42Nd Pearle* Conference

Ref/AD/04112011/P6253 42nd Pearle* conference Tallinn

25-26 November 2011

CONFERENCE READER

This summary of press releases and other information includes a selected overview of the EU activities in the past six months. The purpose of this document is to inform members on issues which are of concern in the framework of Pearle’s activities. In addition the document aims at providing a basis for possible debate within the framework of the general assembly meeting. It should be noted that in search of more efficiency and simplification with regard to information transmission, and aiming at a reduction of disseminating printed copies, internet- links to references of documents consulted to draft this paper are included in the paper itself.

THE INFORMATION HEREUNDER IS UPDATED UNTIL 18 November 2011

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION What has been our analysis from this 6-months exercise of EU initiatives? This second half of the year is mainly been the period of detailed work within the Commission services itself or by groups in committees, platforms, etcetera. The main lines of the EC goals1 were announced in 2009 and 2010, followed by a range of policy papers leading to a large number of consultations. This second half of the year is the period in which the Commission launched proposals or that are in legislative proces with the European Parliament and Council. It is the period in which the EU budget for the next generation programmes as from 2014 is presented and is ready to be negotiated, and last but not least is of course dominated by the Eurocrisis. What is in it for us? Whereas the ball keeps rolling, the devil is in the detail. Again and again your staff at the Brussels office has to be extremely vigilant to a wide scope of policy areas. It will surely become clearer as you browse through this reader and when we present different topics at the Pearle conference. Not prominently present, but yet, we had to pay attention to the current discussions on the EU budget which will determine the size of different programmes and budget lines for 2014-2020. You will find highlighted in grey mentions of proposed budget for different policy areas. It is an interesting exercise to undertake, especially when comparing it to the proposed budget for culture. As we finalised the document the Council and Parliament were meeting to reach an agreement on the EU budget for 2012 and 2 days earlier discussions were held on the next multiannual financial framework. The Danish presidency will have the task to start the formal negotations: it doesn’t need a crystal bal to imagine what the focus will be for Denmark. We wish you again a good reading of this compilation of press releases and other communication!

2 CULTURE, YOUTH, MULTILINGUALISM

2.1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2.1.1 Political initiatives

2.1.1.1 EUROPEAN HERITAGE LABEL EU ministers agreed at the end of the Budapest presidency on a European Heritage Label which will highlight sites that celebrate the history and development of the European Union. In 2013-14, Member States will be able to nominate four sites to receive the award. Independent experts will assess the nominations and select which should be designated with the Label. From 2015, selection will take place every two years. Member States will be able to nominate up to two sites each time and the experts will select a maximum of one site in each country. Participation in the scheme is voluntary. The Label will complement existing initiatives such as the UNESCO World Heritage List. It will be awarded to sites on the basis of their European symbolic value and educational work rather than on their architectural qualities or beauty.

2.1.1.2 EU-CHINA COOPERATION On 24 October the European Commission announced its cooperation with China on on education, culture, youth and research. Its aim is to deepen understanding and mutual trust by supporting exchanges between the two strategic partners. The new EU-China High-Level People-to-People Dialogue will represent a 'third pillar' in relations between the two partners, building on two previous cooperation agreements - the High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue ('first pillar') and the High-Level Strategic Dialogue ('second pillar'). The people-to-people dialogue will enjoy the same status as the other agreements and will

1 The 2020 Strategy calls for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. These three mutually reinforcing priorities should help the EU and the Member States deliver high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. Concretely, the Union has set five ambitious objectives - on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy - to be reached by 2020. Each Member State has adopted its own national targets in each of these areas. Concrete actions at EU and national levels underpin the strategy.

2 have flexible structure with very low financial implications. Its first formal meeting will take place in 2012. Concrete 'deliverables' already planned include the establishment of an EU-China Higher Education Council and joint scholarship schemes aimed at encouraging opportunities for EU and Chinese students and teachers to study in each other's territories. The two partners will also develop a joint strategy and programme for the 2012 EU-China Year of Intercultural Dialogue, which also aims to contribute to better understanding and dialogue.

2.1.1.3 EU – BRAZIL COOPERATION On 4 October 2011 Androulla Vassiliou, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, and Ana de Hollanda, Minister of State of Culture of Brazil, signed a four- year joint action plan focusing on cultural diversity, cultural heritage and the development of a sustainable cultural and creative economy. Culture is a boom area for the European economy, with studies showing that it contributes 4.5% to Europe's GDP and provides jobs for 8.5 million people. Brazil also has a vibrant cultural and heritage sector: the country has 11 sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List, including the historic towns of Ouro Preto, Olinda and Salvador de Bahia, which attract thousands of European and other tourists every year. Commissioner Vassiliou and Minister Ana de Hollanda signed the new 'Joint Programme on Culture', which runs until the end of 2014, in the margins of the EU-Brazil summit, which represents a further positive step in EU-Brazil economic relations. The accord will set in train a series of initiatives aimed at enhancing policy exchanges, in particular linked to the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, to which the EU is a party in addition to individual Member States. The Joint Programme on Culture between the European Commission and Brazil builds on a Joint Declaration on Culture signed in May 2009. Within the context of this dialogue, the Commission and Brazilian Ministry of Culture engage in regular exchanges on policies and best practice. In particular, they focus on existing and future cultural cooperation, such as jointly organised seminars and events linked to the priorities identified in the Joint Declaration and the Joint Programme on Culture. These priorities include:  Policies to create a favourable environment for the cultural and creative economy;  Improving cooperation and exchanges between the EU and Brazil, including audiovisual co- productions;  Sharing professional expertise on the preservation of cultural and natural heritage, including landscapes, fostering its promotion;  the promotion and implementation of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

More info: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/culture-and-external-relations/cooperation-with- brazil_en.htm 2.1.2 EU Budget and EU Culture programme post 2013 We had to wait till June (!) before the Commission published the report of the public consultation(s) on EU culture programme (and the the European Capital of Culture), whereas it was announced for March. 965 responses were submitted in reaction to the online consultation on the future EU Culture Programme. The mid-term evaluation (See http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/evaluation_en.htm ) of the current programme recommends that the design of a new programme would need to reflect new developments such as the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy, for example in the formulation of objectives.

Any new programme for culture will also have to recognise both the benefits and challenges of the processes of globalisation and development of information and communication technologies and help the sector adapt to them in an optimal way. End of June, the European Commission published its budget proposal for the EU for the period 2014- 2020 with €1.6 billion for the cultural sector.

3 Published in the Communication "A Budget for Europe 2020" this proposals is the start of the negociations between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in order to adopt the next budgetary framework of the Union. The Commission proposes to allocate €1.6 billion for the cultural sector (current programmes for Culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus). The EC’s budget proposal is made of a series of documents that review the current policies and programmes, put forward a general budget framework, and sketch out the envelopes and structures of the future funding programmes. In general terms the EC’s proposal is rather ambitious as it asks for an increase of the overall EU budget (+4,8%) and introduces the idea of creating new sources of own income (an EU VAT and/or an EU financial transactions tax). In terms of spending priorities, the EC does not propose any drastic changes to the main areas of EU expenditure (agriculture and regional policy), but suggests to increase the budget in a couple of areas, namely external affairs and home affairs. The budget also makes room for increased budgets in a number of other fields such as education and culture. The new ‘Creative Europe’ programme proposed by the Commission aims at bringing together the current Culture and Media Programmes, along with a ‘cultural and creative industries’ guarantee fund (run by the European Investment Bank). The idea is to maintain distinctive action strands and budgets for the cultural and audiovisual sectors but with common, overall objectives. The proposed budget for the new programme is of 1.6 billion Euros, so an estimated increase – when compared to the current budgets of the actions it aimed to replace – of around 465 millions.

Comment: members will recall that Pearle responded with a position paper to the consultation on the future Culture programme. See http://www.pearle.ws/en/positionpapers/detail/52 The proposal of the Commission and the associated documents can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/fin_fwk1420_en.cfm The timeline of the negotiations on the EU financial perspectives and sectoral policies and programmes 2014-2020 is as follows:

Technical decision making - provisional timeline1 July 2011: Report of the EP special committee on 2014-2020 negotiations/budget review EC proposal for the next financial perspectives (general paper, main budget headings) 29 November 2011: EC proposals for different budget lines and programmes (including cohesion policy and Creative Europe) Nominations of EP rapporteurs for each programme

2012: Reports of EP, EESC, Committee of the Regions on overall multiannual financial framework (MFF) and on different programmes (reports from Committees responsible, opinions from related Committees, adoption in plenary) Several progress reports on overall political budget negotiations by EU Presidencies (Denmark, then Cyprus) Council of Ministers of Culture – May and November 2012 for adoption of programmes End of 2012: Adoption of the financial perspectives 2014-2020

2013: End of the negotiation processes, and adoptions of the final legal basis for the sectoral policies and programmes

2.1.3 European Culture Forum The 2011 European Culture Forum took place on 20-21 October in Brussels. This flagship event organised by DG Culture every two years since 2007 is intended to give an opportunity to debate and raise the profile of European cooperation in the field of culture, bringing together both policy-makers and stakeholders from the sector from all over Europe and partner countries.

4 The 2011 Forum addressed some of the most topical questions for culture in the current context of economic crisis and globalisation, in particular:  what are the new skills and strategies required from artists and the cultural sector to adapt to the challenges of a globalised and digitised world?  Which new business models can be developed by the cultural sector to reap the opportunities of digitisation?  How can local and regional authorities best invest in their cultural assets and thereby contribute to the smart and inclusive growth which Europe needs?

The Forum also looked at culture in the EU's external relations, with a focus on the role of cultural actors in transitional and democratic processes, and a discussion on how the EU can best help such processes.

The presentations and issue papers are available on http://culture-forum-2011.ec.europa.eu/documentation.jsp Comment: if there is a presentation that we would advise you to check out– please have a look at the one given by Pier Luigi Sacco Dean, Faculty of Arts, Markets and Heritage, Professor of Cultural Economics IULM University who spoke in panel 3 on culture – a smart investment for the regions? http://culture-forum-2011.ec.europa.eu/documentation.jsp

Comment: Pearle was present as speaker and as participant! Géza Kovács was a panelist in the theme on ‘Which skills for culture in a globalised and digitised world?’ The Pearle office presented the recommendations following from the workshop on 23 June on mobility and circulation of artists and works as part of the culture and creative industries platform.

2.2 EUROPEAN CULTURE COUNCIL 2.2.1 Polish presidency An Informal Ministerial Meeting on Culture and Audiovisual Affairs, took place on 9 September during the European Culture Congress.

The aim of the meeting was to exchange informal opinions concerning national digitalisation programmes, the progress of work, complementary actions at the European level, and opportunities and challenges related to digitalisation programmes, as well as opinions concerning copyrights.

As the ministers held an informal meeting, a huge European Culture Congress, took place between 8 and 11 September. This congress is considered as the culminating point of the Cultural Programme of the Polish Presidency combined with a broad reflection on culture. The Congress took place in the city of Wroclaw. Debates were in the impressive Centennial Hall. Comment: One of the many events concerned, we like to highlight the following: - a presence of CultureActionEurope to advocate for a higher cultural budget in Europe - a Soul For Europe advocating for a European Year for citizens through culture in 2013

The formal meeting of ministers of culture, audiovisual, youth and sport is foreseen on 29 november 2011. It is expected that Council conclusions will be adopted on “cultural and creative competences and their role in building intellectual capital of Europe”.

Related to the topic statistics on the agenda of the Culture Council, the Polish presidency intends to present a discussion paper on “The contribution of the cultural sector to economic recovery and growth, job creation and social development - enhancing the evidence base”.

2.2.2 Culture Council workplan

5 At the European culture forum the Polish presidency gave a state of play of the activities of the OMC (open menthod of coordination) working groups2.

The Council Work Plan 2011-14 defined six priority areas of action: A: Cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and accessible and inclusive culture B: Cultural and Creative Industries C: Skills and mobility D: Cultural heritage, including mobility of collections E: Culture in External Relations F: Culture Statistics

To implement the Council work plan, there are OMC groups foreseen in four of the six priority areas: A: Cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and accessible and inclusive culture; B: Cultural and Creative Industries; C: Skills and mobility; D: Cultural heritage, including mobility of collections

In each of those areas the OMC groups work on specific defined topics as follows: A : Cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and accessible and inclusive culture 2011-12 – The role of public arts and cultural institutions in the promotion of a better access to and wider participation in culture 2012-13 – The role of public arts and cultural institutions in the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue 2013-14 – the Development of the key competence "Cultural awareness and expression"

B : Cultural and Creative Industries 2011 - Strategic use of EU support programmes, including structural funds, to Foster the potential of culture for local and regional development and the spill-over effects of CCIs on the wider economy 2012-13 - CCI export and internationalisation support strategies 2013-14 - Good practices on financial engineering for SMEs in cultural and creative sector

C : Skills and mobility 2011-12 - Mobility support programmes 2012-13 - Promotion of creative partnerships 2012-14 - Artists' residencies

D : Cultural heritage including mobility of collections 2011-12 - Examination of ways and means to simplify the process of lending and borrowing

In addition and besides the activities undertaken within the OMC expert groups, the Commission (DG Culture) is also undertaking initiatives, studies, etcetera.

Comment: One of the initiatives from the Commission in which Pearle has been involved in 2011 is an expert group on information standards for mobility in the culture sector.

2.3 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT – CULTURE COMMITTEE The Culture Committee met only in July, October and November.

In the context of culture the main topic concerned the European heritage label, on which the Committee approved on 5 October a resolution endorsing a deal with EU Member States to create the label.The scheme aims to promote educational activities and to raise young people's awareness of Europe's common heritage and identity.

2 Participants to the working groups in the context of OMC are experts nominated by their respective ministries. Some countries delegate civil servants from the ministry or administration, other ask people from the semi- governmental bodies, or from any type of organisation in the cultural sector

6 On 7 July, the EP CULT committee published a draft opinion on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (Rapporteur: Marek Henryk Migalski, ECR, Poland). In this draft, members of the EP CULT call on the EP Committee on Foreign Affairs to incorporate their suggestions in its motion for a resolution. They highlight the need for supporting youth, cultural and civil society actions in the future ENP. To read the draft opinion, go here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE- 469.798+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN Other issues relate to education and intellectual property (see further in this conference reader).

2.4 CIVIL SOCIETY PLATFORMS 2.4.1 Access to culture Following a heated discussion in plenary in June on the functioning of the platform and the management of the resources received from a specific budget line under the Culture rpogramme, which led to a standstill in the work of the platform for a few months.The working groups on audience participation and on education & learning met again after summer with a view to further deepen their work. The working creation & creativity lost its dynamism and moved towards a new topic focusing on human rights and culture. The working group audience participation will organise on 15 December a workshop followed by a debate, on Access to Culture in the Digital Era: a citizens right. In preparation of the workshop collection of examples will be gathered and the workshop will focus on three areas: - The digital environment integrated in the artistic creation - The digital environment and communication with audiences and citizens - The digital environment and education Following from the workshop recommendations will be formulated with an aim to present those to the responsible commissioners.

Comment: Pearle is taking a leading role in this workshop, in particular with regard to the formulations of targeted recommendations. This should allow to formulate other recommendations than those presented by the cultural industries where focus is almost entirely on protection of copyrights and combatting piracy.

The access to culture platform will also target at an inclusion of the cultural compenent of citizenship in the European year on citizenship 2013.

The working group education and learning is focusing on the development of a study, called ‘The Creative Partnership between Learning and Culture” The study will have the ambition to: Explore what happens in the creative meeting of learning and culture Make an easy to understand and appealing presentation of selected examples

The study will in order to be “fair” and politically acceptable have to consider the following representation in the selected examples: a. Examples with art schools (conservatories, theatre school etcetera) b. Examples from cultural heritage, art and information (archives, museums, galleries, libraries etcetera) c. Examples with performing arts (music, theatre, dance etcetera) d. Examples from non formal education (adult education etcetera) e. Examples widely spread in Europe f. Examples on collaboration between art and culture and formal education (compulsory school etcetera) g. Examples on art and culture having an informal target group

The Creation and creativity working group has entered a sleeping mode following the stepping down of he co-chairs and the lack of interest of any of the group members to take the lead. A new working group on human rights and access to culture has been decided to be set up.

7 Currently, the platform is working towards a text (manifesto) that can be used for presentations of the ACP at meetings, conferences and all kinds of public events. Did you know….. that there is even a website of the Access to culture platform? See http://www.access-to-culture.eu/accesstoculture/12/access/ 2.4.2 Culture and creative industries The platform on culture and creative industries has organised 5 workshops in 2011, of which the one on mobility was lead by PEARLE.

Workshop 1: How to enhance the support of the EU Structural Funds to the CCIs Brussels, 17 February 2011 Organisers: CAE, ETC, EFAP

Workshop 2: Mobility and circulation of artists and works Brussels, 23 June 2011 Organisers: PEARLE*, EMO, FIA, FIM, RCF

Workshop 3: Education, skills and professional training Brussels, September 22 2011 Organisers: AEC, ECPNM, ELIA, EMC, ENCATC, ETC

Workshop 4: Digital distribution and promotion Brussels, October 4 2011 Organisers: EBU, SAA, CEPI, EMO, EUROCINEMA, FEP, GESAC, IMPALA, AEPO-ARTIS, EBF

Workshop 5: Encouraging Investment in Cultural and Creative Content Brussels, October 6 2011 Organisers: IMPALA, CEPI, EUROCINEMA, FERA, SA

Each one of the workshops resulted in recommendations and these have been presented at the European Culture Forum to the wider audience.

The platform now is to reflect on the further steps and initiatives to be taken.

In the context of mobility, four main recommendations were formulated. Each of the recommendations included more detailed proposals: RECOMMENDATION 1: To reduce obstacles to mobility by setting up system of mobility information provision services in each of the Member States RECOMMENDATION 2: To promote quality and sustainability with regard to the mobility of cultural professionals RECOMMENDATION 3: The EU to improve information, data and indicators on mobility and circulation in Europe. RECOMMENDATION 4: The EU in the context of the ‘creative Europe’ programme should develop new kinds of support mechanisms and incentives for mobility and circulation inside and outside the EU.

2.4.3 Other civil society platforms with a link to culture

2.4.3.1 PLATFORM ON MULTILINGUALISM On 9 June the civil society platform on multilingualism presented a new set of recommendations. Thanks to the participation of Pearle’s associate partner ETC (European Theatre Convention) the following recommendations are made with regard to theatre: Translations in Theatre and Performing Arts - Financial support should be granted for translations including online content and super titling and subtitling activities (EU and MS) - Dissemination of information about national and EU assistance schemes for translation amongst the public and in particular the European professionals.(EU and MS)

8 - The existing EU culture programmes should be extended to performing arts and theatre to request financial support for translation. (EU)

For the full text see http://ec.europa.eu/languages/news/20110707-civil-society-report_en.htm Comment: ETC (European Theatre Convention), Pearle’s associate member, will be organising a conference mid-November 2012 in Parma. This conference will be part of the Polyglot project. ETC shall focus on theatre and translation of theatre texts. ETC welcomes input from Pearle members to raise the awareness on translation of theatre texts. In the context of multilingualism, The European Commission and the Council of Europe signed on 26 September 2011 a joint declaration to re-affirm their commitment to multilingualism. The declaration begins: "Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity and language learning for all are fundamental principles ...The ability to understand and use several languages helps citizens achieve their full potential, both socially and professionally. Language skills are essential for equity and integration. Against the current backdrop of increasing mobility, globalisation of the economy and changing economic trends, the need to learn languages and develop plurilingual and intercultural education is more obvious than ever before."

Full text of Declaration (in all languages): http://ec.europa.eu/languages/news/20110912-edl2011_en.htm More on European Day of Languages: IP/11/1065 and MEMO/11/628

2.5 CULTUREACTIONEUROPE CultureActionEurope held its general assembly meeting just before the European Culture Forum on 19 October. Since about two years now the organisation is preparing its lobby activities on the culture budget. This year activities focused on developing a campaign, called ‘we are more’, including the collection of people signing the manifesto.

July finally saw the light of the EC proposal on the next EU budget 2014-2020. In response, CAE produced and distributed a statement on the next EU budget as well as a campaign Message book to help supporters advocate for the campaign demands.

Culture Action Europe will dedicate the majority of its resources for 2012 to the successful implementation of the Europe-wide campaign we are more that aims to secure a strong qualitative and quantitative support to arts and culture in the next generation of the EU programmes and policies. The EU negotiates a budget once every seven years and this is a unique opportunity for the cultural sector to improve operating conditions at EU level.

Following the launch of the campaign in October 2010 and first phase of campaign development in 2011 linked to the publishing of the proposal for the next EU budget 2014-2020, in 2012 the campaign activities will enter the second phase in the context of the EU publishing the concrete proposals for programmes and policies as well as fixing the next EU framework budget.

The CAE workplan for 2012 is therefore closely linked to the campaign and focuses on following objectives: 1. Mobilising and capacity building in the sector. In line with the overarching objective of the we are more campaign, mobilising and developing the advocacy capacity of members, and the sector at large, through further development of the we are more campaign national co-ordination groups will be the key aim of the organisation, with a view to co-ordinating cross-sector advocacy at national level and better connecting cultural operators with national decision-makers on EU policy.

Main event:launching the first European Arts Advocacy Day in Autumn 2012 (see below)

2. Advocating and lobbying at different levels. - Lobbying the European Parliament: influencing and mobilising members of the European Parliament to support the campaign objectives in the 2 target areas of the culture programme and

9 the cohesion strategy (structural funds). We foresee a high-level event in the European Parliament as well as presentations to EP CULT and EP REGI committees. - Lobbying the EU Member States: influencing decision-making, especially among the members of the Cultural Affairs Committee as well as the Council Configuration responsible for regional development policy. In the member states influencing, through the national co-ordinations, the decision-makers in the ministries of culture and authorities responsible for regional development.

