Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the Communication from the Commission — Challenges for enterprise policy in the knowledge-driven economy, andthe Proposal for a Council decision on a Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship (2001-2005)
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, business start-up, employment policy, inter-company cooperation, type of business

C 116/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission — Challenges for enterprise policy in the

knowledge-driven economy’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council decision on a Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and

Entrepreneurship (2001-2005)’

(2001/C 116/04)

On 31 May, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 November 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Malosse and the co-rapporteur was Mr Sepi.

At its 377th plenary session on 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1.

The general context of the proposals

The European Commission is referring a comprehen-
1.1.
sive communication to the Council,
the
Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social
Committee to accompany a new multiannual programme on
enterprise policy (this follows on from the previous multiannu-
al programmes for SMEs).

the Parliament,

The present

1.2.
important events.

document

coincides with several

1.2.1.
The Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March
2000 gave the Union the objective of ‘becoming the most
competitive knowledge-driven economy in the world’. In the
summit’s conclusions, there are numerous references to the
role of enterprises and, in particular, to small enterprises in
achieving this objective.

1.2.2.
The European Charter
for Small Enterprises,
in June 2000,
approved by the Feira European Summit
represents a major commitment by the Heads of State and
Government to enterprise policy in the knowledge-driven
economy. As the Committee advocated in its own-initiative
opinion (1), the Charter provides for performance indicators to
evaluate progress.

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000.

1.3.
It is therefore important to assess how consistent the
Commission’s initiative is in relation to the Lisbon summit’s
conclusions and to the European Charter for Small Enterprises.
The need to be consistent applies as much to priorities for
the Lisbon European
action as to methodology.
Council recommended a new method of Community action
that puts the emphasis on co-ordinating national public
policies rather than European initiatives which would be added
on to actions at national level.

Indeed,

1.4.
Enterprise policy can no longer be considered as an
economic lever. The spirit of enterprise, together with the
social and integrating role that enterprises play, are recognised
as being fundamental values of society. Given the current
repositioning of the role of government and the promotion of
the individual’s rights and freedoms, with the notion of civil
society coming to the fore, the enterprise, as an organisational
form of civil society, is seen to be both as economic actor and
as an integral part of society. The Committee has adopted this
cultural, social and economic approach to its discussions.

2. Analysis of strategic options

All the documents submitted are based on priorities

2.1.
which are well-known and were identified a long time ago:

— to promote entrepreneurship as a valuable and productive
life skill, based on customer orientation and a stronger
culture of service;

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/21

— to encourage an environment that takes account of the
demands of sustainable development, and in which
research, innovation and entrepreneurship can flourish;

— to improve the financial environment for SMEs;

— to enhance the competitiveness of SMEs in the know-

ledge-based economy;

— to ensure that business support networks and services to

enterprises are provided and co-ordinated.

In order to prioritise the strategic options and with a
2.2.
view to making their operational implementation as close to
enterprises as possible, it would be appropriate to:

— make explicit reference to the Charter for Small Enter-
prises approved by the Feira European Summit. In this
Charter the Heads of State and Government mention the
multiannual programme as an instrument to achieve the
agreed objectives. To this end, in accordance with the
statement of the Heads of State and Government, the
Committee recommends a method similar to the Cardiff
process and the Luxembourg process in terms of employ-
i.e. setting quantifiable objectives and ensuring
ment,
their achievement by joint actions between the European
Union and the Member States and requesting the Com-
mission to make an annual assessment of progress made
at the European Summit held each spring;

— to make additional allowances for the ongoing need
to support the implementation of these priorities by
developing lifelong business advisory services for enter-
prises and by supporting their potential to innovate;

— finally,

to determine carefully for each priority the
European Union’s role, in particular that of the Com-
mission, the responsibilities of Member States and those
directly incumbent on enterprises and intermediary assist-
ance and advisory organisations which will have to be
strengthened.

The communication’s financial statement singles out
2.3.
new information technology enterprises or ‘start-ups’
for
special treatment. Without belittling the importance of this
strong growth potential sector, the ‘high risk’ factor in terms
of capital and social implications of this sector and the strategic
danger of focusing too much on a specific sector must be

taken into account. Furthermore, the Committee is convinced
that significant opportunities to create sustainable, skilled jobs
are not only to be found in high-tech sectors, such as
information technology, but also in traditional sectors, if they
can take advantage of the knowledge-based economy, use the
new information technologies and be innovative.

