Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on  Social policy within a pan-European system for regulating inland-waterway transport
Date: 2005-09-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European social policy, approximation of laws, free movement of workers, inland waterway shipping, labour law, professional qualifications, technical regulations, working conditions

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/73

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social policy within a pan-European
system for regulating inland-waterway transport’

(2006/C 24/15)

On 1 July 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Social policy within a pan-European system for regulating inland-
waterway transport.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 June 2005. The rapporteur was
Mr Etty, the co-rapporteur Mr Simons.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 29 September 2005), the
Committee adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to 7 with 12 abstentions:

1. Introduction

— the need for harmonisation of training as an important

element of a harmonised European crew legislation;

1.1
Taking the ambition of the European Commission to
develop the large potential of IWT as a point of departure, the
2004 own-initiative opinion (1) concentrated on the current
fragmentary legal regime. The opinion stated that legislation
should be harmonised and unified, in particular now that enlar-
gement of the EU would cause even more complications than
before (reconciling and drawing together the Rhine/EU and the
Danube regimes). As part of the new policy of the European
Commission the aim was to strike a new balance between the
various modes of transport. IWT was named as one way of
establishing a more balanced transport market. In order to be
able to make full use of the strengths of this mode, a number
of obstacles had to be removed which currently hindered the
full development of this sector.

— potential communication problems between crew members
and between the various participants in shipping on Euro-
pean waterways and the desirability to address
these
problems in order to contribute to increased safety;

— the Rhine regulations apply to all members of crew
(employees as well as self-employed) and contains no
specific conditions for employees, whereas the EU regula-
tions concentrate on the protection of employees and do
not take into consideration the specific circumstances and
legislation on crews in IWT. A social dialogue at Com-
munity level
is necessary in order to attune these two
regimes to one another.

As regards social policy issues and the labour market

1.2
situation, the opinion noted, i.a.:

2. General observations

— the principle of freedom of movement of workers and the

related coordination of social security;

— the lack of skilled IWT workers in the 15 ‘old’ EU Member
States versus a big surplus in the ‘new’ and future member
states;

2.1
Traditionally, technical and social regulations for IWT
have been intimately intertwined. This regards in particular
crew regulations which,
in close connection with technical
requirements concerning the ship, address both overall safety
and protection of the workforce.

— discrepancies in qualifications and examination require-
ments and resulting difficulties in the recruitment and free
movement of workers in IWT, differences in the Rhine and
Danube regimes as regards manning regulations for vessels
(including differences between binding legislation and
recommendations);

Technical regulations for the Rhine have been laid down
2.2
in the Mannheim Act, on which the authority of the Strasbourg
based Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR)
rests. Some member states apply the Rhine regulations on all
their waterways.

— the linkage of crew legislation with technical requirements

which vessels must comply with;

(1) This own-initiative opinion is a follow-up of the own-initiative
opinion Towards a Pan-European system of Inland Waterway Transport
(IWT)- OJ C 10, 14.01.2004, p. 49.

Furthermore,
the Belgrade
for navigation on the Danube,
Convention also exists. As the latter has a different structure
(the Danube Commission issues recommendations instead of
regulations) and, moreover, limited EU legislation also applies,
this constitutes a complicated patchwork regulation in Europe.

C 24/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

The Mannheim Act can become one of the technical corner-
stones for fully-fledged EU legislation on IWT.

national legislations and regulations, as well as collective agree-
ments.

2.3
In addition to crew regulations, the major social aspects
of IWT dealt with by CCNR are the regulations in hours of
navigation for the ships and rest for the crew members.

2.4
The Danube countries are currently in the process of
revising the Belgrade Convention with a view to granting the
Danube Commission comparable powers to the CCNR. The
revised Convention should be adopted in the very near future.
It should be open to all interested countries.

2.4.1 With a view to growing economic interests (Traffic on
the Danube is expanding at a high pace) the Danube countries
consider this to be a priority issue. Four main goals are being
pursued by the Danube Commission:

a) mutual recognition of patents, professional qualifications

and technical certificates;

b) equivalence of the parameters for IWT;

c) opening of the European IWT market;

d) integration of social policies;

2.4.2
A major problem for navigation on the Danube is the
relatively poor technical state of maintenance of the Danube
fleet. This is a consequence of, among other things, out-of-date
long-term under use
construction and equipment, and of
because of the blockade at Novi Sad.

