Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Euro-Mediterranean partnership - review and prospects five years on"

(2002/C 36/24)

On 12 and 13 July 2000 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on the "Euro-Mediterranean partnership - review and prospects five years on".

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 October 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Dimitriadis.

At its 385th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2001 (meeting of 18 October), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes to one, with no abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Since 1960 the European Union has developed a range of policies to achieve closer relations with Mediterranean countries, and it has created a framework which has enabled it to achieve key relationships going beyond the traditional limits of mere trading relations.

1.2. From the beginning of the 1990s, the European Union, after similar experience in its own area, sought to establish links with Mediterranean countries with a view to developing more dynamic forms of cooperation, and to avoiding the situation which had prevailed up to then, in which Europe would prepare proposals for cooperation and the Mediterranean partners would either accept or reject them, although they did not all have the technical knowledge to develop and manage these proposals.

1.3. A decisive step in this direction was the Barcelona Inter-Ministerial Declaration(1), at a conference in which 27 countries took part (15 members of the European Union and 12 Mediterranean countries), where the foundations were laid for the implementation of an ambitious plan comprising three key objectives:

- a political and security component aimed at defining a common area of peace and stability;

- an economic and financial component aimed at building an area of shared prosperity (establishing a Free Trade Zone in 2010);

- human, social and cultural progress.

1.4. In the relatively short period of five years since the start of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership considerable success has been achieved, but the Euro-Med partnership is still a long way from achieving the results originally expected from it.

2. Assessment of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership

2.1. It is a fact that the original expectations of the Euro-Med partnership were high, and in some cases particularly high. However, a regular dialogue was set up between the 27 partners on consolidating security and stability in the Mediterranean region and on enabling joint initiatives to be undertaken (it is significant here that the Euro-Med partnership succeeded in bringing to the dialogue table representatives from Lebanon, Syria, Israel and the Palestinian Authority).

2.1.1. Also important is the fact that the EU has brought Libya into the Euro-Mediterranean partnership framework, with the first official invitation to Libyan representatives to attend the Stuttgart Meeting on 15-16 April 1999. However, progress in negotiations with Libya has been slight; the last round did not lead to any official commitment to accepting the content of the Barcelona Declaration.

2.2. Moreover, multilateral cooperation is as common as the traditional bilateral approaches. In addition, substantial sums were committed to developing the Euro-Med partnership through the MEDA programme and through EIB loans. The MEDA programme was the main funding source of the Euro-Med partnership, and it was applied to all three components of the Barcelona Declaration.

2.3. Bilateral association agreements have been drawn up which cover economic liberalisation and the strengthening of market mechanisms, subject however to the necessary attention being given to safeguarding social equilibria and encouraging convergence of the economies. These agreements envisage cooperation in the widest sense, and include an important dimension of culture and civilisation, which should finally lead to greater stability and cooperation in the Mediterranean area, harmonising and unifying the progress of the peoples of the region.

2.4. The strategic importance of the EU's southern neighbours is recognised by all the Member States of the EU; in addition, the first encouraging results of the Mediterranean partners' reconstruction efforts are beginning to appear.

2.5. However, in the same period certain critical voices were raised on the need to examine the economic aims of the Euro-Med partnership on the one hand, and stressing the weakness of its social component on the other.

2.6. The early stages of the Euro-Med partnership were marked by a plethora of activities without any clear priorities. Completion of the plans was generally slow. It is also necessary to stress the fact that the Mediterranean partner countries (MPCs) encountered problems in the take-up of funds allocated to them - problems which were visible mainly in terms of the technical difficulties of applying the initiatives.

2.7. Establishing the Free Trade Zone (FTZ) has proved to be much more difficult than expected, as can be seen from the slow progress in the negotiations for the association agreements, which is due among other things to the slowness of the ratification procedures in the relevant parliamentary bodies. The responsibility here lies mainly with the Member States of the EU. In addition, the promotion of economic and political cooperation among the MPCs continues to make slow progress, thereby failing to attract the interest of international investor firms, large financial bodies and venture capital partners, the presence of which is necessary for promoting large-scale infrastructure projects (e.g. telecommunications, transport etc.).