3. Analysis of priority themes

A more practical presentation of the priorities for entreprene-
urs would undoubtedly be more instructive. In this respect,
greater emphasis could be put on the following operational
objectives.

To be effective, simplifying the administrative environ-
3.1.
ment requires action to be taken on the basis of business needs
and not just by public administrations. The objective of
promoting ‘no formalities’ for company founders could be
achieved using good practice. The work of the ESC’s Single
Market Observatory should be taken into consideration, as it
has focused on the numerous obstacles that still hinder the
proper working of the internal market in particular for SMEs.
This would be a practical goal, commensurate with the means
available to the European Commission in conjunction with
Member States. The goal would be to bring to life the
single market and its opportunities for small businesses, in
accordance with the objectives that should be included in the
European Charter. The European Commission should take the
lead in this field, particularly with respect to access procedures
to its research and development programmes, which company
executives think of as real headaches.

3.1.1.
Simplifying administrative procedures must not
change the nature of legislation, for society and citizens,
particularly in the social sphere and the environment.

3.2.
To update European competition policy in order to
ensure that all enterprises, whatever their size, are treated
equally: relationships between suppliers and clients, combating
excessively long deadlines for payment, more effective control
its effect on
of concentration and better assessment of
competition, monitoring the risks of oligopolies or monopolies
developing, particularly in the tourism or trade sectors. In this
context,
to ensure that a wide range of
enterprise types exist and that the individual enterprise is able
to survive as an invaluable unit to enable women and men to
be successful.

is important

it

C 116/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

3.3.
To promote more equal opportunities for all European
enterprises by supporting a more business-oriented environ-
ment across the Union, in particular as far as tax is concerned,
that gives greater encouragement to risk taking, investment
and job creation. In this way, for example, bankruptcy law
should be reviewed so that a first failure is not crippling and
can be easily overcome, as is the case in other countries. The
European Union must guarantee that there is real harmonis-
ation of the legal and tax arrangements throughout its territory,
tending to the measures most advantageous to investment and
job creation, in order to avoid excessive distortion from one
country to another.

To combine efforts aimed at the creation and transfer
3.4.
of enterprises, which is a major factor in improving the quality
and increasing the percentage of the active population in
Europe. This objective is one of the top priorities of the
European Charter for Small Enterprises. All levels of govern-
ment, trade and economic organisations, banks and other
investment
institutions, associations and the co-operative
sector are all equally concerned by these efforts. In this respect,
the European Union’s role could be decisive: to identify and
improve best public practice that helps to create and transfer
enterprises (no formalities, appropriate taxation, bankruptcy
law giving a second chance, transfer of enterprises, etc.); and
conversely, as the European Charter recommends, to draw
attention to ‘bad practice’ (costly registration, lengthy waiting
times), to organise a European network of initiatives under-
taken by groups of enterprises to support project initiators; to
help ‘business angels’
the
development of entrepreneurship among young people by
intermediaries, youth
encouraging enterprises themselves,
movements and the educational establishment, to facilitate
the creation of enterprises by women, young people and
marginalised groups. One of the objectives of this initiative
would be to make such services available to all project
initiators in Europe with immediate openings to the European
market.

(private investors);

to support

issues and has not only pointed to the decisive importance of
basic research for future innovation but also stressed the
importance of the transfer of knowledge between knowledge
centres and industry.

3.5.2.
This would primarily involve fostering a climate of
co-operation among academics, researchers and the business
world. Favourable structural conditions are needed to underpin
this climate of co-operation: a network of intermediaries,
university incubators with the participation of professionals,
greater involvement of entrepreneurs in defining and advising
on research priorities, etc.

It

3.5.3.
is particularly important to promote mobility
between industry, on the one hand and, on the other, the
universities and research centres.

One of the greatest difficulties encountered in Euro-
3.5.4.
pean research is finding ways to prolong joint transnational
projects set up by European partners during European pro-
grammes. On this issue, the Committee recommends that a
study into a European initiative be carried out, bringing
together public and private capital, the regions, Member States
and the European Union to support the creation of enterprises
or joint enterprises initiated by European research projects, for
which the JEV programme (support for joint ventures between
European SMEs) might be a particularly suitable vector.

