stakeholder governance for sustainable development (see point (9), and encourage a ‘whole of society’ approach to making the important transition to a more sustainable future for the planet. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | The Reflection Paper sets out the use of law as a means of ensuring and facilitating implementation as the preferred approach. The Commission says that respect for the law would be a prerequisite to receiving any EU funding and therefore be used as a driver for implementation of the SDGs. This will require equality in law of the three elements of sustainable development, environmental, social and economic. The EESC repeats its call for a recognition of the rights of nature to ensure parity with the rights of individuals and of corporations (10). |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

5.   Moving beyond GDP growth policy

| 5.1. | Europe needs a paradigm shift (11) and a new model of growth, one that is qualitatively different from what we have had thus far, that is socially inclusive and ecologically sustainable, and able to encourage and accompany convergence of the digital and ecological transitions in our countries and societies. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | The EESC calls, as in former opinions, for the need to look beyond GDP and to also use other indicators to determine prosperity at a national level (12) (13). GDP is an indicator of economic development in financial terms but ignores important elements of individual and social wellbeing and does not properly take into account the costs of natural capital (climate, depletion of natural resources, negative impact on ecosystem services like clean air, fresh water, fertile soils and liveable cities and landscapes). It ignores the quality and fairness of labour relations and the unpaid work of people, thus ignoring most value added of carers for children or elderly people and volunteers in cultural and sports activities. Sustainable development means economic growth (14) that takes all aspects of present and future human wellbeing into account; it includes the societal and environmental costs and benefits of activities and respects the planetary boundaries. It increases the wealth that humankind holds in common. It is not enough to put an economic value on societal and environmental elements; we must ensure that economic actors take these into account in their decision making. This requires intervention to safeguard public interests and to internalise external effects. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | Competitiveness is a prerequisite for continuous improvement of resource efficiency. However, competition in free markets does not by itself deliver optimal results for society. Society must set the rules and conditions for producers of goods and services and organise countervailing power to secure public goods and interests, such as fairness and sustainability. The market power of actors must be contained to prevent misuse to the detriment of labour, consumers, other businesses and the public at large. The global competitiveness index therefore needs to take into consideration environmental and social dimensions (15). |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | While appreciating the comprehensive analysis in the Reflection Paper, its description of the challenges, the direction in which to move and the potential for Europe that it shows, the EESC is concerned that the pace of transition towards sustainability, globally and within Europe, falls short of what is needed to achieve the goals that we agreed upon. Over 200 academics recently published a letter calling on Europe to move beyond growth-policies (16). |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

| 5.5. | The EESC supports the line in the Reflection Paper that transition to sustainability should be seen as an opportunity to enhance employment and prosperity. European businesses have a chance to take the lead, be at the source of collaborative innovation, riding the wave of the digital revolution to create sustainable business practices and new standards. The SDGs have the potential to define growing markets for companies that can deliver innovative solutions and transformative change. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

| 5.6. | The EESC recognises there are leaders within the business community on integration of sustainability. Business is an enabler for societal and environmental development (17). Many businesses are actually ahead of the policy. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

| 5.7. | An overarching strategy for Sustainable Development and the appropriate regulatory framework will create an enabling environment that would stimulate more investment and maximise opportunities for businesses. It will make business capable of delivering sustainable solutions. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

6.   Financing the change

| 6.1. | The Reflection Paper includes finance, pricing, taxation and competition among the horizontal enablers for the transition. |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.2. | The EESC notes that, despite the broad vocal support for sustainability, the current policy environment does not provide an effective mechanism for the integration of social and environmental costs in investment decisions. Assessment of actions and investment is mostly based on financial/economic returns only. This does not produce actual application of the principles in a transformative way. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | Some finance must be based on environmental and social returns. Finance needs to be used to leverage the change that gives returns for sustainability – the current measure of the effectiveness or the worthiness of actions is based on financial/economic returns only. This limited thinking will never fund the transition to sustainability. In the EESC’s view, reorienting capital flows towards a more sustainable economy must inevitably go hand in hand with financial inclusion and social cohesion in a Europe where no-one lags behind (18). |
| --- | --- |

6.3.

| 6.4. | Funding and financing for R&I is a critical aspect of sustainable development but also the funding and financing instruments themselves need to be designed in an innovative way (19) with for instance budgeting for the systematic inclusion of persons with disabilities. Financing needs to go beyond projects that are low carbon, and have higher resource efficiency to capture the valuable work and initiatives that give returns that are either environmental or social. |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

| 6.5. | Social investment is particularly useful to counter the high risks of poverty in the EU and increase Europe’s employment potential (20). The EESC recognises the continued investment in circular economy initiatives as a tool for achieving increased sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

6.5.

| 6.6. | The launch of a European Green and Social Deal will be an important element in the transformation of European economies in a radically more sustainable direction. It should be a major European public investment programme to support large capital projects with clear and widespread public benefits such as the retrofitting of public buildings, the redesign of public transport and the building of clean-energy systems. It should create badly-needed jobs across Europe particularly in regions with high concentrations of unemployment (particularly among youth and persons with disabilities) and would encourage rapid development and innovation in European vocational education and training systems. |
| --- | --- |

6.6.

| 6.7. | The Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) is crucial to ensuring mainstreaming of the SDGs, and the final decision on the MFF for the 2021-2027 period will signal whether the EU will be able to achieve its 2030 Agenda commitments. The Commission’s proposal misses the opportunity to make the 2030 Agenda the priority of the European agenda. Beyond the limited proposed increase in the climate mainstreaming target, the new MFF should allocate relevant financial resources for sustainable development and also ensure that no funding undermines the implementation of the SDGs. Funding needs to be made available to SDG implementers, including MS, local authorities, business, trade unions and NGOs for innovative, scalable and inclusive projects (21). In particular, the next final MFF should enable the transition to a climate-neutral economy by 2050. The EU must show a level of ambition that will match the challenge of the fight against climate change; an average 40 % of its global budget must be allocated to this objective (22). Also, the EESC highlights a problem with small-scale civil society actors accessing financing to ensure potentially transformative initiatives are supported and can happen (23). |
| --- | --- |

6.7.

| 6.8. | The EESC again calls for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and for a sustainable food systems approach to our food production and processing sectors as a practical means of mainstreaming sustainability in policy (24). It has pointed out on several occasions that the EU has so far failed to deliver on its many promises about internalising external costs, consistently applying the ‘polluter-pays’ principle and phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies, and calls once again on the EU institutions to put forward a comprehensive plan for a green taxation system (25). |
| --- | --- |

6.8.

| 6.9. | Sustainable Development also signifies progress and prosperity. Research and innovation will play a critical role in this. At both EU level and MS level, publicly funding R&I must significantly increase with a focus on delivering SDGs. This could also be used to leverage private sector funding. |
| --- | --- |

6.9.

| 6.10. | Private investment has a key role to play in the transition to a sustainable economy. Public-private partnership can help optimise the sustainability returns on investment both in a European and international context. |
| --- | --- |

6.10.

7.   Sustainable development as a tool for social solidarity

| 7.1. | Sustainable development could be a tool to counter the rise in populist anti-establishment feelings of citizens who are underprivileged and disconnected from decision-making and power. It must not be an elitist agenda but a people-centred project, aiming at making sustainable consumer choices accessible and affordable. Attempts to address problems by forcing costs on those already struggling and feeling disenfranchised and excluded is leading to a clear rejection of political solutions (e.g. climate policies, and many environmental policies), and manifesting itself in an expression of extremism and an insular anti-migration message. Decent work is a necessary condition for the sustainability transition. |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

| 7.2. | The transition requires investment in effective, inclusive and integrated social protection systems, including quality and accessible services such as health and long-term care, by practicing the social dialogue. Research shows that investment in education and healthcare have long lasting positive effect on social mobility, however Member States have tended to reduce investment in both areas over the past decade. If such is the case, this trend must be reversed. The cost of transition to a low carbon sustainable economy, must be met proportionally by those who can most afford to pay (for example as per Polluter Pays Principle) and should be subsidised with public money. Solutions to our current unsustainable model that exacerbate the problem are not viable solutions and need to be rejected as policy options – in reality they are being rejected on the streets of Europe, e.g. through the Climate Strike children. |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

| 7.3. | The Reflection Paper does not hide from the statistics that show this huge inequality issue in the EU. Over 22 % of EU citizens are at risk of poverty. Middle income earners are dropping, with low income earners increasing in most Member States. Approximately 7 % suffer material deprivation. These are shocking figures that quantify the abject failure of current policies. Furthermore 43 million people cannot afford a decent meal every second day. That’s nearly 10 % of our population. |
| --- | --- |

7.3.

| 7.4. | The Reflection Paper states that environmental issues cannot be solved with environmental policies alone if economic policies continue to promote fossil fuels, resource inefficiency or unsustainable production and consumption. The EESC highlights that all EU, national and local policies should take account of the social sustainability factor in the same way that they do for economic and environmental sustainability (26). |
| --- | --- |

7.4.

| 7.5. | While the need for linkages between economic and environmental spheres and the economic and social areas has been fully recognised, it is often still not given due consideration. The link between environmental and social concerns also has to be developed further. For instance, the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) should serve to promote people’s well-being and should significantly contribute to the 2030 Agenda. Although there is much common ground between the 17 SDGs and the 20 principles of the EPSR, a proposal to better combine the two in practice in order to achieve useful synergies in the implementation should be put forward by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

7.5.

8.   A new European political narrative on sustainable development

| 8.1. | There is a clear imperative for the EU and its MS to develop an engaging public narrative on the importance of SD for Europe and the world. The substance of this new public narrative should avoid being overly technical or jargonistic and should focus on how they relate to the real lives of people in Europe and beyond. It starts from education at all levels, from schools to organisations. |
| --- | --- |

8.1.

| 8.2. | An EU-wide public awareness-raising campaign should be launched involving different sectors who can reach out to their own constituencies. In particular, mass media, especially public media, ‘creatives’ from the world of culture, the arts, music etc. should be encouraged to get involved in developing cultural programmes at national level that translate the political narrative of SD into culturally resonant communication within different MS. |
| --- | --- |

8.2.

9.   A new multi-stakeholder and multi-level governance

| 9.1. | The Agenda 2030 promotes an important paradigmatic shift towards a more participatory model of multi-stakeholder governance for sustainable development. Goal 17 of the agenda identifies a central role for multiple stakeholders, including the private sector, trade unions, civil society, academia, local communities and others, in monitoring, implementation, review and follow-up activities. |
| --- | --- |

9.1.

| 9.2. | When multi-stakeholder participation in Agenda 2030 is fully operationalised at multiple levels (i.e. regional, sub-regional, national and local), this new model of governance is likely to have broad popular appeal. The opportunities for inclusive public participation in monitoring and implementation activities presented by Agenda 2030 provide a clear mandate to go a considerable way towards ameliorating current levels of public cynicism and the loss of trust in formal political systems. |
| --- | --- |

9.2.

| 9.3. | The MSP set up by the Commission in 2017 and in which the EESC took an active part should now play a lead role in developing and supporting the implementation of an ambitious Strategy and Implementation Plan for a Sustainable Europe. An official review of the functioning of the MSP that involves all stakeholders should be carried out and a clear mandate should be set out. This process should examine best practice from other relevant multi-stakeholder forums (e.g. the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform) and incorporate this learning into the way in which the MSP is organised going forward in order to maximise its effectiveness and overall functioning. This could include the need for more adequate resourcing of the MSP’s work, more frequent meetings of its high-level political committee, more opportunities for extended debate and engagement amongst its members, more focus on regular liaison with national SD platforms and the facilitation of more regular, transparent and accessible public consultations on matters related to sustainable development. |
| --- | --- |

9.3.

| 9.4. | National strategies for the implementation of the SDGs have already been developed or are being developed by several MS (27). An EU-wide strategy would provide an enabling framework for the national strategies to gradually move towards greater convergence. The ‘Open Method of Coordination’ could be applied in this context, facilitating the exchange of good practices and peer-to-peer learning across MS. |
| --- | --- |

9.4.

