Tag Archives: SE

Seasonal influenza vaccination

Leave a reply

Seasonal influenza vaccination

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Seasonal influenza vaccination

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Public health > Threats to health

Seasonal influenza vaccination

Document or Iniciative

Council Recommendation 2009/1019/EU of 22 December 2009 on seasonal influenza vaccination.

Summary

This Recommendation encourages Member States to take health measures to combat seasonal influenza.

Challenges

Influenza is contagious respiratory infection of viral origin, which occurs as epidemic in winter months. It can cause serious complications, even death.

For slight seasonal influenza, the number of deaths is estimated on average 8 in 100 000 population. This figure can rise to 44 during more severe years.

In the event of influenza epidemics, hospitals and medical services may become overburdened which leads to an increase in direct costs (resulting from the use of medical and non-medical resources) and indirect costs (due to productivity loss and absenteeism from work).

Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness

Seasonal influenza can be reduced through vaccinations. It is necessary that ‘risk’ groups in the population be vaccinated against influenza. Moreover, logistic aspects such as delivery and administration of vaccines represent major elements not to be underestimated in order to provide effective vaccine coverage.

It is important to act at Community level in order to avoid a new strain of the influenza virus becoming a pandemic, as took place throughout the 20th century in 1918, 1957 and 1968.

National plans and strategies

The aim of this Recommendation is that Member States adopt a national plan or strategy with regard to vaccine coverage. This plan should offset the current shortcomings that have been observed at this level.

The plan aims at covering 75% of the ‘risk’ population between now and the winter of 2014-2015. This group is defined in the guidelines published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

Member States are encouraged to submit reports to the Commission, on a voluntary basis, on the implementation of this Recommendation and specifically on the vaccination cover achieved within risk groups.

Information campaigns directed at healthcare professionals and persons belonging to the risk groups and their families should be carried out.

The Commission is invited to report to the Council regularly on the implementation of this Recommendation, based on the information received from Member States.

Context

In 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed vaccine coverage targets for the elderly of at least 50% in 2006 and 75 % in 2010. This Proposal suggests meeting the targets recommended by the WHO through a national plan or strategy.

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Leave a reply

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Education training youth sport > Sport

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2002/348/JHA of 25 April 2002 concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension [See amending act(s)].

Summary

Adopted on the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, this decision provides for a national football information centre to be set up and run by the police in each Member State. Member States must forward the details of their national centre to the General Secretariat of the Council. In addition, they must ensure that their national centre has the staff and technical equipment necessary to fulfil its duties effectively and rapidly.

The national football information centres are responsible for:

  • gathering, coordinating and exchanging strategic, operational and tactical information on football matches with an international dimension;
  • coordinating and organising cooperation between national police authorities;
  • risk assessment in respect of their own country’s clubs and national team;
  • generic/thematic disorder assessments of their national football situation.

The national football information centre of the Member State organising the football event cooperates with the police force of the country concerned. All exchanged reports are kept on record for consultation by other interested national information centres. The national centre that provided the information must be consulted before any data is released.

The handbook for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disorder around football matches provides the forms for the exchange of information.

The exchange of personal data must take place in accordance with the Convention of the Council of Europe of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.

National football information centres communicate in their national language, with a translation in a working language common to the parties concerned, unless they have arranged otherwise.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 2002/348/JHA

9.5.2002

–

OJ L 121 of 8.5.2002
Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 2007/412/JHA

16.6.2007

–

OJ L 155 of 15.6.2007

Related Acts

Council Resolution of 4 December 2006 concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved [Official Journal C 322 of 29.12.2006].

Council Resolution of 17 November 2003 on the use by Member States of bans on access to venues of football matches with an international dimension [Official Journal C 281 of 22.11.2003].

Sectoral development policies

Leave a reply

Sectoral development policies

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Sectoral development policies

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Development > Sectoral development policies

Sectoral development policies

Within the framework of development cooperation the Union places the emphasis on a number of areas where solutions have been tailored to the needs of developing countries on the basis of the relevant comparative advantage, which involve not only economic and social development and governance but also the environment food security, agriculture and infrastructure.

This thematic, cross-sectoral approach, particularly highlighted in the “European Consensus on Development”, also aims to ensure cohesion between European policies and the development priorities which might be affected by those policies.

GOVERNANCE, HUMAN RIGHTS, RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY

Governance

  • Governance in the consensus on development
  • Governance and development
  • Tax governance in developing countries

Human Rights

  • A financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights in the world (2007 – 2013)

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) and civil society

  • Local authorities and development assistance
  • Non-state Actors and Local Authorities
  • Cooperation with indigenous peoples

HUMAN AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Education and training

  • Investing in people
  • Education and training in the context of poverty reduction

Equality between men and women

  • Strategy for gender equality in development policy

Children

  • Children in EU external action

Health

  • The EU Role in Global Health
  • Health: health and poverty reduction
  • Programme for Action to combat lack of personnel in the health sector (2007-2013)
  • Compulsory licensing system for the production and export of generic medicinal products to developing countries
  • Programme for Action to Confront HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis (2007-2011)
  • Update on the EC Programme for Action – Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis
  • Health: programme for accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis (2001-2006)
  • Essential medicines for developing countries (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria)
  • Health: global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

  • Global partnership for sustainable development
  • Integrating sustainable development into Community cooperation policy
  • Strategy for sustainable development

ENVIRONMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

General

  • Environment and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy
  • United Nations Convention to combat desertification in countries seriously affected by drought

Climate change

  • Global climate change alliance
  • Climate change in the context of development cooperation

Biodiversity

  • Biodiversity Action Plan for Economic and Development Co-operation
  • The Rio de Janeiro Convention on biological diversity

Water

  • Water: water management in developing countries
  • Guidelines for cooperation towards development in the area of water resources
  • European Water Facility for the ACP countries

Energy

  • The Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund
  • Cooperation with Non-EU Member Countries on nuclear safety
  • Energy cooperation with the developing countries
  • ACP-EU Energy Facility

Forests

  • FLEGT Licensing scheme
  • Fight against illegal logging
  • Combating deforestation

Fisheries

  • Partnership agreements with Non-EU Member Countries
  • Fisheries: fisheries and poverty reduction

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

  • Agricultural commodities, dependence and poverty
  • Fighting rural poverty
  • Advancing African agriculture
  • Land policy in developing countries
  • Partnership with Africa for the development of the cotton industry
  • The International Coffee Agreement 2007

FOOD SECURITY

  • Strategic framework for food security in developing countries
  • Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices
  • Combating hunger: strategy for food security
  • Food Aid Convention

ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

  • Supporting developing countries in coping with the crisis

Trade

  • Scheme of preferences from 2006 to 2015 – Guidelines
  • A scheme of generalised tariff preferences 2009-2011
  • Generalised System of Preferences 2006 – 2008
  • Aid for Trade in developing countries
  • Towards an EU Aid for Trade strategy
  • Assisting developing countries to benefit from trade
  • Fair Trade and non-governmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes
  • Fair trade

Businesses

  • International investments: towards a comprehensive European policy
  • EU support for business sector development in third countries
  • The reform of state-owned enterprises in developing countries

INFRASTRUCTURE

  • Euro-African Partnership for infrastructure

Transport

  • Transport: guidelines
  • Promoting sustainable transport

Communication and information

  • Information and communication Technologies

Tourism

  • Development of sustainable tourism

MIGRATION

  • Migration and development: some concrete orientations
  • Cooperation with Non-EU Member Countries in the areas of migration and asylum

OTHER SECTORAL PROVISIONS

  • Mine Action Strategy 2005-2007

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion – an assessment

Leave a reply

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion – an assessment

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion – an assessment

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Review and the future of regional policy

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion – an assessment

1) Objective

To analyse the progress made in terms of economic and social cohesion and the factors likely to stimulate such development in a European Union of 27 members and to open the debate on the future shape of European cohesion policy.

2) Document or Iniciative

“Unity, solidarity and diversity for Europe, its people and its territory” – the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, 31 January 2001 [COM(2001) 24 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

3) Summary

Every three years, the Commission submits a “report on the progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion and on the manner in which the various means have contributed to it” (Article 159 of the Treaty). This report is, where relevant, “accompanied by appropriate proposals”.

Following the first Cohesion Report at the end of 1996, the Second Report was presented to delegates at the Cohesion Forum on 21 and 22 May 2001 in Brussels. It brings the statistical data for the regions and the Member States up to date to provide a snapshot of the state of economic and social development within the EU.