2.8. The deadlock and continual ups-and-downs of the Middle East peace process have given rise to considerable delay in more general regional cooperation.

2.9. Unfortunately the signing of the Association Agreements, which include specific clauses on democracy and human rights, does not prevent the continuous worsening of the situation in certain countries, while the spirit of the partnership was such as to contribute to a sufficiently frank and serious dialogue on subjects such as human rights, prevention of terrorism or migration.

2.10. We must not underestimate the difficulties involved in the dialogue between countries with differing political, social, economic and cultural backgrounds, since there are many different types of experience and stages of social development. The cultural dialogue presupposes cultural exchange and mobility, which is not always feasible.

2.11. It must be stressed that, right up to the year 2000, the countries of the eastern Mediterranean were under-represented at the annual meetings of the Economic and Social Councils and similar organisations. The causes of this must be sought in the shortage or total absence of information for the bodies representing organised civil society in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. For this reason, the representatives of organisations in those countries find no valid reason for them to participate actively in the dialogue, and their governments do not seek to involve them because of lack of integration of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the operation of society and the economy. It must also be emphasised that the countries of the eastern Mediterranean do not have Economic and Social Councils (ESCs) or similar bodies capable of representing them; nor do they possess the structures or the necessary resources to play an active role in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

2.12. During the period of operation of the MEDA Programme (1995-1999), bilateral cooperation (about 90 %) far exceeded regional cooperation (about 10 %), yet the latter is of vital importance for creating a space for dialogue, exchanges and cooperation which are a fundamental aim of the partnership link(2).

2.13. The insufficiency observed in regional cooperation is even more marked in decentralised. Programmes have been adopted for the latter, but they have not begun to materialise despite the fact that three years have already elapsed. This creates a great deal of anxiety about the continuation of decentralised cooperation, and there are fears that the programmes of smaller scope may disappear altogether, although they are necessary to strengthen the social fabric.

2.14. The pace of economic reform in the Mediterranean partners has been disappointing. Trade between the Mediterranean partners ("south-south trade") has not risen above the very low initial level; it represents less than 6 % of total trade in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, while the level of EU investment in the region remains particularly low and is significantly lower than investment flows to other parts of the world(3).

3. The ESC's views on the Euro-Mediterranean partnership

3.1. One of the major achievements of the EU in the last 30 years is the fact that citizens and various bodies now communicate through many different channels. The role of the intermediary bodies is particularly important: in addition to playing a specific social role, they provide independent services and organise information campaigns promoting important subjects; at the same time, they have the capacity to influence governments and decisions taken at political level, while having no direct political allegiance.

3.2. The ESC believes that the weakness of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership lies precisely in the emphasis on its political and economic content, with social content seriously lacking. This fact also emerges from the nature of the bilateral association agreements. The Euro-Mediterranean agreements express the EU's desire for "controlled liberalisation", meaning the opening up of markets accompanied by attempts to mitigate the complications arising from the powerful shock of structural changes. Finally, however, the results originally expected in the social sector have not yet been achieved.

3.2.1. Liberalisation alone, in a context of considerable inequalities, cannot guarantee either economic growth or the restructuring of particularly fragmented societies and economies, let alone the creation of an "area of shared prosperity". In addition, the Euro-Mediterranean FTZ operates under the conditions laid down by Europe: up to now, it concerns mainly industrial products, for which European countries are particularly competitive vis-à-vis Mediterranean countries, while tending to neglect agricultural products, which are of special importance to the Mediterranean countries. The FTZ as it stands is only a partial response to the challenges posed by the chasm separating the two sides of the Mediterranean.