Main events: Campaign event in the European Parliament Organising mass lobbying of the European Parliament and member states

3. Policy, communications and research development. - Policy: Further developments of the demands of the we are more campaign focusing on the culture programme and structural funds. CAE will assess the possibility of developing a structural funds toolkit in partnership with other organisations to facilitate the sector’s participation in the national and regional level negotiations of the future structural funds. - Communications: producing our communication tools such as the newsletter (5 editions planned), newsdigest (21 editions planned) and policy briefings as well as delivering tailored advice and policy orientation to members and cultural operators. - Research: continuation of the partnership with Interarts on the European Expert Network on Culture (www.eenc.info). This connects CAE and its members to a high-level expert network in the field of cultural policy, dealing with reports and policy questions in part linked to the OMC process. This is a two-year project. CAE will also assess the possibility of preparing a study assessing media and EU institutional coverage of cultural policy issues

European Arts Advocacy Day An annual event that provides an opportunity to bring together all organisations explicitly committing time and energy to arts advocacy at local, national or European level. In the United States, the annual Arts Advocacy Day is timed to make specific interventions to congress representatives in advance of the adoption of the annual federal arts budget.

At EU level, there are not such explicit timing opportunities, but using such an event to raise visibility of the sector and to build strong links between activists and EU decision-makers is a clear opportunity and in 2012 could bring a strong mobilisation in advance of the EU Ministers of Culture adoption of the new Creative Europe programme.

European Arts Advocacy Day would: - provide a high-visibility moment to make strong statements in support of the arts and to support and foster advocacy at national and European level. - provide a way to bring together the many diverse actors that are currently involved in arts and heritage advocacy, from large European organizations, to informal national coalitions. - become a focal point to bring together activists across Europe. - strengthen cross-sector initiatives, inform participants of initiatives taking place in other regions, build new alliances and create visibility for organized - provide an opportunity to share best practice and improve the quality of advocacy initiatives across Europe. - provide an opportunity to build links between national and European policy-makers for cultural policy. The annual timing of the event would be organized to allow delegates to meet with their relevant MEPs and cultural permanent representations, and in advance of the annual Ministers of Culture Meeting usually held in mid-November.

For information: Personel change at CAE. Within a short timeframe two key people are leaving the organisation. One person (the EU policy adviser) left in the summer and the general-secretary is to leave in February 2012. A new secretary-general should start early next year. The EU policy adviser will not be replaced.

2.6 CULTURAL MOBILITY 2.6.1 Practics project 2008-2011

10 2.6.1.1 PEARLE SEMINAR COPYRIGHT: FROM PHYSICAL TO VIRTUAL MOBILITY On 15 June Pearle organised its third seminar on obstacles to mobility, as a follow-up to the study on ‘impediments to mobility’, conducted in 2006-2007. This seminar focused on physical and virtual mobility and the relation with copyrights as an obstacle. Cases were presented from members: Svensk Scenkonst, Royal Opera House (London), Les Arts Florissants (France), Ancienne Belgique. Panelists were from the European Commission, the European economic and social committee, researchers-academics-lawyers, and members (Deutscher Bühnenverein). The seminar identified problems and formulated solutions. See http://www.pearle.ws/_cms/files/file_sys_PDF_Meetings_Document_181.pdf

2.6.1.2 GUIDE TO FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ARTISTS' MOBILITY Interarts and On-the-Move published for Practics a Guide to Funding Opportunities for the International Mobility of Artists and Culture Professionals in Europe launched by On the Move (OTM) and PRACTICS! The Guide covers existing public and private funding sources for the mobility of artists and culture professionals in 35 European countries, as well as at EU level. It collects data from approximately 750 mobility schemes, designed or managed by almost 500 different organisations. The Guide aims to improve the availability and transparency of information to facilitate the international mobility of artists and culture professionals in the EU. Art forms and cultural sectors covered by the document include the performing arts, visual arts, audiovisual and media, music, literature, heritage, cross-disciplinary arts, research and cultural management. The research for this guide has been supported by the European Commission, as well as by France’s Ministry of Culture and Communication and Spain’s Ministry of Culture. The Guide is available for free download at www.on-the-move.org/funding. It is available in English. A French version will be published in late 2011. Comment:the guide comprises only those schemes identified from a web search. The initiators did not contact ministries or organisations in the respective countries to validate the information or identify schemes that are missing. It would require further research to complement it and to be a guide which can be promoted as the source with regard to mobility schemes.

2.6.1.3 MOBILITY INFOPOINT MAPPING FINLAND Tinfo - the Finnish Theatre Information Center carried out a mapping of the Mobility Information services in Finland. The document provides a description of the Finnish situation of artists' mobility and related information; it suggests a "four-dimensional model" for mobility information provision and ends with a set of key recommendations for providing effective and useful mobility-related information. Download the full report in English 2.6.2 Practics 2 : 2012-2013 The PRACTICS 2 project aims to respond to the on-going need of the sector to access information relevant for mobility. Many of the organisers of PRACTICS 2 operate already since several years as Infopoints on artists’ mobility in their country (Belgium, France, Netherlands, Spain, Wales) or have been recently encouraged by their national ministries to operate as such point (Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia) or investigate further in the possibility how this can be done (Germany). PRACTICS 2 aims to continue the work undertaken by the pilot project PRACTICS which has been broadly accredited and recognised as useful by EU institutions and experts in the OMC group. It also will take account of the recommendations and the work undertaken at EU level. It aims to continue to build up progressively a coherent and coordinated system within Europe for information provision for mobile artists and culture professionals. Under the pilot project 4 Infopoints have been set up; under PRACTICS 2 the number of Infopoints will more than double to grow up to 9.

PRACTICS 2 brings together 11 co-organisers from 9 different EU countries: - Arts Council of Wales/ Wales Arts International (UK) Coordinator – lead partner - Arts & Theatre Institute (Czech Republic) - IG Kultur Österreich (Austria) - ArtServis (Slovenia) - Interarts (Spain) - Narodowe Centrum Kultury (Poland)

11 - Kunstenloket (Belgium) - Bureau d'accueil des artistes et professionnels étrangers – Guest artists and professionals Office (BAAPE) (France) - On the Move (Belgium) - International Theatre Institute – Germany (Germany) - IGBK (Internationale Gesellschaft für Bildende Künste / International society for visual arts) (Germany) Associated partners are the following 10 European/ international organisations IETM, Trans Artists, SICA, PEARLE*, EAEA (European Arts and Entertainment Alliance), ELIA, AEC, NEMO, Roberto Cimetta Fund , GAI

Practics 2 has the following four main objectives: - To provide quality information and advice service on cultural mobility through the development of a network of national mobility infopoints in line with and that will test a common set of EU information standards currently being drawn by the European Commission. - To build the capacity of the cultural sector and national administrations to deal with mobility - To widen and deepen the PRACTICS info-point network and ensure its sustainability - To contribute to improve the conditions for mobility in the culture sector and to where possible remove any barriers that currently exist. 2.6.3 Expert Group Mobility Information Standards The group’s mandate is to: - define what type of mobility information is needed and what degree of detail is needed for this info to be relevant; - define the level of availability of these different standards across European countries; - define the recommendations that can be made to the Member States to make quality information available on this issue. - The expert group’s mandate is to focus on the content and quality of information that is needed, and not on the type of structure that is needed to provide this information to artists and culture professionals.

The objective is: - with regard to the content: to agree on a list of information topics that are needed for both EU nationals and third country artists and culture professionals to be mobile; to classify the information topics in two categories (necessary and useful);

- with regard to the quality standards: to determine the level of details that each information topic should contain; to define content guidelines on mediated information so that it is understandable and thus usable by the beneficiaries; the content guidelines are composed of an open list of recommendations based on experience of the group members: on how to make quality information available at the national level and for the other EU countries and on how difficulties in information provision can be overcome.

The information will be useful both to EU nationals and third country artists and culture professionals.

The output of the work of the expert group is intended to be a tool-kit which countries can use to improve mobility information for artists and culture professionals, with the aim to make this information available to other countries.

The group does not aim to define how mobility information service providers should be set up, structured or provide services. It will therefore not look at intermediary organisations, but focus solely on information contents and how the information should be made available to be useful for culture professionals in a context of mobility.

12 The final document is the result of 4 meetings taking place in a timeframe of 6 months between May and end November.

The group of about 20 people are composed of delegates from the OMC working group mobility and from the sector. Richard Polacek is engaged as independent consultant to provide input for the meetings and the document.

Comment: Pearle has been invited to take part as an expert in this group, collaborating actively and providing input to the finalisation of the document which shall be discussed on 28 November. The main focus is obviously on information for mobile artists and cultural professionals on regulatory affairs.

2.7 STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS 2.7.1 IFACCA discussion paper on Creative Partnerships At the end of September, IFACCA - the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies - released its discussion paper entitled ‘Creative Partnerships: Intersections between the arts, culture and other sectors’. This Paper was published in the view of the 5th World Summit on Arts & Culture held in Melbourne on 3-6 October. To read the document, go here: http://www.ifacca.org/topic/creative-intersections/ To visit the Summit website click here: http://artsummit.org/ 2.7.2 Cultural statistics pocketbook A comprehensive set of cultural statistics is now available from Eurostat. Published this year, they examine cultural participation in one of nine chapters: Data have been collected per Member State, and age, educational attainment and gender have been taken into account as factors in the survey. Education impacts most on cultural participation, especially active participation rather than consumption. The disparity between Member States is greatest with regard to cinema visits. Age, i.e. youth, matters most with regard to live performance attendance. Gender accounts for disparities in reading habits: women read more books, men more newspapers Comment: Pearle has digested the information and compiled the statistics of relevance for the sector into one document: see http://www.pearle.ws/en/publications

2.7.3 International co-production manual – “the journey which is full of surprises” IETM (the international contemporary arts network) published together with KAMS – Korea Arts Management Service, on International co-production manual for cultural operators and artists interested by cooperation in Asia, in Europe and between Asia and Europe. The word collaboration is often preceded by terms like "creative" and "artistic", yet there are also questions about whether it is merely a means of survival in a global economy. Consequently, the question: “Why do we have to cooperate?” The aim of the publication is to explore and demystify the process of international co- production, to explain different models and mechanisms of co-production and to spell out the benefits and challenges. The idea is to get under the skin of the co-production process which, all too often, only focuses on the final product.

Link to manual : http://www.ietm.org/upload/files/2_20110615110511.pdf

2.7.4 Semiotics of Crisis: Imperatives of Survival, Renovation and Development Semiotics of Crisis: Imperatives of Survival, Renovation and Development Edited by Andrey V. Biriukov and Vladimir I. Ionesov, Samara Society for Cultural Studies, Samara, 2010, 528 pp., ISBN 978-5-84270-728-6

13 This book contains the proceedings from the international scientific conference Semiotics of Crisis: Imperatives of Survival, Renovation and Development, organized by the Samara Institute Higher School of Privatization and Enterprise and the Samara Society for Cultural Studies on 19-20 May 2010. The book covers the theoretical and practical frameworks of interdisciplinary research on semiotic manifestations of crisis phenomena, the debates they have triggered, and the way that anti- crisis management has developed to change culture in a global era. The thirty-eight articles of this book are divided into four chapters:  Semiotics of Crisis in Discourse of Interdisciplinary Knowledge,  Crisis and Anti-Crisis Management: Social-Economic Imperatives,  Crisis and Social Adaptation in Polycultural World, and  Crisis and Social Reforming in Discourse of Historical and Pedagogical Knowledge. Each section features recent essays by scholars and professionals working in the areas of crisis study and management of transformation. The semiotic meanings of crisis are considered key sociological themes, applying semiotic analysis to areas such as economics, education, social practice and historical development. This collection is dedicated to the 2010 UN International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures and the UN Decade (2005-2014) of Education for Sustainable Development. For more information, please visit www.samin.ru/cesi/publication

3 EDUCATION

3.1 HIGHER EDUCATION Modernisation and employability are at the heart of new higher education reform strategy which was presented on 20 September. As part of Europe's strategy for jobs and growth, the European Commission presented this reform strategy to boost graduate numbers, improve teaching quality and maximise what higher education can do to help the EU economy emerge stronger from the crisis. The strategy identifies priority areas where EU countries need to do more to achieve shared education objectives and sets out how the European Union can support their modernisation policies. EU-level initiatives will include a multi-dimensional university ranking which will better inform students about the courses which are best for them and an 'Erasmus for Masters' loan guarantee scheme for students taking a full degree course abroad. The European Union has approximately 4,000 universities and other higher education institutions and more than 19 million students. In recent years the number and variety of higher education institutions, as well as student numbers, have substantially increased. But funding, governance structures and curricula have often failed to keep pace. Higher education is not performing well enough to provide Europe with enough people with the right kinds of skills to create jobs and growth. And worldwide, Europe's competitors, especially the emerging economies, are rapidly increasing their investment in higher education. Background Priority areas in which further reforms are needed include: - Increasing the number of graduates, attracting a broader cross-section of society into higher education, and reducing the numbers who drop out without completing their courses - Improving the quality and relevance of higher education, so curricula meet the needs of individuals, the labour market and the careers of the future, as well as stimulating and rewarding excellence in teaching and research - Providing more opportunities for students to gain additional skills through study or training abroad, and to encourage cross-border co-operation to boost higher education performance - Training more researchers to prepare the ground for the industries of tomorrow - Strengthening the links between education, research and business to promote excellence and innovation - Ensuring that funding is efficient – freeing up higher education governance and investing in quality education to match labour market needs

Many EU countries are prioritising the modernisation of their higher education systems; but the potential of European higher education institutions to contribute to Europe's prosperity and fulfil their wider role in society remains underexploited. This is why education is at the heart of the Europe

14 2020 strategy, which has set a target for 40% of Europe's young people to have a higher education qualification by the end of this decade (33.6% in 2010).

The Commission's reform strategy has been shaped by analyses, studies and consultations with higher education institutions, teachers, researchers, students, businesses, trade unions, governments and international bodies. It is accompanied by a Commission staff paper that examines recent developments in European higher education systems and by the study 'Modernisation of higher education in Europe: funding and the social dimension' that examines trends in funding higher education and policies for opening up access to higher education (IP/11/1037).

For more information: MEMO/11/613 - Modernising higher education – facts and figures MEMO/11/615 - An EU strategy for modernising higher education – Questions and Answers Communication: EU strategy for modernising higher education: http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/com0911_en.pdf Statistics – Commission Staff Working Paper on recent developments in European higher education systems: http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/wp0911_en.pdf

The Commission proposals for the next budgetary period (2014-2020) stress the priority of 'smart growth' through knowledge creation and upskilling and include substantial increases for investment in skills and knowledge creation. According to the Commission's proposal, a single funding programme for education, training and youth would receive €15.2 billion in 2014-2020, an increase of 73% on current investment (€8.8 billion for 2007-2013). The Commission has proposed a 46% rise in research funding, increasing this to €80 billion under the planned 'Horizon 2020' funding programme. The EU agenda for the modernisation of higher education responds to the Europe 2020 strategy and is a key priority of the Commission's Youth on the Move initiative (see IP/10/1124). The 27 EU Member States, plus candidate countries and associated countries, co-operate to share policy experience in order to learn from each other and work towards agreed targets. The Commission monitors progress and supports Member State reform efforts, including through country-specific recommendations and with EU funding programmes. Many of the key issues are common to both processes, such as widening the participation of underrepresented groups, and increasing the employability of graduates.

3.2 VOCATIONAL TRAINING Vocational education and training, which nearly half of all Europeans choose to enrol in after their compulsory education, has a generally positive image among most age groups, linked to the high quality of training on offer and the strong job prospects that this brings. However, only 27% of young people aged 15-24 say they would recommend it to their peers, which shows that more needs to be done to improve the image and attractiveness of vocational educational and training within this crucial age group. These are among the key findings of a Eurobarometer survey on "Attitudes towards vocational education and training" presented by the European Commission at the end of September. The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 27 000 people across all the Member States. Country-by-country findings are available (see link below).

Androulla Vassiliou, the European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, said: “I believe all of us would prefer to fly in an aeroplane with a well-trained pilot rather than a well- educated pilot. Our objective is to achieve the right blend of education and training to suit the vocational world. Investing in vocational education and training is also one of the best ways of combating youth unemployment. By creating high quality training, we enable young people to boost their personal development and to acquire the kind of specific and transferable skills which employers need. But in spite of its advantages vocational education and training is failing to attract enough young people. We must continue to improve career guidance and better communicate the high demand for vocational professions to young people."

According to the Eurobarometer report, 47% of EU citizens were or are currently enrolled in vocational education and training. There are, however, large differences between countries: as many as 76% in

15 the Netherlands, 70% in Slovakia and 66% in the Czech Republic have experienced vocational education and training, while this is the case for only 24% in Portugal and Spain and 27% in Malta.

For more information: Full Eurobarometer report, summary and survey findings country-by-country: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_379_360_en.htm#369 European Commission: Vocational education and training http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc60_en.htm European Commission: Leonardo da Vinci programme http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc82_en.htm

Background Vocational education and training in Europe: Across Europe around 50% of all students in upper secondary education receive vocational education and training, which makes it the most popular choice after compulsory education. While there are large differences between countries, average enrolment figures have been in decline over recent years and the sector needs to modernise in order to continue to offer relevant training. The European Commission advocates targeted investment and modernisation of vocational education and training because a strong system has a strong impact on competitiveness and helps to reduce early school leaving.

European co-operation: In December 2010, Education Ministers from 33 European countries (EU-27, Croatia, FYROM , Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey), together with representatives of employers and unions and the European Commission, adopted the 'Bruges Communiqué', a package of measures to increase the quality of vocational training in Europe by making it more accessible and relevant to the needs of the labour market (IP/10/1673). They agreed on shared objectives for the next decade and an action plan for the coming four years. The Bruges Communiqué is the latest revision of the Copenhagen Process for European co-operation on vocational education and training. Through the Leonardo da Vinci programme the EU has helped more than 600 000 young people since 1995 to go on training placements abroad. It has also funded 110 000 exchanges for trainers and more than 3 000 projects aimed at modernising the sector.

3.3 POLIFONIA -3RD CYCLE ERASMUS PROJECT ON HIGHER MUSIC EDUCATION The overall aim of ‘Polifonia’ is to promote innovation in and enhance the quality, attractiveness and accessibility of European higher music education through cooperation at the European level.

The project has the following objectives: A. To contribute to the Modernisation Agenda for Higher Education in Europe through: • Curriculum reform by a) promoting competence-based learning with the use of learning outcomes for the 3 cycles in higher music education with a specific focus on how such outcomes should be assessed, b) deepening the implementation of the 3-cycle structure through a reflection on the content and structure of the 2nd cycle, based on the principles laid down in the European Qualifications Framework for Higher Education and c) addressing research as a new component in study programmes in higher music education through the creation of a new European Platform for Artistic Research, linking institutions and individuals engaged in the development of Artistic Doctorates and giving music students from all study cycles the possibility to exchange information on research activities, methodologies and progression routes to Artistic Doctoral study. • Governance reform by a) taking the existing European-level and subject-specific approach to quality assurance to the next stage through the further development of expertise in this area and exploration of the feasibility for a European-level quality assurance agency for the sector and b) developing a new model for international institutional benchmarking specifically designed for institutions in the sector as a quality enhancement tool. B. To promote closer cooperation between higher music education institutions and organisations in the music profession through activities that benefit from strong involvement of organisations in the music profession in identifying a) the relevance of the current study programmes for the changing labour market, in line with the EU debate on ‘New Skills for New Jobs’, b) continuing

16 professional development needs of professionals in the workplace, and c) examples of research partnerships between educational institutions and organisations which can serve as models for the further development of expertise in the cultural sector. C. To promote mobility in the higher music education sector through the development of expertise and tools for the full recognition of student achievement gained through exchanges and multi-site learning in joint degrees. D. To enhance the quality and international attractiveness of the European higher music education sector by involving as participants in the project experts from key institutions in third countries.

PEARLE will be involved in the WP4 Lifelong learning: Education for Entrepreneurship The aim of this workpackage (whose members could be seen as constituting the sector’s own ‘University –Business Forum’) will be to promote innovation in European higher music education by addressing issues related to the employability of music students and professionals through a close cooperation of higher music education institutions and organisations in the music profession. Where, in the previous cycle, the partner organisations in the music profession had the role as ‘external stakeholders’, giving sporadic advice on the activities of the network, these organisations will now be moved into the foreground of the project through their active involvement in this workpackage.

The following results are planned: - The production of a handbook on entrepreneurship in higher music education. In the music profession, in which a majority of graduates is expected to function as freelancers, entrepreneurial skills are becoming increasingly important. This handbook will assist institutions to address this issue in terms of positioning it in the curriculum and developing teaching and learning approaches which consciously promote the competence of entrepreneurship. - An overview of partnerships between higher music education institutions and organisations in the music profession with regard to lifelong learning and research & development, based on a European-wide survey. In particular, examples will be sought of the involvement of higher music education institutions in a) schemes supporting music professionals through continuing professional development and b) partnerships with organisations in the music profession with the aim to further develop expertise as part of the knowledge triangle: education – research – innovation. - The subject and outcomes of this workpackage will be presented and discussed at a large-scale conference, bringing together (for the first time in Europe) stakeholders from the different backgrounds represented within the working group.

This work will be executed by a working group with experts from both higher music education institutions and the music profession, which will analyse the information collected and develop the deliverables. The working group will also combine its meetings with on-site seminars and site/counselling visits to partner institutions outside the working groups to learn about new approaches and the current state of the issues studied, as well as to present the work of the group and ‘Polifonia’ to wider audiences of students, teachers and management in these institutions.

Summarized: ‐ 9 meetings (3/year including dissemination/collection of info, etc) ‐ Report with examples of good practice on cooperation between HMEIs and organisations in the profession on lifelong learning and research and development ‐ Handbook on entrepreneurship in HME ‐ Conference The Working Musician bringing together HMEIs, employers’ organisations,professional associations, musicians, unions, etc)

The 9 meetings are as follows : 2012 : 2 working group meetings + 1 partner meeting 2013 : 2 working group meetings + 1 partner meeting 2014: 1 working group meeting + 1 partner meeting + conference ‘the working musician’

Members of this group are (besides Pearle) - see document Polifonia Matrix: European Federation of National Youth Orchestras - Belgium European Music Council (EMC) - Germany Rhythmic Music Conservatory – Denmark

17 Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre – Estonia Conservatoire de Paris – France International Federation of Musicians - France Muziekcentrum Nederland ‐ Chamber Music Europe - Netherlands European Music School Union (EMU) - Netherlands European String Teachers Association (ESTA) Eastman School of Music – USA

Pearle was a partner in the previous Polifonia project, which ran until 2010. You may recall that we had some exchanges with Gretchen Amussen of the Conservatoire de Paris and Mr Johansson of the Stockholm music academy on various topics in relation to education of musicians and needs of orchestras.

