ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 4.6.2010 
SEC(2009) 681 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accounting Standards Board of Japan (ASBJ) Project Plan on Convergence to IFRS  
  
Accompanying document to the 
  
REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN SECU RITIES COMMITTEE AND TO THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 
on convergence between International Financ ial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and third 
country national Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAPs) 
  
 
COM(2010)292 final 
 
EN 2   EN Annex 2
EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 14.7.2010 
SEC(2010)817 final 
  
COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European 
Union, the members of the Committee are appoi nted by the Council, which consults the 
Commission. On 16 June 2010, the Council reque sted the Commissi on’s opinion on the 
nomination of members of the EESC from 2 Member States (DE and DK) – see annex. 
The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment.
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Statistics

Accompanying the document

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

On the Functioning of the Notification procedure under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)

1. Total number of TBT notifications and EU reactions (2004-2011)

2. Total number of EU notifications and reactions from other WTO members (2004-2011)

3. Total number of EU Member States' notifications (2004-2011)

4. Average period given for commenting on EU notifications (2004-2011)
COMPREHENSIVE MEDIUM TO LONG-TERM STRATEGY (post-2020)

FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY Germany has adopted in 2010 the Energy Concept (Government Decision), a comprehensive strategy covering both medium (2030) and long (2050) term strategies. The Energy Concept contains specific targets and pathways until 2050 for greenhouse gas reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency/savings. Germany intends to reduce GHG emissions by 40% by 2020 and by 80-95% by 2050 on 1990 levels. In 2014, Germany adopted the “Climate Action Programme 2020”. The Programme contains around 100 measures in all relevant sectors and includes a mandate to develop a “Climate Protection Plan 2050” by 2016, which will address all sectors and greenhouse gas emissions. It will describe the next specific reduction steps in view of the European targets and the outcome of the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015 and will support them with measures developed in a broad-based dialogue process. A number of legislative measures were adopted in the past years to implement the Energiewende including amendments to the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), the promotion of energy efficiency in buildings, accelerated electricity grid expansion, support for heat-power cogeneration, and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power until the year 2022. Germany has put in place a systematic, annual process of monitoring the development of its energy system. The monitoring also includes evaluation of the draft government report by an independent panel of energy policy experts. It also addresses all three dimensions of energy policy, including prices/ costs/ competitiveness. The government also announced to publish an "Energy Efficiency Strategy for Buildings" which will – together with the "Strategy for climate-friendly building and living" – give further details on how to achieve the long-term goal of having an almost carbon-neutral building stock by 2050. In 2013 the Federal German Government launched the “Mobility and Fuels Strategy”, which is the key platform of discussion for sustainable mobility. The strategy is an important instrument for the implementation of the “Energiewende” in the transport sector as it identifies the fuel options, the corresponding drivetrain technologies as well as the necessary infrastructure which are most likely to contribute to an increase in efficiency and a reduction of CO2 emissions. As a next step, Germany will release an update of the strategy to present options of how to organize the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure.
The share of the energy sector in total value added is slightly higher than that for the EU27, while the share in total employment is much lower than that for the EU as a whole. Notably, the share of the sector in total value added has dramatically increased during the period 2005-2012.

The energy trade balance deficit of the Netherlands represents 3.5% of GDP in 2014, which is higher than the EU average, coinciding almost completely with the deficit on the oil trade balance. The deficit has increased since 2006, again mainly driven by an increase in oil imports.

According to EurObserv'ER, in 2013, the share of direct and indirect renewable energy related employment in total employment of the economy in the Netherlands was at about 0.24%, below the EU average of 0.53%. The National Energy Review 2014 indicated that the share of direct and indirect renewable energy related employment in total employment of the economy was approximately 0.5%, slightly below the EU average of 0.53%.

The energy mix of the Netherlands differs from that of the EU-28, with the notable difference of a higher share of gases and – to a lesser extent – of petroleum and products. Compared to 1995, the share of petroleum and products sharply increased (from 36% to 42% of gross inland energy consumption), while the share of solid fuels decreased (by 2 percentage points). The share of gases decreased from 47 to 42% of the energy mix.