Since data in almost all the relevant fields is now available for the applicant countries as well, this report also provides the very first glimpse of the state of economic and social development in the Member States and regions of a 27-member EU. It consists of the following:

  • an assessment of economic, social and spatial cohesion;
  • an analysis of the contribution made by other EU and national policies to improving cohesion;
  • conclusions and an assessment of the outlook for cohesion policy.

Without anticipating when and how the new members will join, this document also presents a series of conclusions and recommendations aimed at sparking a public debate on the future shape of cohesion policy in an enlarged EU. While enlargement has undoubtedly provided the main impetus for the imminent reforming of EU regional policy, radical developments in the economic, social and spatial spheres have also played their part. For example, the move towards a society based on knowledge and modern communications technology.

I – SITUATION AND TRENDS

Narrowing of income disparities in the EU–15

Per capita income disparities between Member States and (particularly) regions in the EU remain considerable. The 10 % of the population living in the most prosperous regions are 2.6 times better off than the 10 % from the poorest regions.

Despite this picture, the gap has been narrowing. In the three poorest Member States (Greece, Spain and Portugal), average per capita income rose from 68 % of the EU average in 1988 to 79 % in 1999. Disparities between regions have proved more resistant to improvement, partly because the gaps between regions within some Member States have widened.

Step change with enlargement

The enlargement of the EU is set to change the economic landscape significantly. First indications are that this will lead to a doubling of the income gap in the EU. The 27 Member States in the enlarged EU are likely to fall into three broad groups:

  • the most well-off countries – 12 of the existing members – in which income levels are above the EU-27 average;
  • a middle group composed of the three remaining current members (Greece, Spain and Portugal) together with Cyprus, Malta (subject to statistical confirmation), Slovenia and the Czech Republic, in which income levels approach 80 % of the average;
  • a third group containing the 8 remaining applicant countries, in which per capita income is around 40 % of the average and which will account for some 16 % of the EU population.

Given the rate of improvement achieved so far under cohesion policy, wiping out regional imbalances in the current EU alone will take an entire generation – for the enlarged EU at least twice as long will be needed. In sectors such as transport infrastructure, for example, the investment needed to create trans-European networks in all the applicant countries will run to 90 billion over the next ten years, while the cost of complying with EU standards is likely to be somewhere between 50 billion and 100 billion.

Gains in job creation

Employment in the EU rose by more than 2 million during the 1990s. However, the picture varies significantly from country to country -only four Member States have an employment rate (the proportion of the working-age population in employment) over 70 %, while in Greece the figure is as low as 55 % and in Spain and Italy lower still.

Women account for an increasing share of the workforce, one in three of them in a part-time capacity. Most of the growth in employment was in highly-skilled service sector jobs in the most well-off regions. Skills mismatches have started to cause a shortage of labour in the IT sector.

Stubborn unemployment black spots

In 1999, the average jobless rate in the EU was 10.2 %, although this still varied greatly between individual countries. Greece, Spain, Italy, France and Finland, for example, had over 10 % of their labour force out of work, more than double the rate in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Portugal. While the economic growth seen at the end of the 1990s had definitely helped bring down jobless totals across the EU, it had done little to close the gaps between regions.

In the applicant countries, average unemployment in 1999 stood at 9.3 %, close to EU levels. However, the far-reaching reforms being pushed through in these countries as they convert to market economies harbour significant risks of rising unemployment. As regards labour markets in the applicant countries, four basic differences can be discerned from those in the EU:

  • the labour market continues to shed women, although female participation rates remain higher than in the EU;
  • employment in the traditional industries remains high, even after the restructuring of this sector;
  • agricultural employment, at 22 % of the total (albeit with marked variations between countries), is 5 times higher than the EU average;
  • labour productivity continues to lag behind EU levels;
  • the main growth area for employment is the service sector, especially in the national capitals.

In an enlarged EU, the labour market will be greatly influenced by demographic trends which could reverse ongoing trends in the current EU. The inevitable ageing of the labour force in the EU-15 will lead to a contraction in the working-age population in the existing Member States. And while the pattern in the applicant countries is broadly similar, the estimated increase in the number of people aged 20-35 over the next ten years could, overall, offset the declining numbers of workers in the EU-15.

Poverty and social cohesion – an enduring problem

In the EU in 1996, 1 in 6 people were living below the poverty line (i.e. defined as having an income that is less than 60 % of the average in one’s country of residence). This picture was marked by sharp variations between countries – in the Netherlands and Denmark, for example, 11-12 % of the population were below this threshold, whereas the figure in Greece and Portugal was 20-25 %. The groups most at risk are people with low levels of education, pensioners, the unemployed, single-parent families and families with large numbers of children. Although data of this type is not available for the applicant countries, the evidence suggests that the places most affected by poverty are rural areas.

The spatial dimension

The biggest spatial imbalance in the EU today is of course that between the least developed regions and the rest. Spatial development is a reflection of more than just levels of income and employment, including as it does the notion of development potential. In this respect, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) serves as the blueprint for spatial planning in Europe, based on an analysis of these disparities and the nature of the main spatial imbalances. The solution it proposes envisages polycentric development in the EU and a new relationship between town and country.

Economic activity in the EU is mainly concentrated in a central triangle extending from North Yorkshire in the United Kingdom via Franche-Comté in France to Hamburg in Germany. Accounting for just one seventh of the EU’s current land area, this area is home to a third of its population and produces almost half (47 %) its GDP.

This concentration of population in central areas is reflected in high levels of urbanisation and a clustering of activities, in particular the high-skill sectors (company headquarters, research institutes, universities, etc.), giving these areas productivity levels 2.4 times greater than in outlying areas. Despite this, the EU’s urban centres are also the areas with the greatest economic and social disparities – in some neighbourhoods alarming levels of poverty exist alongside high rates of unemployment that lead to social exclusion.

Rural areas vary greatly from one Member State to another in size, geographical characteristics, population, development levels, etc. Disregarding Portugal, the share of the population living in rural areas is growing (albeit at different rates in each country) and employment growth in these areas from 1995 to 1999 (+1 %) outstripped the EU average (+0.8 %). This has proved that rural areas are not inherently inimical to job creation. Nevertheless, development in many rural areas is still greatly impeded by the natural disadvantages these areas present.

The EU’s border regions, home to one in four of its citizens, are often dogged by problems of accessibility and lack the economic opportunities enjoyed by central areas, due to the presence of an international border. Although there is a great variety of such regions, they benefit from a number of EU-sponsored cross-border cooperation programmes. For those of them bordering the applicant countries, enlargement will speed up the realisation of the single market.

The other specific areas such as the islands, mountain areas and the outermost regions are confronted with range of geographical, economic and social problems that hamper their integration with the rest of the EU. These areas are already the recipients of generous amounts of regional aid – 95 % of both mountain areas and islands are eligible for Objectives 1 and 2 in 2000-2006 period.

II – CONTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY POLICES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION

Economic and monetary integration policies

Economic and monetary union

For high levels of growth to be sustained in the EU’s less developed regions, structural policies need to go hand in hand with macro-economic policies that guarantee financial stability. One such policy is the single currency. During the 1990s inflation, one of the convergence criteria, fell markedly in the cohesion countries, in particular Ireland, to stabilise at around 2.5 %. The introduction of the euro makes disparities more apparent and capital more mobile. By cutting transaction costs and interest-rate differentials, it should reduce the price of capital and thereby increase its availability in the less developed regions.

The internal market

Trade is expanding considerably both within the internal market and with countries outside. Trade flows with the applicant countries grew substantially during the 1990s – the EU now takes 60 % of these countries’ exports, although only 10 % of EU exports go the other way. Within the existing Member States, foreign direct investment attained significant levels in Ireland, Sweden and the Benelux countries. In the applicant countries it grew to some 20 % of total investment.

The increased competition generated by closer economic integration limits the protection that can be afforded to local industries. This gives an advantage to regions with resources in the form of technical skills and reduces the demand for unskilled workers. The best solution to this is to raise levels of education and reorient training towards growth sectors. At the same time, in the face of such intensified competition, to what extent has economic integration led to increased sectoral specialisation by certain countries in the search for economies of scale?

Competition policy

Subsidies provided by Member State governments accounted for 2.5 % of total public spending within the EU from 1996 until 1998, and thus had a significant effect on the regional distribution of economic activity. The volume of such aid varies greatly from country to country, with the better-off countries spending more than the cohesion countries.

In 1999, the Commission introduced a series of more transparent criteria and guidelines by which to evaluate areas eligible for regional aid. The share of the EU population covered by this aid fell, from 46.7 % to 42.7 %, and the aid was concentrated mainly on the most disadvantaged regions. Nevertheless, attempts to align more closely the regions eligible for structural assistance with those qualifying for state aid failed to bear fruit.