10.   Aligning the existing tools to SDG implementation

| 10.1. | A fundamentally new European Semester |
| --- | --- |

10.1.

| 10.1.1. | Currently the European Semester is the main annual coordination instrument of the EU’s macroeconomic objectives involving the EU and its MS. It needs to be fundamentally transformed and made more transparent so that it contributes to ensuring political coherence and coordinated implementation and monitoring of the SDGs, as already called for by the EESC (28) and by the MSP (29). All phases of the Semester process need to be adapted to ensure effective coordination of the implementation of the SDGs at EU and national level in line with a future overarching strategy (30). |
| --- | --- |

10.1.1.

| 10.1.2. | The Annual Growth Survey should be replaced by the ‘Annual Sustainable Growth Survey’ (31), with a balance between social, economic and environmental priorities in line with the SDGs. Organised civil society should be more involved in all phases of a reformed Semester, at both EU and national level to bring additional policy expertise to the process, ensure more independent monitoring on policy developments, promote buy-in by society to these reforms, and overall strengthen participatory democracy. |
| --- | --- |

10.1.2.

| 10.2. | Better Regulation |
| --- | --- |

10.2.

| 10.2.1. | The use of the Commission’s Better Regulation tools is another way to ensure further mainstreaming of sustainable development in European policies. All Commission impact assessments, fitness checks and the REFIT Platform’s recommendations must evaluate environmental, social and economic impacts so that sustainability is duly considered and factored in. Ex post evaluations must also analyse all three dimensions in a strong integrated approach. A ‘sustainability check’ should also be more explicitly incorporated into the REFIT programme (32) and policy coherence for sustainable development should be ensured. |
| --- | --- |

10.2.1.

| 10.2.2. | The EESC calls on the Commission to integrate sustainable development and the SDGs into the evaluation processes. |
| --- | --- |

10.2.2.

| 10.2.3. | Social partner consultations are also required, respecting Treaty provisions requesting the specific consultation of labour and management in relation to legislation on social issues (Article 154(2)); consultations with the EESC, the Committee of Regions and national parliaments form another component of the better regulation toolbox to meet the inclusiveness requirement that is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda. |
| --- | --- |

10.2.3.

11.   EU targets and better indicators

| 11.1. | The overarching strategy should establish EU targets for achieving the SDGs. These targets need to be monitored with a set of indicators that: 1) are sufficiently comprehensive to measure the distance to targets and to provide an appropriate progress review; 2) provide a basis for policy planning and policy shaping. The current EU SDG set of indicators (33) fails to do this. |
| --- | --- |

11.1.

| 11.2. | The EESC reiterates its call for the major involvement of civil society in the definition of indicators and in assessing the EU’s progress towards the goals (34). |
| --- | --- |

11.2.

| 11.3. | The EU SDG set of indicators should fully integrate other existing sets of indicators, e.g. the European Social Scoreboard (35) following the example of how the Scoreboard has been already incorporated into the Semester. |
| --- | --- |

11.3.

12.   Monitoring and Accountability

| 12.1. | Regular inclusive and transparent monitoring and accountability systems must be put in place to measure progress in the EU’s SDG implementation. The EU must actively participate in the UNECE Regional Sustainable Development Forum each year and provide leadership in accelerating regional progress towards achieving SDG goals and targets. The EU should also commit to regularly presenting an overarching joint EU report on SDG implementation at the UN’s HLPF, complementing the ‘Joint Synthesis Report’ on EU development policy. The EU’s overarching report needs to cover all external and domestic EU policy and the governance aspects, as well as an analysis of the EU’s current position and how it will achieve the SDGs by 2030. |
| --- | --- |

12.1.

13.   Implementing the SDGs in EU External Action

| 13.1. | Many EU internal policies can result in spill-over impacts outside the EU, with positive and negative impacts on other countries’ attempts to achieve SDGs. The EU’s external action policies, including investment, trade, development, peace and security and human rights policies, must be reviewed to ensure that they support the achievement of the new global sustainable development agenda. For example, the sustainability chapters of current EU trade agreements lack teeth and are hard to enforce. Sustainable development must become central to EU trade policy, for example by introducing formal complaint procedures when violations of the sustainability commitments of trade agreements occur. Trade should be a tool for sustainability and for the implementation of the SDGs in the context of international cooperation. This could be regulated through multilateral agreements. The power of EU trade can drive sustainability along the global value chain, for example focusing on sustainable sourcing. |
| --- | --- |

13.1.

| 13.2. | EU External Action must ensure greater integration between the implementation of the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement. No consideration is given under the current framework on the EU’s spill-over effects and/or footprint. Furthermore, the current EU framework and SDG indicators focus primarily on progress in implementing the SDGs within the EU and do not measure the EU’s contribution towards achieving the SDGs at the global level. Sustainable investment in the value chain should also be ensured. |
| --- | --- |

13.2.

Brussels, 26 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  EP Annual strategic report on the SDGs, March 2019.

1

(2)  https://www.ipcc.ch/

2

(3)  Eurostat

3

(4)  EESC Opinions ‘Indicators better suited to evaluate the SDGs’( OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 14), ‘Next steps for a sustainable European future’ (OJ C 345, 13.10.2017, p. 91), ‘The transition towards a more sustainable European future’ (OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 44).

4

(5)  Towards an ever more sustainable Union by 2030 — Council conclusions.

5

(6)  http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

6

(7)  Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2016. Illustration: Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre

7

(8)  Article 191 TFEU.

8

(9)  Article 191(2) TFEU.

9

(10)  EESC Opinion ‘Climate Justice’ (OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 22).

10

(11)  EPSC, July 2016.

11

(12)  EESC Opinion ‘Next steps for a sustainable European future’ (OJ C 345, 13.10.2017, p. 91).

12

(13)  EESC Opinion ‘Beyond GDP’ (OJ C 100, 30.4.2009, p. 53).

13

(14)  EESC Opinion ‘Sibiu and beyond’ (OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 37).

14

(15)  EESC Opinion ‘Sibiu and beyond’ (OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 37).

15

(16)  https://degrowth.org/2018/09/06/post-growth-open-letter/

16

(17)  EESC opinion ‘Sibiu and beyond’ (OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 37).

17

(18)  EESC Opinion ‘Action Plan on Sustainable Finance’ (OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 73).

18

(19)  EESC Opinion ‘Facilitating access to climate finance for non-state actors’ (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 14).

19

(20)  EESC Opinion ‘The impact of social investment on employment and public budgets’ (OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 21).

20

(21)  EESC Opinion ‘Indicators better suited to evaluate the SDGs’ (OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 14).

21

(22)  EESC Opinion ‘European Finance-Climate Pact’ (OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 8).

22

(23)  EESC Opinion ‘Facilitating access to climate finance for non-state actors’ (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 14).

23

(24)  EESC Opinion ‘A comprehensive EU food policy’ (OJ C 129, 11.4.2018, p. 18).

24

(25)  EESC Opinion on the Market-based instruments towards a resource efficient and low carbon economy in the EU (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 1).

25

(26)  EESC Opinion ‘A socially sustainable concept for the digital era’ (OJ C 237, 6.7.2018, p. 1).

26

(27)  See EESC country fiches on SDGs Member State activities

27

(28)  EESC Opinions ‘Indicators better suited to evaluate the SDGs ’, ‘The transition towards a more sustainable European future ’ (OJ C 81, 2.3.2018, p. 44), ‘Annual Growth Survey 2018’ (OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 95).

28

(29)  MSP report.

29

(30)  EESC Opinion ‘Sibiu and beyond’ (OJ C 228, 5.7.2019, p. 37).

30

(31)  EESC Opinion ‘Annual Growth Survey 2019’ (OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 24).

31

(32)  MSP report.

32

(33)  Eurostat on EU SDG indicators.

33

(34)  EESC Opinion ‘Indicators better suited to evaluate the SDGs’ (OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 14).

34

(35)  Eurostat on Social scoreboard.

35

---

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussion:

New 13.3

Add a new point as follows:

The EESC also points out that all the EU’s efforts could be in vain and fail to produce the desired results if they do not at the same time succeed in properly addressing the unchecked growth of the world’s population.

Result of the vote

| For | 47 |
| --- | --- |
| Against | 108 |
| Abstentions | 5 |

For

47

Against

108

Abstentions

5

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/105

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council — A more efficient and democratic decision making in EU energy and climate policy’

(COM(2019) 177 final)

(2020/C 14/15)

Rapporteur: Baiba MILTOVIČA

Co-rapporteur: Dumitru FORNEA

| Referral | European Commission, 3.6.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 11.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 26.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 136/39/11 |

Referral

European Commission, 3.6.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

11.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

26.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

136/39/11

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.   Conclusions

| 1.1.1. | The Communication is a complement to the fourth report on the State of the Energy Union. It focuses on the legislative framework for more democratic decision making in EU energy and climate policy as well as proposing that energy-related tax matters move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (with the accompanying ordinary legislative procedure). |
| --- | --- |

1.1.1.

| 1.1.2. | The EESC welcomes the proposal to use the passerelle clauses to establish a qualified majority in the Council and a co-decision system with the European Parliament. In this new set-up, the EESC could play an important role in supporting the trilogue and should be involved.
  While supporting the Communication, the EESC considers that efficient governance of the climate and energy strategy and greater coherence in EU legislation on energy taxation should take into account the concerns of European businesses, workers and other stakeholders, including consumers. The involvement and engagement of civil society, the support of Member States and the agreement and commitment of the social partners are important for the success of this process. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.2.

While supporting the Communication, the EESC considers that efficient governance of the climate and energy strategy and greater coherence in EU legislation on energy taxation should take into account the concerns of European businesses, workers and other stakeholders, including consumers. The involvement and engagement of civil society, the support of Member States and the agreement and commitment of the social partners are important for the success of this process.

| 1.1.3. | The EESC calls on the EU when using qualified majority voting, to remain committed to the subsidiarity principle and, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, concentrate on areas in which shared objectives cannot be achieved more effectively at national, regional or local level. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.3.

| 1.1.4. | The EESC is conscious of the potentially controversial nature of certain types of energy taxation under consideration. We therefore strongly recommend that the Commission clarifies that a similar approach to that expressed in COM(2019) 8 Communication ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ applies in this case as well such that the least controversial areas of taxation be identified for consideration in the first instance. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.4.

| 1.1.5. | The EESC regrets that Communication COM(2019) 177 does not expand upon the potential types of specific tax decisions that might be discussed under qualified majority voting and urges the Commission to rectify this. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.5.

| 1.1.6. | A sensitive approach is needed that fits local circumstances and steps will need to be taken to ensure a just transition so that workers, consumers and communities are not left behind. In such cases, new energy taxation measures may require compensatory funding from the EU to offset the social and economic damage caused. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.6.

1.2.   Recommendations

| 1.2.1. | The Communication on energy-related tax procedures should:






  — | be the subject of a profound analysis of the objectives, base and related structure of energy taxation and a thorough social and economic impact assessment on the consequences set out therein; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2.1.

—

be the subject of a profound analysis of the objectives, base and related structure of energy taxation and a thorough social and economic impact assessment on the consequences set out therein;

| — | be included in a wider and clear roadmap that goes hand in hand with developments in other areas of the Energy Union, involving targeted, consistent measures, including incentives and compensations, to support the transition towards more sustainable energy production and strategy. |
| --- | --- |

—

be included in a wider and clear roadmap that goes hand in hand with developments in other areas of the Energy Union, involving targeted, consistent measures, including incentives and compensations, to support the transition towards more sustainable energy production and strategy.

| 1.2.2. | The Commission has room for action using its present powers prior to any request that Member States relinquish sovereignty (via the specific or the general passerelle clauses), specifically:






  — | developing more specific instruments under Article 194(1) TFEU in order to increase EU cross-border inter-connector capacity, which is ‘a matter of priority’ for the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2.

