----

----

II Preparatory Acts

Committee of the Regions 54th Plenary Session, 21 and 22 April 2004

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism’

(2004/C 121/01)

The Committee of the Regions,

Having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism’ — (COM(2003) 716 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 21 November 2003 to consult it on this subject under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 27 January 2004 to instruct its Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to its opinion on Working together for the future of European tourism (CdR 99/2002 fin) (1);

Having regard to the conclusions of the Euromeeting 2003 on sustainable tourism conference, held jointly by the Tuscany region and its COTER Commission;

Having regard to the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and its opinion on the subject (CdR 266/98 fin) (2);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 397/2003 rev. 1) adopted on 18 February 2004 by its Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Adan Martin Menis, President of the Canary Islands Regional Government (ES/ELDR));

Whereas:

adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session held on 21 and 22 April 2004 (meeting of 21 April).

The Committee of the Regions:

acknowledges that it is difficult to summarise in a document of this kind the priorities and strategies of sustainable European tourism, which are as complex as Europe's regional make-up, as varied as the range of products on offer, as numerous as the range of consumer demands and as diverse as the different administrative and business practices employed to shape tourist destinations;

welcomes the Commission Communication, even if it may disagree with some of the points made in it, as it is the first time that the European Union has adopted an overall standpoint on the challenges of sustainable tourism;

considers that, although there are other equally useful standpoints on sustainability, such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the main value of this Communication resides in the fact that it outlines actions that need to be taken, in particular by regions and destinations, if sustainable tourism is to move from theory to practice;

points out that the Commission is offering local and regional authorities new opportunities to base sustainable tourism policy on the three pillars of sustainability, and that working together and good governance are key methodologies which will promote progress in the industry and remedy the lack of consistency between the many existing practices;

welcomes the fact that the Communication also recommends steps to be taken by European citizens and tourists, private sector enterprises, the social partners, international organisations, local, regional and national governments, and civil society groups;

1.   Challenges and objectives of sustainable tourism

Main challenge: sustainable activity and growth

A balanced approach to the three pillars of sustainability

Sustainable consumption patterns

Sustainable production patterns

2.   Where we stand

Many initiatives

Slow progress

3.   Facing the challenges: The policy options

4.   Implementing tourism sustainability: Basic orientations for a European Community approach

The general concept of future action

What the Commission intends to do

What other stakeholders can do

European citizens and tourists

Private sector enterprises and social partners

European tourist destinations and public authorities

International organisations and national governments

Civil society groups

5.   Conclusions

Brussels, 21 April 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 66 of 19.3.2003, p. 14.

(2)OJ C 93 of 6.4.1999, p. 36.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on

(2004/C 121/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the European Commission Communications on barriers to widespread access to new services and applications of the information society through open platforms in digital television and third generation mobile communications (COM(2003) 410 final) and on the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting (from digital ‘switchover’ to analogue ‘switch-off’) (COM(2003) 541 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 9 July 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 19 June 2003 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of March 2002;

Having regard to the conclusions of the Seville European Council of June 2002;

Having regard to its own opinion on The eEurope Benchmarking report and on eEurope 2005: An information society for all (CdR 136/2002 fin) (1);

Having regard to its own opinion on the Adoption of a multi-annual programme (2004-2006) for the effective integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and training systems in Europe (eLearning Programme) (CdR 73/2003 fin) (2);

Having regard to its own opinion on the Follow-up to the multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (CdR 140/2002 fin) (3);

Having regard to its own opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multi-annual programme (2003-2005) for monitoring of eEurope, dissemination of good practices and the improvement of network and information security (MODINIS) (CdR 252/02 fin) (4);

Having regard to its own opinion on eEurope 2002: Accessibility of Public Web Sites and their Content (CdR 397/2001 fin) (5);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 308/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 19 February 2004 by its Commission for Culture and Education (rapporteur: Luigi Sergio Ricca, Mayor of Bollengo, IT/PES);

WHEREAS:

adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21-22 April 2004 (meeting of 21 April):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 21 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 128 of 29.5.2003, p. 14.

(2)OJ C 244 of 10.10.2003, p. 42.

(3)OJ C 73 of 26.3.2003, p. 34.

(4)OJ C 128 of 29.5.2003, p. 19.