Besides 1 person of the Brussels office, Pearle members representing orchestras have been invited to assign 1 person amongst each other and 1 replacement to take part in the main meetings as described. The names of these persons are to be communicated to the projexcdt leader by December 2011.

4 REGIONAL POLICY

4.1 MACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGIES The Commisison shared the progress made on the two macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea Region (launched in 2009) and for the Danube Region (launched in December 2010). Some 15 Member States benefit from these new cooperative approaches. The political commitment of stakeholders at all levels is vital to the success of both strategies. Both strategies are based on a “macro-regional” approach. It brings countries together to cooperate on setting goals, aligning funding, and working together on shared challenges such as sea or river pollution, the need for better transport links, or more secure energy provisions.

EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Since its launch in 2009 (IP/09/893), the 8 Member States involved in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, and their non-Member States partners have developed new ways of co operating more deeply to tackle questions like water quality in the Baltic Sea, the need to promote innovation in the region and a host of other issues. The new progress report prepares a review of the strategy foreseen under the Polish Presidency. It is the result of a wide consultation of all stakeholders and provides an assessment of current implementation.

The European Council's endorsement of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region in June 2011 has come six months after the Commission's adoption of the proposal in December 2010 (IP/10/1687). Implementation can now begin. Some 200 priority actions will contribute to developing the area's economic potential and improving environmental conditions. The strategy focuses on four main pillars: Connecting the Danube Region: improving mobility, encouraging sustainable energy and promoting culture and tourism; Protecting the environment in the Danube Region: restoring water quality, managing environmental risks and preserving biodiversity; Building prosperity in the Danube Region (developing research capacity, education and information technologies, supporting the competitiveness of enterprises and investing in people’s skills; Strengthening the Danube Region (stepping up institutional capacity and improving cooperation to tackle organised crime). The Commission will also monitor the implementation progress of this strategy, as with that of the Baltic Sea Region, and will publish a first report at the end of 2012.

More information: The 'Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)' and further analyses are available on the EUSBSR website: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/baltic/index_en.htm.

18 Danube Strategy: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/index_en.htm

4.2 COHESION POLICY EU cohesion policy has been a force for change over the last ten years, making a genuine contribution to convergence and growth in the EU and directly creating over one million jobs, investing in training to improve the employability of over ten million people, cofinancing the construction of over 2 000km of motorway and 4 000km of railway and setting up at least 800.000 Small and Medium- Sized Enterprises (SMEs).

To continue this work in the future and strengthen the focus on European economic priorities the European Commission has adopted in October a legislative package for cohesion policy for the period from 2014 until 2020. It is designed to boost growth and jobs across Europe by targeting EU investment on Europe's Growth and Jobs Agenda ("Europe 2020").

The focus on fewer investment priorities in line with these objectives will be at the heart of the new Partnership Contracts, which Member States will agree with the European Commission. They will set clear targets and set aside a financial performance reserve to reward regions who do best in reaching their goals. To ensure that the impact on growth and jobs of EU investments is not undermined by unsound macro-economic policies or by weak administrative capacity the Commission can ask to review programmes or suspend the funding if remedial action is not taken.

The impact of the funds will also be strengthened by simplifying and harmonizing the rules of different funds, including rural development and maritime and fisheries. One set of rules for five different funds and a more integrated approach will make sure that the various funds serve coherent goals and strengthen each other's impact.

The proposals will bolster in particular social investment, empowering people to face future challenges of the labour market, with the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and a new Programme for Social Change and Innovation complementing and reinforcing the European Social Fund.

Background The package includes: An overarching regulation setting out common rules governing the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). This will allow for the better combination of funds for a stronger impact of EU action. Three specific regulations for the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund. Two regulations dealing with the European territorial cooperation goal and the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC). Two regulations on the European Globalisation Fund (EGF) and the Programme for Social Change and Innovation. A communication on the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF)

Next steps These proposals will now be discussed by the Council and the European Parliament, with a view to adoption by the end of 2012, to allow for the start of a new generation of cohesion policy programmes in 2014. Negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework for the whole EU budget will continue in parallel. The Commission has already proposed to allocate €336 billion for cohesion policy instruments in 2014-2020. (IP/11/799) The final allocations by Member State, and lists of eligible regions by category, will only be decided after the final adoption of the package.

For more detailed analysis, see MEMO/11/663 For the legislative texts please see: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm

19 Which are the new elements in the package as compared to the past? Concentration on "Europe 2020": energy efficiency and renewables, innovation and the improvement of the competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). ESF investments will be fully aligned with EU objectives and targets on employment, education and poverty reduction. A minimum of 20% of the national ESF allocation will have to be allocated to investments combating social exclusion and poverty. Better coordination of various EU actions: A Common Strategic Framework contains the EU's top priorities and will apply to all funds, Rewarding performance: EU funding will offer strong incentives to deliver Europe 2020 objectives. Some "ex-ante" conditions must be in place before the funds are disbursed (for instance, the proper functioning of public procurement systems). Also, the release of additional funds will be contingent on performance - "ex-post" conditions. Sound macro-fiscal environment: To ensure that the effectiveness of the funds is not undermined by unsound macro-fiscal policies, the Commission proposes to establish a tighter link between cohesion policy and European economic governance, such as the excessive deficit procedure, excessive imbalances procedure and the European semester of economic policy coordination. Reinforcing territorial cooperation: The territorial cooperation among regions (cross-border, transnational and interregional) is reinforced, since it offers clear EU added value. Territorial cohesion: there will be a clear focus on sustainable urban development with at least 5% of the ERDF resources allocated for "integrated actions" (with investment from different programmes) in this field by each Member State. In addition, the Commission will launch calls for innovative actions in urban areas and make ESF human capital investments in cities easier. Further simplification of the policy is a guiding principle (such as introducing simplified reimbursement rules, possibility to implement funds on the basis of joint action plans paid on the basis of results, harmonising eligibility rules and management and control systems between different EU funds, etc).

What categories of regions after 2014? Regions will continue to receive support within three (3) defined categories: less developed regions, whose GDP is below 75% of the Union average, will continue to be the top priority for the policy. transition regions, whose GDP is between 75% and 90% of the EU 27 average. more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 90% of the average. The second category would cover 51 regions and more than 72 million people, including 20 regions that are forecasted, as of 2014, to move out of the current "convergence" objective (less developed regions), reflecting the success of the policy. The purpose of the new category is to ease the transition of these regions, which have become more competitive in recent years, but still need targeted support. It also ensures fairer treatment for regions with similar levels of economic development.

What are the changes for the European Social Fund? The aim of the European Social Fund is to improve employment opportunities, promote education and life-long learning, enhance social inclusion, contribute to combating poverty and develop institutional capacity of public administration. It is the key EU instrument for investment in people. Around 10 million final beneficiaries are supported by ESF every year, increasing their chances of finding a job. With the new proposal, the role of the ESF will be reinforced: - there will be a minimum share of the budget allocated to each category of regions that will be higher than before (25% for less developed regions, 40% for transition regions and 52% for more developed ones). This share corresponds to at least €84 billion for the ESF, compared to the current €75 billion; - Member States will have to concentrate the ESF on a limited number of objectives and investment priorities in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy, in order to increase impact and reach a critical mass; - a minimum share of 20% of the ESF will be dedicated to social inclusion actions; - a greater emphasis is placed on combating youth unemployment, promoting active and healthy ageing, and supporting the most disadvantaged groups and marginalized communities such as Roma; - greater support will be provided to social innovation, i.e. testing and scaling up innovative solutions to address social needs, for instance to support social inclusion;

20 - the participation of social partners and civil society, in particular Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), will be further encouraged in the implementation of the ESF, through capacity building, the promotion of community-led local development strategies and the simplification of the delivery system. Rules governing the reimbursement of projects by the ESF will be simplified, in particular for "small" beneficiaries – NGO's, small- and medium-sized enterprises and others who make up at least 50% of recipients of ESF funding; - equipment linked to investments in social and human capital will become eligible for support from the ESF. ESF could also be used as a guarantee for loans taken by Member States' bodies, in order to finance measures within its scope of intervention.

What are the changes for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund? The Globalisation Adjustment Fund is made more operational and fairer: While maintaining the basic eligibility criteria, the Fund would also be able to assist workers with temporary contracts and those that are made redundant as a consequence of an unexpected and major crisis. Time periods for approving Member States' applications will be shortened by imposing new deadlines and streamlining procedures. The EGF will also be able to assist farmers in adjusting to new conditions resulting from the conclusion of international agreements. Why do we need the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in the future? The EGF has a key advantage compared to other instruments. It provides one-off, targeted support specifically to workers who have lost their job because of trade globalisation or, more recently, the financial and economic crisis. It is an emergency intervention instrument that can step in when sudden massive job losses have an unexpected, severe impact on employment and the local

What is new for EURES? EURES provides information and advice to job seekers and to any citizen wishing to benefit from the principle of the free movement of workers. At the end of September 2011, EURES portal hosted around 1 230 000 job vacancies, over 700 000 CVs and around 25 000 registered employers. It receives some 8 million visits per month. Around 100 000 jobseekers per year get a job or a job offer via EURES. With the new proposal, the overall EURES system will be strengthened beyond 2013: - the EURES activities at national and cross-border level will be financed under the European Social Fund, supporting workers' mobility and helping companies recruit abroad; - at EU level, the EURES Portal will offer modernised self-service tools for jobseekers and employers. Moreover, the EU level of EURES will be used to create and develop new targeted mobility schemes. These will fill bottleneck and niche vacancies and will help specific groups of workers and countries which will become recipients of mobile workers. It will notably allow for the development of Your First EURES Job scheme. This is currently being carried out as a pilot project, under the form of a Preparatory Action, to help young people (18-30) find a job in another Member State, while encouraging SMEs, the largest group of employers in the EU, to offer young people work.

5 ENLARGEMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOODPOLICY

5.1 STATE OF PLAY ON ENLARGEMENT CROATIA: candidate - applied in 2003. Accession negotiations were completed in June 2011. In line with Article 49 TEU, the Commission today presents its favourable Opinion on Croatia's readiness accession to the European Union. Following the completion of the ratification process, Croatia should become a member state on 1 July 2013. TURKEY: candidate - applied in 1987. Accession negotiations were opened in October 2005. 13 chapters are opened and 1 provisionally closed. Full implementation of the obligations under the Customs Union and progress towards normalisation of relations with Cyprus are needed before the country can advance more vigorously in its accession negotiations. ICELAND: candidate - applied for membership in 2009 and opened accession negotiations in June 2010, with 4 chapters opened of which 2 have been provisionally closed. As Iceland is already a

21 member of the EEA and the Schengen area, a large part of its legislation is already aligned with that of the EU. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: candidate - applied in 2004. The country continues to sufficiently fulfil the political criteria and the Commission renewed its 2009 recommendation for opening accession negotiations. As a unanimous decision of Member States is required for the negotiations to start, a solution to the name issue is essential. MONTENEGRO: candidate - applied in 2008. In 2010, the EU awarded candidate status and set out seven key priorities which the country needs to fulfil in order to achieve the opening of accession negotiations. The Commission recommended opening of accession negotiations. ALBANIA: potential candidate - applied in 2009. In 2010 the EU set out twelve key priorities which the country needs to fulfil to achieve the opening of accession negotiations. Although progress was made in some of these areas the Commission was not in a position to recommend further steps for Albania this year. Building on recent positive signals, the Commission encourages the political forces in Albania to re- establish and sustain a level of political dialogue allowing the functioning of key democratic institutions and the implementation of essential reforms. SERBIA: potential candidate - applied in 2009. The Commission today presented its opinion on Serbia's membership application. Based on its findings, it recommends that the Council grants Candidate Status for Serbia. Condition also set one key priority which the country needs to fulfil in order to achieve the opening of accession negotiations. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: potential candidate - has not applied for EU membership; following the 2010 parliamentary elections, the country has not yet formed a state-level government and the lack of a shared vision by political leaders on the direction of the country continued to block key EU- related reforms. KOSOVO: potential candidate – Differences over the status of Kosovo remain an obstacle to the development of contractual relations between the EU and Kosovo. The EU supports Kosovo's efforts to fulfil its European perspective.

More on enlargement package: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/press_corner/key-documents/reports_oct_2011_en.htm

5.2 NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY 5.2.1 Southeast Europe The Commission developed a prticular devoted website, accessible via a link on its DG Enlargement website called Welcome to "Southeast Europe: People and Culture"

This website has been developed to offer visitors the opportunity to explore the diverse culture of Southeast Europe.

The website provides information about culture and sports of the Western Balkans (Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, as well as Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99) and Turkey.

“Southeast Europe: People and Culture” provides visitors with a comprehensive insight into the culture of the region. Writers and journalists from the area offer new, informative and exciting feature articles covering art, dance and theatre, gastronomy, literature, music and sports.

See http://www.southeast-europe.eu/ 5.2.2 Arab spring Arab Spring: new package of support for North Africa and Middle East The European Commission has adopted four new decisions for its Neighbourhood. The programmes will include support for areas like democracy, growth, job creation, microfinance and higher education. Under the SPRING programme (Support for Partnership, Reform and Inclusive Growth) the Commission will provide support for the Southern Neighbourhood countries for democratic transformation, institution building and economic growth in the wake of the Arab Spring. Support provided through SPRING will be tailored to the needs of each country. The total value of this initiative is €350 million to cover the years 2011 and 2012.

22 The second decision concerns a Special Measure designed to support poorer areas in Tunisia in the aftermath of the events of the Arab Spring. €20 million has also been allocated in order to foster employment and job creation in the country and to improve living conditions for inhabitants of urban areas in the most impoverished regions, as well as to improve access to microfinance. The third of these decisions, adopted on 23 September 2011, is the Erasmus Mundus programme. This will go towards achieving better understanding and mutual enrichment between the EU and neighbouring countries by creating possibilities for student and academic staff mobility (for example, the opportunity to study in universities in EU Member States) and exchange of knowledge and skills. The overall budget for this programme is €66 million. The fourth decision, adopted on 20 September 2011, is the Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility, designed to strengthen the capacity of civil society to promote reform and increase public accountability in their countries. With a total budget of €22 million, the programme will also support regional and country projects led by non-state actors. Similar amounts are envisaged for 2012 and 2013. The four decisions come in response to actions outlined in the Commission's recent Communication entitled "A new response to a changing Neighbourhood".

More information: 4 MEMOs: The SPRING Programme: MEMO/11/636 The Special Measure for less favoured areas in Tunisia: MEMO/11/642 The Erasmus Mundus: MEMO/11/637 The Civil Society Facility: MEMO/11/638 ENP Communication "A new response to a changing Neighbourhood": http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com_11_303_en.pdf 5.2.3 Ukraine and Moldova : progress towards visa liberalisation The Commission presented on 23September the first progress reports on the implementation by the Republic of Moldova and by Ukraine of their respective Action Plans on Visa Liberalisation. The report for the Republic of Moldova shows that progress has been made in adopting legislation and consolidating the legal framework in important areas such as document security, border management, migration management, asylum, trafficking in human beings, money laundering, and anti-drugs policy. Nevertheless, work still remains to be finalised in other areas, such as data protection, combating organised crime, fight against corruption, and anti-discrimination. The report for Ukraine highlights progress in adopting legislation in areas such as border management, migration management, fight against corruption, anti-drugs policy, data protection, and money laundering. In other areas such as document security, asylum, combating organised crime, trafficking in human beings and anti-discrimination, there is still work to be done.

The Action Plans have a similar structure. They contain two types of benchmarks: preliminary benchmarks concerning the policy framework (legislation and planning), which should pave the way for meeting more specific benchmarks (effective and sustainable implementation of relevant measures) under each of the four blocks: (i) document security, including biometrics; (ii) irregular migration, including readmission; (iii) public order and security; and (iv) external relations and fundamental rights.

Next steps The First progress reports for the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine on their respective Action Plans on Visa Liberalisation present the state of play of the adoption of the legislative framework (first phase benchmarks), reflecting the situation as of 8 July 2011. Comprehensive second reports will be presented by the end of 2011, after the adoption of the remaining legislation by Ukraine and Moldova and following the assessment missions to be carried out by Commission services, accompanied by Member States' experts in the autumn.

6 FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT

6.1 DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND FUTURE BUDGET

23 EU development policy: “Commission to increase aid impact, concentrating on fewer sectors, focusing on countries most in need” is what the EU announced mid-October. The EU will re-prioritise its delivery of aid to developing countries to ensure maximum impact on poverty reduction. The 'Agenda for Change' of EU Development policy and a new policy for EU budget support set out a more strategic EU approach to reducing poverty, including through a more targeted allocation of funding. Future EU spending should concentrate on sectors which are key for long-term and inclusive growth, target countries that are in the greatest need of external support and where aid can make a difference. - EU aid should focus on sectors setting the foundations for inclusive and sustainable growth. These include: - Good governance, including respect of human rights and democracy; gender equality, role of civil society and the fight against corruption, - Social protection, health and education, - Supporting a favourable business environment and deeper regional integration, - Sustainable agriculture and clean energy, helping to provide safeguards against external shocks and turn challenges of food security and climate change into opportunities for growth. In order to generate more resources, the EU will explore innovative ways of financing development, like the blending of grants and loans. The Commission will also encourage the EU and its Member States to jointly prepare strategies and programmes (so called "joint programming") and better divide labour amongst themselves in order to increase aid effectiveness.

A new contractual approach for EU Budget support A significant share of EU aid is delivered in the form of budget support: financial transfers to government budgets in developing countries, coupled with policy dialogue, performance assessment and capacity building. The Commission proposes an EU approach to make budget support more effective and efficient in delivering development results by strengthening the contractual partnerships with developing countries. "Good governance and Development contract" will be set up for providing general budget support where the partner country can demonstrate a commitment to fundamental values. The EU will put more emphasis on human rights, democracy and the rule of law through a focus on dialogue with partner countries, creating incentives for reform and asking countries to commit to fundamental values. The promotion of sector service delivery will go through "Sector reform contracts". Sector budget support remains a useful tool even when the conditions do not exist to permit the use of a Good Governance and Development Contract. Budget support will be used in fragile countries on a case by case basis to ensure vital state functions and support the transition via "State Building contracts". Budget support should contribute to the fight against corruption and fraud, and help countries to build their own financial resources, in order to reduce dependence on aid in the long run.

The EU as a donor The European Union as a whole (Member States plus EuropeAid, Commission-managed funds) is the biggest donor of official development aid worldwide. In 2010, it provided €53.8 billion (more than 50% of global aid). The European Commission is responsible for the management of €11 billion of aid per year, putting it in second place among donors globally.

For more information MEMO/11/696 Full text of the Communications: 1. EU Development Policy: An Agenda for Change http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/documents/agenda_for_change_en.pdf 2. The Future of EU Budget Support http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/budget- support/documents/future_eu_budget_support_en.pdf

24 6.2 EUROPEAN EXTERNAL ACTION SERVICE The Treaty of Lisbon contains two important institutional innovations that impact on EU external action, it creates: - A President of the European Council (renewable two and a half year term) - A High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (five year term)

In November 2009, the European Council appointed Catherine Ashton High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In this capacity she chairs the Foreign Affairs Council. She is also a Vice-President of the European Commission and ensures consistency and coordination of EU external action. The High Representative is assisted by the European External Action Service (EEAS). EEAS staff come from the European Commission, the General Secretariat of the Council and the Diplomatic Services of EU Member States.

The EU maintains diplomatic relations with nearly all countries in the world. It has strategic partnerships with key international players, is deeply engaged with emerging powers around the globe, and has signed bilateral Association Agreements with a number of states in its vicinity. Abroad, the Union is represented by a network of 136 EU Delegations, which have a similar function to those of an embassy.

Foreign policy covers: - Development and cooperation EuropAid - European neighbourhood policie - Global challenges - Human rights - Humaitarian aid - Instrument for stability - International and regional organisations

6.3 FOREIGN CITIZENS - STATISTICS Foreign citizens made up 6.5% of the EU27 population in 2010 and foreign-born people accounted for 9.4% of the EU27 population

In 2010, 32.5 million foreign citizens1 lived in the EU27 Member States, of which 12.3 million were citizens of another EU27 Member State and the remaining 20.2 million were citizens of countries outside the EU27. Foreign citizens accounted for 6.5% of the total EU27 population. On average in 2010, foreign citizens living in the EU27 were significantly younger than the population of nationals (median age2 34.4 years compared with 41.5 years). These figures come from a report3 published by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. The proportion of foreign citizens varied between less than 2% in Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia and 43% in Luxembourg

In 2010, the largest numbers of foreign citizens were recorded in Germany (7.1 million persons or 9% of the total population), Spain (5.7 million or 12%), the United Kingdom (4.4 million or 7%), Italy (4.2 million or 7%) and France (3.8 million or 6%). In total, more than 75% of the foreign citizens in the EU27 lived in these five Member States.

Among the EU27 Member States, the highest percentage of foreign citizens in the population was observed in Luxembourg (43% of the total population), followed by Latvia4 (17%), Estonia4 and Cyprus (both 16%). The percentage of foreign citizens was less than 2% in Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia.

In terms of citizenship, nearly 40% of the EU foreign population were citizens of another EU27 Member State, with the highest shares in Luxembourg (86% of the foreign population), Ireland (80%), Belgium (68%), Cyprus (66%), Slovakia (62%) and Hungary (59%).

25 A third of the foreign-born population born in another EU27 Member State Data on foreign citizens provide useful information on the part of the population with a foreign background. However, since citizenship can change over time, it is interesting to complement this information with data on the foreign-born population1. This provides supplementary information as it includes foreign citizens who have acquired the citizenship of the country of residence, but who were born abroad. It also includes nationals born abroad (for example in the territory of a former colony) or nationals born in a part of a state which, due to dissolution or border changes, no longer belongs to the same country. The number of foreign-born people exceeded the number of foreign citizens in all Member States, except in Luxembourg, Latvia and the Czech Republic.