What is more, faster growth does not necessarily equate to greater regional integration or narrowing income inequality. Hence the need to flank the larger projects of economic and monetary union and the creation of the internal market with suitable supporting measures, so all Member States and regions can reap the full benefits of the opportunities offered by European integration.

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

The Agenda 2000 reform of the CAP was intended to make the EU’s agricultural sector more competitive and establish a second key priority for EU agricultural policy: rural development. Market support and export refunds have been scaled back considerably and an increasing share of agricultural spending redirected towards direct aid and rural development measures. In absolute terms, based on agricultural area, three Member States (France, Germany and Spain) absorb over half of all expenditure under the EAGGF Guarantee Section. In terms of size and economic weight of agricultural holdings, there is a clear divide between the EU’s northern and southern regions.

Horizontal policies

Employment and human resources development policy
Launched in 1997, the European Employment Strategy laid down guidelines to direct the national employment action plans in each Member State. The strategy consists of 4 key elements:

  • employability of the labour force;
  • development of entrepreneurship;
  • business adaptability;
  • equal opportunities.

Labour market performance still varies widely between regions, highlighting the need for specific regional and local strategies. Despite continuing high unemployment, labour shortages threaten a number of Member States. To remedy this, action must be taken to raise levels of education and training, giving priority to high-risk groups such as unskilled young people and the long-term unemployed. As regards equal opportunities, though the overall picture is one of progress, there remains plenty of scope for improvement.

Environmental policy

The goals of economic and social cohesion and environmental protection go hand in glove, since compliance with EU environmental standards is now an absolute condition for obtaining structural funding. Protecting the environment should not be regarded solely in terms of the short-term costs it imposes on the economy, since it will ultimately lead to improvements in quality of life and make regions more attractive. For its part, the Cohesion Fund provides incentives to its beneficiaries (Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece) to undertake major investment in environmental improvement. The applicant countries are faced with the same problems but on a larger scale, especially in the waste management sector. The EU is providing financial assistance through the ISPA programme.

Other EU policies

The European Research Area , established as part of the EU’s research and development policy (RDT), focuses on the pursuit of excellence in science in a bid to improve the EU’s position in relation to its competitors. The aims of this programme include promoting a more even distribution of knowledge through projects involving partners from Objective 1 regions and creating an environment conducive to innovation and research in economically backward regions. Another priority is increasing the mobility of researchers, although without leading to a brain drain in favour of the more dynamic central regions.

EU transport policy is intended to boost economic and social cohesion by providing all regions with access to suitable transport systems that serve real public needs. As highlighted by the ESDP, the trans-European transport networks are making a significant contribution to spatial development and narrowing the gap between regions -they improve access to isolated, remote and island regions, open up border areas and stimulate a more even spread of development along coastlines.

Energy is a factor of competitiveness and sustainable development. Despite the attention focussed on this area, however, the single market in energy is still in its embryonic stages. Notwithstanding this, a number of factors have been identified as instrumental in creating the proper basis for sustainable development: energy efficiency, improvements in the means for managing and controlling energy and legislation to promote the use of renewable sources.

Enterprise policy

The European Union has set itself the goal of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. Community enterprise policy is working throughout the EU to bring about this scenario. Some of its measures are targeted specifically on the less developed regions: assistance in accessing risk and start-up capital, spreading the benefits of innovation, developing a sense of entrepreneurship, etc.

In 1997, the common fisheries policy accounted for no more than 0.2 % of EU GDP and employed just 0.4 % of the workforce. However, the concentration of this sector in coastal and remote areas invests it with a special importance for regional development: in 1997, 70 % of fishermen and 60 % of jobs in the fisheries sector were located in Objective 1 regions. To ensure that stocks are sustainably exploited , the scaling back of fishing effort must be offset with a package of accompanying measures to maintain employment, part-financed by the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG).

III – ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION POLICY – THE RESULTS

Impact of structural policy since 1989

In this period, EU spending on economic and social cohesion policy almost doubled, from 0.27 % of EU GDP in 1989 to 0.46 % in 1999. The principal recipients of these transfers were Spain, Portugal and Greece, the three main beneficiaries of the cohesion policy. Following the decisions taken by the Berlin European Council in 1999 to prepare the ground for enlargement, the cohesion policy budget for the EU15 will be pared back to its 1992 levels by 2006 (0.31 % of EU GDP). At the same time, funding for the applicant countries will be increased steadily every year from 2002 onwards.

In Objective 1 regions, the gap with average EU per capita income levels was reduced by approximately one sixth between 1988 and 1998. A handful of Member States and regions (Ireland, the new German Länder and Lisbon) posted even better results. In the 2000-06 programming period, structural assistance is to be targeted more than ever on the less developed regions: some 70 % of funding will be concentrated in the Objective 1 regions (covering just 41 % of the EU 15 population).

The employment situation is less clear. In Objective 1 regions, regional rates of employment and unemployment showed little sign of converging in 1995-99. The data available for Objective 2 and 5b regions points to more favourable employment development than the rest of the EU. As for Objective 3, the measures taken in these regions have helped many young people and members of the long-term and structural unemployed to find employment.

Prospects for the 2000–06 programming period

The new Structural Fund arrangements are another factor that make the structural programmes more effective. Strategic medium-term programming is now a feature of national and regional development policies. The consolidation of partnerships between local interests and the evaluation of public funding initiatives are two major tools now at the disposal of the Structural Funds. And the advantages gained from having an EU-level regional policy are further enhanced by the cross-border and transnational character of the Community Initiatives.

The new regulatory framework introduced for the 2000-06 period is an attempt by the Commission to improve the returns from EU programmes and raise their profile with the public by:

  • better identifying the EU’s priorities by adopting indicative guidelines for Structural Fund programmes;
  • insisting that local partnerships include all the relevant parties at all levels of administration;
  • launching a debate on future EU policies;
  • better incorporating the ideas of the European Employment Strategy.

The indicative Commission guidelines have helped to redirect the focus of regional development strategies in the 2000-06 period. There is now more emphasis on the structural factors underlying competitiveness, which lay the basis for long-term growth: research, innovation, information technology, human capital, etc. Other new departures include seeking a better balance between different modes of transport, placing greater focus on environmental issues, cutting back direct aid, promoting equal opportunities and tackling urban issues.

The drive to improve the management of resources is a constant theme of the Structural Fund reforms: concentrating funding on specific problems, devolving responsibility for programme implementation to the Member States, establishing monitoring and control procedures, boosting the role of programme evaluation, etc. The 2003 mid-term evaluation will also be a convenient point at which to take stock of the progress made by the Structural Fund programmes in the new programming period and, in particular, to distribute the performance reserve accordingly.

For more information on the Second Cohesion Report, see the following:

  • the full report on the Commission’s INFOREGIO website (January 2001);
  • the transcripts of the debates held at the Cohesion Forum;
  • the SCADplus factsheet on the conclusions and recommendations from the report on economic and social cohesion during the 1995-1999 period;
  • SCADplus factsheet on the 10 questions for the debate on tomorrow’s cohesion policy.

4) Implementing Measures

5) Follow-Up Work

Commission Communication of 18 February 2004 – Third progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2004) 107 final – Not published in the Official Journal]
This report updates the analysis of economic and social cohesion. For the first time, the Commission has set out concrete proposals for regional policy after 2006.

Commission Communication of 30 January 2003 – Second progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2003) 34 final – Not published in the Official Journal]
This report updates the analysis of economic and social cohesion presented in the second cohesion report published in January 2001 and outlines the state of the debate on future cohesion policy for the period after 2006.

Commission Communication of 30 January 2002 – First progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2002) 46 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

This report updates the analysis of economic and social cohesion presented in the first cohesion report published in January 2001 and outlines the state of the debate on future cohesion policy for the period after 2006.

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion: conclusions and recommendations

Leave a reply

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion: conclusions and recommendations

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion: conclusions and recommendations

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Review and the future of regional policy

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion: conclusions and recommendations

1) Objective

To analyse the socio-economic progress made by the EU’s less developed regions and the factors likely to stimulate further such advances in a European Union of 27 members, and to open the debate on the future shape of EU cohesion policy.

2) Document or Iniciative

“Unity, solidarity and diversity for Europe, its people and its territory” – the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, 31 January 2001 [COM(2001) 24 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

3) Summary

1. Every three years, the Commission submits a “report on the progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion and on the manner in which the various means have contributed to it” (Article 159 of the Treaty). This report is, where relevant, “accompanied by appropriate proposals”.