(5)OJ C 278 of 14.11.2002, p. 24.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (EUROPASS)’

(2004/C 121/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Having regard to the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (EUROPASS)’ (COM(2003) 796 final — 2003/0307 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 14 January 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265, Article 149 and Article 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 26 September 2003 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Lisbon European Council of March 2000 on increased transparency of qualifications;

Having regard to the Mobility action plan adopted by the Nice European Council in December 2000;

Having regard to the conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of March 2002 on transparency of EU diplomas and qualifications;

Having regard to the Commission Communication of 21 November 2001 on Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality;

Having regard to European Parliament Recommendation 2001/613/EC and to the Council Recommendation of 10 July 2001 on promoting and generalising the use of transparency documents, with a view to creating a European qualification area;

Having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 February 2002 on an Action Plan for skills and mobility;

Having regard to the Council Resolution of 3 June 2002 on skills and mobility;

Having regard to the Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 on lifelong learning;

Having regard to the Copenhagen Declaration of 30 November 2002 and the Council Resolution of 19 December 2002 on the Promotion of enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training;

Having regard to its opinion on the Promotion of European pathways for work-linked training including apprenticeship (CdR 431/97 fin) (1), and its Opinion on the new SOCRATES, LEONARDO and YOUTH programmes (CdR 226/98 fin) (2);

Having regard to its draft opinion CdR 307/2003 rev. 1 adopted on 19 February 2004 by its Commission for Culture and Education (rapporteur: Mr Florio, Town Councillor of Asti(IT/EPP),

Whereas:

Adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21-22 April 2004 (meeting of 21 April)

1.   Committee of the Regions' views

2.   Committee of the Regions recommendations

Recommendation 1

3rd recital

Reason

The amendment takes account of the crucial role the regional and local authorities could play in promoting Europass.

Recommendation 2

6th recital

Reason

The amendment takes account of the need for administrative simplification to make the new instrument more user-friendly.

Recommendation 3

After the 10th recital, add the following new recital:

Reason

The amendment takes account of the federal nature of several Member States and of the key role the regional and local authorities play in education and training.

Recommendation 4

Article 2(2)

Reason

The amendment highlights the case for including the EU flag in all official documents issued by the Union, so that the instrument can be easily recognised as originating from the EU.

Recommendation 5

Article 8(1)

Reason

The amendment takes account of the federal nature of several Member States and of the key role the regional and local authorities play in education and training.

Recommendation 6

Article 9(2)(a)

Reason

The amendment takes account of the federal nature of several Member States and of the key role the regional and local authorities play in education and training.

Recommendation 7

Article 10(a)

Reason

The amendment takes account of the key role the regional and local authorities can play in promoting Europass. The regional and local authorities should be involved in any initiatives and information campaigns that are planned.

Brussels, 21 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 43.

(2)OJ C 51, 22.9.1999, p. 77.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the “European Capital of Culture” event for the years 2005 to 2019’

(2004/C 121/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the ‘Proposal from the European Commission for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the “European Capital of Culture” event for the years 2005 to 2019’ (COM(2003) 700 final — 2003/0274 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 3 December 2003 to consult it on this subject under the fifth paragraph of Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 6 November 2004 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the draft Report of the European Parliament's Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on COM(2003) 700 final;

Having regard to Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019;

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community initiative for The European Capital of Culture event (CdR 448/97 fin) (1);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 393/2003 rev. 1) adopted on 19 February 2004 by its Commission for Culture and Education (Rapporteur: Mrs Annette McNamara, Member of Cork County Council and the South West Regional Authority (IE/EA);

unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 54th Plenary Session of 21-22 April 2004 (meeting of 21 April).

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

On the European Capital of Culture

The Committee of the Regions

On the European Commission's amending proposal

The Committee of the Regions

On the selection procedure

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Article 2 (1)

COM(2003) 700 final

Article 2 (2)

(Decision 1419/1999/EC)

Brussels, 21 April 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 70.

----

----

Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and local and regional authorities: the need for coordination and a specific instrument for decentralised cooperation

(2004/C 121/05)

The Committee of the Regions,

HAVING REGARD to the letter of 5 September 2003 from Mrs de Palacio, Vice-President of the European Commission, to Sir Albert Bore, President of the Committee of the Regions, inviting the Committee of the Regions, in accordance with Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an outlook opinion assessing the progress made in the Barcelona Process, analysing the functioning of the association agreements in force with the Mediterranean partner countries and to provide insights, drawn from the experience of the CoR, on the development of cooperation between EU regions and regions of the southern Mediterranean countries or between the southern Mediterranean regions themselves;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision by its Bureau on 6 November 2003 to instruct the Commission for External Relations to draw up an outlook opinion on the matter;

