Interview of the month with

Mr Yves Roland-Gosselin, President of the Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (COFACE)

• Highlights of the December 2007 EESC Plenary Session

• Other news that matters

• Group III Members in the Spotlight playing a Key Role

• Other features

• Highlights of our Members’ Work • Highlights of our Members’ Work (continued from page 3)

Read inside:

Page II Page III Page IV

December 2007 No. 8

COFACE is a pluralistic organisation, at the heart of civil society, which aims at promoting family policy, solidarity between generations and the interests of children within the European Union. It defines family policy in Europe as being the family dimension of policies, programmes and initiatives developed at European Union level. Its membership advocate a policy of non-discrimination and of equal opportunities between persons and between family forms, and specifically supports policies aiming at equality between women and men. COFACE was originally founded in 1958 as the European Action Committee of the International Union of Family Organizations (IUFO). Over time, it gained more independence, and in 1979 turned itself into an international not-for-profit voluntary organisation with the name Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Community, now the European Union. It links together general and single-issue national family organisations. It currently has 50 member organisations across the Member States of the European Union. As such, it gives a voice to many millions of parents and children.

EUROPE III – The new Treaty has just been signed, but it still contains no reference to the family or to family policies. What do you make of this?“We coordinated similar actions by all our organisations vis-à-vis their governments, as an Intergovernmental Conference was involved. Most of our organisations therefore wrote to their minister asking that “support for family life” be added to the objectives. Sadly, this was not adopted. I think that this can be explained by the fact that the governments did not want to open up new debates, but rather to create a simplified Treaty. Moreover, they are very fond of their family policies and are probably fearful of a loss of sovereignty. However, we only wanted the “family dimension of common policies” to be highlighted… but we will continue to press for this. And, thankfully, we have the charter, which frequently mentions family life and even support for families.”

EUROPE III – The Commission communication “Promoting solidarity between the generations” pays particular attention to family issues. Do you consider this to be a first step?“This Communication is essential. There have already been a number of “first steps”, starting as long ago as 1983 with a European Parliament resolution calling for a family policy. Then came the creation of the European Observatory on national family policies; this was very useful, as it enabled the approaching demographic deficit to be highlighted. This Communication on solidarity between generations highlights the real issue now facing families: children on the one hand, and elderly people on the other. It also takes up the three key aspects that COFACE has often emphasised: time, services, and financial support.”

EUROPE III - The European Council has decided to set up a European Alliance for Families. What is COFACE’s reaction to this announcement?The European Alliance for Families is wonderful news! Tribute must be paid to Ms von der Leyen’s work in getting this idea adopted at the highest level of the Union. It has already enabled the Observatory to be set up and a group of national experts to be convened, followed on the second day by a meeting with civil society (to which COFACE was one of two NGOs invited). It has also made possible the creation of a specific website linked to all the relevant ministries and COFACE, which has been invited to join the steering group of this site.

EUROPE III – The Dublin Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is responsible for setting up an observatory of good practice in the area of family policy. How does COFACE expect to be involved in this work?“The Dublin Foundation does a lot of good work; it is a very good source of data, but there is sadly no provision in the 2008 budget

to strengthen its activities; I hope that the Council and the Parliament will be persuaded to undertake internal transfers.”

EUROPE III – A recent EESC opinion on Patients’ rights recommends the establishment of a European Patients’ Rights Day. Will COFACE be present at these events?“I welcome this initiative. Personally, however, I have some reservations about establishing an annual day for this or that. Too often, they serve to make us feel less guilty. Conversely, on the subject of “patients”, I would like to talk to you about people with disabilities, whom some families look after with a great deal of love, discretion and courage.”

EUROPE III – Many families sadly face situations involving disabilities. How do the family associations that belong to COFACE tackle these issues?“Our friends at COFACE-Handicap, which brings together around twenty organisations, have produced a Charter for Family Carers after a year of work. This is the fruit of real people’s day to day experience. Among other things, this charter calls for the place of the family carer to be recognised and taken into consideration. It was published in mid-2007 and has been a great success. We intend to extend its principles not only to those caring for people with disabilities, but also dependent people, particularly the elderly.”

EUROPE III – Purchasing power and access to decent housing are constant concerns for families. How does COFACE deal with these in terms of its responsibilities of representation to the European institutions and bodies? “COFACE’s housing team has produced 15 monographs on social housing in the Member States. This formed the basis for the first Housing Conference, held by COFACE at the headquarters of the European Economic and Social Committee. This conference inspired the creation of the specialised Cecodhas organisation.”