IWT in the Rhine states faces a considerable lack of personnel
from these countries.

the Belgrade Convention,

According to the DC, apart from the recommendatory
2.4.3
character of
there are no major
discrepancies as regards technical requirements and social regu-
lations between the Rhine and the Danube regimes. To a large
degree, social policy in IWT on the Danube is left to national
legislation and to collective negotiations.

The main problem in the social
Danube Commission,
captains from the Danube States to the Rhine.

the
is the severe limitation of access of

in the view of

field,

A comparative study of

2.4.4
legislation and
regulation in the Member States has never been made by the
DC. Interest in this aspect of IWT has apparently been lacking
so far, in spite of it being a factor in competition.

IWT social

Employers in the Rhine States consider that the main problems
in the social field for them have to do with the rigidity and
complexity of regulations, and differences between national
legislations. This has a strong impact on their competitive posi-
tion, leading companies to shop for the most favourable law
and/or transfer personnel with the purpose of circumventing
labour and social obligations. In this way, they try to take
advantage of differences in wage and social security costs.

2.6
Approximately 40,000 people find employment in the
sector; 30,000 in the ‘old’ Member States of the EU and 10,000
in the ‘new’ ones. Of the latter, some 3,000 are currently
working on the Rhine. Roughly half of those working in IWT
in the ‘old’ Member States are wage earners, the other half are
independent.

2.7
In the CCNR, social partners are consulted on issues
which concern social policy. However, the trade union move-
ment considers these consultations to be insufficient.

In the Danube countries there is no such consultations. A
majority of workers is organised in trade unions, but on the
employers' side there is a transitional situation due to the
process of privatisation.

2.7.1
Social dialogue between workers and employers in the
IWT sector is poorly developed in the ‘old’ and not at all in the
‘new’ EU Member States, as well as in the candidate member
states. It is of great importance for a genuine social dialogue
that there be independent and representative employers' and
employees' organisations. This must be a matter for attention
in the Danube countries.

This,

technical

in combination with the long standing domi-
2.7.2
legislation/regulation, explains why the
nance of
human factor in IWT has been underrated for a long time.
Shipowners have the following point of view on this matter.
Most IWT ships being privately owned it has always been in
the owners' interest to control all operational risks including
the human factor. Therefore, compared to other transport
sectors, the need for legislation relating to the required qualifi-
cations has been relatively low.

2.5 Major social problems facing workers in IWT in both
the Rhine and the Danube Member States as identified by the
trade unions are, in addition to those related to manning rules
and working/rest
time, differences between national social
security provisions, insufficient knowledge of different relevant

2.8
Is there a potential for positive change as far as this is
concerned, following the growing interest in strengthening the
part IWT can play in the future EU transport policy and in
increasing coherence between the different IWT regimes? Three
recently published reports and an important European confer-
ence, all dealing with the future of this sector, suggest that this
is not the case.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/75

2.8.1
future of IWT mainly from a technological perspective.

The CCNR report ‘Ships of the Future’ (2) explores the

2.9
The content of the three studies and the discussions at
the conference mentioned here seem to illustrate that Govern-
ments and many who are active in the sector are still consid-
ering social policy issues of only marginal interest for IWT.

2.8.1.1
As regards social issues, it focuses almost exclusively
on the future captain, who is pictured as an ‘operator’ and for
whom very few physical tasks will be left but who must be
able to act adequately in the case of emergencies. For the time
being, this is not a realistic picture, but it draws the attention
to the strong influence of technological developments on the
social context of IWT. On the basis of this thesis, the report
advocates an active social policy for the sector.

In the scenario presented by the report, the sector's
2.8.1.2
needs seem to be restricted to highly educated personnel. That,
too, is not realistic. Employment opportunities for lowly skilled
workers may decrease, but IWT will not be able to do without
this category of workers altogether.

2.8.1.3 With respect
the report
mentions the importance of regular leisure time, broadening of
the supply of functions and mobility of labour.

to the labour market,

The same is suggested by the fact that social partners in the
sector, were in no way involved by the authors and the organi-
sers. The PINE Report was the exception. That is to say, the
European Commission did involve the social partners in the
drafting of the report, although, as noted above, relatively little
attention was paid to social issues which are considered to be
of great importance by them (and certainly by the trade union
movement).