In 2010, there were 47.3 million foreign-born people living in the EU27, with 16.0 million born in another EU27 Member State and 31.4 million born in a country outside the EU27. In total, foreign- born people accounted for 9.4% of the total population of the EU27.

Data on the place of birth of the foreign-born population show that one third of foreign-born people living in the EU27 were born in another EU27 Member State, with proportions above 50% being observed in Luxembourg (83% of total foreign-born), Ireland (77%) and Hungary (67%).

6.4 G20 – FACTS AND FIGURES ABOUT EU EU Participation in G20. Did you know that … … the European Union is a full member of the G20 and is represented at leaders' level by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. … France is the current holder of the G20 presidency … Mexico will hold the G20 presidency in 2012.

Demography. Did you know that… … the EU with its half a billion of inhabitants accounts for 7% of the world population. … EU27 with its 502.4 millions citizens is the third largest member of the G20 in terms of population. … Europeans live among the longest in the world. … infant mortality in EU27 is the third lowest among the G20. … European lives 12 years longer (79.8 years) than the average citizen in the world (67.9 years).

Economy. Did you know that… … the EU accounts for 25.8% of the world's GDP. … GDP per capita (in €) in the EU27 is 24 400€ and in euro-area 27 700€, which places Europe among the five most performing economies. …the euro area's GDP is with 9 176 billion euro more than twice as high as the GDP of China with its 4 434 billion euro (2010). … EU GDP grew by nearly 35% over 1995-2008 and reduced by approximately 2.5% over 2008-2010. Over the last 15 years, this represents an average annual growth of 1.8% (US=2.5%). … the EU has only experienced a small trade deficit over the last decade as a result mainly of its imports of energy and raw materials. … the EU is dependent on raw materials. The share of imports of raw materials, notably energy, has been continuously rising and now represents more than a third of total EU imports. … the European Union has "lost" about € 2 000 billion between 2007-2010 due to the crisis, equivalent to the GDP of France or 11% of Europe's cumulative debt. … EU GDP grew strongly early in 2011, but has slowed substantially since then. Growth in the second half of 2011 is expected to be slow, stalling by the end of the year. … real GDP growth is very uneven across the EU, reaching levels of more than 3% in countries like Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia etc. and negative growth in Greece. … the EU's productivity (per hours worked) is almost 30% lower than in the US in 2010. … compared to the US and Japan, the EU is particularly lagging in terms of private R&D spending. … G20 members have taken no less than 424 restrictive measures to open trade since October 2008. In the past 12 months alone, 131 new restrictions have been introduced while only 40 have been removed.

More information:

26 IP/11/1208 of 19 October 2011: EU report highlights concerns over rise in protectionism across G20

6.5 UN : CREATIVE COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched this autumn the Creative Community Outreach Initiative, specifically designed to forge meaningful and productive relationships with the entertainment and creative industries. The aim is to engage the creative community and explore how the media and the arts can join the United Nations for raising awareness and mobilizing public support to deal with global challenges. In the words of the Secretary-General, “The UN knows drama. Our staff work and live in some of the toughest circumstances on earth. When cyclones hit, when wars break out, when people flee their homes, the UN is there. We work to deal with humanitarian crises, armed conflicts, and countless health and environmental issues. Yet many of these stories remain untold. You in the creative community have a powerful voice, working to personally affect each viewer through recreating the drama we face on a daily basis”. Through creative media, therefore, we can bring honour, empathy and compassion to our stories, and, ultimately, to the people who experience them. Top film and television professionals as well as journalists and activists, are joining the Initiative to promote peace and awareness of critical global issues, in particular those related to the Millennium Development Goals. In this context, scriptwriters from Hollywood’s film and television industries met with a handful of United Nations staff members who are on the frontline of the world’s most pressing issues. The work of UNCTAD and other relevant United Nations agencies, has been instrumental in conceptualizing and bringing together the creative community as an important voice of our society.

7 TRADE

7.1 DOHA DEVELOPMENT AGENDA (DDA) 7.1.1 EU and DDA New EU study shows that the economic benefits arising from the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations in the World Trade Organisation amount to an increase of world exports of $359 billion on an annual basis from a deal on the liberalisation of industrial goods, agriculture, services and on the removal of red tape. If an agreement on sectoral liberalisation of industrial goods (chemicals, machinery, electronics) could be reached, world exports would increase by a further $146 billion, totalling $505 billion annually, according to the study. In terms of capturing the global benefits of the Doha Round, this timely analysis manages to grasp the complexity of the negotiating proposals currently on the table in Geneva at most detailed level, offering policy makers a thorough analytical basis for an informed decision on the importance of a successful DDA Agreement for the world economy.

Key findings of the study: The deal on the table is well balanced. In terms of economic gains all regions – developing, emerging and developed countries - would profit from an ambitious Doha deal. This would mean 0.2% of additional economic growth at global level and an extra $30 billion in GDP for the EU on an annual basis. A successful Doha agreement would not negatively affect wages of EU workers. Wages for skilled and unskilled labour would even increase by around 0.3%. The negotiations on sectoral agreements for chemicals, machinery and electronics goods would further enhance the DDA benefits. With these sectoral agreements world exports would increase by an additional $146 billion, to as much as $505 billion annually (with yet another $8 billion if environmental goods are included). A successful completion of the DDA would even lead to gains beyond those modelled in the study.

The EU has a deep interest in a strong and well-functioning multilateral trading system underpinning open markets and respect of trade rules. The EU has played a proactive and constructive role in the DDA negotiations, including by developing a solid compromise proposal in the key area of tariffs on industrial goods, and by consistently calling for deliverables to address specific challenges faced by Least Developed Countries. The EU is determined to work with its WTO partners to bring the Doha Round out from the present stalemate towards a successful conclusion.

27 Useful links: The study "Economic impact of potential outcome of the DDA II" http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/148337.htm On EU submissions to the WTO during the Doha Round: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/eu-and-wto/doha/submissions/

DDA: chronology November 2001, Doha, Qatar. The Doha Development Round is launched. September 2003, Cancun, Mexico. Ministerial meeting collapses due to lack of agreement on agricultural issues, including cotton, and the inclusion of the "Singapore issues". New country groupings emerge, such as the G20 and the G90. July 2004, Geneva, Switzerland. The Round is revitalised and there is agreement on a framework for continued negotiations. December 2005, Hong Kong. Developed countries agreed provide full unrestricted access to their markets for products from the least developed countries. Negotiators also agreed to eliminate agricultural export subsidies by 2013. July 2006, Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiators fail to reach agreement on agricultural subsidies and import tariffs. July 2008, Geneva, Switzerland. Negotiators came very close to a modalities agreement on tariff cuts for industrial goods and agricultural products and a comprehensive package of farm reform in developed countries. But ultimately no agreement was reached. 2009-2010. A number of high-level calls to complete the round, notably at G20 meetings, but with limited progress in the negotiations. 2011: Intensified efforts to conclude the negotiations on the back of strong guidance from the highest political level to complete the Doha Round in 2011. However, in May 2011 it became clear that this objective could not be reached given fundamentally divergent expectations among some WTO Members as regards the reciprocity of tariff cuts in certain industrial sectors. A compromise proposal by the EU did not succeed in unblocking the impasse.

7.1.2 WTO World Trade Organisation WTO members are now preparing for the eighth Ministerial Conference of the WTO to be held in Geneva on 15-17 December 2011. Given persistent impasse in the Doha negotiations, there is a critical need for strong political leadership and reasonably ambitious and specific guidance to negotiators to support the process of multilateral trade liberalisation and rule-making, as well as the WTO system more broadly.

On services: Services negotiations are done on a request-offer basis; therefore there are no current figures relating to the global value of the offers made. However, the offers made in July 2008 fell short of actual applied levels of access to global services markets, and therefore represented a very modest level of ambition.

The EU in global trade Emerging economies are increasing their share of world growth. By 2015, 90% of world growth will be generated outside Europe, with a third from China alone. Developing and emerging countries are likely to account for nearly 60% of world GDP by 2030, compared to less than 50% today3. The EU has maintained its 17.5% share in world trade on average over the last decade despite the rise of emerging economies.

The EU is the largest trading bloc worldwide and therefore stands to gain from improving the global trading environment. It exported goods and services worth €1.87 trillion in 2010 (equivalent to 15.4% of EU's GDP) and imported €1.95 trillion.

3 OECD estimate.

28 7.1.3 WTO Public forum The theme of this years annual WTO Public forum which took place form 19-21 September, was “Seeking answers to global trade challenges”. It focused on identifying the principal challenges for the multilateral trading system and finding solutions to ensure that the WTO responds to the fast changing world.The political, economic, and social aspects of the world we live in today are very different to those that existed a decade ago. For instance, food security, trade in natural resources and how it affects the environment, as well as the phenomenon of international supply chains pose new global challenges. As a result, there is a widening gap between existing trade rules and the realities of the 21st century. Examining how the WTO should adapt to deal with the new challenges has become increasingly important as the organization reflects on the way forward. Participants have the opportunity to discuss current trade rules, to identify areas for improvement and to pinpoint the scope for rule-making in the future.

While the Doha Development Agenda remains a priority, the WTO recognizes that it needs to continue to examine all aspects of its work, and to contribute to greater cooperation across all areas of global governance. For further information about the programme and core themes, see http://www.wto.org/publicforum

7.2 TRADE AND CULTURE 7.2.1 China The year 2012 has been designated as the EU-China Year of Intercultural Dialogue. In lieu of this, the European Chamber of Commerce in China is investigating the potential of establishing a platform that will focus on the European Creative and Cultural Industry in China. The main activity of this platform will be to engage in constructive dialogue with the relevant Chinese and European authorities to improve and foster market access for European business and organisations that operate in China. The initiative is supported by the European Commission, particularly because 2012 has been designated as the EU-China Year of Intercultural Dialogue.

In the light of this initiative the Chamber of Commerce launched an investigation over the summer to ask organizations who do not have permanent facilities in China, but schedule performances in the country about the regulatory barriers that they face when attempting to schedule a performance, such as : - Obtaining a license requires information that is not typically finalized until just before the production (ie event crew and support staff) - Before license is approved, tickets cannot be marketed or sold (so no subscription / package sales) - Visa application unpredictability - Direct and indirect subsidies to state run venues The information collected will be used to prioritise the importance of the market access barriers in order to create an effective lobby action plan. 7.2.2 Cariforum – cultural protocol A study carried out by KEA for the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) shows how Caribbean artists are benefiting from the EU-Cariforum European Partnership Agreement (EPA).

At the end of 2008 the EU and 15 Cariforum countries signed an EPA. This was the first time the EU included cultural provisions in a trade agreement with third countries. Both Europe and the Caribbean have enormous cultural and creative assets, a wealth of ideas, artists and creative people and this trade agreement offered the opportunity to increase cultural exchanges and business cooperation.

The cultural and creative sector is wide and covers the following activities: visual arts, performing arts, arts fairs, heritage, film and video, television and radio, video games, computer animation, music, publishing, design, fashion etc.

The ECPDM study looks foremost at how eight EU Member States such as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom implemented the cultural

29 provisions of the EPA. Due to their historical and linguistic ties these countries traditionally have the most cultural cooperation with the Cariforum countries. In addition the study examined the activities and funding programmes developed by the European Commission and the EU Member States.

The conclusion of the study is that EU Member States and the Cariforum countries are still in the very early stages of implementing the cultural provisions of the EPA. This has also some benefits and it leaves room to make recommendations. KEA makes a set of 29 recommendations for actions that the European Commission, the EU Member States and the Cariforum could take to ensure that the cultural provisions of the Cariforum-EU EPA can effectively become a more useful tool to increase and boost cultural cooperation and trade.

The study and its executive summary can be downloaded from http://www.keanet.eu/docs/KEA_implementing_cultural_provision_Cariforum_EU_EPA.pdf http://www.keanet.eu/docs/KEA_implementing_cultural_provisions_summary.pdf

8 INTERNAL MARKET, INDUSTRY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

8.1 STANDARDS The European Commission proposed in June a series of legislative and non-legislative measures to develop more and faster standards. Standards are sets of voluntary technical and quality criteria for products, services and production processes. Nobody is obliged to use or apply them but they help businesses work together and to save money for consumers. But in the past, it took several years to develop a European standard so that some standards have lagged too far behind rapidly evolving technologies. Consequently, certain sectors have been reluctant to engage in standardisation or are unable to benefit from the positive effects of standards. This should be changed with the package presented.

The European Council of 4 February, in its conclusions on the "Innovation Union", invited the Commission "to make proposals to accelerate, simplify and modernize standardization procedures, notably to allow standards developed by industry to be turned into European standards". The most important steps that the Commission is taking to strengthen the system of standard-setting in Europe and to implement the commitments of the Europe 2020 flagships, Industrial policy, Innovation Union, Digital Agenda and Internal market Act are the following: - Europe will push for more international standards in those economic sectors where Europe is a global leader; - High-tech products are often sold in combination with maintenance services. Although there are many European standards for products, there are hardly any for services. Therefore, more market-driven European standards for services could be developed giving companies commercial advantages;

To propose a light and fast way to recognise the increasingly important ICT standards developed by global ICT standards development organisations, such as those underpinning the internet, to be used in public procurement, EU policies and legislation. This will stimulate innovation, cut administrative overheads and build a truly digital society by encouraging interoperability between devices, applications, data repositories, services and networks.

The Commission will enhance its cooperation with the leading standardisation organisations in Europe (i.e. CEN, CENELEC and ETSI) so that their standards will be available more rapidly. Businesses using these standards can make their products more compatible with other products so that consumers will have a broader choice at a lower price;

European standards will be drafted with the help of organisations representing those most affected, or most concerned – consumers, small businesses, environmental and social organisations. The new standard for a universal mobile-phone charger to fit all models is a perfect example of the tremendous value of European standards for our daily lives.

30 Some of the actions proposed will be implemented immediately while the others need the approval of the European Parliament and the Council.

Background In an era of increasing global competition, European competitiveness depends on our ability to foster innovation in products, services and processes and fully exploit the potential of the Internal market. The strategy presented today sets out a package of measures, both legislative and non-legislative. The legislative measures are contained in the accompanying proposal for a Regulation on standardisation, which updates and combines existing European legislation and is accompanied by an Impact Assessment. Non-legislative measures include actions to be taken by the Commission and a series of recommendations addressed to other actors in the European standardisation system (see MEMO/11/369). This proposal is one of the 12 key actions in the single market act. It also fulfils a key action of the Digital Agenda for Europe.

For more information http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/standardisation-policy/index_en.htm

Comment: although of low priority for Pearle’s activities, standardisation may be of relevance for new equipment to be developed such as for wireless microphone systems and other technical equipment which may allow for reducing costs. In this regard this standardisation policy of the EU may be welcomed.

8.2 IMPLEMENTATION EUROPEAN LEGISLATION Failure to respect deadlines for implementing Directives The Commission has adopted decisions to request Member States to adopt implementing measures for Directives where the deadline has already passed and warned Member States that if they fail to do so they may not only be referred to the Court but also that the Commission intends to request the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission may now request the Court, the first time the case is referred to the Court, to impose financial penalties in cases where Member States have failed to implement Directives within the deadline agreed by the EU's Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

For the first time, the Commission has used this new possibility laid down in Article 260 (3) of the TFEU, and requested the Court, at the first referral, to impose a financial penalty on 3 Member States that have failed to implement Directives.

Background on legal process Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) gives the Commission the power to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations under EU law. The infringement procedure begins with a request for information (a "Letter of Formal Notice") to the Member State concerned, which must be answered within a specified period, usually two months. If the Commission is not satisfied with the information and concludes that the Member State in question is failing to fulfil its obligations under EU law, the Commission may then send a formal request to comply with EU law (a "Reasoned Opinion"), calling on the Member State to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply within a specified period, usually two months.

If a Member State fails to ensure compliance with EU law, the Commission may then decide to refer the Member State to the Court of Justice. However, in around 95% of infringement cases, Member States comply with their obligations under EU law before they are referred to the Court. If the Court rules against a Member State, the Member State must then take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

If, despite the ruling, a Member State still fails to act, the Commission may open a further infringement case under Article 260 of the TFEU, with only one written warning before referring the Member State back to Court. If the Commission does refer a Member State back to Court, it can propose that the Court

31 imposes financial penalties on the Member State concerned based on the duration and severity of the infringement and the size of the Member State (both a lump sum depending on the time elapsed since the original Court ruling and a daily penalty payment for each day after a second Court ruling until the infringement ends).

In the specific case of Member States that have failed to implement Directives within the deadline agreed by the EU's Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, the Commission may request the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned the first time the Court rules on such a case, rather than when it is referred back for a second time. This possibility, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, is laid down in Article 260 (3) of the TFEU.

For current statistics on infringements in general, see: http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/infringements/infringements_en.htm

8.3 PACKAGE OF MEASURES TO SUPPORT ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS A responsible approach to business means more, and more sustainable, economic growth. This is why the European Commission has presented a package of measures to support entrepreneurship and responsible business. First, the Social Business Initiative will help this emerging sector to fulfil its unexploited potential. This is complemented by an ambitious strategy for Corporate Social Responsibility to generate a higher level of trust and consumer confidence and improve companies' contribution to society's well- being. Both initiatives reinforce Commission efforts to engage with the private sector on social and environmental issues, especially relevant in times of public budget constraints.

The Commission is also proposing to improve transparency and promote sustainable business among multinationals. Mining and forestry companies would have to be more open about taxes, royalties and bonuses paid worldwide. Finally, the Commission is proposing to simplify accounting rules for SMEs, potentially saving them up to €1.7 billion per year. The proposals would also reduce burdensome reporting obligations for listed companies, including SMEs, adding further to cost savings.

Key elements of the package Encouraging responsible business To increase transparency to the payments made by the extractive and logging industries to governments all over the world, the Commission has proposed to introduce a system of Country-by- Country Reporting (CBCR). This system would apply to EU privately-owned large companies or companies listed in the EU that are active in the oil, gas, mining or logging sectors. CBCR is a different concept from regular financial reporting as it presents financial information for every country that a company operates in rather than a single set of information at a global level. Reporting taxes, royalties and bonuses that a multinational pays to a host government will show a company's financial impact in host countries. This more transparent approach would encourage more sustainable businesses. In order to cover the various types of companies active in these industries under the CBCR system, the Commission is proposing to revise both the Transparency Directive (2004/109/EC) to cover listed companies and the Accounting Directives (78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC) to cover large non-listed companies. Furthermore, the proposed revision of the Transparency Directive would prevent investors from secretly building up a controlling stake in a listed company ("hidden ownership"). Such practices can give rise to possible market abuse, low levels of investor confidence and misalignment of investor intentions. Under the Commission's proposal, investors would need to notify all financial instruments that have the same economic effect as holdings of shares. The Commission's Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) offers a modernised definition of this concept that is consistent with internationally recognised principles and guidelines. It serves as a strategy that will allow companies to achieve their potential more effectively. It aims at improving trust in business including by launching in 2013 a European award for CSR and creating multi-stakeholder CSR platforms in a number of relevant industrial sectors.

32 Facilitating Social Entrepreneurship Social businesses are companies that have a positive social impact and address social objectives as their corporate aim rather than only maximising profit. Today, the social economy represents 10% of all European businesses and employs over 11 million paid employees. The Social Business Initiative contains a number of actions to support its further development. It proposes ways to improve social businesses' access to funding (including EU funding through the Structural Funds and the future setting-up of a financial instrument to provide social investment funds and financial intermediaries with equity, debt, and risk-sharing instruments), measures to improve their visibility and a simplified regulatory environment (including a future proposal for a European Foundation Statute, forthcoming revision of the public procurement rules and state aid measures for social and local services).

Cutting red tape for SMEs By proposing to amend the Accounting Directives (78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC), the Commission aims to reduce the administrative burden for small companies. Simplifying the preparation of financial statements would also make these more comparable, clearer and easier to understand. It would also allow users of financial statements such as shareholders, banks and suppliers to gain a better understanding of a company's performance and financial position. Potential cost savings for SMEs are estimated at € 1.7 billion per year. Furthermore, under the proposed revision of the Transparency Directive (2004/109/EC), listed companies, including small and medium-sized issuers, would no longer be obliged to publish quarterly financial information. This would contribute to further cost savings and should help to discourage short-termism on financial markets.

Next steps: The package of proposals for more responsible businesses follows up on the Single Market Act (see IP/11/469), in which the Commission laid out twelve levers to re-launch the Single Market for 2012 for sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. Two of the key actions identified were the creation and development of small and micro enterprises, by introducing smart regulation and cutting red tape, and the creation of an eco-system conducive to the development of social entrepreneurship. The proposals to revise the accounting Directives and the Transparency Directive will now be passed to the European Parliament and the EU's Council of Ministers for adoption. The Communication on Social Entrepreneurship forms the starting point for a number of legislative and non-legislative initiatives that are to be rolled out over the next two years. There will be a first opportunity to discuss them with stakeholders at the Conference on Social Economy and Social Business hosted by the Commission on 18th November 2011 in Brussels.

More information: See MEMO/11/730, MEMO/11/732, MEMO/11/734 and MEMO/11/735 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/index_en.htm

8.4 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS At the end of June the European Commission launched a consultation to receive input to modernise the Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC).

The Green Paper outlines possible ways forward that build on past achievements while developing new approaches to enhance mobility: For instance, the introduction of a professional card closely linked to the Internal Market Information System (IMI) could make it considerably easier for professionals to have their qualifications recognised in another Member State. A professional card issued by a competent authority in the professional’s home Member State could then allow the professional to demonstrate his/her credentials (having the necessary qualifications, being authorised to practise) to consumers, employers and relevant authorities in another Member State Similarly, stakeholders are invited to give their input about the potential of new common platforms to facilitate the mobility of professionals where there is no automatic recognition by developing sets of commonly agreed criteria for professional qualifications. They could be used to reduce differences in training requirements).