EUROPE III – COFACE is shortly to celebrate its 50th anniversary. What are its points for action in today’s Europe of 27, when each Member State does not necessarily have the same approach to recognising families and developing family policies? “Yes, the 27 Member States are very diverse in terms of culture, policy, and legislation. This is why COFACE is very keen to be pluralist, and does not wish to enter into internal ideological conflicts that divide rather than unite; our aim is to bring answers to problems that are often similar, whatever the country. This is what confederations are for. In this respect, our anniversary year coincides with a very positive new start, as the Commission has just agreed co-financing for us from its Progress funds. This will finally enable us to meet more effectively, to work better on a specific programme with teams that are motivated to represent effectively the sixty or so family organisations we bring together.”

Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union Rue de Londres BE-1050 Brussels Tel: +32 2 511 41 79 Fax: +32 2 514 47 73 Skype: coface-aisbl Web: www.coface-eu.org

Hernández Bataller (ES) President of the specialised section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption

THE INTERNAL MARKET AND CIVIL SOCIETY

When, in October 2004, I was elected President of the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption (INT), I set out to take a close look at those aspects of the market that could best benefit members of civil society on the demand side: consumers.

We have cooperated closely with the European Commission, and especially with the Directorate-General for Competition, to this end. The Commission has identified not only market efficiency, but also the achievement of consumer well-being, as the purpose of competition.

The Section is working closely with the Commission in this area, to give impetus to the European network of competition authorities and consumer associations who occasionally tackle competition and consumer issues in Europe together.

The own-initiative opinions adopted as part of this approach, such as those on the legal framework for consumer policy and consumers and competition are another particularly important aspect. Further own-initiative opinions of considerable relevance to consumer rights are currently being prepared, and will contribute to the debate. They cover matters such as green products, consumer class actions and economic democracy in the internal market.

My presidency of the INT Section still has 10 months to run, but the core of our primary objective – to introduce a Community level debate on civil society in the internal market, focusing particularly on consumers – has been achieved.

Editorial

III. Highlights of the December 2007 EESC Plenary Session

Group III members co-ordinating the work on opinionsJillian van TURNHOUT (IE), Vice-President of the

EESC and chair of the Communication Group is the General

Rapporteur for the opinion on the Commission Communication:

“Communicating Europe in Partnership”.

Mr Claudio CAPPELLINI (IT), Mrs Rose D’SA (UK), Mr

István GARAI (HU) and Mr Jorge PEGADO LIZ (PT)

(PL) will sit on the study group for the exploratory opinion on:

“International Public Procurement” – INT/394.

Mr Panagiotis GKOFAS (EL), Mr Radu NICOSEVICI (RO),

Mr Derek OSBORN (UK) and Mr Dick WESTENDORP

(NL) are the Group III members on the study group for the

opinion on: “Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European

tourism” – INT/396.

For the additional opinion on: “Road transport – working time

of self-employed drivers” TEN/326, the Group III members are:

Mr Frank ALLEN (IE), Mr Roberto CONFALONIERI (IT)

and Mr Charalambos KOLOKOTRONIS (CY).

Mr Bernardo HERNÁNDEZ-BATALLER (ES) is the

Rapporteur for the combined opinion on: “Access to, and

interconnection of, electronic communications networks and

services/Processing of personal data and protection of privacy

in the electronic communications sector/ European Electronic

Communications Market Authority” – TEN/327/328/329.

The other Group III members are: Mrs Gunta ANČA

(LV), Mr Zenonas RUDZIKAS (LT) and Mrs Elzbieta

SZADZIŃSKA (PL).

Mr Roberto CONFALONIERI (IT), Mrs Benedicte

FEDERSPIEL (DK), Mr István GARAI (HU) and

Mr Nikolaos LIOLIOS (EL) will sit on the study group for

the opinion on: “Code of Conduct for computerised reservation

systems” – TEN/330.

Mrs Lavinia ANDREI (RO) will chair the study group for the

opinion on: “European Strategic Energy Technology plan – towards

a low carbon future” – TEN/332. The other Group III members

of this study group are: Mr Derek OSBORN (UK), Mr Algirdas

SIUPSINSKAS (LT) and Mr Gerd WOLF (DE).

For the opinion on: “Protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems

in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears”

- NAT/381, the Group III members are: Mr Richard ADAMS

(UK) and Mr Gabriel SARRÓ IPARRAGUIRRE (ES).

Mr Pedro NARRO SÁNCHEZ (ES) is the Rapporteur for the

opinion on:” Common rules for direct support schemes under the

common agricultural policy and support schemes for farmers, as

regards the support scheme for cotton” - NAT/382.