—

developing more specific instruments under Article 194(1) TFEU in order to increase EU cross-border inter-connector capacity, which is ‘a matter of priority’ for the European Union;

| — | re-engineering the present mechanism of incentives for generation/inter-connection capacity development; encouraging ‘national diversities’ and leveraging, rather than being subject to, them; anchoring the Energy Union to the EU industrial basis more effectively; reinforcing the use of free movement and state aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

re-engineering the present mechanism of incentives for generation/inter-connection capacity development; encouraging ‘national diversities’ and leveraging, rather than being subject to, them; anchoring the Energy Union to the EU industrial basis more effectively; reinforcing the use of free movement and state aid;

| — | making national energy taxation more transparent and neutralising the effects of national decisions under Article 194(2) TFEU which may affect the Union’s overall interests, by taking simultaneously into account the fact that public intervention can also have positive effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

making national energy taxation more transparent and neutralising the effects of national decisions under Article 194(2) TFEU which may affect the Union’s overall interests, by taking simultaneously into account the fact that public intervention can also have positive effects;

| — | re-designing the EU’s energy markets in order to better tackle economic, international trade and social issues raised by the transition for consumers, workers and businesses; cooperation with third countries must be based on a single energy trade policy to protect Member States from imbalances in the economic market, and to avoid an increase in EU energy dependence on third countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

re-designing the EU’s energy markets in order to better tackle economic, international trade and social issues raised by the transition for consumers, workers and businesses; cooperation with third countries must be based on a single energy trade policy to protect Member States from imbalances in the economic market, and to avoid an increase in EU energy dependence on third countries.

| 1.2.3. | New impetus should be given to EU industrial policy by capitalising on clean energy investments made over the last few years. Championing EU companies in this regard would help boost further gross domestic product, create jobs and income, and therefore manage expected increases in energy costs more effectively. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.3.

| 1.2.4. | The Commission should improve market design measures such as including further support for demand energy cooperatives or possible re-municipalisation of local distribution networks and review the way its work is organised, e.g., reconsidering the structure and number of EU agencies involved in energy policy building.
  In this regard, the EESC could provide further input to determine whether European consumers and communities, businesses and workers already have the tools to take ownership of the energy transition in order to strengthen the Energy Union’s goals. This could be done via an EESC own-initiative opinion on the new energy market design. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.4.

In this regard, the EESC could provide further input to determine whether European consumers and communities, businesses and workers already have the tools to take ownership of the energy transition in order to strengthen the Energy Union’s goals. This could be done via an EESC own-initiative opinion on the new energy market design.

| 1.2.5. | The cost of energy has a direct and immediate impact on all companies, workers, consumers and people’s lives, and so the consequences of an unbalanced initiative on energy taxation have to be carefully considered. In this context the EESC welcomes the incoming Commission president’s announcement of a new carbon border tax to ensure the competitiveness of European companies on the global market and avoid carbon leakage. Measures are needed to support the transition to more sustainable energy production and help many social groups to cope with the energy transition. In the event of job losses, new opportunities must be provided, and professional requalification and other negotiated solutions offered for involved workers. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.5.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | The Communication deals with energy taxation and Euratom Treaty reform, both issues closely linked to sovereignty. This is a controversial issue, and requests for transfers of sovereignty in such a sensitive field as taxation at this very time requires a wise approach. As stressed by the Commission in its document under the heading ‘Energy tax reform should reflect social equity considerations’ (point 2.3), any taxation on more ‘polluting’ energy could directly harm the weaker parts of society. This measure could thus be experienced by many European citizens as an additional burden, and the EESC is therefore pleased that the Commission recognises the sensitivity of the issue. The EESC refers to the many opinions it has published with recommendations to the Commission on how to address this problem.
  The need for more efficient governance of the climate and energy strategy and greater coherence in EU legislation consequently brings with it the need for a much more intensive debate, at all levels of society, on the way in which decisions on energy taxation are taken, taking into account the concerns of EU businesses, workers and other stakeholders, including consumers. The right tool for this is an effective Energy Dialogue with organised civil society at EU, national, regional and local level. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

The need for more efficient governance of the climate and energy strategy and greater coherence in EU legislation consequently brings with it the need for a much more intensive debate, at all levels of society, on the way in which decisions on energy taxation are taken, taking into account the concerns of EU businesses, workers and other stakeholders, including consumers. The right tool for this is an effective Energy Dialogue with organised civil society at EU, national, regional and local level.

| 2.2. | Lastly, it must be borne in mind that while for the last 20 years EU energy policy has been closely linked to its environmental policy, by 2020 it will be entering another phase with broader targets, to be considered from the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals. Energy is also at the core of industrial policy and EU investments applied over the last few years in the clean energy economy may now yield results by championing EU companies in several innovative sectors around the world. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

3.   The Commission Communication

| 3.1. | The Commission prepared this Communication with a view to asking that energy-related tax matters be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting (with the accompanying ordinary legislative procedure). |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | The Communication also aims to develop stronger democratic accountability under the Euratom Treaty, which does not place the European Parliament on the same footing as does the Lisbon Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The Communication outlines the current relevant framework: in addition to the usual qualified majority voting (TFEU Articles 194(1) and (2), first paragraph) and the explicit right of Member States to determine certain energy policies (TFEU Article 194(2), second paragraph), in the field of energy Council unanimity is required to adopt provisions that are primarily fiscal in nature (TFEU Article 194(3)), similar to what is required for tax-related environmental measures (TFEU Article 192(2)). |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The Commission considers that the shift to qualified majority decision making is key in order to finalise the clean energy transition and the achievement of the 2030 energy and climate targets, as well as with a view to the relevant and growing influence that taxes and levies have on energy prices. In this regard, the Commission claims that the unanimity requirement has until now made it impossible to review the 2003 Energy Taxation Framework Directive (1), which is largely based on outdated premises and is not driven by clean energy objectives:






  — | taxes based on the volume/weight of the energy products consumed rather than on their energy content, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.4.

—

taxes based on the volume/weight of the energy products consumed rather than on their energy content,

| — | unchanged minimum rates giving inefficient signals and creating unfair competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

unchanged minimum rates giving inefficient signals and creating unfair competition.

Moreover, the Commission believes that sector-specific tax exemptions/reductions (in the aviation, maritime and road-haulage and agricultural/fisheries sectors and for energy-intensive industries) weaken incentives for greater energy efficiency.

| 3.5. | In the Commission’s view, the Communication is intended to pave the way for the review of the 2003 Directive, which is aimed at:






  — | providing stronger support for the clean energy transition, in the form of environmentally consistent tax rates and the replacement of fossil fuel subsidies with a carbon tax; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.5.

—

providing stronger support for the clean energy transition, in the form of environmentally consistent tax rates and the replacement of fossil fuel subsidies with a carbon tax;

| — | securing sustainable and socially fair growth, via the transition to consumption and environmental taxes that are more growth-friendly, and harmonisation of taxation levels across Member States which will have a positive impact on retail prices, and |
| --- | --- |

—

securing sustainable and socially fair growth, via the transition to consumption and environmental taxes that are more growth-friendly, and harmonisation of taxation levels across Member States which will have a positive impact on retail prices, and

| — | enforcing social equity considerations, by designing appropriate accompanying measures in the social policy and welfare systems framework which mitigate and make socially acceptable the impact of shifting taxes with a view to clean energy (support for vulnerable consumers, favouring the transition of economic sectors and/or regions, reduction of labour taxation). |
| --- | --- |

—

enforcing social equity considerations, by designing appropriate accompanying measures in the social policy and welfare systems framework which mitigate and make socially acceptable the impact of shifting taxes with a view to clean energy (support for vulnerable consumers, favouring the transition of economic sectors and/or regions, reduction of labour taxation).

| 3.6. | In order to achieve the objective of qualified majority voting, the Communication presents two options, both avoiding the need to amend the TFEU and with no impact on the present sharing of competences between the Union and the Member States: specifically, the use of either the specific passerelle clause set out in the environment title (TFEU Article 192(2)) which would make it possible to reach the procedural goal for energy taxation measures which are primarily environmental in nature, or the general passerelle clause under TEU Article 48(7) for tax measures more generally designed for energy goals. In both cases, it would be for the Council to decide on the shift from unanimity to qualified majority. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

| 3.7. | Lastly, the Communication intends to drive on the development of democratic accountability in the framework of the Euratom Treaty, which covers sensitive matters of general interest, notably through the proposed involvement of both the European Parliament (which is presently merely consulted, but not on the conclusion of international treaties) and national Parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

| 3.8. | The substance of the Euratom Treaty would not be modified, apart from extending civil society information rights, ensuring cross-border consultation between Member States when there is potential cross-border impact, ensuring stronger involvement in such cases of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) and enhancing the nuclear accident response capacity. It will therefore need to be reviewed under the ordinary Treaty revision procedure under TEU Article 48. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

4.   General comments

| 4.1. | The EESC welcomes this European Commission Communication to introduce qualified majority voting in the area of energy taxation in order to tackle the challenges of climate change. It also endorses a stronger role for the European Parliament and national Parliaments (presently not involved) in the decision-making process within Euratom, as well as the Commission’s proposal to increase the involvement of civil society when shaping policies on nuclear energy, although the Communication itself necessarily takes a long-term approach to these developments. The EESC calls for the establishment of a closer link between future reports on the State of the Energy Union and the medium-term 2030 and long-term strategy proposed for 2050. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | Whilst recognising that immediate measures have to be taken (since well over 80 % of CO2 emissions are due to the production and use of energy) the EESC calls on the EU when using qualified majority voting, to remain committed to the subsidiarity principle and, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, concentrate on areas in which shared objectives cannot be achieved more effectively at national, regional or local level. The same applies to the principle of proportionality, according to which the content and form of EU measures must not go beyond the objectives set out in the Treaties (2). |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The EESC notes with concern that in Communication COM(2019) 177 there is no mention of the gradualist approach contained in COM(2019) 8 Communication ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ which makes the case for a gradual transition in four steps to qualified majority voting under the ordinary legislative procedure in certain areas of shared EU taxation policy (3). The EESC is conscious of the potentially controversial nature of certain types of energy taxation under consideration. We therefore strongly recommend that the Commission clarifies that a similar approach applies in this case as well such that the least controversial areas of taxation be identified for consideration in the first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | The EESC regrets that Communication COM(2019) 177 does not expand upon the potential types of specific tax decisions that might be discussed under qualified majority voting and urges the Commission to rectify this. The EESC would be concerned if decisions were made at EU level on energy taxation that trigger adverse distributional effects, like increasing energy poverty, for instance by removing subsidies on energy bills for the least well-off consumers. There are sensitive issues that affect Member States differently according to their dependence on fossil fuels and the availability of alternatives. A sensitive approach is needed that fits local circumstances and steps will need to be taken to ensure a just transition so that workers, consumers and communities are not left behind. In such cases, new energy taxation measures may require compensatory funding from the EU to offset the social and economic damage caused. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | Energy prices which are increasing faster than household budgets, income inequality across Europe and the costs incurred by the energy transition (decentralisation and digitalisation of electricity and gas markets) determine the degree to which energy poverty is present in a society (4). The European Energy Poverty Index (EEPI) scores and ranks Member States’ progress in alleviating domestic and transport energy poverty (5) and the Communication, drawing on the findings of the European Energy Poverty Observatory, should be linked to a European action plan aimed at eradicating energy poverty by targeting its root causes (6). As mentioned in previous EESC opinions (7), ‘Energy efficiency and non-consumption do not in themselves constitute sources of energy’ and therefore cannot by themselves resolve the problems linked to climate change, security of supply and energy poverty. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | Consumers are not gaining their fair share from EU efforts in the energy field because of the uncoupling of wholesale and retail markets (8): due to a number of factors (such as late distribution unbundling, subsidies burden, and the high failure rate of new retailers), the historically decreasing prices in wholesale markets post-liberalisation are not passed on to retail markets.
  EU energy user charge levels are already very high (9). Given that approximately 40 % of the final price of electricity paid by European consumers is made up of taxes and levies, it is the Commission’s duty to carry out an impact assessment of the prospective effects of energy prices, including with regard to the effects of tax harmonisation on the poorest households. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

EU energy user charge levels are already very high (9). Given that approximately 40 % of the final price of electricity paid by European consumers is made up of taxes and levies, it is the Commission’s duty to carry out an impact assessment of the prospective effects of energy prices, including with regard to the effects of tax harmonisation on the poorest households.

| 4.7. | Without abandoning the link with environmental policy, closer coordination with broader industrial policy and consequent economic development could also allow for:






  — | on the one hand, better management of potential social tension (higher incomes for workers to offset the growing costs of energy) (10), and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.7.