3.3. Despite the successful impact of the Euromed Heritage(4), Euromed Audiovisual(5), and Euromed Youth(6) programmes on strengthening the social aspect of the partnership, and of the MEDA Democracy programme(7) aimed at strengthening democratisation and human rights, and while a series of meetings and conferences were held between representatives of civil society, the results of the social aspect of the partnership and of the civil society approach are still insignificant.

3.4. The decentralised cooperation programmes (Med-Urbs, Med-Campus, Med-Media) are intended to encourage civil society organisations on both sides of the Mediterranean to meet and draw up plans jointly; they have come to a standstill since 1995 through poor internal management. The European Commission is determined to discontinue these programmes, taking the view that the management of the micro-programmes is particularly difficult because it requires considerable human and financial resources.

3.4.1 The ESC welcomes the Belgian Presidency's initiative of organising a Forum on 13-14 July 2001 on the role of women in economic development, and is particularly pleased that the results of this Forum will form the basis for the future development of a European action programme on the same theme.

3.5. The ESC believes that many of the weaknesses of the Euromed partnership are due to the difficulties encountered in successfully implementing the third component of the Barcelona Declaration, and mainly to overestimating the part which the Euromed partnership could play in the social development of the MPCs. The EU should not ignore the fact that, unlike the MPCs, the EU was ripe for integration through the relative similarity of the philosophy, education and cultural background of its Member States. The position of the MPCs is completely different, and despite the geographical closeness of the countries, there are considerable social, economic and cultural differences both between individual MPCs and between the MPCs and the EU.

3.6. Promotion of dialogue between countries which differ greatly in culture and in cultural background is the only effective way of tackling tensions arising from the meeting of different cultures and different ways of life, from globalisation and from the temptation not to take sufficient account of the ethnic identities of the peoples concerned.

3.7. On the other hand, it also seems clear that so far there has not been a sufficiently frank and serious dialogue on problems such as human rights and particularly the rights of women and children, prevention of terrorism, or illegal immigration which gives rise to special social problems, as the Commission indeed acknowledges.

3.8. While the association agreements prepare the ground for vertical (North-South) trade, horizontal (South-South) integration remains the EU's greatest task of support in the region, since increasing the horizontal flow of goods, capital and human resources will develop markets sufficiently large to attract the international investment needed for economic growth. Up to now, the structural changes in the MPCs have been unsatisfactory. The ESC wishes to see a strengthening of the role of intermediate bodies as part of the horizontal completion of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership; at the same time it welcomes and fully supports the recent (8 May 2001) declaration of the intention to set up a Free Trade Zone involving Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.

3.9. At present the degree of representation of the intermediary bodies of the MPCs is regarded as insufficient, resulting in a failure to recognise the real needs of the locally-based firms operating in those countries. At the same time, the lack of organisational structure resulting from an absence of intermediate bodies is a fact which makes practical sub-regional cooperation an unlikely prospect. The Mediterranean countries are already facing many difficulties in the organisation of their partnership links with the European Union, and even more so among themselves.

3.9.1 The ESC believes that for the above reasons, but also to give the MPCs a chance to remedy this chronic deficiency which acts as a brake on progress, specific assistance should be provided for the MPCs to enable them to identify what is possible or impossible at local level, determine their actual needs and work out possible solutions.

4. The ESC's conclusions on the prospects for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership

4.1. The essence of the Euro-Med partnership's success would be to achieve full implementation of the association agreements. Progress with the association agreements can act as a measuring rod for the active commitment of the 27 partner countries to the aims laid down by the Barcelona Conference (first, second and third key objectives).

4.1.1. The negotiation and ratification procedure for the agreements was more lengthy than expected, but this was due mainly to the fact that the association agreements signed between the EU and European countries are in practice separate bilateral agreements between each of the fifteen Member States of the EU and each of the MPCs.

4.1.2. This has led to inequalities and delays in the procedures which are almost humiliating for the South: an agreement signed by one Mediterranean country can be applied only after about three years on average, during which time it will be forwarded to all the European capitals for ratification. For example, the agreement signed with Jordan in November 1997 has not yet been applied because two Member States of the EU have not yet ratified it.