Mr Lutz RIBBE (DE) is the Rapporteur for the exploratory

opinion on: “The link between climate change and agriculture

at European level” - NAT/384. The other Group III members

are: Mr Gilbert BROS (FR), Mrs María Carmen COBANO

SUÁREZ (ES), Mr Derek OSBORN (UK) and Mr Ludvík

JÍROVEC (CZ).

Mr Seppo KALLIO (FI) is the Rapporteur for the exploratory

opinion on: “The European Union and the global food challenge”

– NAT/388. The other Group III members are: Mr Lucien

BOUIS (FR), Mr Luca JAHIER (IT), Mr Kaul NURM

(EE), Mr Javier SÁNCHEZ ANSÓ (ES), Mrs Elzbieta

SZADZIŃSKA (PL) and Mrs Ludmilla TODOROVA (BG).

Mr Angelo GRASSO (IT) is the Co-Rapporteur for the

exploratory opinion on: “ Towards balanced development

of the urban environment: challenges and opportunities”

– ECO/218. The other Group III members are: Mr Krzysztof

KAMIENIECKI (PL), Mr Arno METZLER (DE) and

Mr János TÓTH (HU).

The Group III members on the study group for the opinion

on; “Community statistics relating to external trade with non-

member countries” – ECO/220 are: Mrs Christine FAES (BE),

Mr Ludvík JÍROVEC (CZ) and Mr Krzysztof PATER (PL).

Mr Arno METZLER (DE) will chair the study group for the

opinion on : “Common system of value added tax, as regards the

treatment of insurance and financial services” – ECO/221. The

other Group III members are: Mr Panagiotis GKOFAS (EL),

Mr Jean-François HOFFELT (BE) and Mr Charalambos

KOLOKOTRONIS (CY).

Mr Jan OLSSON (SV) is the Rapporteur for the exploratory

opinion on: “A new European Social Action Programme”

– SOC/295. The other Group III members are: Mr Miguel-

Ángel CABRA DE LUNA (ES), Mrs Mária HERCZOG

(HU), Mrs Marzena MENDZA-DROZD (PL), Mrs Évelyne

PICHENOT (FR) and Mr Frank STÖHR (DE).

For the exploratory opinion on: “Better promoting the mobility of

young people in Europe: practicalities and timetable” - SOC/296,

Mr Vladimir BÁLEŠ (SK), Mr Tomasz CZAJKOWSKI (PL),

Mrs Renata HEINISCH (DE), Mrs Mária HERCZOG (HU)

and Mr Corrado ROSSITTO (IT) are the Group III members

of the study group.

Mr Arno METZLER (DE) is the Rapporteur working alone

for the opinion on: “Comparability of vocational training

qualifications between the Member States of the European

Community” – SOC/298.

Mr Krzysztof PATER (PL) is the Rapporteur working alone

for the opinion on: “Minimum health and safety requirements

regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from

physical agents (electromagnetic fields) “ – SOC/299.

Mr Luca JAHIER (IT) will chair the study group for the

opinion on: “Single application procedure for a single permit for

third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a

Member State” – SOC/300. The other Group III members are:

Mrs Grace ATTARD (MT), Mrs Teresa COSTA MACEDO

(PT), Mr Eugen LUCAN (RO), Mr Jaroslav NĚMEC (CZ) and

Mr Sukhdev SHARMA (UK).

Mr Roberto CONFALONIERI (IT) will chair the study

group for the information report on: “A The social dimension

of relations with southern Mediterranean partner countries” –

REX. The other Group III members are: Mrs Grace ATTARD

(MT), Mrs Teresa COSTA MACEDO (PT) and Mr Meelis

JOOST (EE).

.

If you have any enquiries or questions regarding the above

please do not hesitate to contact the Group Secretariat on

gr3@eesc.europa.eu

Other news that matters

Do you know the newcomers in our Group?