HAVING REGARD TO the Protocol governing arrangements for cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions, signed by their respective presidents on 20 September 2001 (DI CdR 81/2001 rev. 2);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on strengthening the Mediterranean policy of the European Union: Proposals for implementing a Euro-Mediterranean partnership (COM(1995) 72 final) (CdR 371/95) (1);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on Local authorities and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (CdR 125/97 fin) (2);

HAVING REGARD TO its resolution on Decentralised cooperation and the role of regional and local authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (CdR 40/2000 fin) (3);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on Regional and local authorities and the European Union's common strategy for the Mediterranean (CdR 123/2000 fin) (4);

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament resolution on the Commission Communication on relations between the EU and the Mediterranean: reinvigorating the Barcelona partnership (A5-0009/2001);

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament report on the annual report on the MEDA 2000 programme (A5-0114/2003);

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament report on Wider Europe (A5-0378/2003);

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood (COM(2003)104 final);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion of 9 October 2003 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: a New Framework for our Relations with our Eastern and Southern neighbours (CdR 175/2003 fin) (5);

HAVING REGARD TO the conclusions of the conference Towards a new Euro-Mediterranean area, which brought together local and regional representatives in Livorno on 31 October 2003 at the initiative of the Committee of the Regions (CdR 350/2003);

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament To prepare the VI Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Naples, 2-3 December 2003 (Barcelona VI),which the Commission referred to the Committee of the Regions on 5 November 2003;

HAVING REGARD TO the conclusions of the Interinstitutional Conference to re-launch the Mediterranean dimension, Palermo, 27–28 November 2003;

HAVING REGARD TO its resolution on the VI Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Naples on 2 and 3 December (CdR 357/2003 fin) (6);

HAVING REGARD TO the Report by the High-Level Advisory Group on the Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area of 2 December 2003;

HAVING REGARD TO the Commission's Third report on economic and social cohesion, in particular its reference to the need to promote a neighbourhood policy and establish a ‘Grand Voisinage’ action or instrument for the outermost regions of the EU;

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 327/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 1 March 2004 by the Commission for External Relations (rapporteurs: Mr Jacques Blanc, President of the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Council (FR/EPP) and Mr Gianfranco Lamberti, Mayor of Livorno (IT/PES));

Unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21 and 22 April 2004 (meeting of 21 April):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

Continuing and strengthening the Barcelona Process

The Committee of the Regions

The MEDA programme: a mixed record

The Committee of the Regions

Decentralised cooperation: the added value provided by local and regional authorities

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 21 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 126 of 29.4.1996, p. 12.

(2)OJ C 64 of 27.2.1998, p. 59.

(3)OJ C 156 of 6.6.2000, p. 47.

(4)OJ C 22 of 24.1.2001, p. 7.

(5)OJ C 23 of 27.1.2004, p. 36.

(6)OJ C 73 of 23.3.2004, p. 77.

(7)  Cf. T. Schumacher, Programma Mediterraneo, Istituto Universitario Europeo di Fiesole, Livorno, 31 October 2003.

(8)  Euromed Report No 68, 2 December 2003.

(9)  This date is indicative as the agreements provide for the entry of Tunisia into the Euro-Mediterranean free trade area in 2008, Libya in 2014 and Algeria and Syria at a later date.

(10)  Evaluation of Economic Co-operation between the European Commission and Mediterranean Countries (12/1997) — 951645.

(11)  H. Abouyoub, Moroccan ambassador to France, Le partenariat euro-méditerranéen, Travaux des tables rondes des Assisses de la Méditerranée, Marseille, July 2000.

(12)  The IRMEDD was set up by the CPMR in Ioannina on 17 September 2002 and commenced operations in Montpellier on 19 December 2003.

(13)  Including the Tuscany region, the University of Pisa, the Intermediterranean Commission of the CPMR, the Italian Ministry for Transport.

(14)  Cf. R. Favresse, Analyse des partenariats entre les pays de l'espace Medoc et les Pays tiers méditerranéens au sein du programme Interreg III B Medoc, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, November 2003.

(15)  Assembly of European Regions, Council of European Municipalities and Regions, Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, World Federation of United Cities, Association of Frontier Regions in Europe, European Network of Cities and Regions for Social Economy.

