title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Services of general interest'

eurovoc_concepts:
collective interest
economic infrastructure
energy policy
information policy
public service
public transport

text: 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/51 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Services of general interest’ (1999/C 368/17) On 29 April 1999 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Services of general interest’. 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 5 October 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Herna´ndez Bataller. At its 369th plenary session on 20 and 21 October 1999 (meeting of 21 October), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 78 votes for, one against, with three abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. interest Clearly the concept of services of general is understood differently across the European Union, with perceptions varying between German-speaking, Nordic, Latin and Anglo-Saxon countries. In fact, in some EU Member States the very concept of the public service does not exist. There are, however, some quite similar ideas and closely corresponding in the situations. Netherlands, ‘public utilities’ in the United Kingdom, ‘Daseinvorsorge’ in Germany, and the ‘service public’ in France. ) ‘beheer van diensten’ in Italy, ‘gestione di pubblica utilità’ (Examples include, 1. 2. A distinction is drawn between ‘services of general interest’ which cover both commercial and non-commercial or ‘extracomercium’ activities, and ‘services of general economic in other interest’ which cover commercial activities alone, words, activities performed or likely to be performed in the marketplace and which constitute a company’s main pursuit. This second category of services is subject to competition rules and Article 86 of the Treaty may be applied (1). This is the case for network services in the transport, energy and communi- cations sectors. Services of general interest are defined essentially by 1. 3. the purpose of the activity performed. The activity should satisfy a ‘generalised’ (2) and ‘basic’ need among members of the community, for a group of people linked by ties of equality and solidarity. Member States are given considerable freedom to assess the needs of the community so that they may define for themselves the objectives of national policy. European Court of Justice case law has recognised security, defence, the protection and/or the social cohesion of the community as examples of such needs. (1) Judgments of the European Court of Justice: of 15. 2. 1993, Poucet et Pistre (C-159 and 160/91, European Court Reports, p. 1-637); of 27. 10. 1993, Lagauche e. a. (C-46/90 and 93/91, European Court Reports, p. 1-5267); of 19. 1. 1994, SAT- Fluggesellschaft (C-364/92, European Court Reports, p. 1-143); of 18. 3. 1997, Diego Cali & Figli (C-343/95, European Court Reports, p. 1-1547) (2) Conclusions of Advocate-General Tesauro of 9 February 1993 in judgment of 19 May 1993, relation to the Corbeau case, C-320/91, European Court Reports, p. 1-2533, point 19. 1. 4. Services of general interest should satisfy needs such as education, health, communications, information, the supply of drinking water and transport, which are crucial to safeguard- ing the basic freedoms of individuals and improving quality of life for everyone. These are economic and social activities which are not usually left entirely open to market forces as there is generally some form of regulation and monitoring input from public authorities. ‘Market failings’ are one of the main reasons for the 1. 4. 1. existence of public enterprises or the adoption of regulations by the state. These failings, where the market does not allocate services and goods efficiently, mean that many people on very low incomes depend on such services if they are to consume products which are not accessible for them solely through commercial channels. Indeed it is one of the basic postulates of the European social model that social cohesion is threatened in the medium or longer term if the needs of a sizeable section of the population are not properly satisfied. 1. 4. 2. This opinion is designed to provide — after a short summary of the Commission Communication on services of general interest — an account of the rules currently governing the various types of service, followed by the situation in the wake of the Amsterdam Treaty. A key section of the opinion asserts certain principles which the Committee believes should underpin services of general interest, and discusses some general and specific aspects of these services. 2. Commission Communication of 11 September 1996 on services of general interest in Europe (3) The Commission clarifies the existing terminology in 2. 1. the field and provides the following definitions: — Services of general interest, this term covers market and non-market services which the public authorities class as being of general interest and subject to specific public service obligations. (3) OJ C 281, 26. 9. 1996, p. 3. C 368/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 — Services of general economic interest, this term refers to market services which the Member States subject to specific public service obligations by virtue of a general interest criterion. coach service can solve the problem of congestion on some of the EU’s roads — problems created by the increase in the number of private cars in circulation. — Public service, this is an ambiguous term since it may refer either to the actual body providing the service or to the interest activity or role assigned to the body general concerned. Specific public service obligations may be imposed by the public authorities on the body rendering the service in order to facilitate or enable provision of the service. — Universal service (1), this concept refers to a set of general interest requirements which should be satisfied by specific activities throughout the Community. The object of the resulting obligations is to make sure that everyone has access to certain essential services of high quality at prices they can afford. 2. 2. The communication takes the view that services of general interest contribute to European competitiveness and social solidarity, as well as to quality of life in the EU. In many cases, such services even constitute genuine social rights. 2. 3. It is acknowledged that the aim of the Community is to boost the competitiveness of the European economy in an increasingly competitive world and to offer consumers wider options, with better quality and lower prices, contributing at the same time, through its policies, to strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the Member States and to reducing certain inequalities. 3. Regulations in the transport, energy, infrastructure and information society sectors 3. 1. With regard to transport by rail, road and inland waterway, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 stipulates that in order to guarantee the provision of adequate transport services, taking into account social, environmental and spatial planning considerations in particu- lar, or to offer special pricing arrangements for specific categories of passengers, Member States may enter into public service contracts with transport undertakings. This should ensure guaranteed regularity, capacity, routes, prices, time- tables and continuity of service. There are also other practical considerations which argue for the continued existence of public service contracts. For instance, an efficient and passenger-friendly public bus and Previous ESC opinions on transport (2) consider that 3. 1. 1. in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it should con- tinue to be possible for the competent local authorities to take decisions on matters such as the type of organisation or qualitative and quantitative requirements to be met by oper- ators, acting in the light of local requirements. 3. 1. 2. Applying the subsidiarity principle means preserving the Community acquis and the institutional balance, without prejudice to the principles developed by the Court of Justice with regard to the relationship between Community and national law. In all cases, the measures adopted need to be consistent with the satisfactory attainment of the objective in mind and the need for effective implementation, leaving it up to national or local authorities to decide on the ways and means, since it is the responsibility of these authorities to develop the strategic planning of services of general interest. In air transport, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3. 1. 3. 