Over the past few months, Group III has had the pleasure to welcome four new members. Here is a short profile of each of them:

Mr Gerd BILLEN (DE) is President of the Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (Federation of German Consumer Organisations, or vzbv) He succeeded Prof. Dr. Edda Müller as President of the Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband on 1 August 2007. Born in Speicher in Germany’s Eifel region in 1955, he

studied Social Science, Nutritional Science and Household Economics at the Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn from 1979 to 1984. He initially worked as a freelance journalist and press officer for the Bundesverband Bügerinitiativen Umweltschutz (Germany’s national association of citizens’ environmental protection initiatives, or BBU). In 1985 he was one of the founders of the Verbraucher Initiative e.V. (German consumers’ initiative, or V.I.) and became its national chairman. Among other things, Gerd Billen became known as the advocate for thousands of people who had suffered harm from wood preservatives. Other major issues in which he was involved were the promotion of fair trade and healthy food. He was the National Chairman of the Neuland Programme for meat from animals kept in a natural and appropriate environment. Billen has written numerous books and articles on ecological and environmental topics. From 1993 to 2005 Gerd Billen was the CEO of the Naturschutzbund Deutschland NABU e.V. (German nature conservation association), and for many years he was a member and chairman of the Jury Umweltzeichen (environmental labelling jury). In 2005 he moved from the Naturschutzbund to the Otto Group as head of its Environmental and Social Policy Department.

Mr Gerfried GRUBER (AT) is member of Group III and of the sections NAT and ECO since end of October. The 36 year old Lawyer works for the Austrian Chambers of Agriculture situated in Vienna, since 1999 and has been in charge of social politics. In this context the main focus of his work lies in negotiations with public

authorities and the social partners as well as the drawing up of opinions concerning legislative proposals. M. Gruber, a specialist in European Law, participates in working groups of the Austrian Economic and Social Advisory Committee and is member of GEOPA, which is he employers group of COPA/COGECA. Beginning in February 2008, he will lead the office of the Austrian Chambers of Agriculture in Brussels, dealing with the whole scope of European agricultural policy.

Mrs Mette KINDBERG (DK) is Vice-President of HK (The Union of Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark) and Vice-President of The Women’s Council in Denmark. Furthermore she is a titular Member of the Board of LO (The Confederation of Trade Unions) and also of UNI Nordic Committee as well as UNI-

Europa Committee and UNI Women’s World Committee. Her areas of work include equal rights and family politics especially with regard to improving women’s opportunities at the labour market and in civil society. In the HK union she is politically responsible for the Legal Department and for the training of union representatives and members.

Mr Pedro NARRO SÁNCHEZ (ES) is the Director of International Affairs of the Asociacíon Agraria Jóvenes Agricultores (ASAJA) in the national office in Madrid, Spain. He is a former Director of the Brussels-based office of ASAJA, which represents the interests of its membership from 17 provinces spread across Spain.

ASAJA gives them a platform to express their views and concerns at EU level and provides analysis and monitoring of draft EU legislation in the agricultural field to assess its possible negative and positive impacts on its core interest group, Spanish farmers. ASAJA is also a member of CEJA and COPA, at European level.

Group III Members in the Spotlight playing a Key Role

policy adjustments to take account of market and other developments. It focuses in particular on the Single Payment Scheme, market support instruments and new challenges. The Communication is designed to kick off a wide-ranging six-month consultation before the Commission will return with legislative proposals next spring.

As part of the broad stakeholder consultation on the Communication, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural development organised a conference which took place in Brussels on 6 December 2007. The conference was web-streamed, so everybody had the opportunity to watch it live on their computers.

For more information please visit:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/consultation/index_en.htm

Report on the conference “Future of Europe: The Citizen’s Agenda” – Brussels 7-9 December 2007

Plan D launched by Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström responded to this challenge in a novel manner. It co-financed a series of projects to learn how ordinary citizens can be involved in the EU decision-making and how they view the EU’s future. This exercise responds to a basic value of the EU in the 21st century: active citizenship. The European Movement International, the King Baudouin Foundation, Notre Europe, Deutsche Gesellschaft, European House Budapest and CENASCA-CISL, with a large network of partners across Europe have engaged actively in Plan D. A series of grass roots debates, consultations, polls and events aimed at consulting citizens on their visions of Europe have been carried out in a number of Member States, while deliberative polling and consultation has taken place on a pan-European scale. Thousands of citizens took part in those projects throughout the European Union in 2007. As part of the European Commission’s “Plan D” strategy, Commissioner Wallström hosted a high-level concluding conference in Brussels in early December entitled: “Future of Europe: The Citizen’s Agenda”. Group III member and EESC Vice-President Mrs Jillian van Turnhout (IE) joined the Commissioner on the podium (see photo above) for the concluding session which was moderated by Mr Pat Cox, President of the European Movement and former President of the European Parliament. Group III Vice-President, Mr Miklós Barabás (HU) made a presentation in one of the workshops on “How can citizens be better involved in policy-making”. Over 250 participants assembled in Brussels on 8 and 9 December to debate on the major concerns which have emerged through Plan D. There was a clear consensus among participants that more opportunities of this kind should be provided to involve citizens in the debate over Europe’s future. The conference ended with the issuing of an open letter to the Heads of State and Government in which, all the conclusion of the projects and debates were summarised in the annex of the letter which made 27 specific recommendations.