33 In addition, the minimum training requirements of certain professions (e.g. some health professions and architects) could be reformed. To that end, certain adjustments to the duration and content of training, as well as possibly changing the requisite language skills for health professions, could be necessary. This would also strengthen the legitimacy of automatic recognition of qualifications. Stakeholders are invited to respond to the consultation by 20 September 2011. The Commission will subsequently organise a high level conference on 7 November 2011. A legislative proposal is foreseen for December 2011.

Background The Green Paper aims to gather stakeholders’ views on the modernisation of the Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC). The primary aim of this is to facilitate mobility of EU citizens for professional purposes. It is one of the twelve levers for growth proposed in the Commission’s Single Market Act (IP/11/469). The Green Paper follows a report of how the Directive works in practice (IP/10/1367) and a first technical-level public consultation launched in January 2011 (IP/11/14). A final evaluation report, as well as a summary of the responses to the first consultation, will be published by the end of June.

For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/index_en.htm

9 COMPETITION

9.1 STATE AID 9.1.1 Film support The European Commission launched, just before the summer, a public consultation as the first step of a review of the criteria used to apply EU state aid rules to Member States' financial support for making and distributing films. Responses were due 30 September. The current Cinema Communication is 10 years old. The Commission has published an issues paper identifying areas for reflection, such as competing to attract major film productions using state aid, and supporting activities other than production. Commission Vice President in charge of competition policy Joaquín Almunia commented: "Before designing the future state aid rules for this important sector, my colleagues and I want to gather views about what the common European objective of such support should be. For example, does a subsidy race to attract major US productions undermine the effectiveness of aid to support smaller European films? Does the scope of our rules need to go beyond encouraging the production of more films? And is support needed to encourage filmmakers to explore the possibilities of the digital revolution? Only when we have a clearer picture of issues like these can we begin to develop appropriate state aid rules."

The issues for discussion in the consultation include: - competition among some Member States to use state aid to attract inward investment from large-scale, mainly US, film production companies - support for aspects other than film and TV production (such as film distribution and digital projection) - territorial spending obligations imposed in film support schemes and - whether the specific rules on state aid in the audiovisual sector can or should be adapted for new technologies, new creative concepts and changing consumer behaviour. EU Member States provide an estimated €2.3 billion per year in film support: €1.3 billion in grants and soft loans and €1 billion in tax incentives. Around 80% of this is for film production. France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain offer the majority of this financial support.

The Commission's consultation follows the extension of the existing state aid assessment criteria in January 2009 (IP/09/138) until 31 December 2012. The Commission's assessment of aid for film production is currently based on the state aid rules indicated in the 2001 Cinema Communication

34 (IP/01/1326). For other types of support in the film sector, the Commission's assessment often refers to the rules in the Cinema Communication when assessing measures under Article 107.3(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, that allows aid of a cultural character.

Background The current Cinema Communication (see IP/01/1326) sets out the following criteria for state aid of this kind to benefit from the cultural exception to the general ban on state aid in the Treaty: the aid must comply with the provisions of the Treaty (e.g. it must not affect the internal market) the aid must be directed towards a cultural product. Each Member State must ensure that the content of the aided production is cultural according to verifiable national criteria (applying the subsidiarity principle) the producer must be free to spend at least 20% of the film budget in other Member States without suffering any reduction in the aid provided for under the scheme the aid intensity must in principle be limited to 50% of the production budget, except in the case of difficult and low budget films the aid must not provide supplements for specific filmmaking activities (e.g. post-production).

9.2 E-PAYMENT MARKET The European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into the standardisation process for payments over the internet ('e-payments') undertaken by the European Payments Council (EPC). The EPC is the coordination and decision-making body of the European banking industry for payments. The Commission will undertake a careful examination of the standardisation process to ensure that competition is not unduly restricted, for example through the exclusion of new entrants and payment providers who are not controlled by a bank. Excluding competitors in the online payments market could result in higher prices for web merchants and ultimately consumers. The opening of proceedings does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. It means the Commission treats the case as a matter of priority and will gather the necessary information to take a final position.

The European Payments Council (EPC) supports and promotes the creation of an integrated payments market through its self regulatory project the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA). The European Commission endorses the SEPA project as it is crucial for consumers, retailers and companies to enjoy the full benefits of the Single Market and in principle welcomes the development of standards for e-payments.

The Commission recognises the importance of standardisation in terms of promoting economic integration, which results in greater efficiencies and better prices and services for the consumer. The EU Guidelines on horizontal agreements adopted in 2010 set out clearly the kinds of agreements that do not raise competition concerns and the way that the Commission analyses standardisation agreements and procedures under EU competition rules (see IP/10/1702 and MEMO/10/676). The Commission intends to investigate whether the e-payments standardisation process will not unduly restrict competition, for example through the exclusion of new entrants and payment providers who are not linked to a bank. Such restrictions, if established, could harm merchants and consumers in the market of e-payments. This could breach EU rules on restrictive business practices - Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. The Commission has received a complaint which will form part of this investigation.

Background on antitrust investigations Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits anticompetitive agreements and decisions of associations of undertakings. The implementation of this provision is defined in the EU's Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003), which can also be applied by national competition authorities. By initiating proceedings, the Commission relieves national competition authorities of their authority to apply the EU rules in this area. National courts must also refrain from making decisions, which could conflict with a Commission decision. The Commission has informed the parties and the national competition authorities that it has opened proceedings in this case. The initiation of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has made a definitive finding of an infringement but means that the Commission will deal with the case as a matter of priority. There is no legal deadline to complete antitrust investigations. The duration depends on a number of substantial and procedural factors.

35 10 CONSUMERS

10.1 CONSUMER MARKET SCOREBOARD Making markets work for consumers. Questions and Answers on the 2011 Consumer Markets Scoreboard

I. THE SCOREBOARD What is the Consumer Markets Scoreboard for? The Consumer Markets Scoreboard is the European Commission's main tool for identifying potentially underperforming sectors in the single market from the consumers' perspective. The markets that appear to be underperforming are then analysed in depth in order to understand the problems better and to identify steps that can be taken to address them. The ultimate aim of the consumer policy is to make sure that the EU single market is working for European consumers i.e. that it offers them a greater choice of products and services, ease of comparing offers, competitive prices and effective complaints handling.

How often is the Scoreboard published? The Consumer Markets Scoreboard is published every autumn. It now covers 51 different markets in all EU countries, which are responsible for over 60% of the consumer budget (see IP/10/1369 for the 2010 Consumer Markets Scoreboard). In the spring, the European Commission also publishes the Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, which has a different focus. It examines progress in the integration of the EU retail market from the consumers' perspective. It also monitors trends in national conditions for consumers, reflected e.g. in the effectiveness of resolving disputes and handling complaints, consumer trust in authorities, retailers, advertisers and consumer organisations, and the quality of consumer regulations (see IP/11/280 for the Consumer Conditions Scoreboard published in March 2011).

II. CONSUMER MARKETS 2011: KEY RESULTS Which markets have turned out to be the most problematic? Figure 1 below shows the main EU ranking of all 51 markets screened in the Scoreboard, in terms of their overall performance for consumers, broken down into services and goods markets. The lower the score, the more problematic for consumers a market is likely to be. Figure 1. The main ranking of market performance (Market Performance Indicator): goods and services markets

36 10.2 E-COMMERCE FOR CONSUMERS The EU Commission wants to keep making things work better for online shoppers in the EU-wide market. At the end of 2011, the Commission will present a study on the savings potential of e-commerce for consumers. This will feed into an action plan entirely devoted to the development of e-commerce in the single market and to removing existing barriers.

As part of the plan, the Commission wants to table an ambitious legislative proposal which will allow consumers shopping online from an EU country to solve their disputes with traders based in another EU country, entirely online as an alternative to going to court.

37 10.3 BUYING TICKETS ONLINE Buying tickets for music and sporting events on the internet is now much less likely to end in tears, following a crackdown on problematic websites which sold tickets to non-existent events or which failed to explain whether the buyer would get a refund or not, if the event was cancelled. 88% of the websites selling tickets for cultural and sporting events, checked for breach of EU consumer rules, now comply with EU law (compared with only 40% in 2010), and further improvements can be expected as cases are brought to the courts.

The EU co-ordinated "Sweep" investigation was launched in September 2010 by national authorities in all Member States, Norway and Iceland. The problems identified included: incomplete or misleading information about the price of tickets; unfair terms and conditions; incomplete or misleading information about the trader. Sites have been corrected, usually voluntarily, but in some cases penalties were imposed.

National authorities will continue to work on the outstanding cases. For cross-border cases, they are in contact with their counterparts in other countries. The system of EU-wide sweep investigations will continue, a new sweep is currently being prepared and more joint actions are planned for 2012.

Background A "sweep" is an enforcement action led by the EU and carried out by national enforcement authorities. Member States carry out simultaneous, coordinated checks for breaches in consumer law in a particular sector. They contact operators about suspected irregularities and ask them to take corrective action. The Ticketing sweep took place in September 2010 (MEMO/10/418). Enforcement authorities across Europe checked websites selling tickets for cultural and sporting events, for compliance with EU consumer law. 414 sites were checked, and then, national authorities followed up on the problematic sites, requesting corrections and imposing sanctions if necessary.

Of the 414 websites originally checked, 88% now comply with EU-wide consumer rules, compared with only 40% in 2010. In terms of the main problems which were identified initially: - Missing, incomplete or misleading information about the price (e.g. hidden taxes or handling charges): 94% of sites now display clear, and accurate information about the total cost (including delivery charges and all other extra costs), compared with 55% in 2010; - Unfair terms and conditions (e.g. ticket delivery was not guaranteed on time, or the site failed to explain whether the buyer would get a refund or not, if the event was cancelled: 92% of the websites checked now display fair terms and conditions, compared to 57% in 2010. - Missing, incomplete or misleading information about the trader (e.g. the trader falsely claiming to be an authorised representative): 93% of the websites checked now provide the required trader details such as the name, address and e-mail, compared with 72% in 2010.

Sweeps website (including Mock web pages with examples of good/bad practice): http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps_en.htm Frequently Asked Questions: Now safer to shop for tickets online following EU Sweep investigation IP/11/1094

1. THE TICKETING SWEEP Why were online sales of tickets for cultural and sporting events picked for the fourth sweep investigation? People are using the internet more and more to check their entertainment options - to see what's on, when it's on, and to compare prices and offers for the best deals or the deal that suits them best. In 2009, about 35% of EU consumers who purchased anything online bought tickets either for a cultural or sporting event4. This trend results in better deals and more choice for many buyers. But one of the consequences is also a large number of consumer complaints in this product category. The European Consumer Centres (ECCs) report that 30% of the complaints about online shopping which they handled concerned Recreation and Culture services, of which Cultural and Sport Events form a large

4 "Internet Usage in 2009", Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-QA-09-046

38 part (2009 data). These were the key reasons why the European consumer enforcement network set up by a European Regulation5 decided to pick this product category for their present joint exercise.

Which product categories were concerned? The present sweep targeted websites selling tickets for cultural and sporting events –i.e. concerts, movies, theatre plays, and for sporting events such as football matches, Formula 1 races.

When did this sweep take place and what did it involve? The initial check was carried out between 31st May and 4th June 2010 by the national enforcement authorities (see MEMO/10/418) and co-ordinated by the European Commission. Since then, the authorities have been investigating suspected breaches and taking follow-up action to ensure that sites comply with EU consumer rules. Many sites have been corrected - some voluntarily, many following enforcement interventions.

Which countries participated in the sweep? 27 EU Member States plus Norway and Iceland participated. The full list of participating national authorities, and their press contacts, can be found at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweep/online_ticket_sales/national_contact_points_en.htm

What exactly was checked by the authorities in the first phase? Below is a checklist agreed on by the network of national enforcement authorities before the sweep and used by all participating countries to check websites during the sweep. Information about the trader 1. Are the name, geographical address and e-mail address of the trader provided? Information about the offer 2. Is there clear information about the main characteristics of the product? 3. Does the price include taxes? 4. Is the consumer provided with information on payment and delivery arrangements? Misleading practices 6. Is the information about the trader misleading? 7. Is the information about the main characteristics of the product misleading? 8. Is the presentation of the final price to pay the same as stated in the information provided before the purchase? Unfair Terms and Conditions 9. Does the website contain any unfair Terms and Conditions? 9a. Are the Terms and Conditions drafted in a plain and intelligible language?

What are the EU consumer rules that companies need to comply with? The following EU laws provide the legal basis for the sweep: E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC. This Directive defines some of the minimum information which online traders must provide, including the identity and contact details of the trader. Furthermore, it sets some additional information requirements (e.g. it establishes that the trader must confirm receipt of the order promptly and by electronic means accessible to the consumer. (Under the competence of DG Internal Market) 6. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC. Under the UCP Directive, traders must display in a clear and intelligible way all the key information that consumers need to make an informed choice. This includes information on the main characteristics of the product, in this case the ticket (e.g. date and time of the event, price/seat category, venue, any restriction) and on the total cost including all extra delivery or postal charges wherever they can be reasonably calculated. (Under the competence of DG Justice) 7. Unfair Terms and Conditions Directive 1993/13/EC. This Directive states that the terms and conditions of the sale contract must not be unfair, that is, must not cause a significant imbalance in

5 Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.

6 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/index_en.htm

39 the parties' rights and obligations to detriment of the consumer. It could happen, for example, if the seller states he will grant only a partial reimbursement if the event is cancelled or postponed. The Directive also includes an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. (Under the competence of DG Justice)8.

Comment: Pearle has in the past reported on the EU activities on this subject matter. Proposals to respond to this action from the EC: - A small publication could be published by Pearle to demonstrate to the EU that awareness is raised amongst its members to comply with the legal obligations - A press release from Pearle on the occasion of a next action could be published - Contact to be made with the EC to find out in which ways Pearle could cooperate to improve this relative bad image on the sector and to achieve more rapidly results which show improvement

10.4 CONSUMER RIGHTS DIRECTIVE The European Parliament adopted towards the end of June – by an overwhelming majority (615 for, 16 against, 21 abstentions) – the Consumer Rights Directive, which the European Commission proposed in October 2008 (IP/08/1474). The vote follows a deal reached between the three EU institutions (European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of Ministers), and clears the final hurdle before the new rules can become reality for consumers. The European Parliament backed a political agreement between negotiators of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. In March 2010, EU Justice Commissioner Reding made it clear that any agreement on the Directive would require a sound balance between consumers’ interest in stronger rights and businesses’ interest in taking full advantage of the EU's Single Market (see SPEECH/10/91).

In September a formal approval of the agreed text of the EU Consumer Rights Directive by the EU Council of Ministers took place, following which the new Directive is published in the EU's Official Journal (this autumn). The Transposition of the new rules will then come into force in the national laws before the end of 2013.

The following are the 10 most important changes for consumers in the new Directive:

1) The proposal will eliminate hidden charges and costs on the Internet Consumers will be protected against "cost traps" on the Internet. This happens when fraudsters try to trick people into paying for ‘free’ services, such as horoscopes or recipes. From now on, consumers must explicitly confirm that they understand that they have to pay a price.

2) Increased price transparency Traders have to disclose the total cost of the product or service, as well as any extra fees. Online shoppers will not have to pay charges or other costs if they were not properly informed before they place an order.

3) Banning pre-ticked boxes on websites When shopping online – for instance buying a plane ticket – you may be offered additional options during the purchase process, such as travel insurance or car rental. These additional services may be offered through so-called ‘pre-ticked’ boxes. Consumers are currently often forced to untick those boxes if they do not want these extra services. With the new Directive, pre-ticked boxes will be banned across the European Union.

4) 14 Days to change your mind on a purchase

7 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/index_en.htm

8 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/gen_rights_en.htm#uct

40 The period under which consumers can withdraw from a sales contract is extended to 14 calendar days (compared to the seven days legally prescribed by EU law today). This means that consumers can return the goods for whatever reason if they change their minds. Extra protection for lack of information: When a seller hasn’t clearly informed the customer about the withdrawal right, the return period will be extended to a year. Consumers will also be protected and enjoy a right of withdrawal for solicited visits, such as when a trader called beforehand and pressed the consumer to agree to a visit. In addition, a distinction no longer needs to be made between solicited and unsolicited visits; circumvention of the rules will thus be prevented. The right of withdrawal is extended to online auctions, such as eBay – though goods bought in auctions can only be returned when bought from a professional seller. The withdrawal period will start from the moment the consumer receives the goods, rather than at the time of conclusion of the contract, which is currently the case. The rules will apply to internet, phone and mail order sales, as well as to sales outside shops, for example on the consumer's doorstep, in the street, at a Tupperware party or during an excursion organised by the trader.

5) Better refund rights Traders must refund consumers for the product within 14 days of the withdrawal. This includes the costs of delivery. In general, the trader will bear the risk for any damage to goods during transportation, until the consumer takes possession of the goods

6) Introduction of an EU-wide model withdrawal form Consumers will be provided with a model withdrawal form which they can (but are not obliged to) use if they change their mind and wish to withdraw from a contract concluded at a distance or at the doorstep. This will make it easier and faster to withdraw, wherever you have concluded a contract in the EU.

7) Eliminating surcharges for the use of credit cards and hotlines Traders will not be able to charge consumers more for paying by credit card (or other means of payment) than what it actually costs the trader to offer such means of payment. Traders who operate telephone hotlines allowing the consumer to contact them in relation to the contract will not be able charge more than the basic telephone rate for the telephone calls.

8) Clearer information on who pays for returning goods If traders want the consumer to bear the cost of returning goods after they change their mind, they have to clearly inform consumers about that beforehand, otherwise they have to pay for the return themselves. Traders must clearly give at least an estimate of the maximum costs of returning bulky goods bought by internet or mail order, such as a sofa, before the purchase, so consumers can make an informed choice before deciding from whom to buy.

9) Better consumer protection in relation to digital products Information on digital content will also have to be clearer, including about its compatibility with hardware and software and the application of any technical protection measures, for example limiting the right for the consumers to make copies of the content. Consumers will have a right to withdraw from purchases of digital content, such as music or video downloads, but only up until the moment the actual downloading process begins.

10) Common rules for businesses will make it easier for them to trade all over Europe. A single set of core rules for distance contracts (sales by phone, post or internet) and off-premises contracts (sales away from a company’s premises, such as in the street or the doorstep) in the European Union, creating a level playing field and reducing transaction costs for cross-border traders, especially for sales by internet. Standard forms will make life easier for businesses: a form to comply with the information requirements on the right of withdrawal; Specific rules will apply to small businesses and craftsmen, such as a plumber. There will be no right of withdrawal for urgent repairs and maintenance work. Member States may also decide to exempt traders who are requested by consumers to carry out repair and maintenance work in their home of a value below €200 from some of the information requirements.

Comment: Pearle members will recall that after succesful lobbying, the following has been obtained:

41 The exemption on the right of withdrawal for the live performance sector is kept, so that referring to this, distance selling of tickets for performances does not fall under the scope of the directive. See Article 19, 1(h) Information requirements for all kind of contracts Before the consumer is bound by any distance, off-premise or other contract, the trader shall provide the consumer with the following information: His identity, such as his trading name, address, telephone and fax number, e-mail, the total price inclusive of taxes, the costs for using the means of distance communication, the arrangements for payment, delivery, performance. See Article 5, Article 9 Formal requirements for distance contracts (including telephone contracts) A confirmation of the contract (and all the information referred to in Article 9) has to be sent on a durable medium after a contract has been concluded (thus, after the payment of a ticket. Most of the times we believe this is already done automatically). See Article 11,4 Telephone contracts: Member States have leeway to make their own decisions regarding telephone contracts and an obligation for the trader to send a confirmation (possibly on a durable medium) to the consumer before the contract can be concluded. See Article 11,3b Since the legislation in some European countries, like France for instance, already includes the obligation for the trader to send a confirmation on a durable medium before the execution of a contract, the Parliament’s proposal to exempt our and other sectors could not be maintained.

10.5 TRAVELLING – AIR PASSENGERS RIGHTS The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) offer citizens free advice about their rights when travelling and shopping across borders. They can also help them solve problems with traders in another EU country (plus Iceland and Norway) when things go wrong. In 2010, the Centres provided free help and advice in over 71,000 consumer cases, and helped consumers with complaints worth 14 million euros. Since many of the complaints they receive concern transport, in particular air travel, the Network has organised a special 'Air Passenger Rights Day' at 27 airports (23 countries9) across the EU. Under the motto 'Pack a little consumer know-how, Europe offers you free help and advice', they will provide advice and help on air passenger rights, for example in cases of cancellations, delays or baggage loss.

EU citizens are shopping cross border more frequently, and this expenditure represents 1.75% of EU GDP. While the total detriment suffered by EU consumers amounts to 0.4% of Europe's GDP, the detriment related to cross border shopping (including internet) can be estimated between 500 million and 1 billion euros per year. The Centres help to reduce that figure by helping consumers to exercise their rights successfully. In 2010 about 40% of consumer complaints handled by ECCs were amicably settled with the trader.

Giving consumers clear information about their rights and assuring them that they can get effective redress if they have a problem will improve their confidence and help unlock the full potential of the Single Market. The role of Centres in this regard is important since recent studies show that 79% of EU citizens do not know where to get information and advice about cross-border shopping in the EU.

How do European Consumer Centres help? The Centres operate in 29 countries (all EU countries plus Norway and Iceland). They offer online as well as direct advice for consumers to help them avoid problems when buying goods and services from a trader based in another EU country (as well as in Norway and Iceland) When consumers do run into problems (e.g. with a refund, repair or replacement to which they are entitled to under EU rules) and for whatever reason have not been able reach an understanding with the trader, the Centres can intervene on the consumers' behalf. This often involves contacting the corresponding Centre in the country of the trader.

9 AT, LV, LU, BG, SK, SI, CZ, PL, EE, NL, IE, ES, HU, NO, CY, PT, LT, IT, MT, BE, UK, RO, SE

42 For cases concerning air passenger rights (such as problems obtaining assistance when stranded at an airport), the Centres work closely with 'national enforcement bodies' (NEBs) which make sure that air passenger rights are complied with and which have the exclusive power to investigate and enforce EU rules. The Centres can help consumers obtain refunds and compensation. For example, the Centres can contact the airline on behalf of the consumer, or, if necessary, file a complaint with the relevant NEB. The Centres can also advise consumers on taking their case to an out-of-court dispute resolution scheme.