2. Following the first Cohesion Report at the end of 1996, the Second Report was presented to delegates at the Cohesion Forum on 21 and 22 May 2001 in Brussels. It brings the statistical data for the regions and the Member States up to date to provide a snapshot of economic and social development within the EU.

3. Since data is now available for the applicant countries in most of the relevant fields as well, the report also provides the very first glimpse of the likely economic and social situation in the Member States and regions of a 27-member EU. Without anticipating when and how the new members will join, the report also presents a series of conclusions and recommendations designed to spark a public debate on what form cohesion policy should take in the enlarged EU. It is these conclusions that are described in this factsheet.

4. The analysis of the socio-economic situation in the EU’s Member States and regions shows the notable successes chalked up by EU cohesion policy, especially in the poorest regions. In reforming its regional policy by 2006, the EU will have to bear in mind a number of issues:

  • the considerable widening of socio-economic and spatial disparities that will be caused by enlargement;
  • globalisation in trade, the EU economy’s shift towards more knowledge-based activities and demographic trends;
  • the need to improve the performance of EU regional programmes and raise public awareness of them, while also ensuring that other EU policies also help its less developed regions make up their socio-economic deficit.

5. The following sections contain a number of questions and options intended to prepare the ground for a full and frank debate on the future shape of cohesion policy in the enlarged EU. They are intended to ensure that this debate revolves more around the substance of policy than questions of financing.

PROMOTING THE FACTORS CRUCIAL FOR CONVERGENCE

6. Under its cohesion policy, the EU finances measures identified as likely to reduce socio-economic and spatial disparities in the EU. Since a system based on tax transfers alone would not be sufficient for this task, EU action must be concentrated on those factors of competitiveness likely to close some of the wide gaps between different parts of the EU.

7. Productivity – determined by factors including quality of human resources, levels of physical infrastructure and capacity for innovation – is a key driver in the process of growth and convergence. For example, economic development is dependent on the existence of reasonable levels of physical infrastructure (transport, business services, etc.). In the EU, the foundations of long-term growth will be laid through investment in skills and modern communications technology, enhanced by business’ capacity for innovation. It is the task of EU cohesion policy to create a climate in which local economies in less developed regions can fully grasp the opportunities available in the single market. All such efforts should, moreover, be guided by the principle of sustainably managing natural resources.

PRIORITIES FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

8. Currently action under the cohesion policy is targeted on several economic and spatial problems that fall within the numerous fields under the EU remit:

  • least developed regions – still the top priority for EU cohesion policy, given the persistence of regional disparities in income and development (set to be further widened by enlargement).
  • urban development – this issue lies at the heart of economic, social and spatial change. Towns and cities embody strategic potential for balanced and sustainable development. The main challenges they face are manifold internal disparities, the pressure they exert on the environment and their role as engines of growth for the surrounding area.
  • diversification of rural economies – this, together with the nature of the town-country relationship, will condition how the rural areas adapt to a changing world. With agriculture no longer a major employer, the task is to revive the countryside and stop the drift of people to towns by promoting a pattern of development likely to foster new competitive activities, especially in the service sector.
  • cross–border, transnational and interregional cooperation – to promote integration and reduce the economic fragmentation caused by national borders. Enlargement will increase the need for cross-border activities to further cooperation between old and new Member States.
  • post–industrial economic restructuring – this will continue to be a priority for cohesion policy in future. EU support is needed to counter job losses in sectors such as textiles, automobiles and heavy industry and stimulate the development of new activities.
  • areas with major geographical or natural handicaps – principally the outermost regions, islands and mountainous areas – these areas face considerable barriers to integrating with the EU economy on account of the extra costs imposed by their situation. They are also dogged by depopulation induced by lack of economic opportunities, and need structural assistance to promote development.

9. The cohesion policy priorities relating to employment must both tackle current problems and anticipate future needs. These priorities are:

  • more and better jobs – current low rates of job creation within the EU can be improved by taking a more strategic approach to creating employment and anticipating trends in industrial change;
  • nurturing the new economy and the knowledge economy – to counter the possible emergence of a digital divide with its in-built risks of social exclusion, it is essential to improve systems of education, training and lifelong learning and broaden access to information technology;
  • encouraging social integration and combating poverty and social exclusion, which are still at unacceptable levels in the European Union;
  • promoting equal opportunities and fighting all forms of discrimination, which lead to a waste of talent.

10. In future, cohesion policy must take a broader and longer-term view. Building on the achievements of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the Commission intends to promote balanced development throughout the EU and is planning to put forward a spatial development strategy that could form the basis of future policy in this field.

OVERHAULING THE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR COHESION POLICY

11. The Agenda 2000 reform of the Structural Funds improved the management systems for cohesion policy. Now, though, more fresh thinking is needed on the ways the policy is implemented: enlargement is just round the corner, priorities have been revised and programmes need to be more effective. At this stage, all we can do is look at the core issues and propose a set of solutions. In 2004, the third Cohesion Report will clarify future delivery methods for the policy.

12. The sections below address the following: (a) targeting/concentrating limited resources in the enlarged EU (b) the particular challenge of enlargement in the current programming period and (c) cohesion policy after 2006 in the enlarged EU.

A – Targeting limited resources in the enlarged EU

13. The next generation of cohesion policy will apply not just to parts of the new members but also to those regions in existing members where serious economic and spatial disparities persist. The basic principle must be the same as in the past, i.e. to concentrate limited resources on a reduced number of areas where action at EU level can help or on priority geographical areas, with the goal of building a critical mass of financing so that meaningful progress can be made. The programmes need to be refocused.

14. Top priority for funding is still given to underdeveloped regions, and the best way to concentrate resources in such areas is via the direct zoning method, on account of the objectivity and transparency it offers. This method combines the criteria of GDP per capita (measured in purchasing power standards, or PPS) with the level at which the assistance is delivered (measured in statistical territorial units – the NUTS system).

15. Currently, eligibility for assistance is determined by per-capita GDP levels (areas with less than 75 % of the EU average qualify). In future, two considerations will have to be borne in mind:

  • by simple mechanical effect, applying this criterion after enlargement would cut by more than half (in terms of population) the regions eligible for Objective-1 assistance in the pre-enlargement members. This raises the question of how to treat the regions in these countries, whose situation will notionally improve relative to the newcomers although their problems remain.
  • post enlargement, the disparities between the underdeveloped regions themselves will be more marked than at present, with some having per-capita income a quarter of the EU-27 average.

16. We therefore need a radical rethink of the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used to determine eligibility for structural assistance in the current programming period. For example:

  • direct regional targeting is used for Objectives 1 and 2, with the Commission drawing up in advance a restricted list of eligible areas. This system enables assistance to be concentrated objectively and transparently on the really deprived regions but it lacks the flexibility to respond changing socio-economic conditions in these regions;
  • indirect regional targeting is used for the Urban and Leader + Community Initiatives. The Member State governments determine the eligible areas using criteria set in advance by the Commission. This system is more flexible than the one above and could resolve some of the problems associated with the Commission’s role in the designation of eligible areas. With this method, the criteria are designed to concentrate funding at levels that can make a real impact;
  • horizontal targeting is used for Objective 3 programmes. Funding for investment in human capital is programmed at national level.

17. In the light of the above, assistance for underdeveloped regions could be delivered according to one of the four following methods:

  • applying the current criterion (per-capita GDP below 75 % of EU average), regardless of the number of new Member States. This approach would automatically exclude many regions in the old members from funding, leaving them dependent for future assistance on other EU programmes (i.e. not those aimed specifically at underdeveloped areas), eligibility for which is subject to different priorities and criteria;
  • applying the existing 75 % criterion as above, but including a transitional or “phasing-out” stage for EU-15 regions that are no longer eligible. This would be all the more generous, since the per-capita GDP of these regions would be close to the eligibility limit;
  • raising the eligibility threshold above 75 %, to mitigate or eliminate altogether the automatic disqualification from eligibility of certain EU-15 regions, without maintaining eligibility for regions that would no longer have been underdeveloped in the old 15-member EU;
  • having two separate eligibility criteria: one for EU-15 regions and another for those in the applicant countries. This would have the de facto effect of creating two distinct categories of aid recipient. The concentration of EU funding would depend on levels of prosperity in each region.

18. One way of accommodating the increase in income disparities among the EU’s least developed regions in the wake of enlargement would be to set a specific part-financing rate that takes account both of prosperity and fiscal capacity in the poorest Member States.