—

on the one hand, better management of potential social tension (higher incomes for workers to offset the growing costs of energy) (10), and

| — | on the other hand, better management of current European energy diversity: different national energy policies carried out to date can become an advantage if well managed at European level, by making use of such different and complementary alternatives in the framework of Energy Union policies. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the other hand, better management of current European energy diversity: different national energy policies carried out to date can become an advantage if well managed at European level, by making use of such different and complementary alternatives in the framework of Energy Union policies.

| 4.8. | Under either Article 192(2) TFEU on the special passerelle clause and or Article 48(7) TEU on the general passerelle clause, the development of a true Energy Union needs to go hand in hand with the transfer of sovereignty. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | Despite progress made over the years in the energy field, partly due to EU policies (such as REN capacity increase) and partly due to international factors (such as more flexible LNG supply terms, coal indexation and lower prices), some problems (including the major ones listed below, under point 4.11) are still blocking further development of a true energy single market and denying consumers a fair share of benefits. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | Major obstacles include the limited development of cross-border interconnection capacity, especially in the electricity sector, due to national decisions and to delays in European Union action to reach the electricity interconnection target of 10 % by 2010 and 15 % by 2030 (targets which are already very limited, insufficient and non-binding) (11). |
| --- | --- |

4.10.

| 4.11. | Social consensus should be among the main priorities, as the latest data show that 4-8 % of Northern/Western EU households’ consumption budget goes on energy, compared to 10-15 % for Central/Eastern EU families (12). With a huge toll paid also to ‘energy poverty’ indicated as a new social priority to be fought at any national and European level but still there. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

5.   Specific comments

| 5.1. | Energy is a rigid system in which infrastructure and regulatory changes take a decade to be fully implemented, while competition continues to bite (as shown clearly by Chinese solar panels and the rise of the electric vehicles industry). A brand new, broader energy policy model is needed, including for instance getting added value for EU companies from research carried out on energy continuity linked to REN, or championing them in sectors such as e-cars, related last-generation batteries, hydrogen or wind turbines where there is a competitive advantage. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | Complementary shaping and implementation of energy policy by the Commission in form of a roadmap is necessary as energy policy is more than taxes, and comprises in any event taxes on energy activities as well as on energy products. Previous experience in other fields shows that transferring sovereignty without having a true, complete Union in place may lead to strong disagreements (as was the case for Economic and Monetary Union). |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.3. | The cost of energy has a direct and immediate impact on all companies and people’s lives, and so the consequences of an unbalanced initiative on energy taxation have to be carefully considered. In this context, and based on the necessary social and economic impact assessment, the EESC welcomes the incoming Commission president’s announcement of a new carbon border tax to ensure the competitiveness of European companies on the global market and avoid carbon leakage. In the event of job losses, new opportunities must be provided, and professional requalification and other negotiated solutions offered for involved workers. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | While considering possible internal market distortion due to different levels of taxation on fossil fuel-based energy, the Commission should take into account that free trade agreements may have a similar impact through the dumping effects of third countries’ various legal frameworks in the field of energy and competition. EU sectors of activity such as air, water and road transport, agriculture/fisheries, and energy-intensive industries targeted by the proposed taxation measures may be affected. Therefore, the EU should systematically require equivalence of its social and environmental legislation requirements for imported products in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations (13). |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

Brussels, 26 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51.

1

(2)  SOC/626 Passerelle clause (see page 87 of this Official Journal).

2

(3)  OJ C 353, 18.10.2019, p. 90.

3

(4)  OJ C 198, 10.7.2013, p. 1.

4

(5)  The European Energy Poverty Index (EEPI) https://www.openexp.eu/sites/default/files/publication/files/european_energy_poverty_index-eepi_en.pdf

5

(6)  OJ C 341, 21.11.2013, p. 21.

6

(7)  OJ C 345, 13.10.2017, p. 120.

7

(8)  OJ C 383, 17.11.2015, p. 84.

8

(9)  COM(2019) 1 final.

9

(10)  In its previous resolutions, the European Parliament warned that the decarbonisation strategy could also cause ‘massive increase in energy poverty’ (14 March 2013, Resolution on the Energy Roadmap 2050) and therefore called on the Commission to ‘build bridges between social policy and energy policy’ (14 April 2016, Resolution on Meeting the antipoverty target in the light of increasing household costs).

10

massive increase in energy poverty

build bridges between social policy and energy policy

Meeting the antipoverty target in the light of increasing household costs

(11)  According to the Commission Expert Group, this level is gradually decreasing and some Member States will not reach the 10 % target in 2020, Towards a sustainable and integrated Europe, Report of the Commission Expert Group on electricity interconnection targets, November 2017, p. 25. See also OJ C 383, 17.11.2015, p. 84.

11

Towards a sustainable and integrated Europe, Report of the Commission Expert Group on electricity interconnection targets

(12)  COM(2019) 1 final.

12

(13)  OJ C 283, 10.8.2018, p. 83.

13

---

ANNEX

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussions:

Point 4.5

Delete:

Under either Article 192(2) TFEU on the special passerelle clause and or Article 48(7) TEU on the general passerelle clause, the development of a true Energy Union needs to go hand in hand with the transfer of sovereignty.

| Votes in favour | : | 73 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Votes against | : | 91 |
| Abstentions | : | 11 |

Votes in favour

:

73

Votes against

:

91

Abstentions

:

11

Point 1.1.2

Amend as follows:

The EESC welcomes a debate on using
  the proposal to use the passerelle clauses to establish a qualified majority in the Council and a co-decision system with the European Parliament. In this new set-up, the EESC could play an important role in supporting the trilogue and should be involved.

While supporting several views expressed in the Communication, the EESC considers that efficient governance of the climate and energy strategy and greater coherence in EU legislation on energy taxation should take into account the concerns of European businesses, workers and other stakeholders, including consumers. The involvement and engagement of civil society, the support of Member States and the agreement and commitment of the social partners are important for the success of this process.

| Votes in favour | : | 65 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Votes against | : | 105 |
| Abstentions | : | 9 |

Votes in favour

:

65

Votes against

:

105

Abstentions

:

9

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/112

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Aviation Strategy for Europe: Maintaining and promoting high social standards’

(COM(2019) 120 final)

(2020/C 14/16)

Rapporteur: Raymond HENCKS

| Referral | European Commission, 11.4.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 3.7.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 174/0/1 |

Referral

European Commission, 11.4.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

3.7.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

174/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The Committee endorses the Commission report on the employment conditions of highly mobile aircrew (pilots and cabin crew) whose situation may be particularly challenging due to the cross-border nature of their jobs and who enjoy differing rights and degrees of protection depending on the national law which applies to them. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The Committee considers it unfortunate that this report has been produced at the end of the current Commission's term of office, with the resulting uncertainty regarding follow-up. It hopes that the new Commission will recognise that, given the gravity of the situation, dealing with the problems identified in the report is a key priority, and that it will act swiftly to propose specific remedies. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The Committee endorses the fact that the above-mentioned report highlights the continued existence of numerous problems and considerable legal uncertainty, and that better application of EU and national rules in all forms of employment of aircrew is crucial in order to avoid practices which amount to infringing or getting around applicable law such as undeclared work and bogus self-employment, and to guarantee a lawful level playing field for aircrew, making the safety of crew and passengers an absolute priority. The Committee endorses the steps planned by the Commission and calls on the Member States to ensure that the social and labour legislation governing aircrew is interpreted and applied uniformly. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The Committee considers that the lack of reliable statistics on the number of aircrew jobs and the number of outsourced jobs and agency staff is a significant problem. This dearth of statistics, which in the Committee's view should be remedied as soon as possible, exacerbates the legal uncertainty regarding employment conditions and the varying levels of protection of aircrew, encourages an unequal or unfair playing field for EU air carriers which are subject to very strong competition and undermines the Member States which are deprived of some tax revenue and social security contributions. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | Given the plethora of types of employment contracts and the uncertainty which sometimes results, the Committee reiterates its call (1) to promote direct employment which should remain the usual form of employment in aviation, and considers that it is crucial to oppose any atypical contracts which could undermine the safety of aircrew and passengers, while conceding that the use of temporary contracts or temporary agency work is not automatically illicit, nor does it equate to social dumping. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | As the aircrew sector is not free of illicit working arrangements such as undeclared work, bogus self-employment and the failure to apply the Posting of Workers Directive, the Committee supports the Commission, which urges the Member States:






  — | to ensure, by the appropriate means, the enforcement of existing labour law rules at national level and also to ensure compliance with EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.6.

—

to ensure, by the appropriate means, the enforcement of existing labour law rules at national level and also to ensure compliance with EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU,

| — | to ensure that EU air safety rules are applied properly and in the same way to aviation staff, regardless of their contractual relationship with the airline, |
| --- | --- |

—

to ensure that EU air safety rules are applied properly and in the same way to aviation staff, regardless of their contractual relationship with the airline,

| — | to transpose properly the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union, which will apply to any form of contract, now or in the future, including the work of bogus self-employed workers. |
| --- | --- |

—

to transpose properly the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union, which will apply to any form of contract, now or in the future, including the work of bogus self-employed workers.

| 1.7. | The Committee hopes that the future European Labour Authority will ensure that the recent changes to the Posting of Workers Directive, which establishes the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place, will be properly transposed and applied by the Member States by 30 July 2020. Moreover, the Committee considers that this authority should also ensure that all the rights of civil aviation aircrew are upheld. |
| --- | --- |

1.7.

| 1.8. | The Committee would point out that the right to set up or join a trade union, to negotiate collective agreements and to go on strike, among others, are human rights guaranteed at international, European and national level, and must be complied with absolutely. Unfortunately, in practice, there are cases where the right to organise trade unions and to collective bargaining is limited and workers have to defend their rights in court. The right to information and consultation should be guaranteed as well. |
| --- | --- |

1.8.

| 1.9. | The lack of global labour standards for civil aviation undermines the effectiveness of EU and Member State labour legislation for both intra EU and extra EU routes. The Committee regrets that there is apparently no consensus in the International Labour Organization on drawing up a convention on the rights of workers in the civil aviation sector, despite the fact that a similar convention has been drawn up for seafarers. The Committee strongly encourages the EU to include labour-related social clauses and standards which are both ambitious and binding in all aviation agreements with third countries and endorses the Commission’s intention to do so. |
| --- | --- |

1.9.

| 1.10. | As regards the quality of training, it is very worrying to read in this Commission report that:






  — | the skills gained by the cadets may not always match the skills required by airlines, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.10.

—

the skills gained by the cadets may not always match the skills required by airlines, and

| — | a large proportion of pilots who hold an airline transport pilot licence do not meet the airlines’ basic entry requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

a large proportion of pilots who hold an airline transport pilot licence do not meet the airlines’ basic entry requirements.

| 1.11. | The Committee points out that according to the new Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union, ‘Member States shall ensure that where an employer is required by Union or national law or by collective agreements to provide training to a worker to carry out the work for which he or she is employed, such training shall be provided to the worker free of cost, shall count as working time and, where possible, shall take place during working hours’. |
| --- | --- |

1.11.

| 1.12. | The Committee calls on the Commission to be proactive and invite all the organisations that meet the criteria for membership of the European sectorial dialogue committee on civil aviation to take an active part in the work of this committee, and to make the best possible use of this tool to find mutually satisfactory solutions, by means of negotiation, to the problems facing these organisations. |
| --- | --- |

1.12.

| 1.13. | Lastly, the Committee considers that the working environment of aircrew is not only shaped by their working conditions but also by external factors such as passenger satisfaction with the standard of service both in the airport and on board. It is therefore important to ensure that the rights of passengers, including passengers with specific needs (disabled or elderly people, infants, pregnant women), are upheld. |
| --- | --- |

1.13.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | In air transport, other than the minimum standards laid down by EU law, the Member States largely have competence and responsibility for social protection and labour law, and the rules in these areas are, to varying extents, applied differently. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | There is no longer a uniform employment model in civil aviation: while some airlines offer good-quality jobs and open-ended contracts, according to a recent survey (
  Study on employment and working conditions of aircrews in the EU internal aviation market
  — Ricardo study), between 9 and 19 % of cabin crew and around 8 % of pilots said that they are employed through some form of intermediary organisation. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | This Commission report focuses only on aircrew (pilots and cabin crew) whose situation may be particularly challenging due to the cross-border nature of their jobs and who enjoy differing rights and degrees of protection depending on the national law which applies to them. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Furthermore, pressure on operating costs in a highly competitive market leads some airlines to make use of indirect employment arrangements as an alternative to open-ended contracts which, according to the Ricardo study, are still the main form of employment. Nonetheless, in order to reduce operating costs, many air carriers:






  — | outsource part of their activities, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.4.