(16)  For example, the Wilayas (governorships or prefectures) which exist in most countries on the southern side of the Mediterranean.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services’

(2004/C 121/06)

The Committee of the Regions,

Having regard to the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services’ (COM(2003) 657 final – SEC 2003/1213 – 2003/0265 (CNS)),

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the decision of its President of 7 May 2002 to instruct its Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject,

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 19/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 2 March 2004 by the Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Norrman, Member of Jämtland County Council (S/PES),

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 54th plenary session on 21-22 April 2004 (session of 22 April).

1.   Committee of the Regions' viewpoints

2.   Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 22 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Equal opportunities for people with disabilities: A European Action Plan’

(2004/C 121/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 54th plenary session of 21 and 22 April 2004 (meeting of 21 April).

1.   Comments

The Committee of the Regions

2.   Recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 21 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)  http://www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/empl/conferences/20031110/note-en.doc

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Joint Report on Social Inclusion summarising the results of the examination of the National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (2003-2005)’

(2004/C 121/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Joint report on social inclusion summarising the results of the examination of the National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (2003-2005)’, COM(2003) 773 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission on 12 December 2003, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

Having regard to the decision of its president on 6 November 2003 to direct its Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on the subject;

Having regard to the decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 October 2001 establishing a programme of Community action to encourage co-operation between Member States to combat social exclusion;

Having regard to the European Commission Staff Working Paper entitled ‘E-inclusion – the potential of the information society for social inclusion in Europe’ (SEC(2001) 1428);

Having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: ‘Draft joint report on social inclusion’ (COM(2001) 565-C5-0109-2002/2051(COS));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission – Building an inclusive Europe (CdR 84/2000 fin) (1);

Having regard to the Council resolution of 6 February 2003 on social inclusion through social dialogue and partnership (2);

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme of Community action to encourage co-operation between Member States to combat social exclusion (CdR 302/2000 fin) (3);

Having regard to its opinion on the Draft Joint Report on Social Inclusion (CdR 393/2001 fin) (4);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 21/2004) adopted on 2 March 2004 by the Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Marin-Moskovitz, Deputy Mayor of Belfort, Vice-President of the General Council of Territoire de Belfort (FR/PES));

adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session on 21 and 22 April 2004 (meeting of 22 April).

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 22 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 317 of 6.11.2000, p. 47.

(2)OJ C 39 of 18.2.2003, p. 1.

(3)OJ C 144 of 16.5.2001, p. 52.

(4)OJ C 192 of 12.8.2002, p. 5.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators’

(2004/C 121/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators’, (COM(2003) 723 final - 2003/0282 (COD));

Having regard to the decision of the Council of 11 December 2003 to consult it on this matter under the first paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 12 March 2002 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the European Commission's staff working paper on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators, SEC(2003)1343;

Having regard to Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances;

Having regard to Directive 2003/108/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE);

Having regard to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment;

Having regard to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (ELV);

Having regard to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations;

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 12/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 5 March 2004 by its Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Ossi Martikainen, chairman of Lapinlahti municipal council (FI/ELDR),

Whereas:

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21 and 22 April 2004 (meeting of 22 April)

1.   Opinion of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

Preamble, paragraph 2

Reason: The main purpose of this Directive is to minimise the negative environmental effects of discarded batteries, therefore Article 175 (1) (legal basis for environmental measures) should be the only legal basis. By basing the Directive on Article 175, it leaves the possibility for Member States to set stricter targets and procedures.

Recital 10

Reason: In line with the Directives on end-of life vehicles (ELV), waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances (RoHS), metal should be also prohibited in batteries and accumulators.

Article 3

Definitions

Add new definition

Reason: The article is copied from the Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances. This is an excellent way to encourage consumers to return their spent batteries to collection points.

Article 4

Prevention

Reason: Portable NiCd batteries make up 80 % of the entire NiCd battery market. There is a risk that the spent batteries end up in municipal waste stream. It is undisputed that substitutes exist for the electronical and electronic equipments. A phase-out of the use of cadmium batteries in electronical and electronic equipment would be in line with the RoHS directive.

Article 5

Increased environmental performance

Reason: Self-explanatory.

Article 6

Monitoring the waste stream

Reason: This entire article should be deleted on the grounds that monitoring the municipal waste stream would be a very costly and unnecessary measure if the directive bans the use of harmful substances in batteries in the first instance. Nickel-cadmium batteries are estimated to constitute around 0.0055 % of the municipal waste stream. The monitoring of this substance would have to be based on very substantial sampling in order to quantify the levels of spent NiCd batteries reliably. An easier and more effective option is to simply ban the use of this harmful substance altogether, thus removing the need for such extensive monitoring. The proposal is an anomaly and should be removed altogether.