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 regulates access for Community air carriers to intra-Community routes and the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services, as regards minimum frequency, timetables, types of aircraft used and capacity (3). 3. 1. 4. In maritime transport, Article 4 of Council Regu- lation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) allows a Member State to conclude public service contracts or impose public service obligations limited to requirements concerning ports to be served, regularity, continuity, frequency, capacity to provide the service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessel (4). 3. 1. 5. Safety is an important aspect of Community trans- port policy. Transparency, quality and worker protection are interlinked, and it is in the public interest to strike a balance between rural and urban areas, for which public resources must be used. In the case of services of general interest, any limitation imposed with respect to competition must be necessary and proportionate to the objectives pursued. The public authorities should assess the restriction on competition necessary to enable enterprises to offer public services, taking into account the economic conditions under which these enterprises oper- ate, the costs they must bear and the legislation with which they must comply. (1) The universal service in the telecommunications sector is defined by Article 2(1) (g) of Directive 97/33 as ‘a defined minimum set of services of specified quality which is available to all users independent of their geographical location and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an affordable price’. (2) OJ C 138, 18. 5. 1999, p. 7. (3) OJ L 240, 24. 8. 1992, p. 8. (4) OJ L 364, 12. 12. 1992, p. 7. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/53 3. 2. With regard to the energy markets, liberalised in Directive 96/92/EC on electricity and Directive 98/30/EC on gas, the markets are opening up, and rules have been introduced for access to the network, separate accounting, the calculation of tariffs, the supply obligation and the possibility of imposing public service obligations. 3. 2. 1. The electricity directive establishes a mechanism enabling Member States to take into account public policy considerations without, in the normal course of events, restricting the liberalisation process. Member States may establish five categories of public service obligations, namely environmental protection, safety, regularity, quality of supply and pricing policy, and adopt the measures necessary to comply with these obligations. 3. 2. 2. The gas directive stipulates that Member States may impose public service obligations on natural gas undertakings, provided that such obligations are justified by the general economic interest. The obligations must fall into five specific categories, namely security of supply, regularity, quality, price of supply and environmental protection. 3. 3. In the field of telecommunications, Directive 97/33/EC of 30 June 1997 (1). imposes the obligation to provide a universal service, and the licensing directives adopted in 1997 (2). and Directive 98/10/EC on voice telephony make it possible to impose public service obligations on operators in order to meet a clearly-define series of ‘essential require- ments’ (3). Common rules have also been introduced for 3. 4. developing the postal sector and improving the quality of its service, with the gradual and measures opening of markets to competition. The basis of the measure proposed is to safeguard the universal postal service in the long term. The universal postal service means providing high-quality service country- wide, with regular guaranteed deliveries at prices everyone can afford. This involves the collection, transport, sorting and delivery of letters, as well as printed matter, catalogues and parcels within certain weight and price limits. 3. 5. Exclusive or special rights must be awarded to under- takings through tendering procedures based on objective, non-discriminatory and transparent criteria and the awarding of tenders should mostly be limited in time. (1) OJ L 199, 26. 7. 1997, p. 32 (2) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 15 (3) Essential requirements: economic or non-economic reasons which may cause a Member State to impose conditions on the provision of services. 4. The situation following the Amsterdam Treaty The Community’s objectives include promoting har- 4. 1. monious and balanced economic development throughout the Community, sustainable and non-inflationary growth that is respectful of the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, enhancing the standard of living and the quality of life, competitiveness, and achieving econom- ic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States. 4. 1. 1. These aims will be served by the establishment of a common market and of an economic and monetary union and by the implementation of the policies and joint actions provided for in the Treaty, including arrangements for ensuring that competition within the internal market will not be distorted. 4. 2. Article 86(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (ex Article 90) states that in the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights (4), Member States will neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in the Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 12 (discrimination) and Articles 81 to 89 (practices restricting competition and state aids). Other Treaty provisions are generally invoked in conjunction with Article 86, such as Article 28 (free movement of goods), Article 49 (freedom to provide services) and Article 43 (right of establishment). 4. 2. 1. Article 86(2) states that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly will be subject to the rules contained in the Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, insofar as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community. Moreover, Article 86(3) states that the the Commission will ensure the application of provisions of the article and will, where appropriate, address appropriate directives or decisions to Member States. (4) These terms are to be understood as follows: — exclusive rights: rights guaranteed by a Member State restricting the provision of certain services to a single undertaking through legal, regulatory or administrative pro- visions, granting the undertaking the exclusive right to provide a service or perform an activity in a specific geographical area. — special rights: rights awarded by a Member State to a limited number of undertakings through legal, regulatory or administrative provisions which, in a specific geographical area: — grant exclusive authorisation — without using objective, proportional or non-discriminatory criteria — to two or more undertakings, to provide a service or perform an activity, — designate (without using the above criteria) several com- peting undertakings to provide a service or perform an activity, — award the undertaking(s) (without using the above criteria) legal or regulatory advantages which substantially affect other undertakings’ ability to provide the same service or perform the same activity in the same geographical area under practically identical conditions. C 368/54 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 4. 3. Article 16 of the EC Treaty — added by the Treaty of Amsterdam — incorporates a specific reference to services of general economic interest. The article highlights their importance as a ‘shared value’ of the EU and their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion. This precept should be judged as an effort to strike a balance between competition rules and the need to provide public services while complying with the provisions of Article 86. 5. 2. The Committee considers that these guidelines will be very useful for the provision of these services and presents this preliminary list for public debate. 5. 3. As a citizens’ right, services of general economic interest should operate according to the following guidelines: 4. 4. Furthermore, a protocol on the system of public broadcasting has been incorporated, emphasising the specific the system in relation to social and cultural nature of requirements. Specifically, it enables Member States to finance television channels ‘insofar as such funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each Member State, and insofar as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest’. The protocol aims to strike a balance between the enforcement of competition rules and the need to guarantee a public television broadcasting service. There has also been a declaration on German public 4. 