19. Other issues are also worthy of consideration:

  • should employment rate be added to the criteria already in use (population, regional and national GDP, unemployment)?
  • if structurally insufficient, could levels of actual convergence achieved by the eligible regions be included in the criteria for allocating funds?
  • should the link between financing levels and programme results be increased by placing more funds in the performance reserve?

20. The EU’s poorer regions are not the only areas with development problems. Cohesion policy will also have to provide support for other parts of the EU that are facing an ongoing process of fundamental structural change. With resources limited, efforts will have to be concentrated to build up a critical mass of funding to produce genuine results.

21. For these regions, the indirect zoning method would have the advantage of encouraging such concentration, as witness the experience of the Urban and Leader + Community Initiatives. The Commission would simply to set a minimum level of concentration for EU and national government subsidies -programming in the various priority fields would then be carried out from a budget allocated to each Member State on the basis of the relevant socio-economic indicators.

22. Given the promising results they achieved with specific structural programmes between 1995 and 1999, and their strategic importance for enlargement, the EU’s border regions could be included in the mainstream Structural Fund programmes.

B – The particular challenge of enlargement in the current programming period

23. In preparing for accession, the applicant countries have already started familiarising themselves with the management procedures for the Structural Funds, in particular through the Phare programme. An significant proportion of the budget for this programme is used for medium-term Objective 1-style measures which are preparing the way for day when EU assistance will be programmed under the Structural Funds.

24. The concept of regional development is a novelty for the authorities in the applicant countries. Decentralised management of aid programmes is also new, and raises the question of how well equipped the administrations in these countries are to handle and manage EU financing. This heightens the importance of the institution-building process in the prospective members, which aims among other things to:

  • create a national-level policy by establishing a qualified administrative framework with the relevant administrative procedures;
  • promote decentralisation by consolidating democratic institutions, developing partnerships and boosting economic effectiveness;
  • determine a development strategy that will promote balanced growth.

25. It is now highly likely that some of the applicants will join before 2006. This scenario was not factored into the EU’s forward budget planning schedule under Agenda 2000 for 2000-2006, confirmed at the 1999 Berlin European Council. Since structural funding will have to be made available to the new members as soon as they join, one solution could be to introduce a transitional or phasing-in stage, with transfers increasing progressively over time.

26. In this scenario, how would funding be divided between the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds? The former would replace ISPA and the latter Phare and Sapard. Given the requirements of the applicant countries in terms of transport and environmental infrastructure, a reasonable budget for the Cohesion Fund in the enlarged EU would seem to be around one third of all future EU cohesion funding. What is more, unlike the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund involves management at project level, which may be more suitable for civil services still lacking experience of programming and managing EU funding. And it also allows for high levels of part-financing without the need to comply with the additionality principle.

C – Cohesion policy after 2006 in the enlarged EU

27. The structural reforms introduced under Agenda 2000 led to a number of improvements such as extending decentralisation, a greater emphasis on partnership and evaluation and tighter management and financial-control practice based on a clearer division of responsibilities between Member State and Commission. While an in -depth study of how these changes have impacted on EU cohesion policy will have to wait until the next Cohesion Report is produced, some facts are already clear:

  • the decentralisation of decision-making processes is progressing well as far as national and EU policies are concerned. The role played by regional and local authorities and local interests should be enhanced by the greater emphasis on working in partnership and especially by the increase in local-level programming where suitable.
  • programming could be split into a two-level process, with the Commission devising overall strategy and identifying priorities for EU-level action and the actual programming carried out at the appropriate level (transnational, regional, local, urban, etc.).
  • the application of the additionality principle, which requires that EU funding supplement rather than replace financing by national governments, could be reviewed. While its value in making EU cohesion programmes more effective is no longer in doubt, the problem is that it is applied not to individual programmes but rather all programmes under a single Objective in a given Member State, causing a lack of transparency. Compliance with additionality rules can be verified at programme level rather than nationally, especially in the less developed regions.
  • the link between programme budgets and performance evaluation should be strengthened.

28. To increase consistency, the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds could be brought together into a single system. For example, the Cohesion Fund would be the sole channel for investment support for environmental and transport infrastructures, regardless of geographical area.

29. What is the financial outlook for cohesion policy in 2006 and beyond? The Second Cohesion Report highlights the more acute need for development assistance in the post-enlargement EU. While resources will be concentrated on the new members, the persistent problems of the existing members cannot be ignored.

30. Under Agenda 2000, the original Commission proposal for 2000-06 was for financing to maintain the levels reached in 1999, i.e. a cohesion policy budget equal to 0.46 % of EU GDP. At the Berlin European Council, the budget for structural measures was set at 213 billion over seven years (2000-2006). To this must be added pre-accession assistance worth 3 billion annually, the amounts set aside for countries joining before 2006 and the planned budgets for the new Member States. Altogether this equates to 0.45 % of projected GDP in the enlarged EU of 21 Member States in 2006.

31. The rules on financing for the 2000-2006 period state that in a given year no Member State may receive transfers under the Structural and Cohesion Funds worth more than 4 % of its national GDP. This cap will have serious implications for the poorest of the new members, called on to make efforts to meet the need for more balanced development and at the same time bear in mind their capacity to absorb funds.

32. Pre-accession assistance, adapted where necessary, should be continued for the countries applying to join on 1 January 2007.

33. For more information on the Second Cohesion Report, see the following:

  • the full report on the Commission’s INFOREGIO website (January 2001);
  • the transcripts of the debates held at the Cohesion Forum;
  • the SCADplus factsheet on the situation and trends in economic and social cohesion during the1995-1999 period;
  • SCADplus factsheet on the 10 questions for the debate on tomorrow’s regional policy.

4) Implementing Measures

5) Follow-Up Work

Commission Communication of 18 February 2004 – Third progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2004) 107 final – Not published in the Official Journal]
This report updates the analysis of economic and social cohesion. For the first time, the Commission has set out concrete proposals for regional policy after 2006.

Commission Communication of 30 January 2003 – Second progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2003) 34 final – Not published in the Official Journal]
This report updates the analysis of economic and social cohesion presented in the second cohesion report published in January 2001 and outlines the state of the debate on future cohesion policy for the period after 2006.

Commission Communication of 30 January 2002 – First progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2002) 46 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

This report updates the analysis of economic and social cohesion presented in the first cohesion report published in January 2001 and outlines the state of the debate on future cohesion policy for the period after 2006.

 

Second progress report on economic and social cohesion

Leave a reply

Second progress report on economic and social cohesion

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Second progress report on economic and social cohesion

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Regional policy > Review and the future of regional policy

Second progress report on economic and social cohesion

1) Objective

To update the data on economic and social cohesion presented in the first progress report of January 2002, to give a summary of the debate concerning the future of regional policy after 2006 and to indicate how the Structural Funds will support the future Member States as from their accession.

2) Document or Iniciative

Commission Communication of 30 January 2003 – Second progress report on economic and social cohesion [COM(2003) 34 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

3) Summary

1. Every three years, the Commission produces a “report on the progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion” and on the manner in which the Community policies have contributed to it (Article 159 of the Treaty establishing the European Community). The second report on economic and social cohesion, published in January 2001, had two objectives:

  • to analyse the development of economic and social cohesion in a Union of 27 Member States;
  • to start a debate on the future of European cohesion policy.

2. Since then, the European Commission has published, in January 2002, a first progress report which updates the data collected in the Second Cohesion Report for a Europe of 25 and gives an initial assessment of the debate. In January 2003, the Commission presented a second progress report. Taking account of the most recent data on the gross domestic product (GDP) and the unemployment rate, this report deals again with the two topics discussed in the previous reports. Moreover, it indicates how the Structural Funds will intervene during the two-year-period following enlargement (2004) and the end of the current programming period (2006).

SITUATION AND TRENDS

3. Despite the fact that economic growth slowed down significantly in 2001, the general trend towards economic convergence is confirmed in the current European Union. The “cohesion countries” (Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, which are eligible for the Cohesion Fund) continue to catch up with their the other Member States. The GDP of Ireland has risen from 64 % of the Community average in 1988 to 118 % in 2001. While regional disparities remain unchanged on the European level, they have grown within the Member States. Moreover, statistics show that the economic catching up is a long-term process.

4. In terms of employment, a slower growth in 2001 within the Europe of 15 combined with a constant decrease in employment for five years in the candidate countries is causing a widening of regional disparities. Three million new jobs will be needed if the average level of employment in the future Member States is to be aligned on that of the EU of 15. The level of education will rise in the enlarged Union. Employment is going to increase in the agricultural sector, stagnate in industry and decrease in services.