To support,

3.5.
in parallel with the European research
area, a European innovation area with the specific aim of
harnessing the potential of undeveloped innovations to small
and medium-sized enterprises (particularly in traditional sec-
tors) and to ensure that knowledge is disseminated to these
enterprises from centres of knowledge (universities, research
centres or other — especially larger — enterprises).

3.5.1.
In its opinion on the Commission Communication
entitled Towards a European research area (1) the Committee
has already made clear recommendations on this complex of

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, p. 70.

3.6.
To promote suitable education and lifelong training.
There is an increasing lack of skilled manpower in a growing
number of sectors. A co-ordinated response at European level,
as part of a plan to develop mobility, could meet the future
needs of enterprises in this area. Such a response, which is a
matter for governments, trade and economic organisations
and for enterprises themselves, could take various forms: to
make levels of skills and experience more comparable in order
to enhance mobility;
to organise apprenticeship training
Europe-wide; to adapt the present technical and financial
international mobility support programmes to meet
the
requirements of job opportunities for young people whatever
their level of training; to improve the co-ordination of patterns
of study; to develop programmes for the exchange of good
practice; to facilitate language learning. Ongoing emphasis
must be placed on training in enterprise creation, at all ages,
for women and minority groups. It has been demonstrated
that an important part of American growth in recent years has
been due to the entrepreneurship of these categories. The

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/23

multiannual programme should thus make the measures
intended to foster entrepreneurship and enterprise creation
more explicit, particularly as far as educational systems and
universities are concerned. This effort should include setting
up co-operation networks to link universities with the business
world.

3.6.1.
The question then arises of how far these training
and apprenticeship measures can be dealt with by enterprises
alone, which highlights the need for them to be included
among the priorities of the European Union. These actions
should be implemented in liaison with actions at Member
State level, which aim to reorganise apprenticeships and
assimilate the requirements of mobility.

3.7.
To improve, at European level, networks and co-
operation between enterprises as a favoured means of helping
small enterprises to meet the challenges of internationalisation
and technological development. The Union’s current pilot
instruments (Interprise for business to business introductions,
JEV for support to joint ventures) have been very successful in
recent years and contribute to facilitating co-operation
between European SMEs, which is an indisputable factor
integration and cohesion. The European Commission
of
recognises the success and worth of these actions in terms of
meeting real needs, their cost/benefit ratio and European value
added. At the same time, however, the Commission suggests
abandoning them, as too few enterprises are involved. Insuf-
ficient use might be due to redtape or to these tools being little
known and in need of updating. Would it not therefore be
better to find the means with professional organisations and
the Member States to implement them more widely? The
Union is in the best position to launch initiatives to nurture
strategic alliances, co-operation and networks. On this subject,
the Committee also emphasises its concern for good govern-
ance: if a particular programme is modified or suspended, this
must be subject to prior discussion with the operators and to
sufficient advance notice. The brutal suspension, with no
explanation, of some procedures (Interprise and ECIP in non-
EU markets) created a deep feeling of unease and a loss of
confidence in the European Commission.

3.7.2.
The Committee thus recommends that the Luxem-
bourg European Summit initiative on growth and employment
be given a higher priority in the multiannual programme by
integrating it with the JEV programme, with adequate budget
allocations for the three strands, to continue the Interprise
programme, reworked to improve management by increasing,
for example, the scale of events, with an intermediary format
between Interprise, which is effective but too limited, and
Europartenariat, which is not so effective but better known.
The Committee recommends:

— simplifying and using professional organisations on the

ground instead of abandoning them;

— undertaking ‘benchmarking’ actions to exploit the best
forms of co-operation between enterprises (‘clusters’, joint
ventures, sub-contracting, etc.) including those between
large and small enterprises.

To support the development of networks of services to
3.8.
enterprises and future entrepreneurs, which should be notable
for their transparency, openness and quality: such services
have proved worthwhile in the Member States and it would be
timely to organise them into a European network. In this
connection, the Committee also deplores the Commission’s
silence on programmes that enable European SMEs and their
representatives to participate in European standardisation
work (NORMAPME). This instrument is, however, essential
for integrating small enterprises into the single market, as
recommended by the European Charter. The Committee
therefore suggests that this action be continued, even if its
management has to be simplified.