5. credit institutions acknowledging that Community compe- tition rules may take into account services of general economic interest provided by public credit institutions in Germany and the facilities granted to them to compensate for the costs connected with such services. 4. 6. The Cologne European Council held on 3 and 4 June 1999 (1) takes the view that, at the present stage of develop- ment of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated and highlighted in a charter which would contain: the fundamental rights and freedoms as well as basic procedural rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and derived from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. The Charter should also include the fundamental rights that pertain only to the Union’s citizens. In drawing up such a Charter account should furthermore be taken of economic and social rights. 5. Guidelines which services of general economic inter- est should adhere to 5. 1. Drawing on various publications and communications concerning resolutions issued by the Council, Commission and European Parliament and on other sources, as well as some ideas of its own, the Committee has prepared a list of guidelines which general interest services should respect. (1) Conclusions: points 44 and 45 and Annex IV. Equality: all citizens are entitled to equal access to 5. 3. 1. services of general interest. The term equality is to be understood not as an obligation of uniformity, rather as prevention of any unjustified discrimination based on social or personal status in relation to service provision. 5. 3. 2. Universality: should be universally provided. for services supplied, basic services 5. 3. 3. Reliability: the provision of services of general inter- est should be continuous, regular and uninterrupted. Irregular operation or suspension of services will be restricted to specific cases laid down in the regulation governing the sector. 5. 3. 4. Participation: users should participate actively in the development of services of general interest. The purpose of such participation is to protect citizens’ rights with regard to the adequate provision of services and to promote the cooperation of the service-providers. 5. 3. 5. Transparency: service-providers will ensure that users receive full information on the service provision, especially on the public service obligations and tariffs. 5. 3. 5. 1. To this end, service-providers will inform the users of the financial and technical arrangements for the provision of services and of any changes affecting the service, publishing the texts containing the relevant regulation. 5. 3. 6. Simplification of procedures: as far as possible ser- vice-providers will simplify the procedures to be followed by users and will supply the appropriate explanations. 5. 3. 6. 1. Moreover, where possible they will use standard forms, striving to simplify and explain the methods of subscribing to and paying for the services. 5. 3. 6. 2. In all cases, service-providers will introduce internal procedures for addressing complaints made by users. These procedures will be accessible, easy to understand and implement, ultimately ensuring that the service-providers take account of the complaints made by users and consumers’ associations, and will facilitate the right to bring a complaint before the regulator and, generally speaking, access to the legal system (2). (2) These procedures should be based on the principles laid down in the Commission recommendation on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (COM(1998) 198 final of 30 March 1998), and, as far as possible, will encourage the use of the European claims form for consumers. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/55 5. 3. 7. Profitability and efficiency: services of general econ- omic interest will be supplied efficiently and profitably. Providers will adopt the measures necessary to achieve these objectives. 5. 3. 8. Quality of services: service-providers will identify the factors influencing the quality of services and, on this basis, publish quality and quantity standards which they will pledge to observe. Compliance with these standards will not be nego- 5. 3. 8. 1. tiable. Exceptions to these standards will only be granted if it is advantageous to users and will be monitored by users in periodic meetings. 5. 3. 9. Adequate provision of services: services of general economic interest will be adapted to changes in the needs of the community and to technical and economic progress. 5. 3. 10. Evaluation of results: the arrangements for provid- ing public services will be periodically reviewed by the service-provider. To do so, service-providers will collect infor- mation on, inter alia, user-satisfaction. Cooperation between service-providers: even if the 5. 3. 11. service is provided in a competitive environment, service- providers will strive to cooperate to ensure compliance with these principles. 5. 3. 12. Affordable price: the conditions for access to these services should be at a price citizens can afford. The guiding principle should be ‘reasonable cost’. operate on the basis of principles and conditions which enable them to fulfil their missions. To this end the Committee considers that a balance should be struck between the profita- bility of operators in the marketplace and the obligations ensuing from social, labour, market economy, safety and environmental criteria and from the basic objectives of sus- tainable development. 6. 2. 1. On the other hand — in the road transport sector for instance — when operators provide a service of general interest certain aspects should be guaranteed by the authorities, including a description of the objective pursued by the service, financial compensation, incentives, a description of exclusivity rights, duration and geographical scope, and the facilities made available by the various parties. 6. 3. The Committee takes the view that services of general economic interest occupy a place in the shared values of the Union. They encourage a balanced European integration policy by facilitating a better political and legal framework for people and businesses. It also places importance on their role in promoting 6. 4. the EU’s economic and territorial cohesion. In particular, land management and spatial planning will have to be taken into account in future; moreover, the ‘networks’ should not only follow economic dictates, but also take other social consider- ations into account. 6. 5. The Committee would like these services defined and delivered according to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. 6. 6. With regard to the public broadcasting system, the Committee takes the view that: 5. 3. 13. Environmental protection: the definition and oper- ation of services of general economic interest should take account of environmental protection requirements as a key component of social and territorial cohesion. 6. 6. 1. when defining the public broadcasting service; cultural considerations should be taken into account 6. General comments The Committee takes the view that a balance should 6. 1. be struck between competition law and services of general interest in the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors, especially as Article 86 (ex Article 90) is worded ‘negatively’, in that it allows non-application of Treaty rules when their application would obstruct the provision of the services of general interest assigned to these sectors. However, the new Article 16 imposes a ‘positive’ 6. 2. obligation on the Community and the Member States, each within their respective powers, to take care that such services 6. 6. 2. the public service role of the broadcasting sector involves specific requirements in terms of programming and other obligations which the operators, irrespective of their public or private ownership, should not have to bear alone; the public service role of broadcasting is linked to 6. 6. 3. promoting the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and minority groups, and the need to preserve pluralism in the media, guarantee high-quality content, safe- guard linguistic and cultural diversity, and protect minors; 6. 6. 4. the funding of public service broadcasting should take into account the principles of proportionality and trans- parency, and should not affect market conditions or free competition in the Community to the detriment of the common interest; C 368/56 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 6. 6. 5. when an operator also engages in purely commercial activities, i. e. over and above its public service duties, there should be separate accounting to ensure that public funds are not channelled into commercial activities. 6. 7. Information society 6. 7. 1. All aspects of the so-called ‘information society’ are capable of revolutionising the relationship between businesses and consumers, as well as the very nature of consumption. 