2.10
The Committee's earlier opinion Towards a Pan-Euro-
pean system of IWT left out a detailed discussion of the sector's
social policy with a view to its complex architecture but
referred to this follow-up opinion. The points made above
supply additional arguments for taking a closer look at this. It
is about
time to emancipate social policy from the long
standing dominance of technical issues and to deal with it in a
more balanced way, fully involving all the parties concerned,
both in the Rhine and the Danube states, in the ‘old’ and the
‘new’ as well as in the candidate member states, and -where
relevant — also in other countries concerned.

The PINE-report (3) sketches the future of IWT mainly
2.8.2
from an economic point of view. The main social policy issue
it addresses is the effect of free movement of labour within the
EU on the financial and economic parameters of the sector.

3. Specific observations

Some additional attention is paid to the problem of current and
future lack of personnel in IWT.

3.1 What the EESC has in mind is a social policy based on a
broad uniform blueprint, in which there is room for regional as
well as local distinctions. Social partners must be involved as
closely as possible with this policy.

The EFIN-report (4) explores the potential for a prin-
2.8.3
cipal framework of cooperation, including the States and insti-
tutions concerned. The EESC will deal with the proposals devel-
oped in this report in a separate opinion in the near future.
The role of social partners is not at all addressed which
suggests that it is considered irrelevant for the issues discussed
in the report.

At the Congress The Power of Inland Navigation (10-12
2.8.4
November 2004, The Hague), organised by the Netherlands'
Presidency of the EU in order to highlight the contribution of
IWT to economic growth and to progress of society at large,
social aspects were, once more, hardly considered.

(2) CCNR Final Report to the Central Commission, Ships of the Future,

2002.

(3) Prospects of Inland Navigation within the enlarged Europe (March 2004),

Study commissioned by the European Commission.

(4) ‘European Framework for Inland Navigation. A new institutional
framework for IWT in Europe’ (2004). This report was published at
the request of the government of the Netherlands with the support
of Belgium, Germany, France and Switzerland.

3.2 Crew regulations

3.2.1
The core of the crew legislation in the Member States
of the CCNR is in Chapter 23 of the Regulations for the inspec-
tion of ships on the Rhine. This means that the classification of
the ship and the daily navigation hours determine the size and
the composition of the crew. It is most important that compli-
ance with these crew regulations
is properly monitored,
because it appears that in practice they are quite frequently
contravened.

3.2.2
The European Commission started work as long as
two decades ago on a European instrument. However, work
has not progressed very much during this period. Partially, this
can be explained by the long-standing wish of the Member
States concerned to await the review of Chapter 23. The envi-
saged European instrument should have to deal with rules for
the composition of crews, operating hours of ships, and
compulsory periods of rest for crew members.

C 24/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

and

between Governments

In the Rhine States, crew regulations are an area of
3.2.3
controversy
employers/self-
employed on the one hand and the trade unions on the other.
The revised crew regulation of July 2002, drawn up by the
CCNR, is inadequate according to the trade unions. They think
that minimum manning provisions are too low and profes-
sional training and qualification requirements unsatisfactory. In
combination with the prevailing hours of work and rest these
regulations put the safety of inland navigation in jeopardy in
their view.

board a vessel during fixed periods — for example, 14 days —
but some live on board permanently. While relevant regulations
specify hours of rest, the crew has to be available (incidentally)
during rest periods.

3.3.3 When consulted by the CNNR,
trade unions have
objected against the fact that only the sailing time of ships is
monitored and not the actual hours worked. However, these
objections have so far been ignored by the treaty states.

The employers' organisations maintain that the existing crew
regulation fully contributes to safety in the sector. They think
that
further flexibility is desirable. This could simplify the
intake of workers from other maritime sectors. Crew require-
ments for ships with state-of-the-art equipment could be
relaxed.

3.3.4
Hours of work are not defined in existing IWT legisla-
tion and regulations (which apply to both the self-employed
and to workers). Legislation in the Rhine States deals with the
operational time of the ship, the composition of the crew and
the compulsory hours of rest for the crew in an interconnected
way.

3.2.4
Under the Danube-regime, minimum manning rules
are apparently not a problem. Relevant texts in the Belgrade
Act mainly deal with captains and engineers and do not have
much to say on lower ranking crew. Compared to corre-
sponding categories of crew members in the Rhine States, the
level of education of captains and engineers is high.

The Danube States intend to start working on unification of
their national crew regulations as from 2005. They intend to
involve employers' organisations as observers. According to the
DC ‘the employers will
is
represent
certainly not the point of view of the trade union movement in
the countries concerned.

their workers’. That

3.3.4.1
According to parties concerned, the EU Directive on
the Organisation of working time (which is currently under
is insufficiently adapted to the specific conditions
revision)
prevailing in IWT. Therefore,
they have raised objections.
Social partners in the sector at the EU level have committed
themselves to finding an agreement on the issue as a matter of
priority in the social dialogue, which has recently restarted
after a dormant period.