4.1.3. For this reason, it would be useful to consolidate the association agreements in a single multilateral agreement, as proposed by the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum(8), in order to speed up the procedures. At the same time the possibility should be investigated of developing other ways of reaching such agreements.

4.2. Completing the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Zone is one of the key aims of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Free trade should be established not only between the EU and the MPCs, but also among the MPCs themselves. This would enlarge the market and make the region attractive for international investors and the inflow of capital (second key objective).

4.2.1. In this spirit, the ESC believes that the markets could to some extent be monitored in order to organise them better vis-à-vis the European Union and promote South-South relations in parallel. Moreover, one of the basic aims of the Euro-Mediterranean FTZ is precisely to establish a dual partnership link with the European Union on the one hand and among the Mediterranean countries on the other.

4.2.2. The ESC believes that the MPCs should be given organisational assistance in the sectors of SMEs, craft industries and very small firms, in order to establish common structures among them for consultation and joint action. In this way the MPCs will be able to develop better and wider-ranging plans for partnership with the European Union and among themselves, making the most of European experience and best practice.

4.3. The ESC believes it is necessary to defend the idea of converting the FTZ plan into a real "common market" which would include all the goods covered by the sectors where the South is competitive, i.e. essentially the agricultural sector. Such a market presupposes a very significant supporting policy (technical and health-related specifications of products, modernisation and reorientation of certain sectors, modernisation of firms involved in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, etc.) (second key objective).

4.3.1. Agriculture is the most important theme both for the EU and for the MPCs, because it is the most important economic activity in the countries of the Mediterranean Basin, with particularly serious structural problems and a total lack of technological knowledge, technological tools and long-term planning; the latter would take account of the social aspect of the restructuring. Deeper economic integration requires extensive discussion of the 27 partners' policies in order to iron out the problems. An important step in this direction was the Strasbourg Conference on agriculture in the Euro-Mediterranean area, the aim of which was to encourage coordination of Mediterranean agricultural policies in the context of the Barcelona Process(9).

4.3.2. The setting up of the FTZ in the Mediterranean area will be seen to be successful only if the non-EU partner countries benefit fully, i.e. obtain full and free access to the EU market for selected agricultural products and foodstuffs considered to be important to the Euro-Mediterranean partners. Progress towards this goal could be speeded up, but only with compensations in the CAP context for those regions of the European Union which will be directly hit by any increased competition.

4.3.3. Additional sacrifices in the agricultural production of the EU could be understandable if they would offer real advantages for the development of the export market of the developing countries which are Euro-Mediterranean partners.

4.3.4. The countries in the FTZ must not be encouraged to produce exclusively for the European market (thus serving the interests of certain multinationals which dominate the market, large-scale landowners and certain local rulers) but to meet first and foremost the food needs of their own inhabitants. This will gradually reduce food supply dependence, which gradually leads to dependence which is not only economic but also political and cultural.

4.4. Of special importance to the MPCs is the textile manufacturing sector, which represented 30 % of their employment in 1995(10). This sector represents one of the competitive advantages of many of the MPCs (second key objective).

4.4.1. The textile sector can have a role of the highest importance in diversifying the MPCs' products aimed at developed markets. The key importance of the sector is clear from the fact that most of the MPCs are subcontractors of the EU in textile and clothing products and particularly in semi-finished products.

4.4.2. Consequently, measures will need to be taken to increase productivity and competitiveness. This requires better organisation, an improved workforce, investment in new technologies, and finally the reorganisation and modernisation of the industrial plant and methods in use.

4.4.3 The textile sector could serve as a good example for tackling and solving problems which are also found in the MPCs' other sectors.

4.5. It will need to be emphasised that the fisheries sector is also extremely important for the MPCs, and the EU absorbs a very large proportion of their exports of fisheries products (about 63 %) (second key objective).