3.9.
To promote, at European level, good practice in terms
of the enterprise’s social and cultural integration (integration
in the local environment,
in-depth social dialogue, gender
equality, integration of minorities, financing micro-enterprises
etc.).

3.7.1. When implementing this type of initiative, there
should be a constant preoccupation with simplifying pro-
cedures, failing which enterprises directly involved in the
procedural aspects will lose interest, however worthwhile and
relevant the actions are.

3.10.
To concentrate Community action in the financial
field on co-operation between enterprises, on local capital or
‘business angels’ as innovative methods. Nowadays it is not
capital, but a climate of confidence between investors and the

C 116/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

initiators of projects for development or creation that needs to
be supported. The question would be to facilitate the setting
up of innovative schemes between the economic and banking
worlds, the development of financial engineering methods and
to enhance mutual backing by taking up structural funds. The
overall effect should be to create the conditions whereby the
SME system can access capital, develop a new approach and
new follow-up systems to reduce business risk.

real incentives, aimed at banishing bad practice and crediting
best world-wide practice. All parties to this exercise must have
a role clearly defined over four stages:

— enterprises and economic and social organisations partici-
pate in analyses which will determine the objectives to be
achieved;

3.11.
In this context, a ‘seed capital’ action which finances
monitoring is preferable to capital allocations from the
Community budget, which would be difficult to justify at
present. Generally speaking, moreover, some of the European
Commission’s proposals seem to focus too much on the ‘high
tech’ sectors, whereas it is the introduction of the knowledge-
based economy into the most traditional sectors that offers the
best opportunities for creating sustainable, skilled jobs, etc.

4.

The choice of methods

It is in this area that the Committee looks forward to the most
substantial changes to complement and flesh out the details of
the Commission’s proposal. The Committee considers that,
faced with both the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in Europe
generally and the political impetus given by the Heads of State
and Government at
the
multiannual programme should be used as an instrument to
usher in a European area for the spirit of enterprise and
knowledge, based on the political objectives laid down in the
Charter. In the Committee’s view, the following improvements
should be incorporated into the programme:

the Lisbon and Feira summits,

An explicit reference to the European Charter for Small
4.1.
Enterprises with resources to implement it. In this respect, the
Committee recommends, following the Feira Declaration of
Heads of State and Government, that the Commission should
draft proposals with quantifiable objectives for a limited
number of priorities, based on the BEST exchanges of good
practice. It is important to transform BEST into a method with

— the Commission identifies good and bad practices and
defines objectives in consultation with the Member States;

— the Member States, together with enterprises and their
implement pro-

economic and social organisations,
grammes to achieve the objectives;

— finally, the European Commission, with support from the
economic and social organisations, assesses the results
obtained.

To define more clearly the role of

4.2.
the European
Commission’s DG Enterprise as guarantor of the spirit of
enterprise and the knowledge-based economy in relation to
other European policies. Among this DG’s priority tasks should
be included follow-up to the real impact assessment of all the
Union’s new legislative and operational initiatives, in order to
evaluate accurately their contribution to a European area for
the spirit of enterprise and knowledge-based society. In its
opinion on simplifying rules in the single market (1), the
Committee recommends that ‘these assessments must hence-
forth be undertaken in conditions that fully guarantee their
independence and quality and include a systematic examin-
ation of alternatives to regulatory measures (i.e. contractual
agreements, self-regulation and co-regulation), together with
rigorous assessment of the contribution which the proposed
legislation will make to simplification, and should be made
public’. This activity will only be possible with the full
involvement of enterprises and economic and social organis-
ations. Should the European Commission be unable to perform
these tasks effectively, the Committee puts forward, as an
alternative proposal, the idea already mooted, of studying the
example in the United States of an ‘Advocate General for small
companies’, whose work would be completely independent.

4.3.
Details about the places, means and platforms for co-
ordination which would make it possible to incorporate
enterprise policy priorities into other areas of Community

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/25

action: internal market, research and development, economic
and social cohesion, environment and consumer protection.
As far as ‘co-ordination with other programmes’ is concerned,
it would be worthwhile to set out in greater detail the types of
co-ordination which would be preferred, particular in relation
to research-development programmes, structural actions and
cross-border co-operation and, lastly, to training and mobility
programmes. As instruments are sectoral and thematic, no
single instrument allows for comprehensive intervention in an
enterprise’s strategy. The multiannual programme, despite the
modest amounts allocated for it in the budget, might be used
as a tool to facilitate access, in particular for micro and small
enterprises, to programmes such as the RTD Framework
Programme, Interreg, ERDF or Leonardo.