They are co-financed by the European Commission and national authorities. For coverage after the event please see http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm

11 TAXATION

11.1 VAT GREEN PAPER Pearle responded to the Green Paper on VAT last May 2011, following an exchange with the members. The Commissioner responsible for Taxation, explains the objectives of the Green Paper as follows: Firstly, VAT is a major source of revenue for national budgets, on average one fifth of the Member States tax revenue. The importance of VAT in these terms has been increasing over the last fifteen years. This trend has notably been reinforced in the context of the financial and economic crisis. Moreover, the general tendency to shift the tax burden from direct to indirect taxation is likely to continue. This is because income taxes have a more negative effect on competitiveness and growth and because of the demographic situation in most of our countries. This means that we have to work towards a higher potential of revenues from consumption taxes and first of all VAT. The tax base needs to be broadened. Actual VAT revenues of the EU Member States that are also members of the OECD represent only 55% of the revenues that could, in theory, be collected if all final consumption was taxed at the standard rate. The EU average of 55%, as compared with the figures of other countries, namely 74% in Canada, 77% in Switzerland and close to 100% in New Zealand, demonstrates a clear room for improvement in the EU. We all know that broadening the tax base is by far preferable to increasing tax rates in order to collect revenues in an efficient way and minimise the negative impacts on economic growth. We also have to realise that the average standard rate in the EU already exceeds 20%. This means that we are getting nearer to the levels which a VAT system might be unlikely to digest without favouring a drift into the black economy or harming consumption growth. These topics are all related to the vital need for the Member States to balance their national budgets and undertake a real fiscal consolidation. We are going to discuss in depth these topics during the 3rd session of the conference this afternoon. Secondly, but in the same line, we need to better tackle VAT fraud. This has already been a major issue on the political agenda in the recent years. The situation is still not satisfactory. Promising progress was made in the field of cooperation between tax authorities to combat VAT fraud more efficiently. However, it does not solve the inherent weaknesses in the VAT system itself, which provide the opportunities for setting up the fraud. This is why we need to use the opportunity of taking a fresh look at VAT to make it more fraud-proof. We need to invest our efforts into new tools and to touch upon issues like the collection methods that have remained unchanged since the introduction of VAT. Reducing the complexity of the current VAT system would already help to minimise fraud opportunities. Instead of looking at the principle questions we have a tendency to add new elements to existing rules, thus adding complications. Finally, the current VAT system is not only too complex but also too burdensome and costly. This is true both for tax administrations and businesses especially in terms of doing business in the single market.

43 Since the abolition of fiscal borders, the business models have changed substantially over the years. VAT therefore needs to be adapted. The increased use of new technologies by businesses represents not only a challenge but also an opportunity for VAT to modernise and utilise these new technologies. This is necessary to reduce burdens put on businesses and to improve the collection of VAT for the national tax administrations. All the above is particularly relevant in those times of scarce resources and spending restrictions for the European governments. In summary: We must develop a new and modern VAT system, fully compatible with the single market. It should also continue ensuring and even improve its role as a revenue raiser in the long term.

Comment: at the moment the Commission has not yet published a report of the responses to the consultation.

11.2 TAX 11.2.1 Tax reforms in EU Member States – 2011 report On 10 October 2011 the Commission published a report ‘tax reforms in EU member States’, saying that the consequences of the financial and economic crisis are deeply reflected in Member States' government revenues. Having implemented a wide range of tax stimulus measures from 2008 to 2010, the focus of tax policy has now clearly shifted towards a much needed consolidation of public finances in Member States. This is even more necessary in light of the difficulties currently faced by some Member States in refinancing their sovereign debt.

The 2011 report 'Tax reforms in EU Member States: Tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability' takes a look at recent trends in tax revenues and tax reforms implemented in Member States. In view of future tax reforms Member States may implement the report analyses the issue of quality of taxation and identifies challenges for tax policy in euro-area Member States.

The report points to three types of potential challenges in the area of taxation and tax policy faced by EU Member States: - the potential need to address severe fiscal consolidation challenges also by measures on the revenue side; - the potential to make the tax structure more growth friendly; - ways to improve the design of the tax system for individual types of taxes.

Background The report shows that, while tax revenues had dropped markedly in 2008 and 2009, they are on the rise again, for cyclical reasons and due to tax increase measures. Overall tax policy in the EU thus had a slightly contractionary effect on GDP already in 2010. Tax measures adopted in the first half of 2011 focused in almost all Member States on raising tax revenues. In some Member States measures have been taken to amend the tax structure with a view to supporting growth. The report furthermore analyses the tax structure as one important aspect of the quality of taxation. The report focuses on the effect of taxation on economic growth and presents a ranking of taxes. A "good" tax system should design taxes so as to reduce distortions to the minimum possible and, where appropriate, correct market failures. Adverse interaction between cross-country tax systems in the EU resulting in double taxation or non taxation should be avoided. Applying an indicator-based approach, the report identifies in which euro-area Member States higher tax revenues could potentially contribute to consolidation and which countries could benefit from a shift from labour taxes, in particular those falling on vulnerable groups, to consumption and real estate taxes. Analysing more specific horizontal challenges related to the design of individual taxes, the report concludes that almost all euro-area Member States face at least one challenge. Among these challenges, the report looks in particular at the potential need to decrease tax expenditure in direct taxation, the debt bias in direct taxation, VAT efficiency, possible options to "green" tax systems, the efficiency of tax collection and issues of tax evasion. These identified tax challenges may deserve further investigation in the framework of the integrated economic policy coordination with the EU, i.e. the "European Semester".

44 The Report is available on: Link to ECFIN homepage Link to DG Taxation and Customs Union 11.2.2 Financial transaction tax On 28 September 2011 the Commission presented a proposal for a financial transaction tax in the 27 Member States of the European Union. The tax would be levied on all transactions on financial instruments between financial institutions when at least one party to the transaction is located in the EU. The exchange of shares and bonds would be taxed at a rate of 0.1% and derivative contracts, at a rate of 0.01%. This could approximately raise €57 billion every year. The Commission has proposed that the tax should come into effect from 1st January 2014.

The Commission has decided to propose a new tax on financial transactions for two reasons. First, to ensure that the financial sector makes a fair contribution at a time of fiscal consolidation in the Member States. The financial sector played a role in the origins of the economic crisis. Governments and European citizens at large have borne the cost of massive taxpayer-funded bailouts to support the financial sector. Furthermore, the sector is currently under-taxed by comparison to other sectors. The proposal would generate significant additional tax revenue from the financial sector to contribute to public finances.

Second, a coordinated framework at EU level would help to strengthen the EU single market. Today, 10 Member States have a form of a financial transaction tax in place. The proposal would introduce new minimum tax rates and harmonise different existing taxes on financial transactions in the EU.. This will help to reduce competitive distortions in the single market, discourage risky trading activities and complement regulatory measures aimed at avoiding future crises. The financial transaction tax at EU level would strengthen the EU's position to promote common rules for the introduction of such a tax at global level, notably through the G20.

The revenues of the tax would be shared between the EU and the Member States. Part of the tax would be used as an EU own resource which would partly reduce national contributions. Member States might decide to increase the part of the revenues by taxing financial transactions at a higher rate.

Background As a result of the crisis, public debt in all 27 EU Member States jumped from below 60% of GDP in 2007 to 80% for the years to come. The financial sector has received substantial financial support from governments. EU Member States have committed € 4.6 trillion to bail out the financial sector during the crisis. In addition, the financial sector has benefited from low taxes in recent years. The financial sector enjoys a tax advantage of approximately €18 billion per year because of VAT exemption on financial services. A new tax on the financial sector would ensure that financial institutions contribute to the cost of economic recovery and discourage risky and unproductive trading. The financial transaction tax aims at taxing the 85% of financial transactions that take place between financial institutions. Citizens and businesses would not be taxed. House mortgages, bank loans, insurance contracts and other normal financial activities carried out by individuals or small businesses fall outside the scope of the proposal. The Commission has explored the idea of taxing the financial sector at EU level for several months now. On 29 June 2011, the Commission announced in the context of the multiannual financial framework that it would propose to set up a financial transaction tax as an own resource for the EU budget (IP/11/799, MEMO/11/468). The decision followed an analysis of different tax instruments to make the financial sector contribute to the recovery of the EU economy. In parallel, the Commission has explored ways to introduce a financial transaction tax at global level since 2009 with its international partners in the G20 (Pittsburgh, Toronto).

Who will be taxed? The main taxpayers would be financial institutions operating financial transactions, i.e. banks, investment firms, other financial institutions like insurance companies, stockbrokers, pension funds, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities, alternative investment funds like hedge funds, etc. Which transactions will be covered?

45 The Commission has proposed that the tax would be levied on all transactions on financial instruments between financial institutions, if at least one of the financial institutions was deemed to be established in the European Union. The financial instruments in question would be products such as shares, bonds, derivatives and structured financial products. Whether transactions were carried out on organised markets or over the counter would not make any difference - in both cases they would be taxed.

Next steps The proposal now needs to be discussed and agreed unanimously by Member States in the EU's Council of Ministers, following the opinion of the European Parliament. In parallel, the Commission will explore ways to introduce a financial transaction tax at global level, notably with its international partners in the G20.

When would the proposed tax enter into force? The Commission has proposed that the tax should come into effect from 1st January 2014, but this depends on when the Council adopts the proposal.

11.2.3 Follow-up Communication on tackling cross-border tax obstacles for citizens Following a meeting with DG Taxation end of last week, the following information was conveyed:

The EC is currently working on its policy proposals following from the Communication on ‘removing cross-border tax obstacles for EU citizens’, such as: Analysis of double taxation problems and proposing solutions – foreseen 2012 Cutting red tape : discussion to start towards end of the year by a working group of tax experts from the member states The most pressing issue concerns the need for best practices on information sharing by public authorities or other organizations in relation to taxation in the non-residence country

Pearle lobbied for the Commission to take into consideration best practices which currently exist in different countries. In particular Pearle asked whether the EC would be able to consider soft law (a recommendation), as it seems that the OECD is considering to propose as a recommendation the threshold of $ 20,000 (such as by the USA)for exemption on taxation at source.

The Commission stressed that their immediate need concerns examples from Member States (or existing in the sector) on access to information in relation to taxation, or specifically artist taxation, in a context of cross-border activities. This information can be available on a website from the government (example: UK – Foreign Entertainers Unit) or from another reliable source (example: Belgium – Guichet des arts/Kunstenloket).

Comment: Pearle launched a call amongst the members to present examples/best practices on information available in their countries with regard to taxation. None of the Pearle members reacted presenting a “best” practice. This leads to the conclusion that in none of the Member States best practice examples on information and taxation and in particular artist taxation can be found.

11.2.4 Communication on Double Taxation The Communication on Double Taxation (adopted 11 November) highlights where the main double taxation problems lie within the EU, and outlines concrete measures that the Commission will take to address them. In doing so, the Commission seeks to remove real obstacles to a more competitive economy and make the EU easier to invest and do business in.

Algirdas Šemeta, Commissioner for Taxation, Customs, Anti-Fraud and Audit, said: "We must be able to send the message to all citizens, businesses and trading partners: the EU does not tax twice! Double taxation is one of the biggest tax obstacles to the Internal Market, and can no longer be overlooked. Today I have presented clear and feasible ways to tackle double taxation, which will make the EU a more attractive place to live and work in."

46 A public consultation carried out by the Commission found that more than 20% of reported cases of double taxation of businesses were worth over €1 million, while for individuals, more than 35% of double taxation cases were worth more than €100 000.

Background Currently under EU law, there is nothing to oblige Member States to prevent non-discriminatory double taxation. Although Member States try to relieve double taxation through measures such as bilateral and multilateral double taxation conventions, these do not provide adequate protection for citizens and businesses due to various shortcomings (e.g. too narrow scope, lack of uniformity amongst Member States' provisions, administrative burdens, long time-lines for dispute resolution etc.). The 2010 Citizenship report highlights the inadequacy of existing mechanisms to avoid double taxation in the EU. The problem of double taxation therefore continues to create barriers to cross- border establishment, activity and investment in the EU.

Clearly, given its cross-border nature, further action at EU-level is needed to fully and effectively address this problem. Over the past year, the Commission has already made headway in tackling double taxation in specific areas e.g. the proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. This Communication launches the next phase of work to try to bring an end to the problem of double taxation, for the benefit of both citizens and businesses across Europe.

Next steps As an immediate first step to strengthen existing legislation against double taxation, the Commission also adopted today a simultaneous proposal to improve the Interest and Royalties Directive. This aims to reduce the instances of one Member State levying a withholding tax on a payment, while another Member State taxes the same payment. Other areas in which the Commission intends to propose specific solutions to double taxation problems include cross-border inheritance tax in the near future and dividends paid to portfolio investors later on. The Commission will also work on other possibilities to help eliminate cross-border double taxation, such as creating an EU Forum to develop a code of conduct on double taxation and a binding dispute resolution procedure for unresolved double taxation cases. With regard to double non-taxation, which causes considerable losses to public revenues, the Commission will launch a consultation to gauge the full scale of the problem. On the basis of this consultation, it will determine the most appropriate and effective measures to prevent double non- taxation and come forward with solutions next year.

The Commission will submit the Communication on Double Taxation to the European Parliament, Council and European Economic and Social Committee for discussion and the Interest and Royalty Directive proposal to Council and the European Parliament. Link to the Communication http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/whats_new/com(2011)712_en.pdf Link to the proposal to recast the directive on interest and royalties http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/whats_new/com(2011)714_en.pdf

Comment: after careful reading, Pearle shall further communicate with the DG Taxud and a position should be developed.

12 DIGITAL AGENDA

12.1 RECOMMENDATION ON DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND AGEING

The European Commission calls on EU Member States to develop and pursue a common vision on how to coordinate research at EU level in the field of ageing. This was the message of a Recommendation adopted on 15 July by the Commission entitled "More years, better lives - the potential and challenges of demographic change". The Recommendation urges Member States to participate in a Joint Programming Initiative on ageing populations in research areas such as how to retain people in the labour market, how to help older people remain active for as long as possible, in good health and with a better quality of life and how to make our future care systems sustainable.

47 More than 30% of Europeans will be 65 or over in 2025 and the number of those over 80 will almost double in the same period. So far thirteen countries have committed to participate in the Joint Programming Initiative that brings the most prominent scientists in economics, social sciences, health and technology together with representatives from industry, policy making and user organisations in order to foster the development of better knowledge on the impact of ageing. This is the first time that Member States will work together to fund strategic research on the ageing population. The initiative will provide a major contribution to the European Innovation Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing (see IP/10/1288) and the Digital Agenda for Europe (see IP/10/581, MEMO/10/199 and MEMO/10/200). It complements ageing related research activities in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme (see IP/10/1726) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, said: "I congratulate the EU MS that have taken this joint initiative. It will develop new science-based knowledge on the effects of demographic changes. I look forward to further Member States joining so that we can look for new opportunities generated by an ageing society, and not be overwhelmed by its challenges."

The European Commission will provide financial support for the coordination of the initiative; which is expected to start delivering concrete results after 2012, such as science based recommendations for adapting pension systems based not only on age, as is currently the case, but on people's capacity to work.

Background On 26 May 2010, the EU's Council of Competitiveness Ministers identified the Joint Programming Initiative 'More Years, Better Lives, the Challenges and Opportunities of Demographic Change', as an area where joint research programming would provide a major added value to the current, fragmented efforts by Member States. The initiative is led by the German Ministry for Research and Education. Twelve additional countries have agreed to participate so far (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK) and three countries are observers (Belgium, Ireland, Norway). The Commission is a non-voting member of the governing structure. More information http://www.jp-demographic.eu/

12.2 PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION RULES In 2010 the market for products and services based on public sector information was estimated to be worth around €32 billion across the EU, according to a recent study. The same study indicated that further opening up of public sector information by allowing easier access would generate overall economic gains of around €40 billion a year for the EU.

The PSI Directive (2003/98/EC) was adopted in 2003 and the Commission is currently revising it as a part of a wider package stimulating open data in the EU.

Useful links: More information, including the study, is available at the Commission's PSI website: http://ec.europa.eu./information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm

Public sector information (PSI) is the single largest source of information in Europe. It is produced and collected by public bodies and includes digital maps, meteorological, legal, traffic, financial, economic and other data. Most of this raw data could be re-used or integrated into new products and services, which we use on a daily basis, such as car navigation systems, weather forecasts, financial and insurance services.

Re-use of public sector information means using it in new ways by adding value to it, combining information from different sources, making mash-ups and new applications, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Examples include real time traffic information and bus timetables together with maps downloaded to smart phones. Public sector information has great economic potential.

48 According to a survey conducted by the European Commission in 2006 (MEPSIR study), the overall market size for PSI in the EU is estimated at 27 billion. Increase in the re-use of PSI generates new businesses and jobs and provides consumers with more choice and more value for money.

In 2003, the EU adopted the Directive on the re-use of public sector information (PSI Directive). It has introduced a common legislative framework regulating how public sector bodies should make their information available for re-use in order to remove barriers such as discriminatory practices, monopoly markets and a lack of transparency. All 27 EU Member States have implemented the PSI Directive into their national legal orders. PSI rules in the Member States.

In 2009, the Commission reviewed the way in which EU PSI rules were being applied, which confirmed that PSI-re use has been on the rise but also that to realise the full potential of PSI for the EU economy, EU Member States must remove remaining barriers to re-use. The Commission is currently working on the review of the PSI Directive. An on-line public consultation on the existing PSI Directive was launched on 9 September 2010 and closed on 30 November 2010 (see the statistics and the responses in the news item of 20 January 2011). The press release announcing the consultation.

In this context, the inclusion of the cultural and educational sectors within the scope of the PSI Directive is discussed. Apparently, the re-use of archive material is in the focus of interest for re-use.

At this time, cultural organisations are exempted from the scope of the Directive (article 1,2f), so the performing arts sector was not concerned by its implementation in the Member States (by May 2008).

A Communication with the results of the last review of the Directive is to be published end of November, including a proposal for amendments.

The review is foreseen for mid-2012. It has been signalled as one of the key actions of the "Digital Agenda for Europe"

Comment: this issue will be further discussed at the Pearle conference in Tallinn (see also Pearle’s newsflash of 15 November) in order to develop Pearle’s position.

12.3 DIGITISATION OF CULTURE 12.3.1 Recommendation on Cultural heritage The European Commission adopted on 28 October a Recommendation asking EU Member States to step up their efforts, pool their resources and involve the private sector in digitising cultural material. This is essential to make European cultural heritage more widely available and to boost growth in Europe's creative industries. The digitised material should be made available through Europeana, Europe's digital library, archive and museum (see www.europeana.eu).

The Recommendation challenges Member States to develop solid plans and build partnerships to place 30 million objects in Europeana by 2015 compared to the 19 million available today; to get more in-copyright and out-of-commerce material online; and to adapt national legislation and strategies to ensure the long-term preservation of digital materials.

Neelie Kroes, Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda said: "Europe has probably the world's greatest cultural heritage. It cannot afford to miss the opportunities offered by digitisation and hence face cultural decline. Digitisation brings culture into people's homes and is a valuable resource for education, tourism games, animation and the whole creative industry. Investing in digitisation will create new companies and generate new jobs."

Europeana, which started out with 2 million items when it was launched in 2008, currently holds more than 19 million objects, which are now accessible through a more intuitive and interactive interface. In order to provide a more balanced set of contributions from across Europe, the Recommendation sets targets per Member State for minimum content contribution by 2015.

49 The Recommendation builds on the conclusions of the Comité des Sages (high level reflection group) on bringing Europe's cultural heritage online, established in 2010 (see IP IP/11/17). Adoption of measures to support cultural and creative industries and ensuring a sustainable model for financing Europeana are among the goals of the Digital Agenda for Europe (see IP/10/581, MEMO/10/199 and MEMO/10/200).

What is digitisation? Digitisation is the transformation into digital format of text and photos from paper, films from reels, music from vinyl or videos from tape, so it can be accessed from a computer and consulted online. For text and photos, this involves scanning. Digitisation is essential for the better dissemination of cultural content on the Internet.

Why is digitisation of cultural works important? Thousands of films and other videos are lost every year because the originals simply do not survive the passage of time. The only way to retain access to this cultural heritage is to digitise it. Museums and libraries are not able to make ancient and rare manuscripts available or display them to all visitors. Digital versions of old works will therefore not only guarantee survival through the ages, but also mean that they can reach a much wider audience without running any risk to the quality of the original copy. Through digital libraries people can visit the past in a virtual way to experience Europe's cultural wealth and history. Once digitised, cultural material is a valuable resource for creators and businesses, who can reuse it to develop innovative products and services, for example for education and tourism or games and animations.

12.3.2 DigiCult The European Union is funding research that explores leading-edge information and communication technologies for accessing, experiencing and preserving cultural and scientific resources EU-funded ICT research on access to cultural heritage and digital preservation deals with leading- edge information and communication technologies for expanding the availability of Europe's rich cultural and scientific resources and for enhancing user experiences with them. This research also investigates how digital content created today will survive as the cultural and scientific knowledge of the future.

Access to cultural resources and digital preservation in FP7 In the third ICT Work Programme under FP7, which defines the research priorities for 2011-12, "Digital Preservation" is Objective 3 of Challenge 4: Technologies for Content and Languages; and "ICT for access to cultural resources" is Objective 2 of Challenge 8: ICT for Learning and Access to Cultural Resources. Target outcomes for Objective 4.3, 'Digital Preservation' a) More reliable and secure preservation technologies and methods Objectives: - techniques and tools for recovering loss and for repairing damaged digital objects; - solutions guaranteeing the long-term availability of newly created resources (including 3D objects and models); - conceptual frameworks for quality assurance.

Underpinning research issues: New research should be based on a sound analysis of which currently available or emerging methods and technologies are most efficient and in which use context or for which kind of resources. Further, this work should be underpinned by research aiming at a deeper understanding of how loss and damage occur and which degree of integrity is required for keeping resources useable.

Solutions proposed can go beyond digital objects, and target as well the long-term functionality of systems for creation, management and storage of digital resources.