For more information on this event and the text of the open letter please visit: http ://ec.europa .eu/commiss ion_barroso/wallstrom/communicating/conference/dialogue/index_en.htmSee also: http://www.europeanmovement.org/

Report form the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – Bali 3-7 December 2007

Group III member, Mr Derek OSBORN (UK), President of the EESC’s Sustainable Development Observatory was part of a three-person delegation from the Committee which attended the Bali Conference from 3-7 December 2007. The EESC

delegation was part of the European Community Delegation and entitled to participate in all official negotiations. An EESC position paper on CC and promotional material were distributed at the Commission’s stand. The delegation took part in plenary sessions, working groups, contact groups and side events, and assembled large quantities of documentation, position papers etc. The main outcome for the Committee is that our understanding of the international debates on climate change has been greatly broadened and deepened. We have also been able to establish or strengthen a range of useful contacts, and to establish ourselves as potentially valuable partners for ongoing international work on climate change, in particular with the Commission, some Member State delegations and (mainly) European civil society organisations. All of this should strengthen the Committee’s capacity to make significant input on climate change issues in the future. The overall aim of the conference is to assess the progress made under the Kyoto Protocol and to adopt a roadmap paving the way for a global post-2012 agreement which should be negotiated further at Poznan next year and be finalised ready for adoption in Copenhagen in 2009. The key for a global deal will be money. It plays a role in all discussions. It seems clear that only a transfer of substantial sums from developed to developing countries will make an agreement possible. European civil society organisations present in Bali seem to be broadly supportive of the EU’s position. A number of concerns are however expressed. There are worries about the effectiveness of the EU ETS, which will need to be addressed in the evolution of the scheme. There are concerns about excessive reliance on the development of biofuels, in line with the EESC’s own reservations. Energy security concerns have also been raised, including the danger of supply shortages within the EU due to too low energy production and an over reliance on a few foreign energy suppliers.

The final declaration and extensive background material and other information may be found on the following websites: UN:

http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/064-13067-316-11-46-911-20071114IPR13066-12-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm

European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.d o ? r e f e r e n c e = I P / 0 7 /1773&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Report from the “CAP Health Check” seminar – Brussels 6 December 2007

Group III member, Mr Seppo KALLIO (FI), Spokesperson of the Farmers Category at the EESC attended a one-day stakeholder seminar organised by the European Commission, DG AGRI to discuss “Health Check review of the CAP”. On

20 November the Commission adopted the Communication on the CAP Health Check. This Communication examines the possibility of further

States to strengthen their councils or to create operative and effective councils where they do not yet exist. In conclusion, the EESC recommends that councils should: include representatives from all the main sectors of society concerned; have a sufficient degree of independence from government; play an important part in the elaboration of sustainable development strategies and in monitoring their implementation; be sufficiently funded so that they are able to provide real added value to the debates and the decision-making process; pool experience, exchange best-practice and keep an open dialogue between the councils, particularly through the strengthening of the EEAC network.

Mr Derek OSBORN (UK) - NAT/368 “Green paper on adapting to climate change in Europe - options for EU action” (EESC opinion 1702/07)

The EESC considers that climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world in the 21st century. Action to limit these changes by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases is the top priority. But it is also important to plan in good time for adapting to such changes as have now become unavoidable. In this opinion the Committee recommends that an over-arching European adaptation strategy should now be put in place as a framework, outlining the actions that will need to be taken at European level, at national level, and by other actors. In the EESC’s view the following key points should be covered in the development of the European and national adaptation strategies. Firstly, such strategies should deal with planning for all the topics identified in the Green Paper including coast protection, f loods and droughts, water resources, fires, public health, agriculture and biodiversity, land-use and infrastructure planning, building and construction etc. Secondly, the need for adaptation should take a much larger share of European budgets in future programme, and should be built into the criteria for assessment of programmes and projects. Thirdly, substantial new and additional resources should be committed by Europe and its Member States to assist adaptation in the developing world. Fourthly, mitigation and adaptation strategies must match up and complement one another. Fifthly, risk assessment and management should be a crucial tool in establishing priorities. Sixthly, European research into adaptation climate change impacts and adaptation should be substantially increased. Seventhly, European civil society, including consumers and the general public, should be more extensively engaged in order to spread wider public understanding of the problems of climate change and the behavioural changes that will be needed to limit further climate change and to adapt to the changes that are now unavoidable. And finally, an independent body should be established to monitor progress on adaptation to climate change and mitigation measures in Europe, and to maintain pressure for the necessary action and implementation of commitments.