4.4. More direct support for enterprises, improving local,
quality services which are spread across Europe and which
offer a complete range of services throughout the development
phases, in order to give small and medium-sized local enter-
prises quality services that are reasonably priced and easy to
access. With this in mind, the Euro-Info-Centres (EIC) network
should be strengthened as an embryonic form of a true
European business services network. The Euro-Info-Centres
network should also allow the Commission to stay in touch
with the grassroots and understand the expectations of busi-
nesses.

plemented annually. This action plan would set out
in
detail the practical measures to be taken, the (national and
Community) resources made available and the beneficiaries.

4.7.
The use of indicators set out in a scoreboard with
details about operational and legislative actions undertaken at
each level, particularly national and European, that entre-
preneurs can easily read and understand? This scoreboard will
become the follow-up instrument for the European Charter
for Small Enterprises and the annual report, which the
Committee advocated in its own-initiative opinion adopted on
24 May 2000 (1) and which the Feira Council instituted. This
scoreboard will be submitted each year to the European
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. The
comments and suggestions will be used to update the action
plan.

4.8.
To adapt the programme to the socio-economic re-
alities of the applicant countries, where the spirit of enterprise
is still thwarted by both a past of government control and
behaviour which is tantamount to corruption.

The Committee would also call for the implemen-
4.4.1.
tation of measures to back up business support and advice
structures.

5. Consultation and participation of the social and

economic actors

4.5.
A clear reference for each proposed action, with
Community value added. It would seem more rational to
structure them around the political objectives set out at the
Lisbon and Feira summits (spirit of enterprise, internationalis-
ation, knowledge-based society, etc.) and to envisage a working
framework in which the Member States and professional
organisations decide on pilot projects to be carried out Europe
wide, networking at European level and, finally, what can and
must be left to national and local initiative. A framework of
this kind would make it possible to review the Commission’s
operational choices, which are not always appropriate. In this
way, actions to foster the European network should be given
priority and structural actions, particularly in the financial
field, should be advocated for national and local authorities
and private and professional operators.

5.1.
Success will only be achieved through direct involve-
ment of the relevant actors in the definition of priorities, the
follow-up of projects and their accomplishment. The example
given by the failure of successive attempts by the Union to
reduce red tape is glaring proof of this. The promotion of
entrepreneurship at European level must also involve the real
and ongoing participation of the parties concerned. Economic
and social organisations in Europe have essential responsibiliti-
es in implementing these actions (information, training) and
will have even more in developing self-regulation.
is
worrying that the Council’s draft decision envisages a manage-
ment committee only made up of representatives of the
Member States, i.e. the administrations. We also consider that
the proposed evaluation report should be produced annually
and referred to the Economic and Social Committee for
consultation.

It

4.6.
To add to the Communication, which is vague and
imprecise, a detailed action plan to be updated and sup-

(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, p. 57.

C 116/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

5.2.
In the first instance, the economic and social actors
can be consulted through the Economic and Social Committee.
It would also be a good idea for the Commission to bring
together in a regular, structured manner, the main European
economic and social organisations concerned, taking into
account
their
members, by setting up an ‘Enterprise Policy Group’, with
membership varying according to the subjects discussed. It is
essential for membership of this group to be a true reflection
of the business world in all its aspects, including trade unions,
and with the participation of other players, for instance from
the fields of science and education.

the real economic and social

influence of

6. Recommendations

6.1.

Having regard, in particular, to:

— the conclusions of the Lisbon summit;

— the Economic and Social Committee’s own-initiative

opinion on the European Charter for Small Enterprises;

— the conclusions of the Feira European summit and the
European Charter for Small Enterprises adopted by the
Heads of State and Government;

— the outcome of a hearing of business leaders and trade
organisations held in Metz on 5 October 2000 at the
Moselle Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

6.4.
The Committee calls on the Council to adopt this
programme and to make explicit reference to the Feira Charter.
The Committee hopes that the European Commission, using
the example of the Luxembourg and Cardiff processes, men-
tioned by the Heads of State and Government at Feira, will
define practical, quantifiable objectives and assess the results
obtained through the joint action of the EU’s programmes
(particularly the multiannual programme), the Member States
and the operators concerned.