—

outsource part of their activities,

| — | employ aircrew via intermediary agencies, including temporary employment agencies, sometimes using a number of arrangements in a complex chain of employment relationships which make it difficult to identify the actual employer, |
| --- | --- |

—

employ aircrew via intermediary agencies, including temporary employment agencies, sometimes using a number of arrangements in a complex chain of employment relationships which make it difficult to identify the actual employer,

| — | recruit self-employed workers, |
| --- | --- |

—

recruit self-employed workers,

| — | assign staff to an operational base outside the area in which the air carrier was authorised to operate, |
| --- | --- |

—

assign staff to an operational base outside the area in which the air carrier was authorised to operate,

| — | practice ‘pay to fly’ schemes, |
| --- | --- |

—

practice ‘pay to fly’ schemes,

| — | all of which gives rise to legal uncertainty and sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish between illegal situations and highly complex but legal ones. |
| --- | --- |

—

all of which gives rise to legal uncertainty and sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish between illegal situations and highly complex but legal ones.

| 2.5. | In 2015, as part of its aviation strategy for Europe, the Commission announced that it would be making the social agenda in the aviation sector a priority. Nonetheless, in 2017 the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions continued to have concerns about a situation which had scarcely evolved and called on the Member States and the Commission to respond to the unresolved social problems in aviation, particularly with regard to highly mobile aircrew. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | In October 2018, given the lack of tangible measures regarding the social dimension of air transport and alerted by repeated strikes among some aircrew, the European transport ministers from six Member States issued a joint declaration calling on the Commission to draw up tangible measures by the end of 2018, in particular an ambitious social agenda guaranteeing fair working conditions and establishing a level playing field for all actors in the sector, whether from the EU or third countries. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | In its 2015 aviation strategy for Europe, the EU undertook to bolster the social agenda and create good quality jobs in aviation, as well as to explore the need to further clarify the applicable law and jurisdiction with regard to the employment contracts of mobile workers in the aviation sector. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.2. | To gain further insights into the current situation in the aviation market, the Commission commissioned a study on the employment and working conditions of aircrews (the Ricardo study) which was published in January 2019. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The Committee is pleased that the Commission has drawn up a report on the situation and the employment conditions of aircrew although it has been produced at the end of the current Commission's term of office, with the resulting uncertainty regarding follow-up. The Committee hopes that the new Commission will recognise that, given the gravity of the situation, dealing with the problems identified in the report is a key priority and that it will act swiftly to propose appropriate remedies. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.4. | The above-mentioned report in fact confirms the continued existence of numerous problems and considerable legal uncertainty, and that better application of EU and national rules in all forms of employment of aircrew is crucial in order to prevent practices which amount to infringing or getting around applicable law such as bogus self-employment, as well as to guarantee a lawful level playing field. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The Committee regrets the fact that the only measure implemented by the Commission since the European social agenda incorporated into the 2015 aviation strategy has been the publication of a practice guide on applicable labour law and competent courts. The Commission report does not provide any answers as to whether the it plans to adopt interpretative guidelines or to amend the rules on civil aviation. The Commission will instruct an ad hoc group of Member State experts on aviation and labour law matters to take stock of the actions listed in this report and to advise the Commission and the Member States on how labour law may be appropriately enforced in aviation. The Committee calls for the social partners to be given a role in this group, in addition to the institutions’ experts. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1. | This report points out that there are no figures available that specifically set out the number of jobs available for aircrew; the Committee wonders therefore how it is possible to state how many pilots and cabin crew will need to be trained and recruited in the medium and long term. This applies particularly to the training of pilots, which is a lengthy and costly process. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | It is also plain from this dearth of statistics that we have no idea how many aircrew jobs have been outsourced. The only documentation available is the 2015 survey by the European social partners in civil aviation, which stated that only 52,6 % of respondents working for low-cost airlines said that they had a direct employment contract. The Committee feels that improving statistics is paramount. This dearth of statistics exacerbates the legal uncertainty regarding employment conditions and the varying levels of protection of aircrew, and makes it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal practices, abuse and regulatory shortcomings. It encourages an unequal playing field for EU air carriers, which are subject to very strong competition, and undermines the Member States, which are deprived of some tax revenue and social security contributions. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.3. | The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) pointed out in its practical guide, published in August 2017, that the fragmentation and outsourcing of safety-related jobs, including for aircrew, could have a deleterious effect on safety; EASA also put forward practical measures regarding the outsourcing of critical safety services and wet-lease contracts. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | As regards temporary agency work, once again the EU does not have reliable data. The Ricardo study indicates however that between 9 and 19 % of cabin crew and around 8 % of pilots said that they are employed through some form of intermediary organisation, and that the vast majority of those hired through such an intermediary would be working for low-cost carriers. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | The Committee reiterates its call (2) to promote direct employment, which should remain the usual form of employment in aviation, and considers that it is crucial to oppose any atypical contracts which could undermine the safety of aircrew and passengers. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) on Temporary Agency Work can only be applied on a temporary basis and cannot be turned into a permanent measure, although it is clear that making use of temporary contracts or temporary agency work can be unavoidable and is not automatically illicit nor does it equate to social dumping. |
| --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | As regards undeclared work which is partly carried out by bogus self-employed workers, the seminar to be organised at the end of the year by the European platform on undeclared work, focusing on bogus self-employed work by aircrew, is a major step towards making this problem visible and ensuring that it is discussed by labour inspectors and the social partners. The Member States must step up their labour inspection services so as to be able to enforce compliance with EU and national provisions on working conditions in civil aviation. |
| --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | The EU's aviation safety rules include the concept of a home base. Due to the high mobility of aircrews, identifying which social security legislation and which labour law they are entitled to, and in which court they can claim their rights can be challenging. The home base also serves as a reference to calculate flight and duty times limitations. The Committee urges the Member States to ensure that EU and national social legislation is applied properly with regard to staff employed by an EU air carrier operating air services from an operational base located outside the territory of the Member State in which that carrier has its principal place of business, in line with the regulation on air services. |
| --- | --- |

4.8.

| 4.9. | The Commission report states that the number of operational bases has grown steadily, and aircraft and aircrew of the same airline are increasingly based outside the airline's principal place of business, in the territory of other Member States or sometimes even in third countries. In such cases, the applicable law is that of the country of the home base, although certain companies apply the law of the country of the principal place of business instead of that of the country of the home base. The Committee asks the Commission to publish guidelines on home and operational bases and applicable law. |
| --- | --- |

4.9.

| 4.10. | There are several forms of self-employed working arrangements: a self-employed pilot employed directly or via an intermediary organisation, or a limited liability firm set up by self-employed pilots. The Committee supports the Commission, which urges the Member States:






  — | to ensure that EU air safety rules are applied properly and in the same way to aviation staff, regardless of their contractual relationship with the airline, |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.10.

—

to ensure that EU air safety rules are applied properly and in the same way to aviation staff, regardless of their contractual relationship with the airline,

| — | to ensure, by the appropriate means, the enforcement of existing labour law rules at national level and also to ensure compliance with EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

—

to ensure, by the appropriate means, the enforcement of existing labour law rules at national level and also to ensure compliance with EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU,

| — | to transpose properly the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union, which will apply to all workers, particularly those with new and atypical jobs. |
| --- | --- |

—

to transpose properly the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union, which will apply to all workers, particularly those with new and atypical jobs.

| 4.11. | As regards the posting of workers by using crew on a temporary basis outside their home base, the relevant directive is generally not applied, according to the Ricardo study, in the case of aircrew, even though it is in principle applicable to the transnational provision of services by temporary employment agencies or placement agencies. |
| --- | --- |

4.11.

| 4.12. | The Posting of Workers Directive also applies in the context of a wet-lease contract, should there be an employment relationship between the aircrew and the lessor during the whole period of the lease. Aircrew staff who are assigned to a new home base would not be considered as being posted. |
| --- | --- |

4.12.

| 4.13. | The Committee supports the Commission which proposes to assist the Member States when applying the revised Posting of Workers Directive, partly with a view to improving equal treatment and preventing cross-border fraud. |
| --- | --- |

4.13.

| 4.14. | The Committee further hopes that the future European Labour Authority will also ensure that the recent changes to the Posting of Workers Directive, which establishes the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place, will be properly transposed and applied by the Member States by 30 July 2020, and that this authority will ensure that social legislation is applied properly at both European and national level in order to uphold all the rights of civil aviation aircrew, including the freedom to join a trade union. |
| --- | --- |

4.14.

| 4.15. | The Committee is aware that certain airlines forbid membership of a trade union that they do not approve of, and sometimes even dismiss employees on the grounds of trade union membership, so workers have to defend their rights in court. The Committee would remind the Member States concerned that the right to set up or join a trade union, to negotiate collective agreements and to go on strike, among others, are human rights guaranteed at international, European and national level, and must be complied with absolutely. The right to information and consultation should be guaranteed.
  To address issues related to the application of social standards at national level, a mediation body could be set up at the EU level, to help resolve disputes which are related to the application of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.15.

To address issues related to the application of social standards at national level, a mediation body could be set up at the EU level, to help resolve disputes which are related to the application of the Regulation.

| 4.16. | As regards crews from non-EU countries, the Committee reiterates its request (4) to extend the single permit to aircrew to ensure equal treatment of all workers in the industry according to Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). The Ricardo study confirms that it is not possible to tell, on the basis of the data collected, how common this practice is or whether the home base of the aircrew used is located in a third country or in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

4.16.

| 4.17. | The lack of global labour standards for civil aviation undermines the effectiveness of EU and Member State labour legislation for both intra EU and extra EU routes. The Committee regrets that there is no consensus in the International Labour Organization on drawing up a convention on the rights of workers in the civil aviation sector, despite the fact that a similar convention has been drawn up for seafarers. Failing an ILO convention, the Committee strongly encourages the EU to include labour-related social causes which are both ambitious and binding, and trigger penalties in the event of non-compliance, in all aviation agreements with third countries, beginning with the agreement currently pending between the EU and Qatar. |
| --- | --- |

4.17.

| 4.18. | Pilot training is a lengthy and costly process made up of three stages (basic training, type rating to pilot a specific type of aircraft and line training to gain flight experience). According to the Ricardo study, between 2,2 and 6 % of surveyed pilots had to contribute financially in order to gain flight experience under ‘pay to fly’ schemes. The Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union (COM(2017) 797 — 2017/0355 (COD)), provides that ‘Member States shall ensure that where an employer is required by Union or national law or by collective agreements to provide training to a worker to carry out the work for which he or she is employed, such training shall be provided to the worker free of cost, shall count as working time and, where possible, shall take place during working hours’. The EESC hopes that its application will be properly enforced, while taking care to avoid creating more red tape. |
| --- | --- |

4.18.

| 4.19. | As regards the quality of training, it is very worrying to read in this Commission report that:






  — | the skills gained by the cadets may not always match the skills required by airlines, |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.19.

—

the skills gained by the cadets may not always match the skills required by airlines,

| — | a large proportion of pilots who hold an airline transport pilot licence do not meet the airlines’ basic entry requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

a large proportion of pilots who hold an airline transport pilot licence do not meet the airlines’ basic entry requirements.

| 4.20. | The Committee deplores the fact that since 2017, European social dialogue, and particularly the sectorial social dialogue committee on civil aviation, have been unable to hold a constructive dialogue, as the airlines are not represented. This is all the more unfortunate because constructive social dialogue and collective agreements could find solutions to problems identified in the Commission report. |
| --- | --- |

4.20.

| 4.21. | The Committee encourages the Commission to be more proactive and to persuade the social partners to guarantee appropriate representation of the airlines and aircrew and to make the best possible use of this tool to identify mutually satisfactory solutions, by means of negotiation, to the difficulties they are encountering. |
| --- | --- |

4.21.

| 4.22. | As regards the working environment of aircrew, this is not only shaped by their working conditions but also by external factors such as passenger satisfaction with the standard of service both in the airport and on board. The Committee also considers that cabin crew must be trained and have the time to meet the specific needs of vulnerable passengers (such as disabled or elderly people, infants and pregnant women). It is important to ensure that the rights of passengers are upheld and that they have access to all the appropriate information, phrased in a clear and understandable way. The Committee supports the Commission, which urges the Council to adopt with all speed the revisions proposed by the draft regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) on the rights of air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. |
| --- | --- |

4.22.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 110.