On the Rhine, as well as on some other waterways in
3.3.5
the Rhine States, the minimum period of rest in 24 hours is
eight hours, six of which must be without interruption.

3.2.5 Manning regulations are not infrequently disregarded
in the Rhine States which underscores, according to IWT trade
unions, their concerns about safety. Monitoring of compliance
with these rules in practice is weak in the sector.

3.3.6
On the Danube, no regulation exists for the opera-
tional time of the ship or for manning. In practice, a minimum
crew of four is maintained. With this crew, the ship can be
operational for 24 hours; no compulsory rules for hours of rest
exist.

The organisations of employers and of
the self-employed
declare that adequate enforcement of manning rules is impor-
tant, not only with a view to safety but also to fair competition.
They also stress that these rules must be formulated in such a
way that innovation in IWT is not impeded but rather stimu-
lated.

3.3 Hours of work and rest

3.3.7
The differences between the various regulations on the
European waterways call for common minimum standards. The
agreement sought by social partners referred to in paragraph
3.2.4.1 can also be of great importance for that endeavour.

In order to create a level playing field, similar regulations are
urgently needed on the Rhine, Danube and other waterways.
Moreover, these regulations should be mutually compatible and
transparent.

3.3.1
As stated above, hours of navigation for the ships and
rest for the crew members is the major social policy issue in
the Rhine regime. Existing rules only take into account the
hours worked when the ship is operational and not the hours
actually worked. Consequently, inspection disregards the latter.

3.3.2
The sector is characterised by work schedules with
very long daily working hours. Usually, the crew stays on

3.4 Occupational health and safety

3.4.1
Like other elements of current social policy in IWT,
occupational health and safety rules are intimately linked to
technical requirements of ships. Largely, regulations in this area
have been laid down in the Regulations for Inspection of Ships
on the Rhine and related national legislation in the form of
rules for the construction and equipment of ships.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/77

3.4.2
For the protection of workers in the EU, Directives
dealing with health and safety issues exist. These instruments
oblige employers to engage in risk assessment and evaluation.
This is not always the practice in IWT.

3.4.3
European health and safety legislation is criticised by
some in the sector who complain that it does not take into
account important realities and specific circumstances in IWT
and does not link up to existing IWT legislation which covers
all crew members: the Directives are limited to the protection
of wage earning workers and do not cover the self-employed. It
should, of course, be noted here that this situation also exists
in other sectors of economic activity. For road transport, for
instance, a specific Directive was adopted on the organisation
of working time on the basis of Articles 71 and 137 (2) of the
Treaty (5).

3.5 Labour inspection

3.5.1
In addition to uniform and enforceable regulation,
serious, regular and competent inspection is of great impor-
tance in a sector where many self-employed (or semi- or quasi-
self-employed) work side by side with employers with a wage-
earning workforce and with the inherent risk of downgrading
protection of the latter and/or unfair competition.

However,

labour inspection in IWT is weak and is
3.5.2
facing particular difficulties specific for the sector. A special
problem for inspection is the rather unique situation on board
of vessels where, unlike what is usual in most other economic
activities, private life and working life is difficult to separate. It
is not uncommon in this situation that inspectors are treated
unpleasantly.

In many countries,

inspection shows serious short-
3.5.3
comings
(Germany and Switzerland are relatively positive
exceptions as far as the Rhine countries are concerned). Inspec-
tion services are struggling with lack of personnel. In the Neth-
erlands and in Belgium, in particular, this leads to very sparse
activities by the labour inspectorate (in practice one inspection
per ship every two/three years). It should be further noted that
the construction and equipment of ships is subject to supervi-
sion by the national shipping inspectorate and that implemen-
tation of legislation is enforced by the river police.

3.5.6
Despite the reputation of relative safety of IWT as a
mode of transport, accidents do of course occur. However,
registration of accidents is limited to fatalities and other cata-
strophies. There is no clear-cut definition of what an accident is
in IWT. With a view to the intensification of IWT and against
the background of earlier observations on the compliance in
practice with crew regulations, these are matters which will
require serious attention of all who have an interest in the
promotion of this mode of transport in the future.