6. 7. 2. The Committee considers that services of general economic interest should be made to play a crucial role in the information society, and since the establishment of the information society should not generate further social exclusion, the concept of universal service and its adaptability to technological innovations should play a prime role. 6. 7. 3. society (1): The Committee considers that the information — may serve as an instrument of regional policy; — should encourage the development of a network of IT centres; — facilitates the integration into the mainstream of European society of people at risk of exclusion (the disabled, inhabitants of isolated or particularly remote regions); — means that the European Union must develop a cultural identity which, while respecting the wealth of national and regional variations, will serve to underpin the information society in philosophical and ideological terms; — by seizing the opportunities offered by the licensing system, and while maintaining balanced tariffs, encourages lower charges for accessing and using the Internet, at the same time ensuring security and privacy for users. 6. 8. Transport and energy networks 6. 8. 1. While it is a fact that universal service in the transport and energy sectors need not necessarily be on the same scale as other economic services of general interest, the Committee considers that liberalisation so far has not taken adequate account of the crucial components of economic, social and territorial cohesion, as up to now the criteria of economic efficiency have taken precedence. 6. 8. 2. The Committee takes the view that measures adopted in the future should consider not only economic criteria but (1) ‘Oulu declaration’ of 7. 9. 1999. also those based on the need to maintain employment, quality of service and the level of satisfaction among users, given that the ultimate aim should be to attain and strengthen social well-being. Thus, for instance, environmentally-friendly energy production, from combined power plants, should be taken into account so as to avoid what is happening in Germany where this form of energy is at a disadvantage because it is not competitive compared with energy obtained under less safe conditions. 7. Conclusions Services of general economic interest will play a crucial 7. 1. role in promoting economic and social cohesion and territorial solidarity, establishing ‘shared values’ which the EU should preserve and encourage. 7. 2. The Committee takes the view that promoting eco- nomic and social cohesion in the provision of services of general economic interest means that people should always have access to such services or benefits irrespective of their social situation or place of residence, since the objective of these services is to attain and preserve social and territorial cohesion. 7. 3. With regard to the service-users, the aim should be to guarantee the right balance between liberalisation — which requires more competition — and appropriate measures based on the guidelines already described (affordability, quality of service, transparency of information, etc. ). 7. 4. At all events, there is a need to ensure that the economic and legal interests of consumers, who through their associations form part of ‘civil society’, are taken into account in a more consistent and sustained fashion across the spectrum of EU policies. Account must also be taken of the situation of the operators who help to provide these general interest services, specifically the economic conditions under which they operate, the costs that enterprises must bear and the legislation with which they must comply. The Committee considers that in a competitive 7. 4. 1. system all the participants should contribute proportionally to the cost of the universal service. 7. 5. The Committee considers that every citizen has the right to equal access to the provision of services of general economic interest, the purpose of which is to boost the general well-being. At all events, to maintain the European social model a balance should be found between services of general interest and the rules of the single market, free competition especially. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/57 7. 6. The Committee therefore urges the Council, the Euro- pean Parliament and Commission to include the citizens’ right to equal access to the provision of these services in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Cologne European Council agreed to draw up. 7. 7. The Committee urges the Council, the European Parlia- ment and the Commission to ensure, as far as possible, that these services continue to be provided after the conclusion of the next round of WTO negotiations. Brussels, 21 October 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission — Towards a Single Market for Supplementary Pensions — Results of the consultations on the Green Paper on supplementary pensions in the Single Market’ (1999/C 368/18) On 18 May 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. 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 7 October 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Byrne. At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 21 October 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 89 votes to five, with five abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. Pension benefits are a key component of Member States’ welfare protection systems. Expenditure by state pen- sion schemes account for nearly half of all welfare spending, currently ranging between 9 % and 15 % of GDP and likely to rise quite steeply due to demographic factors. Retirement schemes are based on a combination of 1. 2. 3 pillars: — the first pillar consisting of state social security schemes — the second pillar consisting of occupational schemes, and — the third pillar consisting of personal pension plans. The second and third pillars are generally known as sup- plementary pension schemes. ensure that the barriers to the development of supplementary schemes are removed in line with Single Market requirements. At present, the value of assets held by pillar 2 schemes 1. 3. amount to 23 % of EU GDP and those of pillar 3 to 35 %. 1. 4. The Commission’s Communication is a follow up to the consultations which took place on the Green Paper on Supplementary Pensions in the Single Market (1) issued in June 1997 on which the Committee’s opinion was dated 10 December 1997 (2). 2. The Commission Communication 2. 1. The Commission restates briefly the main points of the Green Paper and in particular the demographic pressures which suggest that the ratio of the number of persons of working age to pensioners will reduce from the present 4:1 to 2:1 by 2040 in an overall EU context (3). 1. 2. 1. While the extent of the reliance on each pillar is entirely a matter for Member States, the Commission wishes to (1) COM(97) 283 of 10. 6. 1997. (2) OJ C 73, 9. 3. 1998, p. 114. (3) The Committee is currently preparing an opinion on the ‘Demo- graphic Situation and Trends in the EU’


title: Commerce extérieur et intra-Union européenne. Statistiques mensuelles- 8-9 1999.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
foreign trade
statistics


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action'

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
Structural Funds
sustainable development
urbanisation

formats: html pdf print

text: C 368/62 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action’ (1999/C 368/19) On 25 March 1999, the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action. ’ The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 September 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Vinay. At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes in favour with 1 abstention. 1. Introduction The Communication from the Commission on Sus- 1. 1. tainable urban development in the European Union: a frame- work for action comes in the wake of an intensive debate over recent years on the increasingly complex and important urban issues arising within the EU. The debate has been triggered by the many initiatives launched by various official bodies and further stimulated by the appearance of a number of key points closely tied in with the subject. line of An initial and significant 1. 2. thought on the question of a European urban policy emerged in the Com- mission’s 1990 Green Paper on the urban environment, while the expert group on the urban environment issued its Report on European sustainable cities in 1996. For its part, the Economic and Social Committee tackled the issue both under its opinion on Europa 2000 + in 1995 (1), and with a dedicated opinion in 1996 (2). 1. 2. 