1

(2)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 110.

2

(3)  OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 9.

3

(4)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2016, p. 110.

4

(5)  OJ L 343, 23.12.2011, p. 1.

5

(6)  OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.

6

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/118

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering Germany to amend its existing bilateral road transport agreement with Switzerland with a view to authorising cabotage operations in the course of international road passenger transport services by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries’

(COM(2019) 221 final)

and ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council empowering Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement with Switzerland authorising cabotage operations in the course of international road passenger transport services by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries’

(COM(2019) 223 final)

(2020/C 14/17)

Rapporteur working alone: Antonello PEZZINI

| Referral | European Council, 23.5.2019
  European Parliament, 17.7.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 11.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 110/0/1 |

Referral

European Council, 23.5.2019

European Parliament, 17.7.2019

Legal basis

Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

11.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

110/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC is pleased that the Commission has followed up on the requests made by Germany and Italy to be able to conduct negotiations with the Swiss Confederation on new provisions providing for cross-border cabotage operations in road passenger transport services by coach and bus between border regions. |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.2. | The Committee endorses the two proposals for a decision submitted by the Commission in response to written requests from the two Member States concerned, which have been met with equally strong interest on the part of Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

| 1.3. | The EESC would however point to the need to focus on sustainability policies: the carriage of passengers and goods in the Alpine region must be aligned with such requirements, in accordance with the protocol on transport appended to the 2002 Alpine Convention, to which the three interested countries and the EU itself are signatories. |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

| 1.4. | The Committee considers that the competitive development of carriers engaged in cabotage operations in international road passenger transport services by coach and bus should be flanked by compliance with the new agreements appended to the 1999 EU-Switzerland Agreement, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) safeguarding the general economic interest and the Agreement of 1 December 2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of coach and bus and car passengers, particularly passengers with reduced mobility. |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

| 1.5. | Lastly, the EESC recommends that these negotiations be supported by dialogue between the social partners of the countries concerned, in order to support both the process of opening up to cabotage operations in cross-border road passenger transport and the changes brought about by this process in the specific regions in which it applies, without discrimination between operators established in the EU and without any distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

| 1.6. | The Committee considers that the Member States concerned should notify the agreements to the Commission and that the Commission should inform the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the EESC itself. |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | The carriage of passengers and goods is one of the seven areas on which Switzerland and the European Union have reached an agreement. At the meetings of the Council of Ministers on 30 November and 1 December 1998, the Swiss Confederation and the European Community signed a political agreement on the carriage of passengers and goods by rail and road, as pointed out in an EESC opinion (2). The other areas were free movement of workers, free trade in agricultural products, technical barriers to trade, access to public or semi-public enterprises, research and, lastly, air transport. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The rules governing the carriage of goods and passengers by road between the EU and the Swiss Confederation are set out in the agreement which was signed on 21 June 1999. This agreement entered into force on 1 June 2002 and applies to the international carriage of goods by road for hire or reward for journeys carried out within the territory of:






  — | the 28 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.2.

—

the 28 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom;

| — | the three EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries which are party to the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; |
| --- | --- |

—

the three EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries which are party to the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway;

| — | Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

—

Switzerland.

| 2.3. | In order to carry out the international carriage of goods for hire or reward to or through or to move empty vehicles between the European Union and Switzerland, Community carriers must be in possession of the Community licence provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), which lays down the European legislative framework establishing categories of international passenger transport by coach and bus. This framework is subdivided into three groups: regular services, special regular services and occasional services. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.4. | Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) laid down common rules on access to the international market in coach and bus transport services. It established that cabotage operations within the EU may be carried out, under certain conditions, exclusively by carriers in possession of a Community licence. Commission Regulation (EC) No 361/2014 (5) establishes how Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 applies to the documents required for international passenger transport by coach and bus. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | The EU has exclusive competence – under Article 3(2) of the TFEU – to conclude international agreements, where this process is provided for in a legislative act of the EU, is necessary to enable the EU to perform its responsibilities internally, or insofar as this may have an impact on common rules or amend their scope. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | In accordance with Article 14 of the 1999 agreement between the EU and the Swiss Confederation: ‘Transport between two points situated on the territory of a Member State of the Community by a Swiss-registered vehicle and transport between two points situated on Swiss territory by a vehicle registered in a Member State of the Community are not authorised under this Agreement.’ |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

| 2.7. | Furthermore, Article 20 of this agreement establishes that coach and bus operators established in Switzerland may not carry passengers between two points on the border situated on the side of the neighbouring countries, and vice versa in the territory of Switzerland. However, rights stemming from bilateral agreements concluded between individual EU Member States and Switzerland, which were in force when the EU agreement was concluded, may continue to be exercised provided there is no discrimination between EU carriers and no distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

| 2.8. | Given that there are no previous agreements between Switzerland and Italy governing cabotage rights for the carriage of passengers by coach and bus and given that the previous 1953 bilateral road transport agreement between Germany and Switzerland did not cover passenger cabotage rights between the two countries, at the request of the two above-mentioned Member States and following the interest indicated by Switzerland at the meeting in June 2018 of the EU-Switzerland Inland Transport Committee, two explicit acts by the Council and the European Parliament are required in order to authorise:






  — | the amendments to the Swiss-German agreement, with a view to including cabotage operations in international road passenger transport in the border regions of Switzerland and Germany; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.8.

—

the amendments to the Swiss-German agreement, with a view to including cabotage operations in international road passenger transport in the border regions of Switzerland and Germany;

| — | Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement on this subject with Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

—

Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement on this subject with Switzerland.

| 2.9. | The EU border regions explicitly indicated in the articles would be:






  — | as regards Germany: the administrative districts of Freiburg and Tübingen in Baden-Württemberg and the administrative district of Swabia in Bavaria; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.9.

—

as regards Germany: the administrative districts of Freiburg and Tübingen in Baden-Württemberg and the administrative district of Swabia in Bavaria;

| — | as regards Italy: the regions of Piedmont and Lombardy and the autonomous regions of Valle d'Aosta and Trentino-Alto Adige. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards Italy: the regions of Piedmont and Lombardy and the autonomous regions of Valle d'Aosta and Trentino-Alto Adige.

| 2.10. | At its meeting on 18 July 2019, the General Affairs Council gave the green light to both dossiers, provided that:






  — | the geographical limitations on operations in both the specified areas were upheld; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.10.

—

the geographical limitations on operations in both the specified areas were upheld;

| — | there was no discrimination between carriers established in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

there was no discrimination between carriers established in the EU;

| — | there was no distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

there was no distortion of competition.

3.   The Commission proposals

| 3.1. | The objectives of the two Commission proposals are as follows:






  — | as regards Germany: to enable Germany to amend the existing bilateral road transport agreement with Switzerland in order to allow for cabotage operations in international road passenger transport by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1.

—

as regards Germany: to enable Germany to amend the existing bilateral road transport agreement with Switzerland in order to allow for cabotage operations in international road passenger transport by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries;

| — | as regards Italy: to enable Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement with Switzerland authorising cabotage operations in international road passenger transport by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards Italy: to enable Italy to negotiate and conclude an agreement with Switzerland authorising cabotage operations in international road passenger transport by coach and bus in the border regions between the two countries.

| 3.2. | In order to safeguard the efficient operation of the European internal market, the granting of authorisation to negotiate for cabotage operations in passenger road transport are subject to three conditions:






  — | there must be no discrimination between carriers established in the EU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.2.

—

there must be no discrimination between carriers established in the EU;

| — | there must be no distortion of competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

there must be no distortion of competition;

| — | such operations must apply only in the precise geographical limits of the pre-established border regions. |
| --- | --- |

—

such operations must apply only in the precise geographical limits of the pre-established border regions.

| 3.3. | The Commission considers that these agreements on cabotage operations in road passenger transport should increase the load factor of the vehicle and thus the efficiency of transport operations. This would enable the carriers involved to become more competitive and foster the closer integration of the border regions. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

4.   Comments

| 4.1. | The Committee endorses the two Commission proposals for a decision, based on the requests from the two Member States and the interest indicated by the Swiss Confederation. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | The EESC considers that it is important to draw attention to the need to implement a sustainable policy which aims to reduce the negative effects and risks stemming from transport within and across the Alps, in line with:






  — | the protocol on transport appended to the 2002 Alpine Convention, to which the three interested countries and the EU itself are signatories; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2.

—

the protocol on transport appended to the 2002 Alpine Convention, to which the three interested countries and the EU itself are signatories;

| — | the report on the ‘Ecological quality of passenger and goods transport in the Alpine area’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the report on the ‘Ecological quality of passenger and goods transport in the Alpine area’.

| 4.3. | The Committee considers that the competitive development of carriers engaged in cabotage operations in international road passenger transport services by coach and bus should be flanked by compliance with the new agreements appended to the above-mentioned EU-Switzerland Agreement and, in particular, Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and the Agreement of 1 December 2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of coach and bus and car passengers. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | Lastly, the EESC recommends that these negotiations be supported by dialogue between the social partners of the countries concerned, so that the process of opening up to cross-border cabotage operations is supported by the appropriate information and training designed to guarantee decent living and working conditions for the carriers concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 72.

3

(4)  OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 88.

4

(5)  OJ L 107, 10.4.2014, p. 39.

5

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/122

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Guidance on the Regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data in the European Union’

(COM(2019) 250 final)

(2020/C 14/18)

Rapporteur: Laure BATUT

| Referral | European Commission, 22.7.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted in section | 11.9.2019 |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 162/2/6 |

Referral

European Commission, 22.7.2019

Legal basis

Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted in section

11.9.2019

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

162/2/6

1.   Recommendations

| 1.1. | The EESC recommends that the Commission:






  — | provide clear and simple information on the criteria for defining non-personal data and the scope of the Regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data (the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation) in order to remove uncertainty and increase confidence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.

—

provide clear and simple information on the criteria for defining non-personal data and the scope of the Regulation on a framework for the free flow of non-personal data (the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation) in order to remove uncertainty and increase confidence;

| — | inform actors about overlaps between EU data legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

inform actors about overlaps between EU data legislation;

| — | while promoting free movement, ensure that personal data do not gradually come to be seen as non-personal data and that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) retains its full scope, if necessary merging the two regulations in the medium term for the purposes of stronger data protection rather than increased commodification of data; |
| --- | --- |

—

while promoting free movement, ensure that personal data do not gradually come to be seen as non-personal data and that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) retains its full scope, if necessary merging the two regulations in the medium term for the purposes of stronger data protection rather than increased commodification of data;

| — | encourage the establishment and development of federations of pan-European cloud computing services; |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage the establishment and development of federations of pan-European cloud computing services;

| — | help Europeans in the very short term to use algorithms capable of processing the vast amounts of non-personal data in the single market for data; encourage the Member States to improve lifelong education in the areas of IT and artificial intelligence (AI) at all levels (school, university and work); |
| --- | --- |

—

help Europeans in the very short term to use algorithms capable of processing the vast amounts of non-personal data in the single market for data; encourage the Member States to improve lifelong education in the areas of IT and artificial intelligence (AI) at all levels (school, university and work);

| — | encourage actors to develop a sense of responsibility, ethical awareness and solidarity; not allow self-regulation and the “amicable” settlement of disputes to give rise to conflicting interpretations of legislative texts; |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage actors to develop a sense of responsibility, ethical awareness and solidarity; not allow self-regulation and the “amicable” settlement of disputes to give rise to conflicting interpretations of legislative texts;

| — | not hesitate to use regulation where necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

not hesitate to use regulation where necessary;

| — | promote sanctions for breach of self-regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

promote sanctions for breach of self-regulation;

| — | draw up a road map to verify whether companies actually have legal certainty regarding the free use of their data as provided for in the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

draw up a road map to verify whether companies actually have legal certainty regarding the free use of their data as provided for in the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation;

| — | take stock of the current situation in the 27 Member States and assess the work of the national contact points after twelve months of operation; |
| --- | --- |

—

take stock of the current situation in the 27 Member States and assess the work of the national contact points after twelve months of operation;

| — | scrupulously carry out its responsibilities with regard to informing, communicating with and providing alerts to all concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

scrupulously carry out its responsibilities with regard to informing, communicating with and providing alerts to all concerned;

| — | ask the Member States to inform actors about the criteria they use to define “public security”; |
| --- | --- |

—

ask the Member States to inform actors about the criteria they use to define “public security”;

| — | call on the Member States to disperse their storage facilities for non-transferable data; |
| --- | --- |

—

call on the Member States to disperse their storage facilities for non-transferable data;

| — | review competition policy in good time to ensure that, as currently configured, it is geared to the free flow of data. |
| --- | --- |

—

review competition policy in good time to ensure that, as currently configured, it is geared to the free flow of data.