Mr Gilbert BROS (FR) – NAT/374 “Future outlook for agriculture in areas with specific natural handicaps (upland, island and outlying areas” (EESC opinion 1704/07)

In this additional own-initiative opinion, the EESC maintains that upland areas provide all European citizens with numerous services as well as public and economic benefits. Despite their importance (at European level), they are to some extent neglected by European policies, and there is a serious failure to acknowledge their

EUROPE FOR CITIZENS PROGRAMME 2007-2013On 13 December 2007, during the Group III meeting, Mr Marc Jorna, former Head of Unit, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), at the European Commission, gave an overview of the implementation of the “Europe for Citizens” programme and he outlined the type of projects that had been selected for funding in 2007. The Europe for citizens’ programme provides the Union with instruments to promote active European citizenship. It puts citizens in the centre and offers them the opportunity to fully assume their responsibility as European citizens. It responds to the need to improve citizen’s participation in the construction of Europe and encourage cooperation between citizens and their organisations from different countries in order to meet, act together and develop their own ideas in a European environment which goes beyond a national vision, respecting their diversity. Intercultural exchanges contribute to improving the mutual knowledge of the culture and history of the European peoples. It brings our common heritage to the fore and strengthens the basis for our common future. Mutual understanding, solidarity and the feeling of belonging to Europe are indeed the building blocks for the involvement of citizens and are reflected by the four different programme actions:

Action 1 “Active citizens for Europe” involves citizens directly, either through activities linked to town-twinning or through other kinds of citizens’ projects; Action 2 “Active civil society for Europe” is targeted to Europe-wide civil society organisations, receiving either structural support on the basis of their work programme or support trans-national projects; Action 3 “Together for Europe” supports high visibility events, studies and information tools, addressing the widest possible audience across frontiers and making Europe more tangible for its citizens and , finally, Action 4 : “Active European Remembrance” supports the preservation of the main sites and archives associated with the deportations and the commemoration of the victims of nazism and stalinism.

For more information on this interesting programme please see: http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.html

At its plenary session on 12-13 December 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted the following opinions for which Group III members were Rapporteurs or Co-Rapporteurs.

Mr Roman HAKEN (CZ) - NAT/363 “The role of the national councils for sustainable development” (EESC opinion 1700/07)

In this own-initiative opinion the EESC states that National Councils can be strong and powerful actors for sustainable development since they can provide independent advice and foster dialogue with civil society and stakeholders on sustainable development. An overview of National Councils throughout the EU gives a very diverse picture. While some Member States have no or only inactive councils, those that are active differ considerably in their tasks, compositions, independence, resources and also as to the impact of their work. Following the positive experiences in Member States with “strong” national councils, the EESC calls on all Member

Highlights of our Members’ Work

in the EESC

Other features

Editors of this edition: Fausta Palombelli, Liam Ó Brádaigh and Enrica Nardello e-mail: gr3@eesc.europa.euMarc BeffortEditor in chief:

Secretariat of the Various Interests’ Group, European Economic and Social Committee, 99 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Tel. +32 (0)2 546 9348; +32 (0)2 546 9548e-mail : gr3@eesc.europa.eu

EUROPE III will reach you in electronic format via e-mail as well, so please fell free to forward it to your member organisations and / or partners.Europe III is also available on our website at www.eesc.europa.eu/groups/3/index_en.asp

THE EESC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF EXTERNAL WEBSITES

considerable potential in terms of contributing to European growth and diversity. The Committee is therefore in favour of a much more consistent and integrated policy approach. The Green Paper on the future of policies for upland areas would help to rationalise and consolidate existing policies and initiatives at European level in order to make them more effective. The EESC therefore calls for the Green Paper on the future of policies for upland areas to be added as soon as possible to the European Commission’s work programme in order to define the issues of strategic importance for upland areas, to clarify the respective tasks of the various levels of authority and economic sectors to study ancillary and support measures to be put in place in such areas and to promote the development of European and national policies.