3.6 Education/training/examinations

3.6.1
For the future of employment in the sector, as well as
for the preservation of its reputation of relative safety, good
education and training is important. This will require clear and
common educational standards, coupled with strong enforce-
ment of such standards.

In the Danube States, the level of education (in particular of
captains) is relatively high. In the Rhine States, there are signifi-
cant differences in quality between individual countries.

The situation calls for the introduction of common minimum
standards, preferably on a Pan-European scale.

3.6.2
The Central Commission for the Navigation on the
Rhine (CCNR) has undertaken to do the groundwork for
drawing up harmonised career profiles for the positions of
crew member and boatmaster. The social partners are involved
in this matter. These profiles, which are expected in 2005, can
serve as a basis for the harmonisation of vocational training in
the European IWT countries. The mutual recognition of qualifi-
cations can thereby be promoted as well.

3.6.3 Within the framework of the sectoral social dialogue,
information on IWT education was recently obtained from the
new EU Member States.

3.6.4
Harmonising education must go hand in hand with
promotion of inland navigation as an interesting sector to be
employed in for young people.

On the Danube, there is hardly any inspection at all.

3.7 Communication

3.5.4
Not only legal requirements are frequently being disre-
garded in the sector. There are also problems concerning
compliance with collective labour agreements.

3.5.5 Whenever large scale inspection takes place, in a large
number of inspected vessels violations of regulations are being
registered.

(5) Directive 2002/15/EC of

the
Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time
of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ No. L
080 of 23.03.2002, pp. 35-39).

the European Parliament and of

3.7.1
The PINE report observes correctly that shortcomings,
caused by migration of workers and the increasing share of
international traffic between east and west, exist in linguistic
skills and in the knowledge of foreign waterways. These may
lead to increased safety risks in inland waterway traffic.

The time may be ripe for the introduction of a
3.7.2
common inland navigation language in international transport
on the Rhine and the Danube for communication between
ships as well as between ship and shore.

C 24/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

3.8 Social dialogue

The input of social partners in the formulation of
3.8.1
social policy in IWT by the CCNR and the DC has been very
limited. This is an unsatisfactory situation which, in the first
place,
the social partners themselves should try to change.
However, Governments of Member States, who have so far
been less than eager to listen to what social partners have to
say, will have to reconsider this position.

In developing the social dimension of an IWT policy
3.8.2
for the enlarged EU, which tries to strike a new balance in
transport by enhancing IWT, the European Commission, with
its tried and tested tradition of consultation with social partners
and of social dialogue, could do better than the CCNR and the
DC.

3.8.3
In this connection, it is a welcome development that
the social partners have opened their social dialogue, which has
been dormant for some years in the sector. This is taking place
in the Committee for social dialogue in IWT,
in accordance
with a decision taken by the European Commission at the
request of the social partners.

Unfortunately, progress in this Committee has been slow so far.
In Spring 2004 work started on the subject of the organisation
of working time and in June 2005 the first plenary meeting
took place.

3.8.4
Another subject, identified as a priority in the social
dialogue, is the functioning of the EU labour market in IWT,
including the free movement of workers.

The social dialogue is entirely a matter for the social
3.8.5
partners
to this principle,
themselves. With due respect
however, some encouragement of social dialogue by the Euro-
pean Commission is desirable. Requests for detailed opinions
from the social partners come to mind and also encouraging
opinions to be issued within a reasonable period of time, for
instance by setting clearly defined deadlines.

3.8.6
Agreements between social partners at Community
level on the basis of Article 139 of the EU Treaty can lead to
specific regulations to meet the special needs of IWT. Such
agreements, based on the minimum provisions laid down by
the Council under Article 137, are appropriate, however, only
when social partners agree that the additional specific rules are
desirable.

4.2 What the EESC has said earlier in general terms with
respect to the IWT legal regime in Europe must be said a
fortiori for social legislation and regulations in the sector: it is
badly fragmented and it should be harmonised and unified
along the lines stated above, in particular now that enlargement
of the EU would cause even more complications than before
May 2004.

4.3
Social policy has, so far, always been a point of
secondary interest in IWT. It is, in essence, part and parcel of
technical legislation and regulation for ships. It is time that the
human factor in IWT is emancipated from this second class
status.

This will require a significant change of attitude of all
4.4
parties concerned,
in particular as regards the role of social
partners in the development of a modern social policy, at par
with efforts to modernise other aspects of IWT in Europe.