2.   Introduction

| 2.1. | The EESC takes note of the Commission's aim to provide guidance to the companies affected by the transfer of non-personal data before the negotiation of codes of conduct between stakeholders in the course of 2020. The fact that data are frequently mixed, i.e. comprise both non-personal and personal data, can create uncertainty for businesses as regards the measures to be taken to protect such data. The main principles of the existing rules should be outlined here before looking at the points on which the EESC wishes to make comments. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.2. | The Commission found that the lack of competitiveness between cloud computing services in the EU, and thus the lack of data mobility in an environment characterised by oligopolies, had a negative impact on the data market. The Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation requires the Member States to minimise both their data localisation requirements and legislative fragmentation in this field, in order to stimulate growth and unleash businesses' innovation capacity. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | With the adoption of the Regulation on the free movement of non-personal data, which complements the GDPR, a “fifth freedom of movement" (in the words of Anna-Maria Corazza Bildt, MEP and rapporteur) applying to all forms of data has been introduced into 21st century EU texts. If its owner so wishes, it must be possible to transfer this intangible commodity, so to speak, for management purposes to hosting service providers in countries other than the EU Member State in which it was created and/or used (Article 1, Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation). This will make processing easier for data owners and will enhance their competitiveness. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

The Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation

| 2.4. | Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) promotes the free movement of non-personal data in the EU in order to develop artificial intelligence, cloud computing and big data analytics. It stipulates (Article 6) that the Commission shall guide, encourage and assist operators working with non-personal data in developing self-regulatory codes of conduct at EU level. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

| 2.5. | Aimed at professionals working in micro-enterprises and SMEs, this guidance is intended to give them a better understanding of how the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation and the GDPR interact. For illustrative purposes, the Commission cites numerous examples. |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

| 2.6. | The codes of conduct currently being drafted should be ready sometime between November 2019 and May 2020 (recitals 30 and 31, Article 6(1)), and will reflect the opinions of all parties. Two public consultations are underway and two working groups, made up of professionals, are assisting the Commission: one on cloud security certification (CSPCERT) and the other on data porting and switching between cloud service providers (SWIPO). Their input covers Infrastructure-as-a-Service and Software-as-a-Service. In May 2020, the Commission will propose encouraging the industry to develop model contractual terms and, in 2022, will brief the European Parliament, the Council and the EESC on the implementation of the regulation, particularly the use of mixed datasets. |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

3.   General comments

| 3.1. | The Commission's mission: to bring the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation into line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.1.1. | In order to reconcile these two complementary regulations, the Commission explains that: (1) data localisation requirements are now prohibited; (2) the data remain accessible to the competent authorities; and (3) the data become mobile and can therefore be “ported". The GDPR employs the term “portability", while the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation refers to “porting". Users can transfer their data outside the country in which they were created and then retrieve them without (too many) constraints after switching service providers for the purposes of storage, processing or analysis. Unlike “portability", which is a right for all concerned, “porting" is carried out in line with codes of conduct and is therefore part of a self-regulation process. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.1.

| 3.1.2. | This constitutes a significant difference between the two regulations as one is based on hard law and the other on non-binding instruments (soft law), which are known to offer far fewer guarantees. However, according to the Commission itself, most datasets contain both personal and non-personal data which are inextricably linked and can therefore be considered “mixed" datasets. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.2.

| 3.1.3. | The EESC welcomes this supportive approach and, as it agrees with the examples chosen, does not intend to propose others. However, it notes that the Commission's guidance for operators merely illustrates the context by providing a number of standard scenarios. The EESC would therefore like to draw the Commission's attention to some critical areas that, despite the guidance and future codes of conduct, might pose problems for users. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.3.

3.2.   Outline of principles

3.2.1.   Principle: the free movement of data

The barriers to the free movement of non-personal data are not so much geographical as functional and/or linked to the means available to companies to use IT technologies.

Under the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, data localisation requirements for non-personal data are prohibited in a given territory (Article 4). Member States are asked to repeal any provisions to the contrary within 24 months from the date on which the Regulation comes into effect (May 2021).

The Regulation allows exceptions to be made for reasons of public security. Member States must publish detailed information online about their respective national localisation requirements. The Commission may make comments and publish links to the websites on which the Member States have placed such information.

3.2.2.   Exceptions to the freedom of movement

| — | Member State authorities may have access to transferred data: the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation establishes a procedure whereby a supervisory authority in one state can obtain data processed in another. The Regulation provides for a cooperation procedure between Member States (Articles 5 and 7). However, without localisation, the EESC's fear is that certain data (accounting data, financial data, contractual data, etc.) will be outside the control of Member State authorities. The EESC reminds the Commission not to hesitate to use regulation where necessary. |
| --- | --- |

—

Member State authorities may have access to transferred data: the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation establishes a procedure whereby a supervisory authority in one state can obtain data processed in another. The Regulation provides for a cooperation procedure between Member States (Articles 5 and 7). However, without localisation, the EESC's fear is that certain data (accounting data, financial data, contractual data, etc.) will be outside the control of Member State authorities. The EESC reminds the Commission not to hesitate to use regulation where necessary.

| — | The single “point of contact" of each Member State will process the request together with the national supervisory authority, which may or may not provide the data if it considers the request to be admissible. In keeping with the spirit of the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, the contact points should help actors to make an informed decision concerning transfers and service providers throughout the EU, with due regard for competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

The single “point of contact" of each Member State will process the request together with the national supervisory authority, which may or may not provide the data if it considers the request to be admissible. In keeping with the spirit of the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, the contact points should help actors to make an informed decision concerning transfers and service providers throughout the EU, with due regard for competition.

The EESC believes that guidance alone cannot remove the many uncertainties surrounding the implementation of this principle. Assessing the reasons given by the Member States, the good faith of operators or the proper functioning of the contact points is not a straightforward matter. Any such assessment will be difficult.

| — | Prohibition of direct or indirect requirements regarding data localisation except where justified on grounds of “public security". The EESC believes that the concept of “public security" invoked in the Regulation is insufficiently precise and its scope unclear when applied to data flow and its commodification. The Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation defines data localisation requirements as: “any obligation, prohibition, condition, limit or other requirement provided for in the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State" or resulting from administrative practices (2) which would require operators to retain data within a given territory in the EU. For the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (3) (and recital 19, Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation), public security covers both "the internal and external security of a Member State", and presupposes the existence of "a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society". This definition includes genetic data, biometric data and data on health. The Member State's response must be proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Prohibition of direct or indirect requirements regarding data localisation except where justified on grounds of “public security". The EESC believes that the concept of “public security" invoked in the Regulation is insufficiently precise and its scope unclear when applied to data flow and its commodification. The Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation defines data localisation requirements as: “any obligation, prohibition, condition, limit or other requirement provided for in the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State" or resulting from administrative practices (2) which would require operators to retain data within a given territory in the EU. For the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (3) (and recital 19, Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation), public security covers both "the internal and external security of a Member State", and presupposes the existence of "a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society". This definition includes genetic data, biometric data and data on health. The Member State's response must be proportionate.

| 3.2.3. | As regards free movement and data localisation, the Committee considers that:






  — | the criteria selected are subject to broad interpretation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.2.3.

—

the criteria selected are subject to broad interpretation;

| — | only the courts will be able to shed light on them on a case-by-case basis, which may undermine the trust required for business, especially in the case of sensitive data; disputes arising from codes of conduct could lead to even greater divergence; |
| --- | --- |

—

only the courts will be able to shed light on them on a case-by-case basis, which may undermine the trust required for business, especially in the case of sensitive data; disputes arising from codes of conduct could lead to even greater divergence;

| — | the courts move infinitely more slowly than the digital sphere and data flows. |
| --- | --- |

—

the courts move infinitely more slowly than the digital sphere and data flows.

The EESC believes that such an uncertain and complicated situation can have a deterrent effect on micro-enterprises and SMEs.

| 3.2.4. | The EESC regrets the fact that the guidance does not make any reference to disputes or to ways of verifying how Member States will comply with the public security criteria and how they might be penalised, where appropriate. The EESC is concerned that the explanations contained in the Communication are not sufficient to allow micro-enterprise and SME operators to avoid all the legal pitfalls of the texts and that the attendant uncertainties impede efforts to foster the sense of trust and legal certainty needed to develop the sector. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.4.

| 3.2.5. | The EESC acknowledges the enormous value of the Commission's Communication in disseminating information widely and in a top-down fashion regarding the situation created by the two regulations. The micro-enterprise and SME sector is in dire need of this. The EESC would like the action of the national contact points and the latter's use of the Commission's site to be assessed after six months of operation, so that corrective measures can be taken quickly should a lack of information and communication be identified. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.5.

4.   Specific comments

4.1.   Data

| 4.1.1. | By default, non-personal data include all digital data which do not come under personal data as defined by the GDPR. Examples would be business data, data on precision farming, data on maintenance requirements of machines and meteorological data. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.1.

| 4.1.2. | Data collected by public services such as hospitals, social protection or tax departments can be very close to patients' or taxpayers' personal data. Businesses that use them must ensure that the identity of the persons concerned is not revealed and that once they have been rendered anonymous the process cannot be reversed. In the case of micro-enterprises or SMEs, this may entail overly expensive and time-consuming procedures. As the two regulations (the GDPR and the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation) between them provide for the free movement of all data in the EU when they are “inextricably linked", the legal safeguards provided for in the GDPR apply therefore to all mixed data (recital 8 and Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1807). Thus, in addition to the restriction on the free flow of non-personal data relating to public security, there is a further restriction regarding the nature of the data involved. This is the crux of the Commission's Communication, which reiterates that personal and non-personal data are very close: “Mixed datasets represent the majority of datasets" (Communication, point 2.2; they can be “inextricably linked" (point 2.2); “neither of the two Regulations obliges businesses to separate the datasets" (point 2.2). |
| --- | --- |

4.1.2.

| 4.1.3. | It is up to the company in question to determine whether the non-personal data it processes are “inextricably linked" to personal data and, if so, to ensure their protection. The preparation of “out management" is no easy task for a company. Establishing a general definition of mixed data would seem to be impossible, and the overlap between the two regulations will probably give rise to further overlaps with other data legislation, such as legislation relating to intellectual property: the flow of non-personal data is permitted, but if such data is reused in a work, it will no longer be subject to the same rules. The EESC believes that the links between the different texts will prove problematic. The case law already requires that the issue of inextricability be examined on the basis of a “reasonable" criterion. The EESC notes that it was clearly not possible for the Commission in its Communication to review every potential scenario and offer guidance to all concerned, with the result that big companies are at a distinct advantage. The EESC recommends that the Commission ensure that personal data do not gradually come to be treated, in practice, as non-personal data and that the GDPR retains its full scope, if necessary merging the two regulations in the medium term for the purposes of stronger data protection rather than increased commodification of data. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.3.

4.2.   Portability, transfer, processing and storage of data

The GDPR asserts that portability must be governed by legislation (Article 20), while the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation considers self-regulation to be the key. The EESC regrets that this could create considerable legal uncertainty, thereby disadvantaging micro-enterprises and SMEs because of the many legal risks involved. The EESC believes that if non-personal data are commodities, albeit intangible and in free circulation, then they can be imported and exported. A debate on the ownership of non-personal data would be worthwhile in the current context. However, the real value lies not in the data themselves but in the vast quantities of data. The Committee therefore believes that competition policy may not be suitable for this type of market. The EESC wonders how the current situation can enhance the productivity of micro-enterprises and SMEs. The Commission's Communication does not provide any clarification on this point.