4.5.1. The EU fisheries sector nowadays is economically vulnerable as a result of over-investment, rising costs and dwindling stocks. The Commission has therefore presented a Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)(11) with a view to creating a common basis for dialogue.

4.5.2. The ESC expresses its satisfaction that the Green Paper envisages the inclusion of the Mediterranean in the CFP through integrated proposals which will ensure sustainable fisheries and will promote dialogue between those concerned in all the countries of the Mediterranean Basin.

4.6. On the basis of the experience gained in these five years, the EU is in the process of revising and restructuring the modes of implementation of its Mediterranean policy(12). The EU must aim at achieving greater effectiveness in the MEDA programme by streamlining its external procedures and improving planning of its programmes and projects (first, second and third key objectives).

4.7. The multi-faceted nature of Mediterranean policy application and the laborious, bureaucratic administrative procedures required, bearing in mind also the political importance of the large funds involved, justify on the one hand requesting a guarantee of enough staff to ensure progress with the MEDA and on the other intensifying the consultation between the players directly involved.

4.8. Completion of the negotiations on stability and peace in the region, establishment of political dialogue mechanisms to promote and safeguard peace, strengthening the role of the MEDA democracy programme and improving support for representatives of intermediate bodies must be primary objectives, despite the fact that such interventions depend to a large extent on the Middle East peace process. The intermediate bodies constitute the force which can strengthen the role of the Euro-Med partnership and influence the dialogue in its political, economic and cultural aspects (first and second key objectives).

4.9. Particular emphasis must be placed on supporting policy and security cooperation, in view of the fact that fairly lax cooperation measures have been applied and have so far failed to develop a strong relationship of trust between the EU and the MPCs (first key objective).

4.10. The order of priorities of the Barcelona Process must be changed so as to give the social and cultural aspects and immigration questions an importance which is not qualitatively lower than that given to economic, commercial and security questions (third key objective).

4.11. The EU must commit itself more as regards social development, health, education, women's and children's rights, environmental protection and infrastructure programmes. At this point it is worth stressing the high importance of the programmes for exchanges between young people and for mobility of technical and scientific staff, with the emphasis on the exchange of instructors (third key objective).

4.12. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership must become more transparent and better known in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Efforts on information and public relations must be intensified. As part of the communication strategy, there must be a greater effort to create a proprietorial feeling towards the projects funded under the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (third key objective).

4.13. The ESC believes that there can be no real partnership link between the two sides unless the movement of persons is properly organised, and the legitimate interests of both sides are guaranteed. The failure to respond to the demand for freedom of movement is essentially an incitement to illegal immigration (first key objective).

5. ESC proposals on the prospects for the Euro-Med partnership

5.1. The ESC believes that the development of a free trade area, both bilaterally between the EU and the MPCs, and multilaterally among the MPCs, is not the final objective but the means to achieve a greater aim which is nothing less than the creation of stability, peace and welfare in the region.

5.2. The ESC believes that the key to the Euro-Med partnership's success is to be found in the possibility of dynamic results. With the circulation of goods, the partners are also circulating "something else" - technological knowledge, institutions, political principles. The signature of the association agreements can remove a certain doubt about existing institutions by setting up more effective ones.

5.3. In agreement with the ESC, there must be greater support for the initiatives undertaken by the EU under the second chapter of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership with a view to making the markets of the southern and eastern Mediterranean areas less fragmented.

5.3.1. The ESC proposes that every country which ratifies an association agreement with the EU should conclude within five years free trade agreements with all the other countries which have also signed association agreements.

5.3.2. The ESC proposes that suitable mechanisms be developed to promote entrepreneurial activities, with legal and administrative provisions to create a favourable climate for investment and private initiative, through procedures based on transparency and trust; it also expresses the wish that a special place will be given to SMEs and very small enterprises in the support provided by the Euro-Mediterranean commercial and industrial partnership links; at the same time it believes that strengthening the partnership can be achieved by boosting cooperation between representatives of SMEs.