5. In a Union of 25, three groups of countries can be distinguished:

  • the eight poorest future Member States whose per capita GDP is approximately 40 % of the average in the Community of 25: Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia;
  • an intermediate group involves countries between 71 % and 92 % of the Community’s average GDP: Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia;
  • the rest of the existing Member States with an average per capita GDP close to 115 % of the average EU.

6. With enlargement, the regional disparities will nearly double. Forty-eight regions in the existing Member States (18 % of the total population, i.e. 68 million inhabitants) have a per capita income less than 75 % of the Community average. In a Union of 25, the number of such regions will be 67 (25 % of the population, i. e. 116 million persons), two-thirds of which are situated in the new Member States. Only 30 regions in the current Member States (12 % of the population, i.e. 47 million) would remain under the threshold of 75 % and would thus be considered as “less-favoured areas”. According to the figures of 2000, the 18 regions which would lose their status by simple “statistical effect” are the following: Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Dresden, Halle, Magdeburg and Thüringen (Germany); Burgenland (Austria); Itä-Suomi (Finland); Asturias, Murcia and Ceuta y Melilla (Spain); Basilicata (Italy); Madeira (Portugal); Hainaut, Namur (Belgium); Merseyside, West Wales, South Yorkshire (United Kingdom). Nevertheless, the data to be used in 2006 are not yet available and this list has a merely indicative character.

New indicators and studies carried out

7. New indicators on technological progress confirm that southern European countries are lagging behind in terms of technological innovation. Finland, Sweden and Germany file double the number of patents per million inhabitants than the European average, whereas in Ireland, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal it is fewer than half the European average. Disparities are even more serious in the leading-edge technologies sector: expenditure related to research and development exceeds the threshold of 3 % of the GDP in 17 regions, out of which ten in Germany, two in Finland, two in France, and one each in the United Kingdom, Austria and Sweden. Among the candidate countries, the highest investment in this field is in the Czech Republic and Slovenia.

8. The results of the Commission study (pdf ) on the economic impact of Objective 1 between 2000 and 2006 are encouraging. The allocated funding steps up significantly the economic growth of the regions receiving assistance, but it also has a “knock-on effect”, with one quarter of the expenditure benefiting other areas in the European Union.

9. Other studies deal with the territorial and human factors of cohesion: two of them give an overview on the situation of island and mountain areas, two others analyse the role of individuals in regional development and the emergence of a knowledge and know-how based economy. The first results of the study on islands are as follows: 10 million Europeans live in 286 European islands, out of which 9,5 million in the Mediterranean (Sicily, Crete, the Balearics and Corsica); 87 % of the EU island population is covered by Objective 1; islands with the smallest population (less than 5000 inhabitants) face most difficulties.

DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF COHESION POLICY

The issues most widely discussed

10. The main discussion topics concerning the future of the regional policy are the following:

  • priority to the least developped regions;
    To define these regions, it is widely accepted to use the criterion of 75 % of the Community’s average GDP applied at NUTS II level given its transparency and simplicity of calculation. Additional criteria may apply together with the inclusion of specific areas (islands, outermost regions, very sparsely populated regions) in this category.
    For the 18 regions concerned by the “statistical effect”, a fair arrangement is necessary.
  • aid outside regions whose development is lagging behind should continue;
    A thematic approach could be applied throughout the territory. A territorial approach could focus on areas suffering from special handicaps (urban areas, rural areas, areas dependent on fishing or cross-border areas). Zoning no longer seems to be appropriate.
  • the exchange of experience and cooperation has a beneficial impact;
    At cross-border level, a legal instrument may be necessary.
  • the simplification of procedures for policy implementation is broadly agreed upon;
  • a greater contribution from other Community policies to economic and social cohesion is desirable.

Within the institutions

11. The Council welcomed the first progress report on economic and social cohesion. The delegations of Member States felt that aid to the least developed regions should remain a priority, but the eligibility criteria of this assistance as well as its use should be discussed. Community assistance in other regions remains necessary and should concentrate on measures offering high Community value added. In terms of financial effort for the future cohesion policy, the Spanish presidency (1st half of 2002) thought the threshold of 0,45 % of Community GDP to be a good reference point, other delegations, on the other hand, will take position on the issue at a later stage. Furthermore, voices calling for a certain “renationalisation” of the regional policy do not seem to have gained ground.

12. During their meeting of 7 October 2002, the Ministers responsible for regional policy expressed their wish for a greater simplification and decentralisation of responsibilities as regards all aspects of financial management and control of European programmes. Enlargement will aggravate tensions between the double need for a more decentralised implementation, on the one hand, and the need for more effective control of financial flows on the other. This development must be carried out in the light of Article 274 of the EC Treaty which gives the Commission responsibility for budgetary execution.

13. On 6 November 2002, the European Parliament adopted an opinion on the first progress report. It supports the Commission’s position on the following points: the maintenance of a strong cohesion policy based on partnership, the threshold of minimum financial effort (0,45 % of the Community GDP), aid to areas with specific handicaps and greater cross-border cooperation. It also refers to the need to take account of other indicators (than per capita income) to determine the eligibility under the Structural Funds, to simplify the procedures and to strengthen the administrative capacity of the candidate countries. It asks the Commission to set out a time frame to ensure that programming for the period 2007-13 can be implemented from 1 January 2007 and to make concrete proposals on the future of Objective 2 and the Community Initiatives.

14. The European Economic and Social Committee has issued two opinions in favour of maintaining a strong regional policy after 2006 [“EU’s Economic and Social Cohesion Strategy” – Official Journal C 241, 07.10.2002]. In agreement with the Parliament, the Committee is in favour of raising the threshold, which is set at 0,45 % and adopting an open method of coordination to deal with the economic and social problems which the Objective 2 regions are encountering.

15. In its opinion of 10 October 2002 on the first progress report [Not published in the Official Journal], the Committee of the Regions underlines as well the importance of assistance for less-developed regions, the coordination of Community policies and the simplification of procedures. It stresses the need to introduce a transitional support period for regions affected by the “statistical effect” of enlargement.

At the seminars of the Commission

16. The seminar on the Community added value of regional policy took place on 27 and 28 May 2002. It brought together more than 600 participants from the Member States and candidate countries. Priority to regions whose development is lagging behind, maintenance of aid outside these regions, simplification of procedures and the importance of cross-border cooperation were widely agreed upon. In the perspective of a regional policy within an enlarged Union, the role and responsibility of the Commission would have to be clarified, in particular through the elaboration of tripartite contracts between the Commission, the Member States and the regions.

17. Six hundred people involved in the URBAN II programme gathered in London on 8 and 9 July 2002 and noted the important contribution of this Community Initiative to urban development. It encourages a high degree of partnership and constant learning through visible interventions in the field. Local parties underlined the need to continue and step up assistance to cities, in particular in the following fields: housing, exchange of experience and networking.

18. Within the framework of the International Year of the mountains, a seminar on “Community policies and the mountain areas”, held on 17 and 18 October 2002 in Brussels, brought together 500 participants from the Member States, candidate countries and elsewhere. The seminar reiterated the need for specific projects and the added value of cross-border cooperation.

2004-2006: PREPARATION FOR ENLARGEMENT

19. The Copenhagen European Council concluded the accession negotiations, thus paving the way to the accession of ten new Member States from 1 May 2004. The successful integration of these States into the enlarged Union is from now on an a key political priority. The Fifteen have thus allocated EUR 21,7 billion as additional resources for 2004-2006, though this amount is still inferior to the ceiling fixed in 1999 at the European Council in Berlin under Agenda 2000.

20. As identified in the regular reports of October 2002 on the preparation of the candidate countries, the most important problems concern the administrative capacity to absorb the funds provided and the implementation of financial control procedures. A final overall assessment of the preparation of the 10 future Member States is to take place six months before the actual enlargement. From now on, the future Member States have to overcome their weaknesses and finalise the programmes that they will implement from the first day of accession under the Structural and Cohesion Funds. They are also going to participate in the Community Initiatives INTERREG III and EQUAL.

21. Conscious of the challenge of enlargement concerning regional policy, the Commission will elaborate, taking account of the proposals emerging from the debate, its overall proposals together with a draft of financial perspective for a cohesion policy after 2006. These will be included in the Third Cohesion Report foreseen for the last quarter of 2003.

22. For more information on the Cohesion Reports consult:

  • SCADplus factsheet on the second report on economic and social cohesion;
  • SCADplus factsheet on the first progress report on economic and social cohesion;
  • SCADplus factsheets on the third report on economic and social cohesion: the socio-economic situation of the Union and the impact of European and national policies, proposals for regional policy after 2006.

4) Implementing Measures

5) Follow-Up Work

On 2 and 3 July 2003 the Committee of the Regions delivered its opinion on the second report [Official Journal C 256 of 24.10.2003].