4.3.   Service providers

| 4.3.1. | The EU does not have any large-scale operators nor a “European" cloud, something that the EESC has for a long time considered a major shortcoming. The much sought-after economies of scale are available only to US IT giants and some Chinese companies. This is why even the Member States' major administrations are tempted to entrust these companies with the management of their data (as France has done). |
| --- | --- |

4.3.1.

| 4.3.2. | The EESC believes that Europeans need to create partner ecosystems and to allow cross-platform data transfers. In addition to what it proposes to do in its Communication, the Commission could help micro-enterprises and SMEs to develop their respective resources, much as it did for services of general interest (SGIs) in its 2018 project, "Pan-European Cloud Computing Services", for the provision of economic and non-economic SGIs (Function as a Service: FaaS) and as envisaged in its network of Digital Innovation Hubs (“A network of Digital Innovation Hubs", web/Commission/DIHs/January 2019). |
| --- | --- |

4.3.2.

4.4.   Data security (4)

| 4.4.1. | At the internal level, national operators (5) check the nature of their data that is to be transferred and ensure that they are secure. Localisation requirements corresponded to enforceable security rules in national law. Despite the GDPR and the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, IT security standards are not at an equivalent level across the EU. The Committee believes that national contact points should provide strong information on this matter to micro-enterprises and SMEs as well as to private and public services in different languages.

  At the external level, the EESC believes that it is not certain to what extent companies outside the EU will be able to comply with codes of conduct and to return data after the data owners have requested further transfers. It fears that in the long run, it will become difficult to identify where individual responsibilities lie.
  The Committee recommends that, in the very short term, the Commission help European actors to use algorithms capable of processing the vast amounts of non-personal data in the single market for data. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.1.

At the external level, the EESC believes that it is not certain to what extent companies outside the EU will be able to comply with codes of conduct and to return data after the data owners have requested further transfers. It fears that in the long run, it will become difficult to identify where individual responsibilities lie.

The Committee recommends that, in the very short term, the Commission help European actors to use algorithms capable of processing the vast amounts of non-personal data in the single market for data.

| 4.4.2. | The issue of where the servers are physically located and how they are made secure will continue to be a matter for trade and diplomatic negotiations between states. This issue is paramount. Confronted with the IT giants and their respective reference states, and despite the fact that data management is a competence shared between the Member States and the EU, there would be some risk involved should the Member States decide to negotiate individually. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.2.

| 4.4.3. | The EESC proposes that in its Communication the Commission should clarify the obligations incumbent upon service providers regarding the storage of non-personal data, the methods used, physical locations, the planned or authorised data shelf life and the use made of such data once they have been processed, as these elements are fundamental to data security and may be important for European companies in the context of global competition. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.3.

4.5.   Codes of conduct

| 4.5.1. | As of May 2019, all those concerned by the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation (primarily cloud service users and providers) have been invited to develop their code of conduct within 12 months. According to the Commission, best practices, approaches to certification schemes and communication roadmaps should be taken into account. The SWIPO and CSPCERT working groups will provide expertise. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.1.

| 4.5.2. | The Commission refers to the approach taken in relation to the GDPR (Communication, page 23). Since this regulation is framed by the opinion of the EDPS (6), it could be used as a basis for the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation. Each industry's representative associations may draw up a code of conduct. In doing so they must demonstrate to the competent authorities that their draft code of conduct, whether national or transnational, fulfils a specific sectoral need, facilitates the implementation of the regulation and establishes effective mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the code. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.2.

| 4.5.3. | Even before the entry into force of the GDPR, the major providers of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS) had drawn up their own codes of conduct to define how these would be implemented, thereby removing the areas of uncertainty identified by the industry (7); they involved SMEs in this, believing that for many of them self-certification was preferable to the very high cost of certification. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.3.

| 4.5.4. | The EESC favours a sector-by-sector approach to the Free Flow of Non-Personal Data Regulation, should a one-size-fits-all approach not be appropriate. In the context of the GDPR, a non-exhaustive list of items to be covered by the codes has been established (Article 40(2)), in particular as regards the fair and transparent nature of the procedures, the security of data transfer and the settlement of disputes. In their own interest and to enhance consumer confidence in the European approach, actors should be encouraged to build on this and to develop a sense of responsibility, ethical awareness and solidarity, in particular through guidance that takes account of AI. This is one of the points that the Committee wishes to address: it recommends that the Commission not allow self-regulation and the “amicable" settlement of disputes to give rise to conflicting interpretations of the texts. On the contrary, every effort should be made to consolidate the latter, thereby creating rules that are applicable to all; moreover, this should be mentioned in its information and communication roadmaps. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.4.

5.   Evaluation

On a regular basis, the Commission will evaluate the impact of free flow, the implementation of the regulation, the repeal of restrictive measures by the Member States and the effectiveness of the codes of conduct. The EESC feels that civil society representatives should also have the opportunity to express their views on the matter (8). For society as a whole to feel secure and therefore have confidence in these new digital practices, both the EU and the Member States must dispel any uncertainty relating to applicable data law, data confidentiality, data retention, loss-free data recovery, guarantees of feasibility and good faith of the actors involved, and financial guarantees. Because the inextricability of personal and non-personal data has become a source of concern and given the proportion of such data relative to all existing datasets, the EESC questions whether self-regulation really is the only way forward. It recommends that, in the medium term, the GDPR rules apply to all data and all data movements, with the exception of “genuine" non-personal data.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 59.

1

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1807, Article 3(5).

2

(3)  See Communication COM(2019) 250, footnote 13 and judgments in Case C-331/16 and Case C-366/16: K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and H. F. v Belgische Staat: “42. As regards the concept of "public security", it is clear from the Court's case-law that this concept covers both the internal and external security of a Member State (judgment of 23 November 2010, Tsakouridis, C-145/09, EU:C:2010:708, paragraph 43). Internal security may be affected by, inter alia, a direct threat to the peace of mind and physical security of the population of the Member State concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 May 2012, I., C-348/09, EU:C:2012:300, paragraph 28). As regards external security, that may be affected by, inter alia, the risk of a serious disturbance to the foreign relations of that Member State or to the peaceful coexistence of nations (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 November 2010, Tsakouridis, C-145/09, EU:C:2010:708, paragraph 44)".

3

K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and H. F. v Belgische Staat

concept of "public security"

covers both the internal and external security of a Member State

Tsakouridis

direct threat to the peace of mind and physical security

risk of a serious disturbance to the foreign relations of that Member State

Tsakouridis

(4)  OJ C 227, 28.6.2018, p. 86.

4

(5)  OJ C 218, 23.7.2011, p. 130.

5

(6)  EDPS, the European Data Protection Board; Guidelines 1/2019 on Codes of Conduct, 12.2.19, https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-12019-codes-conduct-and-monitoring-bodies-under_en

6

(7)  CISPE (Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe).

7

(8)  OJ C 487, 28.12.2016, p. 92; OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 292.

8

---

ANNEX

The following proposed amendments were rejected by the assembly but received at least one-quarter of the votes cast in favour (Rule 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

Point 4.1.3

Amend as follows:

It is up to the company in question to determine whether the non-personal data it processes are “inextricably linked" to personal data and, if so, to ensure their protection. The preparation of “out management" is no easy task for a company. Establishing a general definition of mixed data would seem to be impossible, and the overlap between the two regulations will probably give rise to further overlaps with other data legislation, such as legislation relating to intellectual property: the flow of non-personal data is permitted, but if such data is reused in a work, it will no longer be subject to the same rules. The EESC believes that the links between the different texts will prove problematic. The case law already requires that the issue of inextricability be examined on the basis of a “reasonable" criterion. The EESC notes that it was clearly not possible for the Commission in its Communication to review every potential scenario and offer guidance to all concerned, with the result that big companies are at a distinct advantage. The EESC recommends that the Commission ensure that personal data do not gradually come to be treated, in practice, as non-personal data and that the GDPR retains its full scope, if necessary merging the two regulations in the medium term for the purposes of stronger data protection rather than increased commodification of data.

Point 5

Amend as follows:

On a regular basis, the Commission will evaluate the impact of free flow, the implementation of the regulation, the repeal of restrictive measures by the Member States and the effectiveness of the codes of conduct. The EESC feels that civil society representatives should also have the opportunity to express their views on the matter. For society as a whole to feel secure and therefore have confidence in these new digital practices, both the EU and the Member States must dispel any uncertainty relating to applicable data law, data confidentiality, data retention, loss-free data recovery, guarantees of feasibility and good faith of the actors involved, and financial guarantees. Because the inextricability of personal and non-personal data has become a source of concern and given the proportion of such data relative to all existing datasets, the EESC questions whether self-regulation really is the only way forward. It recommends that, in the medium term, the GDPR rules apply to all data and all data movements, with the exception of “genuine" non-personal data.

Point 1.1, third bullet point

Amend as follows:

The EESC recommends that the Commission:

...

| — | while promoting free movement, ensure that personal data do not gradually come to be seen as non-personal data and that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) retains its full scope, if necessary merging the two regulations in the medium term for the purposes of stronger data protection rather than increased commodification of data; |
| --- | --- |

—

while promoting free movement, ensure that personal data do not gradually come to be seen as non-personal data and that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) retains its full scope, if necessary merging the two regulations in the medium term for the purposes of stronger data protection rather than increased commodification of data;

...

Reason

GDPR and Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 have different legal basis, respectively Article 16 TFEU on individuals fundamental right to protection of personal data and Article 114 TFEU on approximation of laws, the two provisions allowing the EU different scope for intervention on private business (which is the reason why in the first case the EU intervened by very strict and detailed regulation while in the second case chose self-regulation as the most appropriate, proportional means of intervention). Therefore, these two instruments cannot be legally merged.

Outcome of the vote on the amendments:

| Votes in favour | : | 54 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Votes against | : | 84 |
| Abstentions | : | 18 |

Votes in favour

:

54

Votes against

:

84

Abstentions

:

18

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/129

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020)’

(COM(2019) 397 final — 2019/0180 (COD))

(2020/C 14/19)

| Consultation | European Parliament, 16.9.2019
  Council, 13.9.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 175(3) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Consultative Commission on Industrial Change |
| Adopted at plenary session | 25 and 26 September 2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 112/0/3 |

Consultation

European Parliament, 16.9.2019

Council, 13.9.2019

Legal basis

Article 175(3) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Consultative Commission on Industrial Change

Adopted at plenary session

25 and 26 September 2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

112/0/3

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September (meeting of 25 September), by 112 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/130 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/130

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters’

(COM(2019) 398 final — 2019/0187(COD))

(2020/C 14/20)

| Referral | European Parliament, 16.9.2019
  Council of the European Union, 16.9.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary session | 25 and 26 September 2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 123/0/4 |

Referral

European Parliament, 16.9.2019

Council of the European Union, 16.9.2019

Legal basis

Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary session

25 and 26 September 2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

123/0/4

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September 2019 (meeting of 25 September), by 123 votes to none with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/131

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/501 and Regulation (EU) 2019/502 as regards their periods of application’

(COM(2019) 396 final — 2019/0179 (COD))

(2020/C 14/21)

| Referral | European Council, 13.9.2019
  European Parliament, 16.9.2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 91(1) and 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 25.9.2019 |
| Plenary session No | 546 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 115/0/3 |

Referral

European Council, 13.9.2019

European Parliament, 16.9.2019

Legal basis

Articles 91(1) and 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

25.9.2019

Plenary session No

546

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

115/0/3

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject of both regulations in its earlier opinions TEN/689 and TEN/690, adopted on 20 February 2019 (*1), it decided, at its 546th plenary session of 25 and 26 September 2019 (meeting of 25 September 2019), by 115 votes with 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 25 September 2019.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER

---

(*1)  EESC Opinion on Ensuring basic air connectivity after Brexit (OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 42), and on Ensuring basic road freight connectivity after Brexit (OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 48).

*1

---