5.3.3. The ESC calls for the development of technical and financial assistance programmes especially for SMEs and very small enterprises in the Mediterranean countries, so as to encourage diversification of the economic fabric of those countries. Special attention should be given to craft industries in the MPCs, as these firms form by far the greater part of these countries' productive fabric. The example of the wood/furniture sector in Italy, which was split up into many small craft firms, and which now has a prominent position on the world market, can be used as a benchmark for the development of craft sectors in the MPCs.

5.3.4. The ESC perceives a need to promote information campaigns directed at representatives of commerce and of productive forces, e.g. Chambers of Commerce and Industry, professional organisations, craft guilds and interested commercial bodies, so as to give potential investors the necessary support and information for long-term investments in productive sectors in the countries of the Mediterranean Basin.

5.3.5. The ESC recommends that the EU's strategy for the Mediterranean should be improved by encouraging cross-border projects and decentralised cooperation, with the emphasis on sustainable development. To this end it calls upon the European Commission to:

a) include the social sector in the scope of the regional programmes, giving particular importance to the participation of all the social partners at both national and supranational levels;

b) coordinate training policies with the demands of the labour market, creating social assistance networks and modern cooperation methods in the welfare systems.

In this context it proposes the promotion of decentralised cooperation programmes and initiatives which would encourage exchanges among all those participating in development, just as the Barcelona Declaration envisages in the paragraph on cooperation in social, cultural and humanitarian matters, so as to liberalise and invigorate the system and thereby create a stronger dynamic for cultural development.

5.4. The ESC takes the view that attention will need to be concentrated on the social aspect of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership by developing new programmes, and welcomes the start of the Euromed-Human Sciences programme.

5.5. The ESC welcomes the idea of creating a Euro-Mediterranean "label" whereby the various Euro-Mediterranean programmes can be recognised, and proposes more energetic promotion of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership with the help of the mass media and relevant bodies in the MPCs in diffusing the results of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership in civil society.

5.6. To improve the effectiveness of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation and promote democracy and respect for human rights in the region, it is necessary to strengthen the role of intermediate bodies and promote the participation of civil society in all the MEDA measures: this would prevent the state having too much influence on the running of MEDA in some partner countries; there are no practical consultative procedures for the drawing up of the indicative programmes.

5.6.1. The ESC takes the view that there needs to be a much more active role for civil society (migrants, local communities, enterprises, universities, associations) to ensure maximum participation by the whole of society in the activities and developments flowing from the Barcelona Declaration; in the above context it believes that greater efforts must be made to develop and support really independent intermediate bodies, including the possibility for international NGOs to set up branches and operate freely in all 27 countries involved in the Barcelona Process.

5.7. The ESC notes the need for more information and greater social mobility in the MPCs, and the fact that those who benefited from the MEDA programme were primarily those who already had contact with European policies and the operation of the EU. The great challenge for MEDA II(13) is to cover the whole of society, so that funding is more widely spread and extends to all social classes and groups.

To ensure that the implementation of the MEDA II programme is successful, the ESC proposes:

- ascertaining the MPCs' needs and providing direct support for them in the organisation and development, in cooperation with organisations representing the EU, of the necessary studies on how to facilitate take-up of the funds allocated;

- transfer of technological know-how and technology, mainly towards the private sector and non-governmental organisations;

- transfer of best practices based on the experience already gained by the EU from applying the MEDA programme, but mainly from the application of the European regional programmes;

- special attention to be devoted to the primary and secondary sectors in the MPCs;

- drafting of manuals and guides(14) on the proper use of funding provided by the EU and its distribution to users;

- introduction of binding deadlines for the various procedures for implementing MEDA funding;

- equal allocation of funds among the three headings of the partnership arrangement, and a deepening of the political dialogue under each of those headings;

- an increase in the Commission staff responsible for managing the MEDA Programme;

- availability of all the results and details to the final users (Chambers of Commerce and Industry, other bodies etc.);

- creation of an observatory to monitor developments in the Barcelona process.