On 16 and 17 July 2003 the Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on the second report [Official Journal C 234 of 30.09.2003].

Security Research

Leave a reply

Security Research

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Security Research

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Research and innovation > Research in support of other policies

Security Research

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Security Research: The Next Steps [COM(2004) 590 final – not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

A coherent security research programme at EU level can add significant value to the optimal use of a highly competent industry. Such research should be targeted at the development of interoperable systems, products and services useful for the protection of European citizens, territory and critical infrastructures as well as for peacekeeping activities.

The high-level Group of Personalities set up to advise on a long-term strategy for security research in the EU has given rise to a report which contains the following recommendations:

  • the establishment of a European Security Research Programme (ESRP), focusing in particular on issues of internal security from 2007 onwards, with funding of at least EUR 1 billion per year. This programme should aim to boost the competitiveness of the European security industries and stimulate the development of the (public and private) market for security products and systems;
  • the creation of a European Security Research Advisory Board to define strategic lines of action. The Board should consist of high-level experts representing public and private customers, the industry, research organizations and any other relevant stakeholders;
  • the need for cooperation between European institutions as well as all other stakeholders involved.

THE NEXT STEPS

This Communication sets out the next steps to be taken in terms of security research, namely:

Developing a European security research programme under the EU’s 7th Research Framework Programme (2007-2010)

The Commission will initiate an inter-institutional debate for consensus on the ESRP building on the work of the Preparatory Action on security research, which will continue until the end of 2006. This programme should complement both Community programmes and security and defence research activities conducted at national or intergovernmental level.

Consultation and cooperation with stakeholders

The Commission will establish a European Security Research Advisory Board to advise on the content of the ESRP and its implementation. The Commission will ensure the ESRP is coordinated effectively with international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and NATO, and with European organisations such as the European Space Agency (ESA).

Creating an effective institutional framework

The Commission will ensure that the requirements of the European Security Strategy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) are fully taken into account in the development of security research. At the same time it will develop cooperation with the European Defence Agency (EDA) and other important Commission policies relating to internal security will be fully taken into account when developing security research.

Awarding contracts and funding relating to security research

The Commission must put in place effective and flexible mechanisms governing contracts, participation and funding, for example to allow co-funding of new technologies by public authorities so as to ensure a high degree of synergy.

Related Acts

Communication from the Commission: Science and technology, the key to Europe’s future – Guidelines for future European Union policy to support research [COM(2004) 353 final – not published in the Official Journal].

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Building our common Future – Policy challenges and budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013 [COM(2004) 101 final – not published in the Official Journal].

Commission Communication on the implementation of the Preparatory Action on the enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research. Towards a programme to advance European security through research and technology [COM(2004) 72 final – not published in the Official Journal].

Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: European defence – industrial and market issues: Towards an EU defence equipment policy [COM(2003) 113 final – not published in the Official Journal].

Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Leave a reply

Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Police and customs cooperation

Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2000/641/JHA of 17 October 2000 establishing a secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies set up by the Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), the Convention on the Use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at the common borders (Schengen Convention).

Summary

The aim of this decision is to establish a single, independent joint secretariat for the existing supervisory bodies. In the performance of its tasks, the new secretariat will be bound only by instructions from the data-protection bodies set up by the Europol Convention, the Schengen Convention and the Convention on the use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes. This marks the first step towards the creation of a single supervisory body with legal personality and its own budget.

The data-protection secretariat will be headed by a secretary appointed by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, acting on a proposal by the joint supervisory bodies, for a renewable term of three years. It will be entirely independent in the performance of its duties, subject only to instructions from the joint supervisory bodies and their chairmen.

The secretary will have to meet certain requirements: he must be a national of an EU Member State, offer every guarantee of independence, have full civil and political rights, and have the experience and expertise required for the performance of his duties. He may not engage in any other occupation, gainful or not.

He may be removed from office by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council for serious misconduct or if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties.

During and after his period of office, the data-protection secretary will be bound by professional secrecy. He will be assisted by the necessary staff, who will not be allowed to receive instructions from any authority or organisation apart from the joint supervisory bodies, the chairmen of these bodies and the secretary himself.

The General Secretariat of the Council will provide the data-protection secretariat with the infrastructure (offices, equipment, etc.) and human resources (interpreters) it needs.

The overheads of the data-protection secretariat will be charged to the section of the general budget of the European Union relating to the Council. The costs relating to meetings will be borne by the Council and by Europol (in the case of meetings relating to matters of implementation of the Europol Convention).

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Council Decision 2000/641/JHA 18.10.2000
applicable from 01.09.2001		 – OJ L 271 of 24.10.2000

 

Services of general interest in Europe

Leave a reply

Services of general interest in Europe

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Services of general interest in Europe

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Other

Services of general interest in Europe

1) Objective

To recognise the contribution made by services of general interest to establishing a single market accessible to all and to clarify the scope of the competition rules in this area and the criteria governing their application.

2) Document or Iniciative

Commission Communication – Services of general interest in Europe [Official Journal C 281 of 26.09.1996].

Amended by:

Commission Communication – Services of general interest in Europe [Official Journal C 17 of 19.01.2001].

3) Summary

Background

Article 16 of the EC Treaty acknowledges the place of services of general interest among the shared values of the European Union and recognises their place in promoting economic and social cohesion, contributing to the competitiveness of the European economy. Services of general interest provide consumers with better-quality services and place European firms in a better position to compete worldwide.

In 1996 the Commission presented its first notice on services of general interest, followed in 2001 by a new notice designed to clarify the scope and criteria of application of Community rules to services of general interest.

Role of services of general interest

Services of general economic interest (SGEIs) are different from ordinary services in that public authorities consider that they need to be provided even where the market is not sufficiently profitable for the supply of such services. The concept of services of general interest is based on the concern to ensure that a quality service is provided at an affordable price everywhere for everyone. Services of general interest contribute to achieving the objectives of solidarity and equality of treatment underlying the European model of society.

The classic case is the obligation to provide a given service throughout the territory of a country at affordable tariffs and on similar quality conditions, irrespective of the profitability of individual operations.

Article 16 of the EC Treaty recognises the role which services of general interest play in promoting social and territorial cohesion and calls on the European Union and the Member States to ensure that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions which enable them to fulfil their role. The role assigned to services of general interest and the special rights which may attach to them stem from general interest considerations such as security of supply, environmental protection, economic and social solidarity, regional planning and the promotion of consumer interests. The guiding principles are continuity, equality of access, universality and transparency of the services.

Services of general interest make an important contribution to the overall competitiveness of European industry and to economic, social and territorial cohesion. The concept of services of general interest is flexible and adaptable, evolving in line with the characteristics of the relevant sector and technological change.

Scope

Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty provides that services of general interest are subject “to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them”.

Where the competition rules apply, compatibility with such rules is based on three principles:

  • neutrality as regards the public or private ownership of companies (Article 295 of the EC Treaty);
  • Member States’ freedom to define what they regard as services of general interest;
  • restrictions of competition must not exceed what is necessary to ensure effective fulfilment of the relevant task.

These principles allow for some flexibility that takes account of the Member States’ different circumstances and objectives and of differences between sectors.

The Court of First Instance recently decided (Case T-106/95 FFSA [1997] ECR) that compensation granted by the State to an undertaking for the performance of general interest duties constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. However, aid is subject to the competition rules only where it involves an economic activity and affects trade between Member States. It is rare for a service of general interest to meet these two conditions.

Compensation may nevertheless be deemed compatible with Community legislation if it meets the following conditions:

  • Article 86 provides that the competition rules apply to services of general interest only insofar as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them;
  • Article 87(2) and (3) provides that the following are compatible with the common market: aid having a social character, aid to repair the damage caused by natural disasters, aid to facilitate the development of certain activities or certain regions, and aid to promote culture and heritage conservation;
  • Article 73 covers aid for land transport.

The September 2001 report discusses the possibility of the Commission drawing up a list of services of general interest that are of a non-economic nature.

Procedure

In principle, for any compensation to meet the conditions required to be regarded as aid, it must be notified before being granted. This does not apply to de minimis aid and aid granted under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 on the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway.

Services of general interest: sectors concerned

At the European Council held in Lisbon in March 2000, the heads of state and government not only acknowledged the key role of services of general interest but also called for more rapid liberalisation in the gas, electricity, transport and postal services sectors.