Mr Sukhdev SHARMA (UK) – REX/236 “Migration and development opportunities and challenges” (EESC opinion 1713/07)

This own-initiative opinion examines how migration can be viewed as a tool for

development and makes concrete and practical recommendations, thereby moving the debate from the policy level to the programming level. To this end, it is argued that the most beneficial applications of migration and development policies are best achieved by facilitating the transfer of remittances, in order to increase levels of income in the countries of origin. Within this context, remittances are viewed as instruments for poverty alleviation. A second concept which is explored at length is that of co-development in the medium to long-term. In such cases the diaspora communities are engaged in mobilising human or monetary resources in the countries of origin, in addition to actively assisting in knowledge and technology transfers towards these countries. The third concept examined is that of circular and virtual migration, which are viewed as instruments to mitigate the negative effects of brain drain, by creating conditions of brain trust. Thus, individual migrants can offer their skills to their country of origin either on a temporary basis, or on a virtual basis, by means of web-based applications and online platforms.

Finally, the draft opinion argues that migration and development policies can only be successful if they are mainstreamed into other relevant policy areas and when policy coherence is ensured.

Mrs Évelyne PICHENOT (FR) – REX/238 “The EU’s relations with Moldova: What role for organised civil society?” (EESC opinion 1714/07)

In this own-initiative opinion, the EESC stresses the extent

to which the success of the EU-Moldova Action Plan, under the European Neighbourhood Policy, hinges on the ability to associate and involve civil society organisations in its implementation. It therefore advocates that the Commission send out a clear signal by proposing criteria, procedures and instruments that would enable more effective involvement of civil society. Nonetheless, the EESC commends the efforts of the EU delegation in Chisinau, in its focus on increasing contacts with Moldovan civil society. This will pave the way to a formal involvement of civil society representatives in the review of the action plan in April 2008 and in the next stages of an enhanced partnership. The EESC recommends building a sustained and forward looking relationship with Moldovan civil society, beginning by structuring our relations. To this end a conference should be organised in 2008, prepared for by means of a prior mission, aimed at identifying partners

that are committed to operating in a transparent manner. This event, which would include local and regional players, would be aimed at jointly drafting a work plan based on the proposals set out as follows: evaluating existing information and consultation mechanisms in Moldova, both governmental and European, including an assessment of the implementation of the action plan (2005-2008);preparing and training civil society for pursuing the partnership after 2008; and Moldovan organisations’ access to the mechanisms of the EU financial instrument. In conclusion, the EESC hopes to see more effective participation by Moldovan civil society in regional Western Balkan and Black Sea dialogue, particularly through interregional and cross-border cooperation within this area of imminent strategic importance. EU-Moldova cooperation can be seen against the backdrop of strengthened cooperation with neighbouring countries, particularly Russia.

Mr Miklós BARABÁS (HU) – Own-initiative opinion on: “Implementation of the Lisbon Strategy: Current situation and future prospects “ (EESC opinion 1715/07)

The EESC considers that this process cannot simply be

limited to policy makers, legislators and high level groups. It should be a process for all, with all and by all, for two reasons. Firstly, input from many circles in society is desirable to define the best possible approaches and secondly, implementation in ember States depends largely on cooperation between all the stakeholders concerned. There is practical evidence that in cases where the social partners and other civil society organisations actively take co-responsibility, the Lisbon process functions better. Implementation and the way it is secured by goals, measurable objectives and timetables is key. Organised civil society as a whole and especially national ESCs can play an effective role in identifying deficiencies and helping to find sustainable solutions. Exchanges of views and practices among national ESCs regarding the NRPs and the Lisbon agenda could be very useful. The EESC could offer a platform for this. In conclusion, the EESC suggests that the European Council gives the EESC a mandate to publish each year a report concerning the overall involvement of national ESCs in the progress of the Lisbon Strategy, including concrete suggestions and desirable improvements.

Mr Luca JAHIER (IT) – SOC/277 “Promoting solidarity between the generations” (EESC opinion 1711/07)

This opinion notes that although the Commission

communication is entitled Promoting solidarity between the generations”, it concentrates on the family, including in relation to the new Alliance for Families, recently established by the European Council. The amount of activity currently being witnessed at Community level amounts to an important renewal of interest and action in the area of the family after a long break. It is also – as the Commission’s Communication itself states – “the first stage in a European response to the challenges laid down by demographic change”. For this reason, the opinion concentrates on these issues, particularly the reconciliation of working and family life and the promotion of equal opportunities and of employment (especially for women). The EESC has recently stated its position in a series of opinions, the recommendations of which are fully reiterated