50 b) Technologies and systems for intelligent management of preservation Objectives: - support the long-term usability of digital resources (including high volume, heterogeneous and volatile content) through a life cycle approach to its preservation; - support human appraisal and selection processes through innovative technologies that embed reasoning and intelligence in the content itself; - activities may cover solutions to identify and erase obsolete information.

Underpinning research issues: Keeping resources usable, i.e. meaningful and understandable over time, includes taking account of and developing a conceptual understanding of evolving semantics, use contexts, and interpretations.

c) Interdisciplinary research networks bridging technological domains and scientific disciplines concerned with information, and expertise in end-user needs.

d) Promotion schemes for the uptake of digital preservation research outcomes including outreach to new stakeholders and road mapping activities. expected impact Reduced information loss through better recovery and repair techniques and through deeper understanding of the reasons and implications of digital decay and other forms of data loss. Sustainable access to information: keeping resources not only available but also meaningful and usable. More efficient and effective selection of resources to be preserved and of appropriate preservation processes, methods and technologies.

Target outcomes for Objective 8.2, 'ICT for access to cultural resources' a) Technologies for creating personalised and engaging digital cultural experiences: Research should address adaptability of systems for personalised interaction with users. Research should investigate technologies that add value and new meaning to cultural digital artefacts and improve user engagement with cultural resources, for example through smart, context-aware artefacts and enhanced interfaces with the support of features like story-telling, gaming and learning. b) Open and extendable platforms for building services that support use of cultural resources for research and education: Research should explore seamless and universal, but also customisable access to digital cultural resources across a wide range of technical formats (sound, image, 3D, text), including cultural resources/objects with diverse characteristics (e.g. languages, temporal, spatial). Usability should be demonstrated through large scale pilots and specific contextual use cases (e.g. functionalities that support active research, creation of new knowledge, meaning extraction...). c) Improved and affordable technologies for the digitisation of specialised forms of cultural resources, including tools for virtual reconstructions: The focus is on innovative approaches for capturing, imaging, 3D (including movement) modelling, resulting in enriched virtual surrogates which convey and embed knowledge beyond the original object. d) Awareness raising of research results through road mapping and support to validation and take up of such results in practical settings.

Expected impact Affordability and widespread availability of tools and services for releasing the economic potential of cultural heritage in digital form and for adding value to cultural content in educational, scientific and leisure contexts; Wider range of users of cultural resources in diverse real and virtual contexts and considerably altered ways to experience culture in more personalised and adaptive interactive settings;

12.4 RADIO SPECTRUM POLICY 12.4.1 Radio Spectrum Policy Programme Member States' representatives in the Council have endorsed a text drawn up with the European Parliament and the Commission that paves the way for setting a comprehensive European radio

51 policy, providing the platform for further improvements to wireless services. The new agreement will foster the roll-out of high speed wireless broadband systems, in particular by requiring Member States to authorise the use of the "digital dividend" 800 MHz band for wireless broadband by January 2013 in all but exceptional circumstances. Moreover, the agreed text will create a wide-ranging and thorough European inventory of spectrum use in the Member States, which will be essential to ensure the most efficient allocation of scarce spectrum resources for wireless services in Europe. More efficient and competitive wireless infrastructure is vital to Europe's Digital Single Market and will bring one step closer to reality the goals to give every European access to basic broadband by 2013 and fast broadband by 2020 (see IP/10/581, MEMO/10/199 and MEMO/10/200). N. Kroes, Commission Vice-President said: "Devices like smart phones and tablets are putting our current spectrum allocations under strain. Making the best use of this public resource will ensure we have the rails on which modern communications can run – facilitating new applications and services, driving economic recovery, creating high-quality jobs, and maintaining our place on the world stage. Today's agreement is a big step forward towards making Europe the connected, competitive continent." EU Member States and the Commission will be responsible for jointly implementing these strategic priorities (see MEMO/10/425). The Radio Spectrum Policy Programme will begin in early 2012 and run through to the end of 2015 but its principles and objectives are of a permanent nature and will not expire in 2015. The agreed Radio Spectrum Policy Programme includes several measures: - creating an European radio spectrum inventory and putting in place a process for determining usage efficiency together with a commitment to examine the need for further harmonised spectrum for wireless broadband based on this inventory; - fostering the deployment of wireless broadband by setting tight deadlines for authorising the use of several harmonised spectrum bands for electronic communication services; - making at least 1200 MHz of spectrum available for wireless broadband services in the Union by 2015, following an assessment based on the new spectrum inventory; - defining concrete steps to ensure and promote competition in the single EU telecoms market, avoiding possible distortions arising from the excessive accumulation of spectrum in the hands of certain operators; - promoting more flexible spectrum management, encouraging in particular collective and shared use of scarce spectrum; - meeting the spectrum requirements of EU policies in sectors such as transport, energy, earth observation and monitoring, civil protection, wireless microphones and cordless cameras, and the Internet of Things; - and underlining the need for enhanced EU coordination in international spectrum negotiations 12.4.2 Radio Spectrum and PMSE By 2012, television broadcasting services across the EU will have completed the transition from analogue to digital technology. The switchover will release a significant amount of high quality radio spectrum which will be free for the deployment of new services and new technologies. This ‘digital dividend’ can boost both the broadcasting sector and the wireless communication industry, make a major impact on competitiveness and growth, and provide a wide range of social and cultural benefits. But gaining maximum advantage of this unique opportunity will require a coordinated European strategy for its future use.

The switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial TV, to be completed in Europe by the end of 2012, will free up a very large amount of radio spectrum. This ‘digital dividend’ will provide a unique opportunity to meet the huge demand for new wireless communications services, allow broadcasters to significantly expand their services and at the same time provide spectrum for social and economic uses. Applications in this latter category will include broadband applications which can help overcome the ‘digital divide’: ensuring equitable access to new information and communication technologies to all the people of Europe.

Digital "bonus" The digital dividend is derived by the ability of digital compression systems to allow the transmission of up to 8 standard digital TV channels in the spectrum previously used by one analogue TV channel, using the most widely available technologies. The gain will be even more substantive if more

52 advanced standards are being introduced (such as DVB-T2 for infrastructure and MPEG-4 for compression). The spectrum used to broadcast analogue TV, located between 200 MHz and 1 GHz, has very attractive propagation characteristics, and offers an optimal balance between transmission capacity and distance coverage. It is estimated that the value of electronic communications services that depend on radio spectrum in the EU currently exceeds €250 billion. Availability of radio spectrum is a clear enabler for economic and social growth. This illustrates why it is vital that the next opportunity to provide the much needed wireless bandwidth, the ‘digital dividend’, is managed as efficiently and effectively as possible to ensure the maximum benefit for all.

RSC meeitng 37 of 5 October: Commission paper the Commission held a workshop on "A long term approach to radio spectrum for PMSE in Europe" in October 2010. The key conclusions of this workshop, which were largely supported by stakeholders, include several actions where EU coordination could bring an added value, namely: – To clarify future spectrum demand by ensuring that there is a clear "categorisation" of PMSE uses (in particular in terms of required quality of services, amount of spectrum needed at a given time and location, number of users, etc). – To address the issue of EU fragmentation of licensing conditions, or at least the fragmentation in conditions of spectrum use (licensed and unlicensed). This topic could also include the EU dimension of relying more on professional "band management", and also the issue of temporary allocation of spectrum for PMSEs for large/special events. – To analyse the most immediate opportunities for frequency harmonisation (e.g. 800 MHz central duplex gap or the small extension of the 863-865 MHz band to also include the 862-863 MHz frequency). – To consider the possibility to mandate ETSI to further develop appropriate standards to facilitate the use of cognitive technologies in a PMSE context (e.g. database access). 1 In this Communication, the Commission identified the use of spectrum by wireless microphones and PMSE applications as an activity clearly affected by the digital dividend policy and requiring further attention at EU level – To speed up work to clarify the longer term future of the L-band. The objective would be to increase predictability regarding the potential use, or not, of this band for PMSEs on an EU-wide basis. – To identify future spectrum bands which could be harmonised at EU level to satisfy the longer term demand originating from PMSE applications. This paper seeks to address the last action area in the above list (i.e. future In the above context, the Commission has requested APWPT2 and Pearle3 to undertake a review of future spectrum needs and deliver to the Commission, by September 2011, an inventory of PMSE uses/needs requirement, showing the key categories of applications which need to be addressed in priority. This important input is available as two separate attachments to this document (annexes 1 and 2).

On the basis of the input from APWPT and Pearle, the Commission proposes a two-step approach: 1. To analyse a first set of frequency bands that could be harmonised for PMSE use in the EU, mainly to address the priority issue of alternative spectrum to replace spectrum used by PMSE equipment in the 800 MHz band (and in addition to the solutions which are being put in place at national level). The technical conditions under which the bands could be harmonised should be prepared by the CEPT under a Commission Mandate. 2. To launch a Commission study in the course of 2012 to review and assess the impact of relevant options to address the longer term spectrum needs as presented by the PMSE sector, and possibly to identify further frequency bands that could be made available on an harmonised basis in Europe. This study should cover the full range of PMSE applications including cordless cameras (such as those operating currently in the 2.3 GHz band). In addition, this study should address authorisation/licensing aspects as well as the possible need for some form of legal protection against harmful interference regarding specific categories of professional uses. Finally, the study should take full account of the outcome of WRC-12 on spectrum allocation for Electronic News gathering (ENG). The EU actions proposed above could also be accompanied by an action to improve access to national information regarding the spectrum authorisation for the most common types of PMSE uses (e.g. a central list of national web sites where a minimum of information would be available in English).

53 FREQUENCY BANDS FOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING HARMONISATION ON THE SHORT TERM The initial set of frequency bands for consideration includes: – The central duplex gap of the 800 MHz band (821 – 832 MHz): Assumed to be for professional wireless microphone use (possibly digital technology); – The 863 – 865 MHz band: This band is already harmonised for audio application but the conditions of use could be reviewed to make it more appropriate for PMSE use (including improved protection against in- and out-of-band interference since this band has a high potential of being interfered by LTE uplink block and also other consumer audio applications). A possible extension downward to 862 MHz (1MHz) should also be considered. – An harmonised tuning range in the lower part of the UHF band (if possible well below 698 MHz): Member States would commit to reserve at least two 8 MHz channels for PMSE uses (on a non exclusive basis) in the (to be) specified tuning range in all parts of their territory (not necessarily the same channel in all regions). This spectrum would be aimed mainly at satisfying the need of PMSE equipment used for touring events (cross-border use). In response to the request from the PMSE associations to also consider the L-band (1.4GHz) the Commission services would prefer to address such possible option as part of a wider review of the L- band, where all possible candidate uses can be assessed in the light of their relative merit and possibilities (likely to be part of the expected spectrum review resulting from the RSPP). Such action would therefore be postponed until the wider review of the L-Band. See http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/infso/radiospectrum/library? l=/public_documents/public_documents_2011/rsc37/rscom11-49_harmonisation/_EN_1.0_&a=d

Comment: Pearle is constantly following developments at EU level and maintaining contacts with DG Infso. Pearle members are warmly welcomed to keep the Brussels office informed of developments in their countries, in order to take appropriate action at the EU level as well.

12.5 GREEN PAPER ON ONLINE DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIOVIUAL WORKS The Green Paper, which was published in the summer, looks at the ways in which the audiovisual sector is changing in response to technology developments and consumer expectations. It invites stakeholders to comment on the challenges and opportunities facing audiovisual media service providers, and in particular whether the regulatory and legal framework poses barriers to the cross border availability of online services in the EU. The Green Paper focuses in particular on the copyright licensing framework, and discusses a number of regulatory approaches to licensing. In addition, it looks at the remuneration of authors and performers for the online use of their works; and deals with certain special uses of audiovisual works.

Digital technology and the internet are rapidly changing the way in which audiovisual works are produced, marketed, and distributed. Consumers increasingly expect to be able to watch anything, anywhere, any time and via any one of a number of devices (TV, personal computer, games console, mobile media device). Business models have to evolve rapidly to keep pace with the ever faster pace of technological change which offers new opportunities for creators and distributors and also new consumer expectations and ultimately more growth and jobs.

To gather views on how Europe can seize these opportunities and move towards a digital single market, the European Commission has published a Green Paper on the initiative of Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, in agreement with Vice-President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes and Androulla Vassilliou, Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth. The Green Paper serves as the basis for a debate on whether and how the regulatory framework needs to be adapted to allow European industry to develop new business models, creators to find new distribution channels and European consumers to have better access to content throughout Europe. The views of all interested parties are sought on various aspects of online distribution of audiovisual works such as films, documentaries, TV dramas, cartoons etc. Replies can be submitted up until 18 November 2011. Commissioner Barnier said "I want to ensure that Europeans can seize the opportunities offered by the internet. It is important for me to hear the views of all stakeholders concerned – creators, performers, producers, distributors and consumers. The results of this consultation will provide a significant contribution to the initiatives I am preparing, including a legislative proposal on collective

54 copyright licensing, an examination of the framework set by the 2001 Information Society Directive, and a review of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive.""

The Green Paper looks at a broad range of issues: It assesses the pace of change that the audiovisual sector is undergoing as part of the internet revolution and how to best tackle the challenges this poses as well as how best to seize the opportunities a digital single market will offer creators, industry and consumers, such as new business models, more online services and better remuneration for right holders. It discusses rights clearance for the online distribution of audiovisual media services. An assessment is needed of the extent to which there are problems in this area, the precise nature of such problems and the policy options that could be considered. It asks if additional measures should be taken at EU level to ensure the adequate remuneration of authors and performers in relation to online use of works and performances for which they hold rights. It also deals with certain special uses of audiovisual works such as the public policy missions of film heritage institutions and access by persons with disabilities to cultural material. Responses to the consultation will contribute to the Commission's assessment of the need for measures to allow EU citizens, providers of online content services and right holders to benefit from the full potential of a digital single market, as well as to the Commission's forthcoming proposal to streamline the collective management of rights.

Background The cultural industries in Europe, including the audiovisual sector, make a significant contribution to the EU economy, creating about 3% of EU GDP - corresponding to an annual market value of €500 billion - and employing about 6 million people. In addition, the sector plays an important role in fostering innovation, in particular for devices and networks. The EU records the second highest TV viewing figures globally, produces more films than any other region in the world and is home to more than 500 online video services.

The European Commission's MEDIA programme is investing €755 million in the European film industry in the period 2007-2013 (more than €1.5 billion has been granted since its launch in 1991). The aim is to improve the distribution and promotion of European films and to strengthen the competitiveness of the sector. Its objectives include providing support for online distribution of audiovisual works through, for example, video on demand platforms. See http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/newtech/vod_dcc/list/index_en.htm The Commission's Green Paper is published in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which aims to boost smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe, the Single Market Act10 and concomitant Commission Strategy for Intellectual Property Rights (see IP/11/630) and the Digital Agenda for Europe (see IP/10/581). See also (MEMO/11/502). The consultation is available at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2011/audiovisual_en.htm

Comment: Pearle has prepared a response to the consultation and circulated it to the membership for feedback or comments. The deadline for response was 18 November.

13 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

13.1 TERM OF PROTECTION As the blocking minority of Member States has melted as regards the proposal for a directive amending the 2006 directive on terms of protection of copyright and related rights, the Council of

10 "Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence; Working together to create new growth", COM/2011/0206 final, 13 April 2011

55 the European Union finally approved the compromise text (negotiated between the three European institutions) in first reading next week, on 12 September 2011. The text was not referred back to Parliament as requested by Christian Engström MEP from the Swedish Pirate Party. After a long delay, the conference of presidences decided that his request of renewed referral was against the rules of procedures for parliament and would not be accepted. The directive will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member States shall then bring it into force at the latest 2 years after its adoption. What are the main elements of the revised Directive? Copyright for performers extended from 50 to 70 years: The Directive narrows the gap between the copyright term of protection for authors (currently life plus 70 years after the authors' death) and the term of protection for performers (currently 50 years after the performance). Performers will now be guaranteed remuneration over a longer period of time. What are co-written works and what does the Directive do for them? A "co-written musical composition" is a musical composition which comprises contributions from several authors (for instance one person writing the lyrics and one person composing the music). Estimates suggest that between 60% and 70% of music is co-written. In different Member States, the protection of such co-written musical compositions is calculated differently - they are either classified as a single work of joint authorship with a unitary term of protection or separate works with separate terms for each individual author. This means that a single piece of music could have different terms of protection in different Member States. For example, the operetta 'The Gipsy Baron' was written by Johann Strauss who died in 1899, while one of the authors of the libretto, Leo Stein, died in 1921. The music was in the public domain in Germany in 1929, while the text was protected until 1991. In Belgium, the entire operetta was protected until 1981, and in Italy, until the end of 1977. The Directive adopted harmonises the way of calculating the term of protection, which shall now expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, be it the author of the lyrics or the composer of the music.

13.2 OUT-OF-COMMERCE WORKS: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Key Principles on the Digitisation and Making Available of Out-of-Commerce Works What are out-of-commerce works? Out-of-commerce works are works that are still protected by copyright but are no longer commercially available because the authors and publishers have decided neither to publish new editions nor to sell copies through the customary channels of commerce. In the past works such as books were referred to as being either “in-print” or “out-of-print”. Today, with the advent of electronic channels of commerce, the term “out-of-commerce” is used (with electronic publishing a book will be "in commerce" even if only available in electronic form). What is the problem with out-of-commerce books in the EU? What does this have to do with copyright? While publishers may not have a financial interest in maintaining older and less commercially successful books in commerce, libraries – in particular when we talk about those books which they have in their archives and which are part of the cultural heritage of the country, region or city where they are situated – may want to digitise and make them available online. For many libraries this is part of their public interest mission, made possible thanks to digital technology and networks. For the European citizen, this is an unprecedented opportunity to have access to books that would have otherwise fallen into oblivion. Libraries do not own the copyright to the works contained in their collections. Therefore, they must seek the permission of the right holders – authors and publishers – before they can digitise out-of- commerce works and put them online as part of their digital library projects. What is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) about? The MoU is a sector-specific stakeholder-driven agreement negotiated amongst organisations representing libraries on the one hand and publishers, authors and their collecting societies on the other. It contains the Key Principles that these parties will follow to license the digitisation and making available (including across borders in the EU) of books or learned journals that are out-of-commerce. It aims to encourage voluntary collective licences.

56 Could this memorandum be used for other works such as out-of-commerce commerce films, games or music? The MoU signed today is sector-specific. It covers books and learned journals. It is the result of negotiations which took account of the specific needs of certain users (libraries) and right holders (authors in books and learned journals) as well as the role that collective management could play to address these needs. It cannot be seen as a solution that can be automatically extended to other print material, other types of works or other uses. Nevertheless, this MoU is a positive example of how negotiations amongst interested parties can lead to viable results in the area of copyright and the broader debate on making copyright fit for purpose in the digital age. Dialogue between stakeholders is the way forward to facilitate agreements for the digitisation of European out-of-commerce cultural material in other sectors as well. Who are the signatories to the MoU? The MoU was signed by the European Writers’ Council (EWC), the Federation of European Publishers (FEP), the European Publishers' Council (EPC), the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), the European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA), the Conference of European National Librarians (CENL), the Association of European Research Libraries (LIBER), European Visual Artists (EVA), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and the International Federation of Reprographic Rights Organisations (IFRRO).

13.3 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PACKAGE 13.3.1 Communication on IPR strategy On 24 May 2011, the Commission set out a "blueprint" for Intellectual Property Rights to boost creativity and innovation.

The IPR Strategy sets out a series of short- and long-term key policy actions in various areas which include: Patents: the Commission already launched proposals in April for a unitary patent protection under enhanced cooperation (see IP/11/470). Trade marks: while trade mark registration in the EU has been harmonised in Member States for almost 20 years and the Community trade mark was established 15 years ago, there is an increasing demand for more streamlined, effective and consistent registration systems. The Commission intends to present proposals in 2011 to modernise the trade mark system both at EU and national levels and adapt it to the Internet era. Geographical indications (GIs): GIs secure a link between a product's quality and its geographical origin. However, there is currently no such system available at EU level for the protection of non- agricultural products such as Carrara marble or Solingen knives. The Commission will therefore carry out an in-depth analysis of the existing legalframework in the Member States as well as the potential economic impact of protection for non-agricultural GIs in 2011 and 2012. Depending on the outcome of an impact assessment, these could eventually be followed up by legislative proposals. Multi-territorial copyright licensing: While the substantive scope of copyright has been largely harmonised, rights are still licensed on a national basis. In view of the digital Single Market, streamlining copyright licensing and revenue distribution is one of the most important challenges that must be addressed. In the 2nd half of 2011, the Commission will submit a proposal to create a legal framework for the efficient multiterritorial collective management of copyright, in particular in the music sector. It will also establish common rules on the transparent governance and revenue distribution. In the second half of 2011, the Commission will also launch a consultation on the various issues related to the online distribution of audiovisual works. Digital libraries: The creation of European digital libraries that preserve and disseminate Europe's rich cultural and intellectual heritage is key to the development of the knowledge economy. To facilitate this, the Commission is also tabling today a legislative proposal that will enable the digitisation and online availability of so-called "orphan works" (works like books and newspaper or magazine articles that are still protected by copyright but where the right holders are not known or cannot be located to obtain copyright permissions) – see MEMO/11/333. Concurrently, the Commission looks forward to concluding a Memorandum of Understanding amongst libraries, publishers, authors and collecting societies to facilitate licensing solutions to digitise and make available out-of-commerce books. IPR violations: Counterfeiting and piracy are a growing threat for the economy.