The Netherlands has a low overall import dependency regarding total fossil fuels, and actually exports gas. However, it has a very high import dependency for petroleum products, but a balanced range of import sources, and therefore a low country supplier concentration index. The increase in earthquake activity has renewed concerns about the decline in Dutch gas production. Following the recent decision to decrease production in 2015, the Netherlands needs now to determine its gas production policy from 2016 onwards.

Source: European Commission based on ENTSO-E scenario outlook and adequacy forecast 2014 Note: Reference to 2030 target is based on October 2014 European Council conclusions stating that "the Commission will also report regularly to the European Council with the objective of arriving at a 15% target by 2030"
Source: European Commission based on ENTSO-E scenario outlook and adequacy forecast 2014 Note: Reference to 2030 target is based on October 2014 European Council conclusions stating that "the Commission will also report regularly to the European Council with the objective of arriving at a 15% target by 2030"

The interconnection capacity for electricity was 44% in 2014 for Denmark. The Project of Common Interest (PCI) implementation until 2020 will further increase this level. The most important PCIs for Denmark in the electricity sector are those enhancing Denmark's electricity interconnections with Germany (3 onshore and offshore grid projects) and the Netherlands (1 offshore project). These are long-term projects with commissioning dates foreseen for years 2018 - 2022. Following gradual depletion of gas fields, after 2020 Denmark will require access to new gas sources. The capacity expansion at the Danish/German border (PCI) came into operation in 2015. A new gas pipeline connecting Denmark and Poland ('Baltic Pipe') together with the tie-in to the Norwegian gas infrastructure in the North Sea is under consideration. Denmark closely cooperates with other Member States in its vicinity as well as with Norway to improve the security of gas supply through improved cross-border transmission capacity.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 23.2.2016

SWD(2016) 37 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy

{COM(2016) 83 final}
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

The impacts of three policy options have been analysed and compared: -Option 1: (the baseline scenario) which does not consist of any policy changes. This can however not be considered as a typical no-change option as certain provisions of section 15 will definitively expire and thus the political and legal framework will change. -Option 2: applying the standard methodology would mean to treat China in the same way as any other market economy WTO member, which would significantly weaken the EU’s TDI. -Option 3: consists of a new methodology allowing to effectively capture the non-market distortions and a further strengthening of the trade defence instruments. Sub-option 3.1 consists of two elements: dealing with distortions and transition periods in order to ensure the effectiveness of measures already in place. Sub-option 3.2 deals with the lesser duty rule and the anti-subsidy element. Option 3 (the 2 sub-options combined) is the preferred option. It is best placed in contributing to the objectives set out.
In addition to the baseline scenario of leaving RoHS 2 untouched, the following options have been considered, relating to :

1) restoring secondary market operations: Option 2 – only for medical devices and monitoring and control instruments; Option 3 (preferred) – for all new in scope EEE.

2) spare parts: Option 2 (preferred) – spare parts provision to allow repair of pre-RoHS 2 EEE.

3) pipe organs: Option 2 (preferred) – scope exclusion; Option 3 – interpretation guidance; Option 4 – temporary RoHS 2 exemptions.

4) cord-connected NRMM: Option 2 (preferred) – exclude also cordconnected NRMM
(b) Propose a 10% increase in the LIFE budget dedicated to projects supporting the conservation of nature and biodiversity , while keeping the overall budgetary envelope of the LIFE programme unchanged

(a) Help Member States to improve their multiannual financial planning for Natura 2000 through the update of their Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs),
Three options have been considered:

Option 1 (Baseline scenario) using the existing tools of the CFP such as quota setting and regulating technical measures (the rules on how and where to fish) and existing single-species management plans.