5.8. On the overall application of the MEDA II Programme, the ESC believes that the whole approach and philosophy behind it must take simpler forms, so as to provide the chance of easier take-up of funds and to tackle the problems arising from the current approach. In addition it stresses the importance of decentralised cooperation(15) and proposes its implementation, while it welcomes the relevant decisions of the Marseilles ministerial meeting(16) on the MEDA II programme.

5.8.1. The ESC believes that there is an urgent need for the new MEDA regulation to guarantee balanced, sustainable political, economic and social development while ensuring the participation of civil society in the framing and assessment of programmes and projects. In this context it also emphasises the importance of small-scale projects.

5.8.2. The ESC thinks it necessary to increase the share of MEDA funding earmarked for regional plans and projects with a "South-South" dimension, which will need to be defined on the basis of dialogue with local governmental and non-governmental bodies.

5.8.3. The ESC believes that it will be necessary to fund, from MEDA sources, special measures to support cooperation in the sectors of agriculture and rural development, so as to improve the quality of life in rural areas and reduce food supply dependence.

5.8.4. The ESC calls for the MEDA funding earmarked mainly for training activities in all of the partnership sectors to be considerably increased, and for it to benefit the whole of society in the countries concerned.

5.8.5. A significant part of MEDA must be directed towards promoting cooperation between countries, ethnic groups and religious groups suffering the effects of historical conflicts and hostilities.

5.8.6. The ESC takes the view that in the context of the new MEDA II Programme the monitoring should not be carried out using reports but in a dynamic and flexible way, so as to provide an immediate diagnosis of likely problems in the use of the available funds, and so that remedial measures can be taken. To this end it proposes that a model be developed for self-assessment of the procedures linked with application of the programmes. The aim of the model would be continuous quality assessment of the results through rational management of all the procedures.

5.9. The ESC suggests that it will be necessary to place migratory flows at the heart of cooperation and to adopt an immigration policy directly focused on the needs of common development. This immigration policy must be based on:

- a mutual commitment of North and South to joint management of migratory flows, taking account of the need to combat illegal immigration;

- the introduction of policies on temporary immigration between the two sides of the Mediterranean: Germany could serve as a model, since it is one of the few European countries with a long tradition of organising the mobility of migrant workers;

- the creation of a special transit visa for those responsible for the partnership links;

- mobilising migration in the service of development of the country of origin through policies of assistance to the migrant programmes in that country, through student training programmes in the context of mechanisms to improve their access to employment in the country of origin; arranging for European firms to take on young skilled employees on the basis of temporary contracts; creating a financial body to ensure better channelling of migrant workers' savings to the productive sectors in their country of origin;

- development of a clearly defined policy of integration in the host country so as to strengthen the rights of legally established immigrants.

5.9.1. It proposes the creation of a migration observatory with the task of continuous, detailed monitoring of all the questions relating to migratory flows in the Mediterranean region, in cooperation with the relevant committee of the Euro-Mediterranean Forum.

5.10. The countries involved in the MEDA II Programme must aim at respect for democratic principles and human and trade union rights, particularly those of women and children, which is the central point of cooperation with the European Union. There must be strict monitoring of respect for these rights, with the European Parliament being informed periodically about this aspect.

5.10.1. In the above context, the ESC proposes that:

- programmes be developed on women's education and integration in university life, professions and enterprises;

- assistance be withheld from organisations, firms or other bodies which discriminate against women in education, social matters or sport.

5.10.2 The ESC believes there will need to be a re-examination of the strategic rapprochement with Libya; at the same time it welcomes the initiatives taken by the Maghreb and Mashreq countries with a view to cooperation with that country.