1. In the same year the Commission brought the urban issue to the direct attention of all the institutions with its Communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’, which was received with great interest. The European Parliament (3), the Economic and Social Committee (4) and the Committee of the Regions welcomed the communication, calling on the Commission to develop its initiative further. 1. 3. The arguments of those advocating a European dimen- sion for urban policy were from the outset underpinned by (1) Opinion on Europe 2000+ — Cooperation for European terri- torial development (additional opinion), OJ C 133, 31. 5. 1995, p. 2, point 2. 6. (2) Opinion on the role of the European Union in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997. (3) Resolution on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’ (COM(97) 197 — C4-235/ 97) A4-172/98. (4) Opinion on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’, OJ C 95, 30. 3. 1998. their views on the economic, social, political and cultural role which cities — historically, the basic building-blocks of the most urbanised continent in the world — continue to play. 1. 3. 1. Further developments, both socio-economic and institutional, have added to these reasons. Firstly, all the aspects and effects of economic and social trends, from economic growth to the growth of unemployment, the increase in the quality of life to the increase in social exclusion, are concen- trated — to the highest degree and all at the same time — in cities. Secondly, all EU policy initiatives have the greatest impact, in terms of either their direct effects or the way they are perceived and judged by the European public, in these same urban areas. 1. 4. Lastly, the challenge of sustainable development arises and must be taken up in cities, and must be tackled from both the environmental and social points of view. This means that as a result of both the inclusion of these matters in the Amsterdam Treaty and the EU’s environmental commitments towards the United Nations under the Kyoto Convention, consistent lines of action should be devised, necessarily linked to a European urban policy framework. 2. The key elements of the Commission proposals 2. 1. The Commission emphasises that the development of integrated urban management strategies is essential in order to cope with clearly complex and inevitably interconnected problems and to maximise urban potential. These aims could be jeopardised by the continuation of traditional sectoral strategies and by excessive dispersal of powers and responsi- bilities among the various decision-making and administrative levels. 2. 1. 1. The essential precondition for integrated action is to identify priority objectives. The Commission’s proposal outlines four distinct but interdependent areas, and argues that each of the 24 proposed actions, divided into groups according 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/63 to objective, may — and indeed, as part of an overall consistent approach, must — have a more or less immediate impact on the others. In one sense, listing the objectives under headings does also put the problems — all of them of considerable importance — covered by the framework for action into a kind of order. 2. 2. The first heading is strengthening economic prosperity and employment in towns and cities. As is pointed out above, the majority of EU citizens live in urban areas. It follows that many of the initiatives under the employment guidelines focus primarily on economic development in towns and cities. 2. 2. 1. Particular emphasis is placed on the option of introducing explicit reference to the urban dimension into Structural Fund programming. This is, in part, on account of the successful results with the Community initiative Urban. It is considered that the positive effects of this decision will include a quantitatively and qualitatively important impact on preparing and implementing integrated urban development actions, as well as improved coordination with Community action in the context of the trans-European networks. The development potential of many urban areas is prejudiced by their marginal position vis-à-vis the road and transport infrastructure system. 2. 3. social The second objective, promoting equality, inclusion and regeneration in urban areas, is explicitly tied in with efforts to strengthen Community policies to combat exclusion and discrimination, as well as security aspects, on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty. These issues, which could be defined as relating to ‘social sustainability’ are brought into sharpest focus in urban areas. This means that the effectiveness of initiatives to counter them can be monitored all the faster and more clearly. Citing the new Objective 2, the Commission also mentions criteria to identify ‘urban areas in difficulty’. 2. 4. The third objective is the most concerned with ques- tions which have now come to the forefront worldwide: environmental and ecosystem protection. Protecting and improving the urban environment: towards local and global sustainability is crucial, not so much to the economic future as to the actual survival of towns and of the entire planet. Activities, patterns of behaviour and situations having a impact on air and water quality and on natural powerful ecological balances are clearly concentrated in urban areas. It is therefore also obvious that it is here that all possible initiatives to minimise such effects — which will have enor- mous implications for future generations — must be put into action. in the environmental impact of the means used, to introducing an eco-label and eco-management label for cities and towns. 2. 5. The last objective sets out to contribute to good urban governance and local empowerment. Better vertical integration of different levels of government and better horizontal inte- gration within and between various organisations, in addition to involvement of citizens and stakeholders in urban policies is seen as crucial. EU action is not intended in any way to infringe upon the principle of subsidiarity, but aims to help improve the links between the different levels and encourage the use of partnerships to deal with urban problems. 2. 5. 1. One action is directed towards awareness-raising, exchange of experience and capacity building for sustainable urban development, to be achieved by using and developing linked networks. Further actions aim to support innovative strategies, security and crime prevention and improved com- parative information on EU urban conditions. 3. General comments 3. 1. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s com- munication, particularly the way the framework for action revolves around four objectives which crystallise responses to the challenges immediately facing all urban structures in the EU, albeit to different degrees. They include employment, integration and social cohesion, the environment and sustain- able development, and efficient and participatory management. 3. 1. 1. An especially positive aspect is that determined steps are taken to define urban policy guidelines, demonstrated by the clear awareness that Union policy initiatives must involve a considered and careful assessment of the situation which will created by these guidelines in the urban territorial setting, which represents the basic fabric of European socio-economic organisation. The most prominent feature of the framework for 3. 1. 2. action is that it casts an integrated urban policy approach in practical terms, underpinned by identifying priority objectives and pursued by means of a range of interventions and instruments. These include the Structural Funds and can, if coordinated, be more broadly effective. The actions proposed range from enhanced urban- 2. 4. 1. oriented environmental legislation, through specific measures concerning waste disposal, changes in transport patterns and The Committee does however feel it should contribute 3. 2. to the Commission proposal with some comments on the document’s general approach. C 368/64 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 3. 2. 1. The first and most immediate comment is that in drawing up the proposal, the Commission has had to remain within the bounds of what is politically and legally realistic. The document therefore focuses exclusively on the present aspects and issues of the operational field represented by urban centres. Although the appended document on ‘Challenges for European towns and cities’ seeks to make future projections, it labours under the same restriction. run-down urban areas with high levels of social marginalisa- tion. One action to combat social exclusion focuses on ‘second-chance schools’, but focus on this kind of continuous training, which can play an important part in allowing people to return to employment — or even better, not to lose it — is lacking. 