Option 2: Replace the existing plans with one mixed fisheries multiannual plan (MAP) for Western Waters

Option 3: Replace the existing plans with two mixed fisheries multiannual plans covering the North-Western and South-Western waters

Both for the mandatory and the optional elements of MAPs, policy choices need to be made. For example; on the use of FMSY ranges, which can have positive or negative effects, depending upon their use. For the analysis, options 2 and 3 were compared to the baseline, option 1. Environmental, socio-economic and administrative impacts and their effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and acceptability were all considered in the analysis. The preferred option is to have one multiannual plan covering all Western waters (option 2) as this option has performed best to deliver a consistent management framework for mixed fisheries. This option also allows simplification and transparency as stakeholders would have one management plan only to apply and they can agree measures in regionalisation.
A non-legislative policy Option O and 13 legislative policy options were considered and grouped into:

• Block A: "WHY" should the competent authorities have access to or exchange financial information?

OPTION A.1: only to prevent and combat money laundering, its predicate offences and terrorist financing.

OPTION A.2: only in respect of the "Eurocrimes" set out in Article 83(1) TFEU.

OPTION A.3: in respect to the forms of crimes as set out in Annex I of the Europol Regulation.

• Block B: "HOW" should public authorities access and exchange financial information?

OPTION B.1: provide competent authorities with access to the national centralised bank account registries according to 1) Sub-option B.1.a: direct access; or 2) Sub-option B.1.b: indirect access.

OPTION B.2: provide competent authorities with access to all other financial information according to 1) Sub-option B.2.a: direct access; or 2) Sub-option B.2.b: via the FIUs.

OPTION B.3: provide measures for the exchange of information between FIUs and for FIUs access to and exchange of information that competent authorities hold according to 1) Sub-option B.3.a: direct cooperation between FIUs; or 2) Sub-option B.3.b: establish a central FIU.

• Block C: "WHO", to which public authorities do the conditions apply?

OPTION C.1: to public authorities responsible for preventing, investigating or prosecuting criminal offences

OPTION C.2: to the public authorities in Option C.1 and additionally 1) Sub-option C.2.a: the Asset Recovery Offices; 2) Sub-option C.2.b: Europol; 3) Sub-option C.2.c: OLAF

Regarding the access of competent authorities to information, contained in bank account registries, the preferred policy option is a combination of options A.3, B.1.a, C.2.a and C.2.b.

Regarding the access of competent authorities to additional financial information, the preferred policy option is a combination of options A.3, B.2.b and C.2.b.

In order to address obstacles in cross-border FIU cooperation and difficulties met by FIUs to cooperate with their domestic LEA partners the preferred policy option is a combination of options A.1, B.2.b, B.3.a and C.2.b.
The impact assessment examined three policy options for a stabilisation function, besides option 1, the status quo: Option 2 corresponds to the Commission proposal, namely a European Investment Stabilisation Function, which would provide loans together with limited grants to Member States affected by large shocks in order to maintain public investment activity. Option 3 is an insurance mechanism. Regular contributions, in particular in normal and good economic times, or an own resource would be accumulated in a fund. When a Member State is affected by a large shock, it would benefit from support in form of pay-outs/grants. A limited borrowing capacity would likely be needed to ensure credible and continuous operation. Option 4 is a dedicated euro area budget. A common budget would not primarily target economic stabilisation, but rather the provision of European public goods. Still, reliance on cyclical revenues and countercyclical spending, possibly enhanced discretionary elements, would contribute to macroeconomic stabilisation at the EU level. A European Investment Stabilisation Function (option 2) is the preferred option at this stage. It would contribute to the cohesion objective by offering financing support in the event of a large asymmetric shock. This will provide a strong incentive to protect key public investments and thereby preserve essential growth-enhancing expenditures at an appropriate level. The macroeconomic stabilisation impact in this option is limited by the fact that support takes the form of a loan. At the same time, option 2 also appears more politically feasible, at least in the near future, since risks of permanent transfers and moral hazard are fairly limited. Overall, given these considerations option 2 is in the current circumstances the preferred option.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for Member States at risk of missing the 2020 preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings

In 2016, Latvia’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 25 %, while its landfilling rate was 64 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Latvia is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that:

·the separate collection of recyclables, including bio-waste, is not yet being carried out effectively;

·economic incentives for households to separate waste are lacking;

·the extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes in Latvia do not fully cover the costs of separate collection; and

·more investment is needed in projects higher up the waste hierarchy (e.g. recycling) that go beyond treatment of residual waste.

