Summary of Opinions Adopted - 510Th Plenary Session 16-17 September 2015

European Economic and Social Committee

EESC-2015-04700-00-01-TCD-TRA (FR/EN) 1/34

Brussels, 1 October 2015

EESC-2015-04700-00-01-TCD-TRA (FR/EN) 1/34

Contents:

1.EUROPEAN AFFAIRS

2.ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE / FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS / TAXATION

3.ENVIRONMENT/AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

4.CONSUMERS/HEALTH

5.SOCIAL AFFAIRS/EMPLOYMENT

6.TRANSPORT

7.INDUSTRY/ENTERPRISES/INNOVATION

8.EXTERNAL RELATIONS

The plenary session on 16 and 17 September 2015 included end-of-term reviews by vice-presidents Jane Morrice and Hans-Joachim Wilms.

The following opinions were adopted at the session:

1. EUROPEAN AFFAIRS

• Better regulation

Rapporteur:Bernd Dittmann (Employers – DE)

ReferenceEESC-2015-03697-00-01-AC-TRA

Key points:

Better and smart regulation is a common task for all the European institutions and the Member States to the benefit of the public, business, consumers and employees. It does not, however, replace political decisions.

In its opinion, the EESC:

• welcomes the fact that the better regulation measures will cover the entire life cycle of a legal act and that both ex-ante and ex-post measures will thus be covered;
• notes that its views have not been given sufficient consideration, notwithstanding the role and function in the better regulation agenda assigned to it in the EU Treaties and the cooperation agreements with the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as its considerable work in this area;
• calls for the EU's consultative bodies to be included in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation (IIA);
• supports the comprehensive involvement of stakeholders through consultations throughout the lifecycle of a political initiative;
• stresses the need to choose the appropriate stakeholders and calls for independence, impartiality and transparency in the choice of experts for the various bodies;
• calls for the inclusion of self- and co-regulation in the IIA and for more transparency in the implementation of informal trilogues and argues for the limited use of this instrument;
• calls for a stronger Commission focus on shortcomings in the transposition and application of EU law by the Member States, and for the use of regulations instead of directives.

Contact:Luís Lobo

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 97 17 – e-mail: )

• Improving the functioning of the EU

Rapporteur:Luca Jahier (Various Interests – IT)

Co-rapporteur: José Isaías Rodríguez García-Caro (Employers – ES)

References: EESC-2015-03264-AC-TRA

• Civil society involvement in the implementation of the Post-2015 agenda (information report)

Rapporteur:Brenda King (Employers - UK)

References: EESC-2015-01169-AC-TRA

Key points:

The report feeds into the debate on what is an effective framework to ensure civil society has an active role in the implementation of this new post-2015 agenda. It is one of the key findings of the report that existing arrangements for participatory governance and stakeholder involvement at EU level need to be further developed in order to meet these challenges.

The report recommends that the Committee organise a European forum for the implementation, monitoring and review of the post-2015 agenda in the EU. This forum would provide a regular, stable, structured framework for civil society dialogue and debate on the new sustainable development agenda at EU level. It will bring together policy actors from EU institutions with a broad range of civil society representatives.

Contact:Andreas Versmann

(Tel.: 003225468479 – e-mail: )

• Delegated acts (own-initiative opinion)

Rapporteur:Jorge Pegado Liz (Various Interests – PT)

Reference:EESC-2015-01053-00-00-AC-TRA

Key points:

The EESC:

• welcomes the proposal for a new inter-institutional agreement recently issued by the Commission and is especially pleased to note the efforts to achieve a fair balance between fundamental values and legislative simplification,
• welcomes the fact that the Commission is committed "to gathering, prior to the adoption of delegated acts, all necessary expertise". Nevertheless, the EESC is concerned that all these consultations could cause the time taken to prepare acts to be prolonged excessively and unnecessarily,
• is not wholly in favour of the case by case approach taken to distinguishing between matters that should be subject to delegated or implementing acts, as the criteria used are ambiguous and leave too much room for discretion in interpretation,
• would like the guidelines to provide explicitly for all aspects of the delegations to be clearly defined (objectives, content, scope and duration),
• considers that it should be consulted for an opinion, in the same way as for the ordinary legislative procedure,
• considers that, in the event of a treaty change, the wording of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU should be improved.

Contact:LuísLobo

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 97 17 – e-mail: )

1. ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE / FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS / TAXATION

• State aid to firms (own-initiative opinion)

Rapporteur:Edgardo Iozia (Workers – IT)

Reference:EESC-2015-01139-00-00-AC-TRA

Key points:

The EESC:

• considers state aid impact evaluations to be key tools for checking the consistency between results and proposed targets, thus enabling resources to be allocated more effectively and efficiently and improving transparency on the spending of public money.
• would like to see a generalisation of impact evaluations and possibly a lowering of the EUR150 million average annual budget threshold currently set by the General Block Exemption Regulation as a limit.
• believes that Member States must establish appropriate mechanisms for evaluation, carried out by independent bodies and with the involvement of the social partners.
• points out that the new system which grants Member States responsibility for ex- ante evaluation will increase overall costs for the public administration and for firms.
• asks to be involved in the processes of evaluating the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the state aid system at the end of the period 2014-2020.