3. 2. 2. Towns and cities, however, are in some ways compar- able to living organisms, made up of all those who live and work in them and subject to substantial — sometimes radical — change. What effects will the marked, and increasing, ageing of their populations have on the future of many major European cities? What influence will the increasing number of singles and lone parent families have on the demand for all kinds of services? Has the process of deindustrialisation run its course, or is it set to continue, and if so how far? Will teleworking, with all its implications for demand for mobility, become commonplace or will it remain at a minimal level? The document gives little or no room to these questions, which are far from exhaustive. 3. 2. 3. The actions proposed by the Commission refer more than once to the importance of promoting and maintaining a balanced and polycentric urban system. This view, however commendable, cannot be pursued through urban policies alone. The vertical and horizontal integration the Commission aims to encourage must be accompanied by ‘spatial’ integration between urban centres, smaller towns and rural areas within the same urban or geographical region. However, the EU does thought. not have the machinery to pursue this line of The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), while remaining within the limits of intergovernmental cooperation, currently represents the only framework within which the desired outcome can be sought. 3. 3. It is emphasised at several points that one of the essential elements in successfully tackling the employment problem is coordination of Member State investment policies. From this point of view, integrated action as proposed by the document is positive, but the jobs potential of the various initiatives should be made clearer. 3. 3. 3. The Commission dedicates a specific initiative to urban crime prevention. It is important to recognise that security has become a major concern in the minds of people living in large and small towns. Pilot projects are doubtless useful, but the ever-closer link between petty and organised crime demands that local initiatives be tied in with coordinated strategies. With the entry into force of the police and judicial cooperation title of the Treaty of Amsterdam, those strategies should from now on be coordinated to much greater effect. Special attention should be paid to the question of 3. 4. immigration, which is an issue of prime importance in European urban centres. Firstly, it augments population growth and often levels of unemployment and exclusion. Secondly, it raises the question of setting up appropriate infrastructures, such as places of worship, and how to devise spatial planning policies which prevent the creation or consolidation of ethnic enclaves in the urban fabric. 3. 4. 1. This provides an immediate and practical oppor- tunity to check the reality of the Amsterdam Treaty’s vigorous condemnation of any form of discrimination. 3. 4. 2. Action directed towards ‘urban areas in difficulty’ in terms of socio-economic marginalisation or serious environ- mental decline should clearly be granted priority status in urban renewal policies, but schemes for areas suffering urban exclusion, such as an outdated buildings stock of little architectural merit or infrastructure which is no longer efficient or adequate, should also be taken into consideration. The Committee (1) has already expressed the view that the resto- ration and modernisation of old buildings is very much in line with the concept of a sustainable building sector; it stems urban sprawl, stimulates employment and also enhances a town’s sense of identity. 3. 3. 1. Policies for social integration are becoming increas- ingly necessary on account of the growth of pockets of exclusion. In the overall urban context, however, social polarisation is occurring at an earlier stage, with the intermedi- ate layers of society shrinking in size and having an ever more precarious status. These factors should also be taken into account when tackling urban employment and economic issues. 3. 4. 3. Conservation of the cultural heritage should seek to do more than make urban centres more attractive, as indicated in the Commission document. As well as making a major contribution to historical and cultural identity, this heritage, whatever its size, offers considerable potential for generating wealth and jobs. What is lacking is a specific indication of actions designed to bring this about. 3. 3. 2. It should be remembered that long-term unemploy- ment is a powerful factor perpetuating the problems of very (1) Opinion on ‘Sustainable development in building and housing in Europe’, OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/65 3. 5. Economic and environmental sustainability is now an urgent problem of global proportions, and the most telling evidence is to be found in towns and cities. Sustainability is tightly bound up both with urban planning: mobility, transport and waste management, and with quality of life: noise and atmospheric pollution. The Committee therefore attaches particular importance to sustainable urban development, par- ticularly in its environmental aspect, and has discussed the subject on several occasions (1). The Commission proposal is to be welcomed, but more must be done to examine and highlight the potential benefits to employment of proactive environment policies (2). 3. 5. 1. Nevertheless, it remains important, particularly with regard to the environment, that economic sectors be made aware of their responsibility (3), and that citizens be well informed and supportive. This can be accelerated and sup- plemented by their participation when decisions are taken. 3. 6. There are essentially two sides to participation in the context of urban policies. Understood in terms of a partner- ship, it is a means of harnessing the contributions of a range of institutions, management and labour, and public, private and other economic operators to projects or actions. It is therefore valuable from either a narrowly organisational point of view, or in economic and social terms: it boosts the available resources and stimulates the flow of suggestions. 3. 6. 1. Participation by the general public as such is highly important for society and also offers the extra benefit of strengthening the feeling of ‘community’, which is increasingly fragmented in present day urban areas. economic, infrastructural and environmental problems. The CEEC and the developing countries of the Mediterranean region must be brought into the debate on sustainability and urban development. 4. The Structural Funds and Urban 4. 1. The Commission proposal mentions the Structural Funds reform (2000-2006), which specifies urban zones in difficulty as an area for intervention. The Committee has long expressed the view that use of the Funds in urban policy is crucial to dealing with social and economic crises. It therefore fully agrees that this need exists in the context of a properly integrated policy of urban intervention, geared towards sus- tainable development. However, in the same opinion, the Committee also called for a greater awareness of the weight and political role of cities — something which does not yet appear to have come about (4). 4. 1. 1. In its opinion on the new Structural Funds regulation, and more specifically on how it tied in with the problems of urban areas, the Committee welcomed the draft regulation’s strengthening of partnership but drew attention to the need for the principle of partnership to be properly observed at all levels of Structural Fund actions, seeing this as a key element in ensuring that the ‘bottom-up’ approach central to the success of the actions undertaken is retained (5). The European Parliament has also spoken out in favour of greater emphasis on partnership in connection with reform of the Structural Funds (6). 3. 6. 2. The Committee notes that the proposal ought to place greater emphasis on participation and partnership, which are more evident in declarations of intent than in the specific action in this area. The role of services and SMEs in the partnership is not adequately highlighted. Furthermore, no attention is given to the way in which a lack of administrative transparency distances the public and fans mistrust. These observations also remain highly pertinent to 4. 1. 2. the present proposal, with the added comment that while it is important for urban issues to form an integral part of the Funds’ reform, it is essential for actions for towns and cities to be built into other programmes and, most of all, integrated into the employment question and related policies. 3. 