The Committee asks to be associated with the regular
6.5.
follow-up to the programme, which is an essential factor in
achieving the European Charter. To this end, an annual
scoreboard should be sent to the Committee, as well as to the
European Parliament and the Council.

The Committee proposes concentrating the pro-

6.6.
gramme on five priority objectives:

— a legal and tax environment more conducive to risk-
taking and job creation, for instance, with respect to
bankruptcy law;

— the effective conclusion of the simplification of regu-
lations, without altering their scope and with special
focus on enterprise creation formalities;

— top priority to be given to education, to the transfer of
knowledge and lifelong training, as much for company
directors as for employees;

— a European innovation area with measures to promote
inter-enterprise co-operation and the movement of
researchers into the business world;

— the strengthening of networks of local intermediaries to
provide enterprises with quality support and advice
throughout their development.

6.2.
The Economic and Social Committee calls for a
It approves the
strengthening of the spirit of enterprise.
Commission’s proposal, on condition that it includes more
precise commitments and a detailed action plan to be updated
annually. In general, the Committee considers that the Euro-
pean Commission’s proposal needs to be widely supplemented
and revised on a number of points.

6.7.
Actions to exchange best practice should be structured
in such a way as to produce tangible results and to guarantee
added value for the Community. They should draw on the
experience and expertise of representative economic and social
organisations and of the other actors concerned, such as those
from the fields of science and education.

6.3.
No practical measures for consulting economic and
social organisations are planned. The Committee urges that
the European Union’s enterprise policy be subject to ongoing,
in-depth consultation with economic and social actors through
the organisations that represent them, at all levels of prep-
aration, implementation, follow-up and assessment of actions.

The Committee believes that the DG for Enterprise
6.8.
should be the advocate of the business world vis-à-vis the
various Community policies. In this respect, the Committee
emphasises the potential importance of systematically produc-
ing studies on the impact of all new European initiatives,
with the proviso that these analyses should be produced
independently, be easy to understand and made public.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/27

6.9.
The Committee particularly urges that all enterprises,
whatever their sector of activity, be included in actions relating
to the knowledge-based economy. The European Commission
should therefore revise certain aspects of its communication
in order to improve the focus of its actions by targeting them
more specifically at small- and medium-sized enterprises,
which have untapped capacity for innovation and develop-
ment.

6.10.
Rather than dispersing itself in actions without signifi-
cant impact, the multiannual programme should be used as an

instrument to facilitate access to programmes covering train-
ing, internationalisation, research and innovation.

The Committee recommends incorporating into the
6.11.
programme the initiative on growth and employment in order
to ensure the continuity of actions such as JEV with a high
value added for Europe. On this point, the Committee regrets
that, without prior notice, the Commission has suddenly
interrupted some programmes. The Committee also supports
the European Parliament’s position in favour of an increased
budget, on condition that it is used for well-targeted actions
that meet the needs of the operators.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending for the 20th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating
to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Short
Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)’

(2001/C 116/05)

On 20 July 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 November 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Green.

At its 377th plenary session on 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November), the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes in favour with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This proposal from the Commission on the Marketing
& Use of Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCP) concerns
the protection of the aquatic environment. Its motivation is to
provide environmental protection by prohibiting the use of
short chain chlorinated paraffins in the highly emissive uses of
metal working fluids and leather treatment chemicals, as
determined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 on the
evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1).

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

1.2.
The proposal also underlines the importance of har-
monisation in the Internal Market. Since some Member States
have already enacted restrictions of marketing and use of short
chain chlorinated paraffins, there is a compelling need for co-
ordinated common action to create EU legislation which will
ensure harmonisation which will also apply to candidate
countries. The Commission proposes to introduce harmonis-
ation measures in the framework of Directive 76/769 on
restrictions of the marketing and use of certain dangerous
substances and preparations. The 20th amendment of that
Directive will ban SCCP in two areas of application, metal
working and leather finishing. Risk reduction measures in
other applications of SCCP such as plasticiser in paints, coating
and sealants, and as flame retardants in rubber, plastics and