Contact:Alina Girbea

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 98 32 – e-mail: )

• Building a financial eco-system for social enterprises (exploratory opinion requested by the Luxembourg presidency)

Rapporteurs:Ariane Rodert (Various Interests – SE)

Marie Zvolská (Employers – CZ)

Reference:EESC-2015-03146-00-00-AC-TRA

Key points:

The EESC welcomes the Luxembourg EU Presidency prioritising social economy and in particular its focus on creating a tailored financial ecosystem.

In this context, the EESC considers that:

• the Commission should not lose the momentum in supporting the social economy agenda and should see access to finance as one component in the full ecosystem needed for the development and growth of Social Economy Enterprises (SEE);
• ideal financial ecosystem for SEE includes features such as a multi-stakeholder approach, hybrid and patient capital solutions with guarantee schemes, often provided by social finance institutions sharing the values of the social economy;
• the Commission should support the emergence of new instruments, ensure that financial regulation enables the development, promote research on the societal added-value of investing in SEE and ask Member States for peer reviews on the subject;
• the Commission should make full use of the fact that the social economy is an investment priority in the current Investment Plan for Europe;.
• the EU must equally recognise SEEs by providing a supporting factor in the Capital requirements regulation. Bank lending to the social economy would benefit greatly from this, with no impact whatsoever on public finances.
• financial support from the EU level must be coupled with the EC providing guidance, training and capacity building for governments and key stakeholders.
• Member States should act as co-investors to support the establishment of ethical funds, social innovation funds and social venture capital funds and facilitate public guarantee schemes. They should also consider reviewing the opportunities of tax rebate on income as well as other tax incentives.
• SEEs must themselves take initiatives in developing instruments such as auto-capitalisation, crowdfunding and engaging in social finance partnerships.

But, to fully unleash the potential of the SEE, all Member States must develop and implement national action plans for the social economy based on a broad stakeholder approach including representatives from civil society.

Contact:Marie-Laurence Drillon

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 83 20 – e-mail: )

• Economy for the Common Good (own-initiative opinion)

Rapporteur:Carlos Trias Pintó (Various Interests – ES)

Co-rapporteur:Stefano Palmieri (Workers – IT)

References: EESC-2015-02060-00-00-AC-TRA

Key points:

The EESC:

• considers that the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) model is conceived to be included both in the European and the domestic legal framework;
• underlines that the ECG was a model to be realised within the market economy; it is not opposed to the market economy;
• believes that the ECG will contribute to the transition towards a "European Ethical Market" which will foster social innovation, boost the employment rate and benefit the environment;
• hopes that the "European Ethical Market" will be built through the implementation of several strategies:

Measuring indicators of wellbeing and social development beyond the GDP such as the Common Good Product and the Common Good Balance Sheet

Policy-making aimed at recognising companies with higher contributions to the common good, such as ethical public procurement and the promotion of ethical internal trade

Promoting ethical external trade as the "Brand Europe". In this way, European companies will lead the global ethical market and will contribute to the enhancement of human rights, labour standards and the protection of the environment throughout the world

Encouraging all kinds of entrepreneurs who start up organisations aimed at contributing to the common good

Fostering ethical consumption and awareness among European consumers

Increasing the diversity of the financial ecosystem by promoting networks of ethical banks and stock markets throughout the EU

• demands from the European Commission, in the framework of the renewed CSR strategy, to make a qualitative step in order to reward (in terms of public procurement, access to external markets, tax advantages, etc.) those enterprises that can demonstrate higher ethical performance

Contact:Gerald Klec

(Tel: 00 32 2 546 9909 – e-mail: )

• The Community Method for a Democratic and Social EMU (own-initiative opinion)

Rapporteur:Gabriele Bischoff (Workers – DE)

References: EESC-2015-01820-00-00-AC-TRA

Key points:

The Committee

• is convinced that a genuine stabilisation of the economic and monetary union (EMU) can only succeed if faults in the EMU's construction are rectified and major reforms are undertaken to accomplish this. This requires a change to the treaties as part of a convention,
• calls for measures to be taken to enhance the democratic and social dimension of the EMU within the framework of the existing treaties and to ensure that the self-imposed rules are followed,
• asserts that the longer the current savings-oriented policy continues without an effective investment plan to generate revenue through growth, social cohesion and solidarity, it will become increasingly clear that Europe's economic integration and prosperity is at risk from growing social inequalities,
• feels that social, political and economic cohesion must be strengthened to avert a break-up of the euro area. Balanced structural reforms must be introduced to reflect the requirements of a monetary union and in accordance with national requirements,
• calls for greater "parliamentarisation" of the euro area, with a grand EP committee comprising all members of parliament from the euro area and from those countries wishing to join (26Member States), combined with stronger coordination of members of parliament from the euro area on EMU issues (COSAC +),
• points out that some of the economic policy goals of economic governance of recent years must be brought more into line with the EU's social policy objectives under Article 4(2) TFEU and possible conflicts between economic and social objectives should be resolved,
• demands that all measures under the European Semester – in accordance with the horizontal social clause –be subject to a social impact assessment,
• declares that the removal of divergences in the functioning of labour markets, wage-setting systems and welfare systems also plays an important role in a democratic and social EMU,
• is convinced that macroeconomic dialogue in the euro area (MED-EURO) can make a key contribution to the democratic and social development of EMU.