7. Issues specifically relating to urban policy should be discussed in greater depth with the countries applying for EU membership, as most of them are experiencing serious social, The Committee (4) is particularly pleased that the Urban 4. 2. project was not be shelved, given both its political value and the integrated view it took of the problems of urban areas in difficulty, and therefore supports the decision of the EU Council to continue the Urban initiative in parallel with Interreg, Equal and Leader. (1) Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air’ OJ C 214, 10. 7. 1998; Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air’ OJ C 235, 27. 7. 1998. (2) Cf. Opinion on the ‘Communication from the Commission on environment and employment’ (building a sustainable Europe), OJ C 235, 27. 7. 1998. (3) Cf. Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme’, OJ C 209, 22. 7. 1999. (4) Opinion on the Commission communication ‘Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’, OJ C 95, 30. 3. 1998. (5) Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ C 407, 28. 12. 1998. (6) Resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds [COM(1998) 131 — C4-0285/98 — 98/0090 (AVC)]. C 368/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 4. 2. 1. While awaiting the new regulation, it is hoped that the potential which Urban has succeeded in developing will not be weakened, either operationally or financially. 4. 2. 2. It is precisely because of this wealth of experience with Urban that the importance of partnership in the use of the Structural Funds must be underlined: Urban has involved not only local authorities but also the social partners, associ- ations and individual citizens in the way each of the initiatives is organised and their aims. 4. 3. In connection with the identification of areas for Structural Funds intervention, boosting Eurostat seems increas- ingly advisable. Reliable figures are currently available for unemployment and specific industrial situations in the various national territories, but not broken down by service. Neither are there proper statistics for urban areas: at most, some incomplete figures have been compiled on a regional basis. Eurostat data should be supplemented with more detailed territorial breakdowns and definitions, partly in order to assess the possibility of broadening the range of statistics available for judging the admissibility of interventions. 5. Urban policy and territorial integration 5. 1. The Committee has in the past strongly argued that EU-level urban policy should be firmly based on an overall vision of the European urban system, a wider scheme to bring development and balance, a strategy for combining objectives of economic excellence with objectives of social equity, a continuing focus on social cohesion in cities and regions, an ability to combine competition and cooperation, and a particular awareness of the need to link the outlook for development — in which cities and towns are key players — with the quality and style of life of European citizens (1). Putting aside the positive actions it identifies, the 5. 2. Commission proposal nevertheless lacks a forward view beyond the immediate future. However, this derives from an obvious problem: no long-term urban policy can be devised without the framework of an overall territorial policy, which in turn must be more than just the sum of the policies of all the individual EU countries. The ESDP was created with the specific aim of 5. 2. 1. drawing up such an overall policy. It is significant that it has held two seminars (Lille and Salamanca) and a concluding discussion, at the Brussels Forum of 2 and 3 February 1999, on the European urban system, with special attention focusing on polycentric urban development and renewed partnership between town and country. The final ESDP text, to which these discussions contributed, was adopted at the informal Council of Ministers meeting in Potsdam in May 1999 and the related action plan was approved by the following Council meeting recently held in Tampere. In an earlier opinion (2), the Committee welcomed 5. 2. 2. the initiative, but drew attention to a number of limitations upon the organisation and efficacy of the ESDP, which remains an initiative at intergovernmental level and as such, is not easy to tie in effectively with the Community level. An awareness of this need is however apparent in 5. 2. 3. the ESDP action plan approved in Tampere, the overall structure of which is geared to stimulating and promoting closer links between land-use policies as a whole and approach- es to the development of urban, regional and rural systems. 5. 3. It is clear that many of the problems involved in urban sustainability arise — and must be resolved — within a broader scope than that of the narrow urban area. It is equally clear that in terms of immediate functions and spatial context, towns and cities are bound up with territorial units much larger than themselves. In terms of strategic functionality, from the socio- 5. 3. 1. economic and, in particular, the ecologically-friendly develop- ment and global competition points of view, European towns and cities are and must be seen as a network which needs an overall political vision, cooperation, information and balanced, harmonious development. 6. Comments, suggestions and thoughts on the future 6. 1. The Commission’s proposal brings together a number of hopes, proposals and initiatives of past years; but, first and foremost, it marks the start of a new process requiring resources and regular checks to ensure it achieves its full potential. 6. 1. 1. One of the top priorities is the establishment of uniform, inter-comparable indicators. This objective is among the specific initiatives written into the 5th framework pro- gramme for RTD. The aim is to arrive at common assessment criteria, based on a wide range of definite, agreed, indicators, to enable both comprehensive monitoring of individual urban conditions and a detailed evaluation of the results of action taken. The urban audit, a pilot project to compile and compare indicators, which currently covers 58 European cities, represents a valuable experiment in this area. (1) Opinion on the role of the European Union in urban matters, OJ (2) Opinion on the European Spatial Development Perspective C 30, 30. 1. 1997. (ESDP), in OJ C 407, 28. 12. 1998. 20. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 368/67 6. 1. 2. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s bid to create a positive information network for good practice and current innovations in the area of urban policies in the EU. It would also be useful, however, to have access to analytical information on aspects that under certain circumstances can reduce the effectiveness or positive impact of the action engendered by the action plan. 6. 2. 1. 1. In this regard, the Committee would emphasise the importance of advanced public transport policies as both a decisive element in environmental protection and a means of backing up social integration policies. 6. 1. 3. This a matter for consideration by the expert group, in its periodical evaluation of the implementation of the framework for action. The Committee ought to be represented on this group, which is to be set up by the Commission. The group’s analyses and proposals could provide starting points for debate at the Urban Forum to be convened regularly by the Commission. 6. 2. 2. The EU, which was represented by the Commission and the Member States at ‘Habitat II’, has plainly demonstrated its awareness and concern for the global vision of sustainability. In the light of the framework for action, the exchange of information on research and innovation in an urban context and support for cooperation projects with third countries — especially developing countries — should therefore be stepped up, as part of the common drive to contain and reduce environmental damage and promote sustainable development. 6. 1. 4. The decision to set up an interdepartmental group to conduct on-going assessments of the progress of the action plan and the impact of Community policies on urban life is extremely timely and in line with previous Committee recommendations. A specific effort must be made to monitor the results of the incorporation of urban policies into the Structural Funds. The information network, the expert group’s find- 6. 1. 5. ings, the interdepartmental group’s results and, lastly, the study to be included by the Commission in the three-yearly report on economic and social cohesion, must all pay particular attention to the coherent development of all four of the objectives set out in the framework for action. 6. 