The table below lists possible actions to support Latvia’s efforts to improve its performance in waste management.
on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for Member States at risk of missing the 2020 preparation for re-use/recycling target on municipal waste

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.Introduction

This early warning report is part of the Commission's overall implementation report and aims to assist Member States at risk of failing to meet the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste set out in Article 11(2)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. It builds on previous support provided by the Commission to help Member States comply with EU law in the area of municipal waste management. This resulted in country-specific roadmaps being drawn up for the relevant Member States.

The assessment underpinning the early warning report is based on a collaborative and transparent process involving the Member States concerned and an in-depth analysis of their most recent policy developments. This also involved extensive consultation with the authorities in charge of waste management.

The possible actions identified during this process are based on the existing best practices and aim to help Member States in meeting the 2020 municipal waste preparation for re-use/recycling target; they therefore focus on policy measures that can be taken forward in the short term. These actions should be seen as complementary to those recommended in the roadmaps that were drawn up as part of the preceding compliance promotion activities and to the recommendations made in the Environmental Implementation Review.

2.Key findings

In 2016, Portugal’s municipal waste recycling rate (including composting) reported to Eurostat was 31 %, while its landfilling rate was 45 %. Based on an analysis of existing and firmly planned policies in the area of waste management, Portugal is considered at risk of missing the 2020 target of 50 % preparation for re-use/recycling of municipal waste.

The assessment that underpins the early warning report concludes that the separate collection of recyclables, including bio-waste, is not yet effective and Portugal relies heavily on treatment of mixed municipal waste. In addition, the economic incentives to support recycling are insufficient and the extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes in Portugal do not fully cover the costs of separate collection.

The table below lists possible actions to support Portugal’s efforts to improve its waste management.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.12.2019

SWD(2019) 438 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

on grants and direct actions

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL





on the implementation of Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy







{COM(2019) 634 final}
This Staff Working Document presents the summary of the results of the interim evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for the sustainable development of EU Aquaculture.

The management of aquaculture in the EU is a shared competence, with EU Member States having greater control in many of its aspects. However, the challenges, barriers and threats that face EU aquaculture are common across many countries. EU aquaculture policy is developed and implemented in the framework of the OMC as established under the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation. It is a non-legal, voluntary process that offers the possibility for Member States to cooperate and direct their national policies towards common objectives.

The interim evaluation of the OMC examines the period 2013 to 2017. It covers all the OMC tools and all Member States, except Luxembourg.

The summary conclusions are:

Effectiveness

The OMC tools have contributed to improve strategic planning and created a sense of common goals across the EU. The Strategic Guidelines have encouraged Member States to develop a comprehensive strategy specifically for aquaculture.

The main hindering factors in the achievement of the priorities identified in the Strategic Guidelines are a result of the complexity of the regulatory framework for aquaculture activities.

Efficiency

It has not been possible to quantify Member States’ exact costs of engaging with the OMC, but Member States consider that the costs are at an acceptable level.

There are some efficiency gains possible in the application of the different OMC tools. Resources should be increased to strengthen communication and collaboration at the regional level.

Some Member States indicated that the guidelines on EU legislation could be made simpler and more understandable and be better disseminated.

Coherence

There is no evidence of any major inconsistencies in EU policy texts concerning environment, food safety, animal health and welfare, research and innovation and the OMC. Much of the current policy directives and funding mechanisms are aligned with the Commission’s "Europe 2020 Strategy”, and with the synchronisation of public funding through the EU cohesion mechanism.

Relevance

Simplifying administrative procedures is still highly relevant. Coordinated spatial planning of aquaculture is becoming increasingly relevant. Enhanced competitiveness of EU aquaculture is still as relevant as before with the continued growth of low-cost aquaculture outside of the EU.

There are emerging challenges that may need a greater strategic focus.

The Strategic Guidelines need to be revisited. Although still largely relevant, the latest challenges and opportunities for aquaculture should be included and the priorities should be re-evaluated.

The majority of the OMC tools are still useful and relevant. However, there are demands for the OMC to have a greater regional focus.