Contact:Alexander Alexandrov / Gerald Klec

(Tel: 00 32 2 546 9805 – e-mail: )

(Tel: 00 32 2 546 9909 – e-mail: )

• Shifting Economics and EU competitiveness (information report)

Rapporteur:Joost Van Iersel (Employers - NL)

Co-rapporteur: Enrico Gibellieri (Workers - IT)

Reference:EESC-2015-01586-00-02-RI

Key points:

Seven years of sluggish economic development, caused and characterised by a deep financial and socio-economic crisis, have left a clear mark on the European economy. Following adjustments in EU policies in the monetary and economic field each Member State has adapted its own policy tools. A glimmering recovery is currently underway. One intriguing question is to what extent the crisis has affected the situation structurally in the EU and the Member States. Is Europe simply going back to normal?

According to the EESC the new landscape must be mapped accurately to the benefit of policy-makers and business. It may give rise to adjustments of policies and to targeted actions towards individual countries. Among the analyses of the situation from this perspective is a report of 2014 by the Boston Consulting Group, called Shifting Economies. It starts from the 27 major exporting countries worldwide, looking at their varying performances over the last years. It subsequently analyses trends that, in their view, are determinants for the near future. In this landscape some emerging economies are looking to perform well, while among the Europeans some remain world class while others suffer from structural drawbacks. According to the EESC a further analysis is required.

This Information report does not embrace the whole picture. It is rather to be seen as an introductory report concerning a very complicated picture. It addresses the Commission and the Council. It is meant as an incentive for both bodies to deepen the understanding of the trends that are determining the performances of the Member States, of the European economy as a whole and of the Eurozone. A well-structured analysis by the Commission should be a starting point to return to the path of convergence by fine-tuning monitoring developments in Member States and by targeting policies, related to competitiveness, to specific situations.

Contact:Adam Plezer

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 8628 – e-mail: )

1. ENVIRONMENT/AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

• Own-initiative opinion on The importance of agricultural trade for the future development of agriculture and farming in the EU in the context of global food security

Rapporteur: Volker Petersen (Employers - DE)

References:EESC-2015-01349-00-01-AC-TRA

Key points:

Agricultural trade is often the subject of polemic debates in civil society because it can have very diverse impacts, potentially leading to unwanted dependency. As the world's largest agricultural exporter - ahead of the USA, Brazil, China and Canada - and its largest agricultural importer - ahead of the United States, China, Japan and Russia - the EU bears a twofold and growing responsibility for worldwide nutrition and food security. The EESC welcomes the fact that the EU's agriculture and development policies are pointing in the same direction. This, it feels, is the prerequisite for making sure that the roles of trade and development are accommodated in a sustainable manner.

The rules governing global agricultural trade originate above all in different approaches to ensuring consumer and health protection in different countries. EU standards should be the basis for licences granted for imports into the EU. If multilateral negotiations in the WTO do not bear fruit, solutions must be sought at bilateral level.

Contact:Maarit Laurila

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 9379 – e-mail: )

• Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory

Rapporteur: José María Espuny Moyano (Employers-ES)

Co-rapporteur:Martin Siecker (Workers-NL)

References:EESC-2015-02913-00-00-AC-TRA

COM(2015)177 final – 2015/0093 COD

Key points:

The EESC has reservations about the real possibility of implementing these rules in the single market and therefore advises the Commission to withdraw the proposal.

Contact:Arturo Iniguez Yuste

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 8768 – e-mail: )

• Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (recast)

Rapporteur: Brian Curtis (Workers - UK)

References:EESC-2015-03926-00-00-AC-TRA

COM(2015)294 final – 2015/0133 COD

Key points:

The EESC agrees in general with the Commission intent of building onto those things that work well, therefore maintaining a large degree of continuity, whilst at the same time responding to the new requirements, and considers that the proposed changes do not go beyond what is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the basic objective of improving data quality, access and availability.

Contact:Arturo Iniguez Yuste

(Tel.: 00 32 2 546 8768 – e-mail: )

• Rural Development Programmes - Sticking Plasters or Green Shoots of Recovery?

Rapporteur: Tom Jones (Various Interests - UK)

References:EESC-2015-00601-00-00-AC-TRA

Key points:

The EESC welcomes the continuing commitment of the EU, Member States and regions to address some of the challenges facing rural areas through a wide ranging Rural Development Programme (RDP). There is disappointment at the delay to submission, approval and start of the programme across several states and regions.

The RDP depends for its success on the effectiveness of the Partnership Principle. The EESC notes that there have been improvements in engagement over previous programmes, but partnership is still variable across the EU.