2. It may well be that the implementation phase of the framework for action will unearth clear shortcomings or delays within the various institutional structures involved. The Commission openly recognises this risk. If this turns out to be the case, the Member States should be asked to adopt appropriate legislation to enable the strategy to be carried through with optimum results. 6. 2. 1. The Committee backs the decision to use taxation to support strategies for environmental sustainability and the reorganisation of demand for transport. It would however recall its earlier uncertainty (1) regarding the idea of pricing the use of town and city roads. A move of this kind, unless based on specific environmental quality-related criteria, would inevitably accentuate the very social and economic polarisation the framework for action is attempting to address. 6. 3. The Commission’s first evaluation of progress under the framework for action is scheduled for 2002. That could be the right time to set up a genuine action programme, based on the objectives already laid down. 6. 3. 1. A commonly quoted statistic in the field of urban policy is that 80 % of Europeans live in built-up areas, however, it is useful to contrast that figure with the fact that four-fifths of the area of the European Union is rural. Development, competitiveness, quality of life, service provision and a compat- ible balance in urban and rural areas can only be managed from within the context of global land-use management. The new Commission will inevitably have to look further into this issue. 6. 3. 2. It is to be hoped that by combining the intergovern- mental meetings on ESDP, the experience gained from the framework for action, the findings arising from the establish- ment of indicators and the experience that can be drawn from Life, Interreg and Urban, it will be possible to produce a white paper to set out urban and land-use strategies tailored to the EU’s future demographic, economic and social requirements. (1) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission — Developing the Citizens’ Network: Why good local and regional passenger transport is important, and how the European Com- mission is helping to bring it about, OJ C 138, 18. 5. 1999, p. 7. 6. 3. 3. World renowned urban planners and architects are predicting that the cities of the third millennium will sprawl and lack real centres. The theory is also that the world’s future will be dictated by 30-40 bloated metropolises. To the European mind and culture, this scenario speaks more of a nightmare than something to look forward to, and it represents a further challenge to the European Union to come up with C 368/68 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 12. 1999 an alternative, competitive form of government, which is compatible with urban and regional development, while constantly concerned with the quality of life of all the Union’s inhabitants. This sums up the challenges that lie ahead. Brussels, 21 October 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000’ (1999/C 368/20) On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000’. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Colombo. At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 20 and 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to one, with four abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. On 24 and 25 March 1999, at its Berlin summit, the European Council launched what it described as an ‘equitable and worthwhile reform of the Common Agriculture Policy. The content of this reform will ensure that agriculture is multifunctional, sustainable, competitive and spread through- out Europe, including regions with specific problems, that it is capable for maintaining the countryside, conserving nature and making a key contribution to the vitality of rural life, and that it responds to consumer concerns and demands as regards food quality and safety, environmental protection and the safeguarding of animal welfare’. (1) The reform is based, first and foremost, on Council 1. 2. regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (2), which was adopted as an accompanying measure the dissemination of environmentally compatible farming practices and to compensate farmers for environmental conservation work. to promote (1) Berlin European Council 24/25 March 1999, Presidency con- clusions. DN: DOC/99/1 of 26. 3. 1999. (2) This subsequently became Regulation No. 1257/1999, in OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. The regulation provides for the voluntary involvement of farmers by means of individual agreements offering financial incentives to meet specific technical and production-related requirements or develop certain natural resources within the farm. It has been the most important instrument to date in terms of integrating the environmental dimension into farming policies. 1. 2. 1. The most ground-breaking innovation introduced by the Agenda 2000 package and the new recently-adopted regulations concerns the establishment of a number of com- mon rules for direct payments to farmers under CAP support schemes. The Member States are to adopt the environmental measures they deem to be appropriate, in accordance with specific farmland and production conditions. These measures may include aid in exchange for agri-environmental commit- ments or direct payments subject to fulfilment of compulsory general and specific environmental requirements. The Member States will have to decide on appropriate penalties reflecting the ecological consequences of failure to meet official uniform standards for good farming practice, defined nationally follow- ing consultation with professional farming organisations. They can reduce or even cancel support scheme payments if specific requirements are not met


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 2239/1999, annettu 21 päivänä lokakuuta 1999, ohran enimmäisvientituen vahvistamisesta asetuksessa (EY) N:o 1701/1999 tarkoitetun tarjouskilpailun osana

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
barley
export refund
export tax

formats: pdf print

text: L 272/12 FI Euroopan yhteisöjen virallinen lehti 22. 10. 1999 KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 2239/1999, annettu 21 päivänä lokakuuta 1999, ohran enimmäisvientituen vahvistamisesta asetuksessa (EY) N:o 1701/1999 tarkoitetun tarjouskil- pailun osana EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO, joka ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen, ottaa huomioon vilja-alan yhteisestä markkinajärjestelystä 30 päivänä kesäkuuta 1992 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1766/92 (1), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 1253/1999 (2), ottaa huomioon neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1766/92 soveltamista koskevista tietyistä yksityiskohtaisista säännöistä vientitukien myöntämisen ja häiriötilanteessa toteutettavien toimenpiteiden osalta vilja-alalla 29 päivänä kesäkuuta 1995 annetun komission asetuksen (EY) N:o 1501/95 (3), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2513/ 98 (4), ja erityisesti sen 4 artiklan, sekä katsoo, että 1) 2) kaikkiin kolmansiin maihin vietävän ohran vientitukea ja/tai vientimaksua koskeva tarjouskilpailu on avattu komission asetuksella (EY) N:o 1701/1999 (5), asetuksen (EY) N:o 1501/95 7 artiklassa säädetään, että komissio voi ja asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1766/92 23 artiklassa säädettyä menettelyä enimmäisvientituen vahvistamisesta ottaen huomioon asetuksen (EY) N:o toimitettujen tietojen perusteella noudattaen päättää 1501/95 1 artiklassa tarkoitetut perusteet; tässä tapauk- sessa tarjouskilpailun voittaa se tarjouksen tekijä tai ne tarjousten tekijät, joiden tarjous on enimmäisvientituen suuruinen tai sitä alhaisempi, sekä se tarjouksen tekijä tai ne tarjousten tekijät, joiden tarjous koskee vientiveroa, 3) 4) edellä tarkoitettujen perusteiden soveltamisesta kyseisen viljan tämänhetkisiin markkinoihin seuraa, että enim- mäisvientitueksi olisi vahvistettava 1 artiklassa mainittu määrä, ja tässä asetuksessa säädetyt toimenpiteet ovat viljan hallin- tokomitean lausunnon mukaiset, ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla Asetuksen (EY) N:o 1701/1999 tarkoittaman tarjouskilpailun puitteissa 15 ja 21 päivän lokakuuta 1999 välisenä aikana toimitettujen tarjousten osalta ohran enimmäisvientitueksi vahvistetaan 30,48 EUR tonnia kohti. Tämä asetus tulee voimaan 22 päivänä lokakuuta 1999. 2 artikla Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenval- tioissa. Tehty Brysselissä 21 päivänä lokakuuta 1999. Komission puolesta Franz FISCHLER Komission jäsen (1) EYVL L 181, 1. 7. 1992, s. 21. (2) EYVL L 160, 26. 6. 1999, s. 18. (3) EYVL L 147, 30. 6. 1995, s. 7. (4) EYVL L 313, 21. 11. 1998, s. 16. (5) EYVL L 201, 31. 7. 1999, s. 27