Some universal services that operate on a European scale, such as air transport, telecommunications, postal services and energy, have already been the target of Community liberalisation measures:

  • Telecommunications: Under the Community definition of universal service, users must be able to have access at a fixed location to international and national calls, as well as emergency services. The definition also covers a number of additional services, such as directory services and other facilities. It does not cover mobile telephony or broadband access to the Internet. Following the development of commercial television mainly since the 1980s, liberalisation in the television broadcasting sector was established by the ” Television without frontiers ” Directive.
  • Transport: The liberalisation of road transport was first introduced in 1969 through a system of Community quotas for international journeys. The quotas were abolished in 1998. Access to the international market has been liberalised since 1 June 1992.
    In maritime transport, maritime cabotage services were liberalised as of 1 January 1993. However, it is in air transport that the greatest progress has been achieved, following the completion of the process of liberalising the market on 1 July 1998.
  • Energy: The opening-up of the gas and electricity sectors to competition is still too recent to be able to assess it fully. It is only as from 2000 that the Member States have been required to open up 30% and 20% respectively of their domestic demand for electricity and gas to European competition.
  • Postal services: The European Parliament and the Council have adopted a proposal amending Directive 97/67/EC with a view to liberalising postal services by 2003 for mail weighing up to 100 grams and by 2006 for mail weighing more than 50 grams.

Actual experience has shown that compliance with the competition rules and the internal market are wholly compatible with maintaining a high level in the provision of services of general interest.

Other Community contributions in support of services of general interest

Other Community policy instruments and actions share the same consumer protection objectives, namely:

  • the implementation of the trans-European networks programme;
  • the initiative for the creation of a European research area;
  • the action plan on consumer policy;
  • the e-Europe action plan entitled: An information society for all.

Horizontal consumer protection legislation also applies to services of general interest, dealing with issues such as unfair contract terms, distance selling, etc.

Lastly, in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and more particularly the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Community is committed to maintaining its services of general interest.

4) Implementing Measures

5) Follow-Up Work

Report from the Commission on the state of play in the work on the guidelines for state aid and services of general economic interest (SGEIs) [COM(2002) 636 final of 27.11.2002 – Not published in the Official Journal].
Until substantial legal certainty has been established, the Commission considers that the meeting scheduled for 18 December 2002 with Member States’ experts should focus on five matters not directly linked to the legal definition of remuneration:

  • definition of SGEIs and freedom of choice for Member States;
  • scope of the Community rules on state aid;
  • relationship between Member States and undertakings entrusted with the operation of SGEIs;
  • procedure for selecting undertakings entrusted with the operation of SGEIs;
  • financing of public service.

Following the meeting of 18 December, a second meeting will be held once the Court’s case law has been consolidated.

Report from the Commission on the status of work on the guidelines for state aid and services of general economic interest [COM(2002) 280 final of 5 June 2002 – Not published in the Official Journal].
With a view to starting the first stage of consultations in 2002 (as described in the 2001 report), the report takes stock of the relevant case law, focusing on recent developments. In 1997 the Court of First Instance (Case T-106/95 FFSA [1997] ECR) recognised that the remuneration granted by the state to an undertaking in order to offset the cost of public service obligations constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In 2001, however, the Court of Justice (Case C-53/00) held that compensation for public service costs does not constitute state aid provided that the amount does not exceed what is necessary for the operation of services of general interest.
If this case law is upheld, the two-stage procedure proposed by the Commission in its 2001 report cannot be continued. However, the Commission considers that, even in that eventuality, rules on the methods for calculating compensation and the arrangements for selecting service providers should be established.
Pending further judgments from the Court of Justice, the Commission will be holding an initial meeting with experts from the Member States in the autumn of 2002.

Report to the Laeken European Council: Services of general interest [COM(2001) 598 of 17 October 2001 – Not published in the Official Journal].

This report is intended to increase legal certainty by explaining the scope of application of the internal market and competition rules laid down in the Treaty.
Following the meeting held on 7 June 2001 with representatives of the Member States, the Commission is considering a two-phased approach. As a first step, the Commission intends to hold wide-ranging consultations in 2002 in order to establish a Community framework for state aid granted to undertakings entrusted with the provision of services of general economic interest. This could specify the conditions for the authorisation of state aid schemes. As a second step, the Commission will evaluate the experience gained with the application of the framework and, if justified, will consider adopting a regulation exempting certain aid in the area of services of general economic interest from the prior notification requirement. In order to prepare for the possible adoption of such a block exemption regulation, the Commission would need to submit in due time a proposal for an amendment to Regulation (EC) 994/1998.
As regards the list of services of general interest of a non-economic nature referred to in the communication, the abstract definition of non-economic services has, in the light of the definition consistently given by the Court of Justice (namely “that any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity”), proved in practice to be very difficult. The report proposes that the Commission should in future add a specific section on services of general interest to its annual report on competition policy setting out how the competition rules were applied to such services. The Commission will in future also identify cases relating to services of general economic interest in its state aid register.
While Member States are free to decide how the service should be operated and may decide to provide a public service themselves, directly or indirectly, they must follow the procedural rules where they decide to entrust the provision of the service to a third party. The Commission will examine whether additional measures are required to clarify further the rules and principles applicable to the selection of the provider of services of general interest.
In order to ensure high-level performance of services of general economic interest, the Council has called for a more systematic evaluation to be carried out by national, regional and local authorities. The Commission will also draw up sectoral reports and introduce a horizontal and comparative evaluation procedure on the effectiveness of implementing measures in the Member States.
The report points out that access to services of general economic interest has been placed among the fundamental rights of the European Union, constituting Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

This summary is for information only. It is not designed to interpret or replace the reference document, which remains the only binding legal text.

Second Community action programme

Leave a reply

Second Community action programme

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Second Community action programme

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Other

Second Community action programme

This programme is designed to support and supplement the Member States’ efforts at national, regional and local level to protect people, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. The aim is also to facilitate cooperation, exchange of experience and mutual assistance between Member States in this field.

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection [See amending acts].

Summary

On 19 December 1997 the Community launched the first Community action programme to promote civil protection, covering the years 1998 and 1999. This Decision outlines the way the Community action programme is to be pursued during the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004. Decision 2005/12/EC prolongs the action programme until 31 December 2006.

The new programme will be implemented by a three-year rolling plan, to be reviewed annually, specifying the various actions to be undertaken in close cooperation with the national, regional and local authorities.

The programme should contribute to five aims:

  • preventing risks and damage to persons, the environment and property in the event of natural and technological disasters;
  • increasing the degree of preparedness of those involved in civil protection in the Member States;
  • detecting and studying causes of disasters;
  • improving methods of response and rehabilitation after emergencies;
  • public information, education and awareness.

The Decision provides for the setting up of an advisory committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission to assist the Commission in the implementation of the programme.

The Community’s contribution to the various projects and the annual budget planned for the various categories of actions (EUR 7.5 million in total) are set out in the Annex to the Decision.

The Commission will report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the programme by 30 September 2002 and 31 March 2004 at the latest.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 1999/847/EC Effective date: 01.01.2000
Date of entry into force: 16.12.1999		 – Official Journal L 327 of 21.12.1999
Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 2005/12/EC 01.01.2005 – OJ L 6 of 08.01.2005

Related Acts

Communication from the Commission entitled “Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the European Union” [COM(2004) 200 – Not published in the Official Journal]

This communication examines the EU’s capacity for civil protection intervention, both inside and outside the EU, and proposes improvements where necessary. The Commission reports that, two years after its entry into force, the Community intervention mechanism has shown that it can work to the benefit of participating countries. However, it notes that a number of issues require special attention:

  • information gaps, in respect of which the Commission proposes defining the types of emergency most likely to trigger the Community mechanism and the available response capabilities in terms of personnel and equipment;
  • a need for more training and a focus on interoperability, notably by means of further development of a programme of training and joint exercises;
  • a need for better communication and improved coordination, notably between the various instruments available to the EU and by requiring Member States to inform the Monitoring and Information Centre when a major disaster occurs and/or whether they call for assistance or respond to such calls;
  • financial issues, both inside and outside the EU, in respect of which the Commission proposes to review and possibly extend the possibility of Community funding for transport costs, for operations both inside and outside the EU, and to examine the feasibility of providing immediate funding to Member States where the costs associated with additional emergency measures overwhelm their immediate financial capacities.

Decision 2001/792/EC – Official Journal L 297 of 15.11.2001

This Decision supplements the Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2000-2004). The aim is to improve the coordination of assistance intervention in the event of natural, technological, radiological, ecological or environmental disasters, including serious marine pollution, occurring inside or outside the Community.

Decision 2000/354/PESC – Official Journal L 127 of 27.05.2000

Council Decision of 22 May 2000 setting up a Committee for civilian aspects of crisis management.