Article 9

Collection schemes

Reason: Deposit schemes are an excellent way of encouraging consumers to return batteries after use.

Article 11

Prohibition of final disposal

Reason: The text needs to be stronger and more forceful.

Article 12

Economic instruments

Reason: Deposit schemes (whereby the consumer pays a higher price when purchasing the battery and part of this cost is reimbursed when the spent battery is returned) can encourage consumers to return their batteries.

Article 13

Collection targets

Reason: The collection targets should be amended to a percentage of annual sales targets in order to better reflect the level of consumption, which varies throughout the EU. This percentage can easily be achieved through analysing the yearly sales volume. This phased approach to targets is necessary to help develop capacity in collection and recycling without making the targets unrealistic. An overall target of 70 % collection rate is needed to ensure that the collection and recycling rates continually grow up to an optimal level.

Article 15

Treatment operations

Reason: Referring to the best available technique makes the directive more in line with the terminology of the EU and put emphasis on using the best available treatment. Otherwise the battery industry – as an example – may point to the steel industry as a possible treatment.

Article 17

New recycling technologies

Reason: Self-explanatory

Article 18

Recycling targets

Reason: This exemption is not justified by any technical reasons.

Article 19

Recycling efficiencies

Reason: This is the first time a target is set for the recycling efficiencies. This was not made in neither the WEEE directive nor the ELV directive. It is therefore important that the rates are evaluated and regularly updated.

Article 20

Schemes for portable batteries and accumulators

Reason: This is an important amendment for local and regional authorities. The producer responsibility should also apply to the collection of spent portable batteries. The actual carrying out of the collection, treatment, recycling and sound disposal can be taken care of either by the local authorities or by any other organisation. The important point here is to clarify who will finance these activities.

Article 22

Registration and Guarantee

Reason: The word ‘may’ is too vague and should therefore be changed into ‘shall’.

Article 23

Historic waste

Reason: The word ‘all’ clarifies that the producer responsibility is collective and not individual.

Annex I (new)

Reason: see amendment on Article 4.

Brussels, 22 April 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “On the Road to Sustainable Production” Progress in implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control’

(2004/C 121/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘On the Road to Sustainable Production - Progress in implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control’ (COM(2003) 354 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 19 June 2003 to consult it on this subject, under Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 23 January 2003 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the European Commission's White Paper on environmental liability (COM(2000) 66 final) and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (COM(2002) 17 final - 2002/0021 (COD));

Having regard to the European Community's sixth environment action programme entitled ‘Environment 2000: Our future, our choice’;

Having regard to the Commission's decision of 31 May 1999 on the questionnaire mentioned in Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 332/2003 rev.1) adopted on 5 March 2004 by the Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr José Macário Correia, Chairman of Tavira Municipal Council (PT, EPP));

Whereas:

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21 and 22 April 2004 (meeting of 22 April)

Views and recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 22 April 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)  This does not apply to installations in the applicant countries which have been granted an additional transition period beyond 2007.

----

----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication on Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources’

(2004/C 121/11)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the European Commission ‘Communication Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources’, COM(2003) 572 final;

Having regard to the European Commission Communication on European governance, COM(2001) 428 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 27 January 2004 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Commission Recommendation for the 2002 Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community, COM(2002) 191 final;

Having regard to the definition of ‘sustainable development’ set out in the Amsterdam Treaty;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council), COM(2001) 264 final;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Towards a global partnership for sustainable development, COM(2002) 82 final;

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community - Environment 2010: Our future, our choice - the Sixth Environment Action Programme - and the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010 (COM(2001) 31 final – CdR 36/2001 fin (1);

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Integrated product policy - Building on environmental life-cycle thinking, COM(2003) 302 final – CdR 159/2003 fin (2);

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, COM(2003) 301 final - CdR 239/20003 fin (3);

Having regard to the European Commission's Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply, COM(2000) 769 final;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament A European Environment and Health Strategy, COM(2003) 338 final;

Having regard to Communications from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Biodiversity Strategy (COM(1998) 42) and the Biodiversity Action Plan for the Conservation of Natural Resources, COM(2001) 162 final;

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 11/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 5 March 2004 by its Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Cormick McChord, Leader of Stirling Council (UK/PES).

Whereas:

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21 and 22 April 2004 in Brussels (meeting of 22 April)

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 22 April 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 44.

(2)OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 51.

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

----