in the analyses and proposals made herein. The EESC expresses its profound appreciation of the Commission’s Communication, which sets out a practical agenda for lending substance to the proposed Alliance for Families. This is a constructive platform which takes on board a number of the suggestions already formulated by the EESC and more generally in the debate in recent years to respond to demographic and social challenges affecting the family. Vigilance will be required, then, to ensure that after the crucial impetus given by the German Presidency, this new work does not get sidelined. As part of the new and increasingly intense interest of various European bodies in social questions and the wellbeing of citizens, the family is emerging as a new focus of attention, thought and action. These initial and diffident openings must be progressively enhanced and extended with a detailed work plan to culminate in the Third European Demographic Forum, scheduled for 2010. More generally, the important thing is to give tangible recognition to the practical and substantial contribution that families continue to make to our societies and to the care of people at every stage of their life. In this light account should also be taken of the social and economic utility and of the possible and untenable increase in costs, especially for welfare services, if the family is not sufficiently supported and encouraged in performing its role. The EESC believes that the creation of an observatory on best family policy practices within the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions should be supported and recommends that this be achieved through close consultation of civil society players. Vigilance will then be required to ensure that the prime focus of this observatory is not limited solely to family issues involving work, but that it is also directed towards the compilation of a detailed survey on the needs of the family and the generations. On the research front, the EESC also proposes the following specific areas for work: the role and impact of fiscal policies, policies and actions to promote active ageing, a life-cycle prognosis to investigate the possibility of replacing the current longitudinal view of average life cycles with an alternative, more f lexible, approach, and the social impact and costs of child poverty. In conclusion, there are two further areas that have been little explored and which the EESC believes need greater and more careful attention from the Commission as part of the present strategy: housing policy and the situation of disabled or highly dependent people. The proposal for a revision of VAT rates on baby products recently submitted by a broad cartel of European-level family organisations to the various European institutions would seem particularly worthy of attention.

Mr Richard ADAMS (UK) – NAT/365 “Green Paper on better ship dismantling” (EESC opinion 1701/07)

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal for action at both the international and regional

level to change, as soon as possible, current unacceptable ship dismantling practices. As presently structured the international ship dismantling industry ranges from safe, well regulated, dry-dock facilities to beaches where vessels are taken apart by hand with the minimum of health, safety and environmental protection. Most merchant shipping currently ends its life on one of these beaches in South Asia. There is a serious worldwide shortage of dismantling facilities compatible with principles of environmental and social sustainability. The

Committee is concerned that this situation will be aggravated by the “bulge” in the number of ships going out of service in the next few years following the global phase out of single hull oil tankers and the recent boom in shipbuilding. The EESC therefore recommends the following: A strong international regime for the identification, control and disposal of end-of-life ships should be established through the IMO. This regime must have an equivalent level of control as that found in the Basel Convention: incorporate all relevant International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards; not allow exemptions and prevent end-of-life ships with hazardous waste going to countries that are not party to the convention and which have inadequate facilities. As implementation of such an IMO agreement will take several years, the EESC recommends that: effective voluntary programmes by ship owners to minimise disposal problems should be encouraged and supported; the EU should unequivocally apply its existing legislation by enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation and port states should have the power to declare a ship “end of life” and a guidance document clarifying the terms “intent to dispose” and “exporting state” should be developed; the EU should develop a third party certification and auditing scheme for safe and environmentally sound dismantling facilities, as has been called for by the ship owning industry to help create a transparent, level playing field. Furthermore, the EESC strongly supports encouraging best-practice ship recycling and the pre-cleaning of ships from gas and toxic waste within the EU. A pre-cleaning guidance document should be developed for this purpose. Recycling-aware design, identifying existing hazards and substituting as much toxic material as possible from ships when they are built will, in the long term, have a positive effect and the EESC supports efforts, both through the EU, IMO and by ship owners and builders.

Mr Lutz RIBBE (DE) – NAT/253 “Green Paper on market-based instruments for environment and related policy purposes” (EESC opinion 1697/07)

The Committee, while endorsing the – in its view – sound and accurate points made, would have liked to see the Green Paper, which was a long time in preparation and the publication of which was repeatedly delayed, bring rather more clarity to the planned future use of MBI. MBI are defined as taxes, charges, targeted subsidies and tradable permit systems. The Committee therefore asks the Commission to use the public debate triggered by the Green Paper as an opportunity to set out the scope, impact and also the limits of various instruments by drawing on specific, practical examples. A debate on reducing the taxation of labour and compensating for this with revenues from the taxation of environmentally harmful activities is overdue. The EESC considers it extremely important that the promised survey of environmentally harmful subsidies be submitted without delay and that these subsidies be abolished as soon as possible. The Committee sees environmentally harmful subsidies as a significant distortion of competition and a completely unacceptable misallocation of public funds.

NOTE: All EESC opinions are available in various language versions on the Committee’s website: http://eesc.europa.eu/documents/opinions/avis_en.asp?type=en