5.11. The ESC welcomes and supports the establishment of the EuropeAid cooperation office, which is a European Commission department following the standard operating procedures of that institution; it was set up by a Commission decision on 1 January 2001 in the context of reform of external aid. The ESC feels that the working principle of this office, namely that anything which can be managed or decided directly need not be managed or decided in Brussels, is exceptionally important since it shows the Commission's intention to transfer basic responsibilities. It is important to stress that the office is responsible for all stages of the measures to realise the objectives laid down in the planning carried out by the Directorate-General for External Relations and the Directorate-General for Development, which have been adopted by the Commission as a whole.

5.12. The direct activities of the ESC should include strengthening the existing consultative activity in the MPCs which do not have Economic and Social Councils (ESCs), with a more distant aim of creating such councils in those countries.

5.12.1. In this context, two regional programmes which came into operation in December 2000 are concerned with the role of the economic and social partners and the social dialogue between the Euro-Mediterranean partners; their budgets total EUR 1.3 million. The two programmes were adopted at the 4th annual meeting of the ESCs in Lisbon (1998). One of the two programmes is known as TRESMED, relates to the consultative role of the economic and social partners, and has a budget of EUR 700000; it is a two-year programme operating under the aegis of the Spanish ESC. The second programme relates to the social dialogue and social systems, runs for 18 months with a budget of EUR 600000, and operates under the aegis of the Italian Institute for the Mediterranean (IMED).

5.12.2. The ESC welcomes the start of these two programmes and hopes that they will operate effectively and yield substantial results.

5.12.3. The ESC needs to increase its initiatives to arrange visits by its delegations (such as those made to Israel, the autonomous Palestinian territories, Jordan and Egypt) to all the MPCs, on a more regular basis. The ESC welcomes the fact that President Prodi and Commissioners Patten and Lamy intend to visit the Maghreb and Mashreq countries, since the effort to give new impetus to the Barcelona Process must be accompanied by similar initiatives to invigorate the more general climate of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and instil a spirit of trust between the partners.

5.13. The events of 11 September 2001 clearly demonstrate the need for an immediate strengthening of the Euro-Med partnership. In response to the newly emerging challenges, the European Union must use the decisions made at the Barcelona Conference as a means of calming the present atmosphere and drawing the partner countries into greater cultural and political proximity, both with each other and with the EU Member States.

Brussels, 18 October 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) The Barcelona Declaration was adopted by the Euro-Mediterranean conference of Foreign Ministers (27-28 November 1995).

(2) COM(2000) 472 final.

(3) COM(2000) 497 final.

(4) The Euromed Heritage programme was put into practice in September 1998, following on from the declaration of the Ministers of Culture adopted at the Bologna Conference in April 1996.

(5) The Euromed Audiovisual programme was implemented from August 1998 onwards, and followed on from the results of the Thessaloniki conference of November 1997.

(6) The Euromed Youth programme came into operation at the start of 1999 and followed on from the results of the second Malta conference of April 1997.

(7) The MEDA Democracy programme is the result of the initiative taken by the European Parliament in 1994, and of the ensuing Euro-Mediterranean cooperation; the aims of the programme were publicised in a European Commission document of 17 July 1996 entitled "Euromed Democracy Programme, Budget Line B7-705N - Criteria and Conditions of Eligibility".

(8) Final Declaration of the second session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum (Brussels, 8-9 February 2001), point 45.

(9) Euro-Mediterranean Conference on Agriculture, Strasbourg, 14-15 June 2001.

(10) FEMISE Report on the Evolution of the Structure of Trade and Investment between the EU and its Mediterranean Partners, point 109.

(11) COM(2001) 135 final.

(12) COM(2000) 497 final (Communication from the Commission "Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process").

(13) Continuation of the MEDA programme (1995-1999) covering the 2000-2006 period.

(14) Information report of the Section for External Relations on The innovation policies of SMEs and the craft sector.

(15) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (OJ C 301 of 13.11.1995, p. 45).

(16) Fourth Euro-Mediterranean meeting of foreign ministers - Marseilles 15-16 November 2000.