4.5 Many aspects will require careful analysis and well
prepared and balanced decision-making. Presently, crew regula-
tions and hours of work and rest appear to be priority areas, as
well as the establishment of genuine and active social dialogue.

4.6
The European Commission is well placed to drive this
process forward, building on the long tradition, the experience
and the expertise of the CCNR and the DC. Looking at the way
these two commissions have functioned through the decades,
the place they have given to social policy in their work and the
way they have so far involved social partners, it is nevertheless
clear that reconciling and drawing together the Rhine and the
Danube regimes would not be sufficient to create the optimal
conditions for the development of modern social policies in
IWT.

4.7
In drafting a new design for social policy in EU IWT,
the European Commission should cooperate closely with the
social partners, the CCNR and the DC. This approach requires
that the CCNR and DC Member States enable their institutions
to broaden their scope towards social policy issues and conse-
quently extend their capacity in order to cooperate as fruitfully
as possible with the European Commission. On the other hand,
the European Commission will also have to make a greater
effort to build up expertise with regard to IWT.

4.8
If the current problems in social policy in EU IWT will
be addressed in this way, it will be possible to create a regime
in this policy area that can balance the specific characteristics
and problems of the sector and the interests of all who are
working in it.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1
The EESC is of the opinion that the time is ripe to estab-
lish a Community social policy for IWT, preferably in a pan-
European context. Such a policy would have to apply on all
European waterways. It must have a broad European basis and
provide scope for regional as well as local distinctions. The
social partners must be closely involved in this policy.

4.9 Maintaining a level playing field and increasing the
attractiveness of the sector for those working in it as well as for
those interested to work in it in the future during this process
of review and revision is of the greatest importance, in particu-
lar with a view to the expected increase of competition — both
within the IWT sector and between IWT and other modes of
transport.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/79

This process of change will take considerable time and
4.10
will require full
involvement and commitment of the social
partners. Social dialogue at the sectoral level (at the national as
well as at the European level) is the most important instrument
to construct a bridge between the views of employers, self-
employed and workers and the goals of EU policy. This is parti-
legislation and regulation pertaining to
cularly true
manning of ships and hours of work and rest
for crew
members.

for

4.11
For the future of European IWT, extra attention is
urgently desirable for education and training. The social part-
ners should make their contribution to this.

4.12
Agreements between social partners at Community
level on the basis of Article 139 of the EU Treaty can lead to
IWT-specific regulations. In the EESC's opinion, this is appro-
priate when the social partners agree that the special needs of
the sector demand additional regulations to the minimum
provisions which the Council has laid down under Article 137
of the Treaty.

Brussels, 29 September 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Joint Declaration
by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the European Union Develop-
ment Policy — The European Consensus’

(COM(2005) 311 final)

(2006/C 24/16)

On 29 July 2005, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject,
adopted its opinion on 8 September 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Zufiaur.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 29 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 84 votes to five, with six abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
The initiative of the Commission and the Council to
revise the Declaration on Development Policy adopted in 2000
and, in general, to reshape the future of this policy is, from all
points of view, extremely important. Developments on the
international stage, new standpoints and consensuses on devel-
opment policy in the international community and changes
within the Union itself suggest that this revision is needed.
Likewise, the growing problems of under-development, particu-
larly in Africa, and the increasing differences between countries
brought about by globalisation underscore the need for a revi-
sion of the Community's development policy.

the Millennium Summit and echoed at

reached at
the
Monterrey, Johannesburg, Cairo and other conferences, on such
issues as funding, the environment, gender mainstreaming and
HIV/AIDS; the process of harmonising the development poli-
cies of donors launched by the OECD's Development Assistance
Committee (DAC); and the consolidation of a number of new
such as
instruments
Poverty Reduction
Sector-wide
Approaches (SWAP) and budgetary support. More recently, the
High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Paris in March
2005, made progress on this matter, with donors signing up to
a number of
results-based
management and shared responsibility.

for planning and implementing aid,

commitments on ownership,

Strategy

(PRSP),

Papers

1.2
Some of the changes that have taken place at interna-
tional level, and which have in one way or another affected
increased security-related concerns
development policies, are:
following 9/11; the results of the 2001 WTO meeting in Doha
and the subsequent process which forms part of the Develop-
ment Agenda; the new international consensus on development

1.3
These changes have also been affected by the scant
progress achieved, according to most indicators, towards the
targets set
five years ago for the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs). To ensure that these targets are not missed by
the 2015 deadline, the international community must review