57 Between 2005 and 2009, the number of registered cases at the EU borders of goods suspected of infringing IPR increased from 26 704 to 43 572. Meanwhile, the creative industry estimates that piracy has cost the European music, movie, TV and software industry €10 billion and more than 185 000 jobs in 2008 alone. The Commission is set to intensify its efforts in this area. Firstly, the Commission has tabled a regulation today that is to reinforce the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, which it launched in 2009, by entrusting its tasks to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). This will allow the Observatory to benefit from OHIM's intellectual property expertise and strong record of delivery in trade marks and designs. The Regulation now passes to the European Parliament and the Council for consideration. Secondly, in Spring 2012, the Commission will propose to revise the IPR Enforcement Directive (see IP/04/540). The Directive provides for civil law measures allowing right holders to enforce their intellectual property rights but should be adapted, in particular to meet the specific challenges of the digital environment. IPR enforcement by customs: Customs supervise all trade crossing EU external borders: they carry out controls for many purposes and have an essential role in fighting the trade in IPR infringing goods. In 2009 only, customs intercepted over 40 000 suspect shipments involving 118 million articles. Whilst the majority of goods intercepted are counterfeit or pirated, customs' unique position at the border allows for the enforcement of a wide range of intellectual property rights. As part of the overall IPR strategy, the Commission also proposes a new customs regulation, to further reinforce the legal framework for customs' actions. The proposal also aims to tackle the trade in small consignments of counterfeit goods sent by post as the overwhelming majority of these goods results from internet sales.

Background IPR is a cornerstone of the EU economy and a key driver for its further growth. In 2009, the value of the top 10 brands in EU countries amounted to almost 9% of GDP on average. Copyright-based creative industries such as software, book and newspaper publishing, music and film, contributed 3.3% to EU GDP in 2006 and account for approximately 1.4 million SMEs, representing 8.5 million jobs. Employment in "knowledge-economy" industries increased by 24% between 1996 and 2006 compared to 6% for other industries.

For more information on Intellectual Property Rights: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_52_en.htm

13.3.2 Orphan works proposal for directive On 24 May 2011, the Commission adopted a Proposal for a Directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works with a view to establishing common rules on the digitisation and online display of so- called orphan works. Orphan works are works like books, newspaper and magazine articles, and films that are still protected by copyright but whose authors are not known or cannot be located or contacted to obtain copyright permissions. Orphan works are part of the collections held by European libraries that might remain untouched if no common rules are developed to make their digitisation and online display legally possible. Common rules on how to deal with such works are therefore necessary in order to proceed with large-scale digitisation projects, such as the Commission’s Europeana portal.

What does the proposal for a Directive on orphan works say? The Commission's proposal, which takes the form of an EU Directive, rests on three pillars. First, the proposal contains rules on how to identify orphan works. It provides that the user has to conduct a diligent search to find the copyright holder. In this search, the user should rely on sources such as databases and registries. One such tool that exists in the book publishing sector is ARROW, the Accessible Registry of Rights Information and Orphan Works. It is hoped that other sectors will also develop similar central rights information databases. Doing so would greatly simplify and streamline the conduct of a reliable diligent search. Secondly, the proposal establishes that if the diligent search does not yield the identity or location of the copyright holder, the work shall be recognised as an orphan work. This status shall then, by virtue of mutual recognition, be valid across the European Union. This implies that once a work is recognised as an orphan work, it shall be recognised as such across the European Union. The proposal also foresees that there will be a generally accessible record of all recognised orphan works.

58 Thirdly, the proposal establishes the uses that can be made of the orphan works and the conditions for such uses depending on their nature. Thus, the current proposal should make a major contribution to the development of various European digital library initiatives and their accessibility for everyone throughout the European Union. Clear rules on what works can be posted online as orphan works will also provide the beneficiaries of the Directive – not only libraries, museums and archives but also film heritage institutions and public service broadcasters - with a sound legal framework that safeguards them against claims of copyright infringement. In this respect, a degree of legal certainty can be achieved that will exceed the one that can be achieved on the basis of existing private agreements. On the other hand, the envisaged rules provide for clear methods of redress by which a reappearing right holder can assert his copyright and thereby end the orphan work status.

Comment: the vote of the Parliament’s report with amendments to the Commission proposal is scheduled for beginning of February 2012. With the aim to include the performing arts sector within the scope of the draft directive, Pearle* proposed several amendments which were introduced by members of the Culture Committee.

14 TRANSPORT

14.1 REVISION OF EUROVIGNETTE DIRECTIVE

The European Parliament voted this autumn on the revision of the Eurovignette directive. The revision will allow Member States to charge heavy lorries, not only for the costs of infrastructure which is currently the case, but also to levy an additional charge to cover the cost or air and noise pollution. The revision of the current "Eurovignette Directive" will also enable Member States to better manage problems of congestion, with a new flexibility to vary the charge for heavy lorries (by up to 175%) at different times of the day. Importantly the vote also provides for "earmarking" so new charging revenues ar set aside for investment to improve transport infrastructure (TEN-T) projects.

The current rules The 1999 "Eurovignette" Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles for the use of infrastructure sets an EU framework for the levying of road charges on heavy goods. The Directive authorises, but does not oblige, Member States to levy ‘user charges’ (time-based charges, eg per day, per week, per year) or tolls (distance-based charges e.g. per kilometre) on lorries above 3.5 tonnes - small lorries - provided that it does not result in any discrimination and that the charges are set at a level which does not exceed the recovery of costs of which are strictly necessary to maintain and replace the road infrastructure.

The new proposals The new rules will: Give Member States the option to charge heavy lorries to cover the costs of air and noise pollution from traffic emissions, and not only charges to cover the cost of the infrastructure. Give Member States the possibility to charge higher tariffs during peak periods and lower tariffs during off-peak periods in order to better manage traffic and reduce congestion. The compromise agreed allows higher tariffs in congested areas of up to 175% above the average tariff, with top tariffs collected during a maximum of five peak hours per day and lower tariffs applying during the rest of the time on the same road section. In practice, the external cost charges would represent 3-4 ct/km depending on the Euro class of the vehicle, the location of the roads and the level of congestion. The charge will have to be collected by the electronic systems foreseen to be fully interoperable at EU level by 2012 and a receipt clearly stating the amount of the external cost charge will be given to the hauliers so that they can pass on the cost to their clients. - Extends the scope of the Eurovignette Directive so that not only the TEN-T network (Trans- European Network) is covered as is currently the case, but also all motorways across Europe are covered. - Earmark revenues from tolls to improve transport sustainability. The new rules will provide a strong incentive to set aside new revenues from charging to finance certain types of transport projects

59 defined in the Directive such as alternative infrastructure, innovative clean transport systems or safe parking areas. To apply this provision, Member States can also decide to earmark 15% of the total revenue collected (from both infrastructure charges and external cost charges) to projects on the trans-European network. There is also a transparent reporting back obligationas Member States will have to report regularly on how the total revenues of tolls are used.

Next steps The Council, will give formal approval to the compromise deal before the summer. After that Member States will have two years at the latest to transpose the legislation before it applies. For more detailed background on the Eurovignette Directive and the internalisation of external costs see also MEMO /11/378 and MEMO/08/492. The full package is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/2008_greening_transport_en.htm

15 JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

15.1 CITIZENS 15.1.1 European year on citizenship 2013 This summer, the Commission proposed to designate 2013 as the European Ye ar of citizens to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Union citizenship under the Maastricht Treaty, on 1 November 1993. Union citizenship and the rights that go with it are one of the key pillars of the European Union. 20 years after the creation of Union citizenship, tangible progress has been made that directly affects the lives of millions. To take just one example: nowadays travelling abroad entails cheaper travel costs, hassle-free border crossings, package holiday guarantees, access to healthcare systems and cheaper calls when you phone home. These are just some of the benefits derived from EU citizenship. The Commission's goal is to make sure that we remove the remaining hurdles people face when exercising their rights abroad.

Freedom of movement is the most cherished right of EU citizenship (see press release No. 14/2011). Indeed, more and more Europeans benefit from this right and live in another EU Member State: in 2009, an estimated 11.9 million citizens were living in a Member State other than their own; in 2010 this figure grew to 12.3 million (STAT/11/105). Thanks to EU citizenship – which does not replace national citizenship but is additional to it – EU-citizens have access to a broad range of rights across all EU-Member States, including rights as consumers to access goods and services in other Member States, and the right as citizens to access education, to obtain recognition of their professional qualifications, to access healthcare, to acquire or preserve social security rights or the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence.

Yet whilst more than one third (35%) of workers would consider taking a job in another Member State, nearly one in five still considers that there are too many obstacles to actually doing so. Together with language difficulties, a chronic lack of information is the most important barrier to cross-border commuting. A survey from 2010 showed that too many people still do not feel adequately informed about the different rights available to them: only 43% know the meaning of the term 'citizen of the European Union' and almost half of European citizens (48%) indicate that they are ‘not well informed’ about their rights (see Annex).

In addition, the EU Citizenship Report 2010 (see IP/10/1390 and MEMO/10/525) showed that, in fact, many barriers remain that prevent or discourage people from moving abroad. The report outlined 25 concrete actions to remove these remaining obstacles. One of these is to "strengthen citizens’ awareness of their EU citizenship status, their rights and meaning in their daily lives by proposing the designation of 2013 as the European Year of Citizens and by organising targeted events on EU citizenship and citizen-related policies during this Year". The European Year of Citizens will be characterised by a follow up to the EU Citizenship Report: in 2013, the Commission will publish an action plan for completing the removal of the remaining obstacles that hinder citizens from enjoying their rights as Union citizens.

60 By designating 2013 as the European Year of Citizens, the European Commission is delivering on the promise made in the EU Citizenship Report and answering the European Parliament's call for such a year.

The purpose of the European Year of Citizens is to facilitate Union citizens' exercising their right to move and reside freely within the EU by ensuring they can easily access information about their rights. More specifically, the aim of the Year is to: raise citizens' awareness of their right to reside freely within the European Union; raise citizens' awareness of how they can benefit from EU rights and policies and to stimulate their active participation in Union policy-making; stimulate debate about the impact and potential of the right to free movement, in particular in terms of strengthening cohesion and people's mutual understanding of one another. To mark the European Year of Citizens 2013, a range of events, conferences and seminars will be organised across the EU at Union, national, regional or local level. The Commission is also planning to strengthen the visibility of the multilingual Europe Direct and Your Europe web portals as key elements of a 'one-stop-shop' information system on Union citizens' rights, as well as the role and visibility of problem solving tools, such as SOLVIT, to allow Union citizens to better make use of and defend their rights.

The proposed budget for the activities to take place during the 2013 European Year of Citizens is EUR 1 million.

Today's Decision will need to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers according to the "ordinary legislative procedure" (co-decision). The Commission expects to work in close cooperation with the other EU institutions, notably the European Parliament, and with the Member States to make sure the Year has a strong and lasting impact.

For more information Homepage of Vice-President Viviane Reding, EU Justice Commissioner:http://ec.europa.eu/reding

Comments: 1. some European cultural groups such as the Access to Culture Platfom or the Soul for Europe initiative are lobbying for a more targeted focus, calling for a European year of citizenship through culture 2. as free movement seems to be a key element within this year it merits to consider further lobbying with regard to mobility of artists 15.1.2 European year on volunteering 2011 In September, the European Commission announced plans to further improve the recognition and promotion of volunteering in the EU. In the context of European Year of Volunteering 2011, the Commission's Communication on EU Policies and Volunteering outlines a range of measures that will help foster voluntary activities in the EU, including the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps and the development of a 'European Skills Passport'. Significantly, this is the first time the European Commission has adopted a policy document dedicated exclusively to volunteering.

Volunteering activities directly contribute to the key objectives of EU policies such as social inclusion, employment, education, skills development and promotion of citizenship. However, there is no clear legal framework for volunteering activities and skills volunteers gain are often not sufficiently recognised. The Commission is committed to overcoming these obstacles to volunteering, particularly across borders. In its Communication, the Commission outlines ways for the EU and its Member States to start fully exploiting the great potential offered by volunteering activities.

Actions to promote volunteering at EU level The Commission has proposed to create a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps by 2012. Preparations are already under way for a framework for assistance from European volunteers in the humanitarian aid operations of the European Union.

61 In addition, the Commission is also working to increase the recognition of skills gained through volunteering activities by developing a 'European Skills Passport'. This will ensure recognition of professional qualifications across borders and will also give individuals the possibility of keeping a record of the skills and competences they acquire through volunteering. The passport will be based on the existing Europass (European online CV), to allow skills to be recorded in a transparent and comparable way.

There are already a number EU-level funding schemes for volunteering, of which the best-known is perhaps the European Voluntary Service (part of the EU's Youth in Action programme), which celebrates its fifteenth anniversary this year. The Commission wants to build on these success stories and further target volunteers in other policy areas. The Commission has also outlined concrete ways for Member States to make better use of the potential of volunteering and calls for Member States to open national schemes for fostering cross- border volunteering.

For More information: Link to the Communication on EU Policies and Volunteering: Recognising and Promoting Cross- border Activities in the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010- 2014/reding/pdf/news/20110920_en.pdf Official website for the European Year of Volunteering 2011:http://europa.eu/volunteering/ Link to Europass:http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/

15.2 OPTIONAL COMMON EUROPEAN SALES LAW Despite the success of the EU's Single Market, barriers to cross-border trade remain. Many of these result from divergent sales laws between the 27 Member States. They make selling abroad complicated and costly, especially for small firms. Traders who are dissuaded from cross-border transactions due to contract law obstacles forgo at least €26 billion in intra-EU trade every year. Meanwhile, 500 million consumers in Europe lose out on greater choice and lower prices because fewer firms make cross-border offers, particularly in smaller national markets. On 11 October, the European Commission proposed an optional Common European Sales Law to help break down these barriers and give consumers more choice and a high level of protection. It will facilitate trade by offering a single set of rules for cross-border contracts in all 27 EU countries. If traders offer their products on the basis of the Common European Sales law, consumers would have the option of choosing a user-friendly European contract with a high level of protection with just one click of a mouse. The Commission's proposal now needs approval from EU Member States and the European Parliament, which already signalled its overwhelming support in a vote earlier this year (IP/11/683).

1. Advantages for Companies: Providing one common (yet optional) regime of contract law that is identical for all 27 Member States so that traders no longer need to wrestle with the uncertainties that arise from having to deal with multiple national contract systems: According to a Eurobarometer released today, 71% of European companies stated that if able to choose, they would use one single European contract law for all cross-border sales to consumers from other EU countries. Cutting transaction costs for companies that wish to trade cross-border: Currently, businesses wishing to carry out cross-border transactions must adapt to up to 26 different national contract laws, translate them and hire lawyers, costing an average €10,000 for each additional export market. Helping small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) to expand into new markets: currently only 9.3% of all EU companies sell across EU borders and thereby forego at least €26 billion per year. 2. Advantages for Consumers: Providing the same high level of consumer protection in all Member States: Consumers will be able to rely on the Common European Sales Law as a mark of quality. For example, it offers consumers a free choice of remedies in case they buy a defective product – even several months after a purchase. This means that consumers could terminate the contract, ask for a replacement or repair or a price reduction. Today, such a free choice of remedy only exists in five EU countries (France, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal). Providing a wider choice of products at lower prices: Currently, consumers who proactively search for better deals across the EU, in particular online, are often refused sale or delivery by the trader. At least 3 million consumers experienced this over a one year period.

62 Providing certainty about their rights in cross-border transactions: 44% of consumers say that uncertainty about their rights discourages them from buying from other EU countries. Increasing transparency and consumers' confidence: consumers will always be clearly informed, and will have to agree to use a contract based on the Common European Sales Law. In addition, an information notice will clearly lay out the consumers' rights in their language.

The Common European Sales Law will be applicable: - only if both parties voluntarily and expressly agree to it; - to cross-border contracts where most of the problems of additional transaction costs and legal complexity arise; Member States will have the choice to make the Common European Sales Law applicable to domestic contracts as well - to contracts for the sale of goods – the bulk of intra-EU trade – as well as digital content contracts, such as music, movies, software or smart-phone applications - for both business-to-consumer and business-to-business transactions - if one party is established in a Member State of the EU. Traders could use the same set of contract terms when dealing with other traders from within and from outside the EU, giving the Common European Sales Law an international dimension.

Background Under the Europe 2020 strategy (IP/10/225), the Commission is tackling bottlenecks in the Single Market to drive economic recovery. This includes making progress towards a European contract law. In July 2010, the Commission put forward several options in a Green Paper for a more coherent approach to contract law. The Commission then held a public consultation that ran until 31 January 2011 and resulted in 320 responses (MEMO/11/55). On 3 May 2011, an expert group established by the Commission delivered a feasibility study on a future initiative on European contract law (IP/11/523). The Commission consulted stakeholders and citizens during the feasibility study and received 120 responses. On 8 June 2011, the European Parliament backed an optional European contract law in a plenary vote on an own-initiative report by MEP Diana Wallis (MEMO/11/236). For more information MEMO/11/680

Which problems do companies face when selling to other EU Member States? Only 9.3% of businesses that trade in goods sell across EU borders11. The reality is that businesses wishing to carry out cross-border transactions may have to adapt to up to 26 different national contract laws, translate them and hire lawyers, costing an average €10,000 for each additional export market. Adapting their websites can cost a further €3,000 on average. This is a problem both for companies selling cross-border to consumers and for those doing business with other firms. Small and medium-sized enterprises – which make up 99% of all companies in the EU – are disproportionately affected because they lack the in-house legal and other expertise needed to work with different national contract law systems. The cost to trade in several foreign markets is particularly high when compared to SMEs’ turnover. The transaction costs to export to one other Member State could amount up to 7% of a micro retailer's annual turnover. To export to four Member States this cost could rise to 26% of its annual turnover. Traders who are dissuaded from cross-border transactions due to contract law obstacles forgo at least €26 billion in intra-EU trade every year. This is a direct cost to the EU economy in terms of trade – and jobs.

How will consumers benefit from the Common European Sales Law? Consumers will have the same high level of protection for their rights across all Member States. Consumers will be able to rely on the Common European Sales Law as a mark of quality. For example, consumers will be offered a free choice of remedies if a faulty product is delivered. This means that consumers could, for instance, terminate the contract, or ask for replacement, repair, or price reduction. Currently such a free choice does not exist for the large majority of consumers across the EU. These remedies would also be available to consumers who have bought digital content products such as music, films, software or applications that are downloaded from the internet.

11 Eurostat database DS-056329-1: Trade by activity and enterprise size class, 2007

63 These products would be covered irrespective of whether they are stored on a tangible medium such as a CD or a DVD. This high level of consumer protection will give consumers the confidence to buy products in other EU countries.

In addition, the Common European Sales Law would provide companies with legal certainty – they could rely on one single set of rules that would be valid in all 27 Member States, for sales contracts to

What about freedom of contract? How is that respected? The principle of freedom of contract is respected as both parties have to agree on the application of the contract. Nobody is obliged to use it. The Common European Sales Law would be a single set of contract rules, a second regime, which could be used by the parties voluntarily in cross-border transactions. The Common European Sales Law would not cause any costs to those companies that do not want to use it. Companies that decide to use it would only do so if the economic advantages outweigh the costs.

15.3 HOME AFFAIRS 15.3.1 EU Borders The European Parliaments adopted on 13 September the Commission proposal for stronger EU border management agency (Frontex). Frontex will have more equipment and personnel from Member States at its disposal, thus enabling it to better coordinate the border patrol operations of EU Member States. Even though Frontex proved to be very useful in providing a framework for Member States to cooperate with each other when faced with particular pressures on their external borders, operational cooperation could still be improved. Thanks to these new powers, Frontex will be deploying European Border Guard Teams in the near future. These teams will consist of national border guards assigned or seconded by Member States. More technical resources will be at the Agency's disposal, and it will now have the ability to acquire or lease its own technical equipment such as vessels or helicopters for border surveillance. Frontex will also be able to strengthen its cooperation with third countries and will have the possibility to provide them with technical assistance. The respect of fundamental rights and obligations under various international law instruments received specific attention in the proposal. A Fundamental Rights Officer will, for instance, assist in matters having implications for fundamental rights and a Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights will be created also involving relevant international organisations and NGOs. With these changes the Frontex agency will be better prepared to face the challenges at the external borders of the Union together with Member States.

Background Frontex was established to coordinate and facilitate the management of the external borders of the Union. The Agency became fully operational on 3 October 2005 and is based in Warsaw (Poland). Its primary responsibility is to coordinate operational cooperation between Member States (joint border operations and pilot projects) and to maintain a centralised record of technical equipment that Member States are ready to place at the disposal of other Member States. Its other activities include developing a common integrated risk analysis model, establishing the common EU training standards for border guards and following developments in research relevant to control and surveillance of external borders. Following its launch, evaluations carried out by the Commission and Frontex itself have shown that, if Frontex is to coordinate border control operations more efficiently, particularly in the Mediterranean, and support the increased use of joint return flights, it needs to have more resources at its disposal. Indeed, EU governments called on the Commission to propose improvements to Frontex, as part of the Stockholm Programme, at the European Council of 10-11 December 2009 (see MEMO/08/84). This call was reiterated by the conclusions of the European Council in June 2011 (IP/11/781). To heed this call, the proposed revision of the Frontex regulation seeks to clarify the mandate and enhance the role of Frontex by: Ensuring the availability of technical equipment for joint operations

64 Ensuring the availability of qualified border guards for joint operations Ensuring efficient coordination, implementation and evaluation of joint operations Ensuring efficient cooperation between Frontex and third countries on border management Improving the efficiency of joint return operations Improving the evaluation of the performance of Member States in the area of border management.

Next steps Following the Parliament’s adoption of it's position at first reading, the Council will have to formally adopt the regulation.

For more information Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010PC0061:EN:NOT

15.3.2 Schengen The Commission proposed mid-September to strengthen the Schengen area to guarantee free movement for the hundreds of thousands of EU citizens and third countries' nationals travelling within this territory every day. The Commission's proposals aim to put in place a more efficient and EU- based approach to Schengen cooperation. Particular challenges that may put the overall functioning of the Schengen area under strain need to be addressed in an effective and coordinated manner. The proposals provide for a stronger EU-based evaluation and monitoring system to verify and ensure the application of the Schengen rules, and for a more structured European decision- making mechanism that could allow for the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls in case of serious threat to public policy or internal security.

In an area without internal borders, any challenge to the integrity of any one part of that area has direct consequences for the entire Schengen zone and for the EU as a whole. The current system, based on an inter-governmental peer review mechanism, coupled with the possibility for individual decisions taken at national level on the exceptional reintroduction of internal border controls, has proven inefficient when it comes to reinforcing mutual trust between Members of the Schengen area and to safeguarding freedom of movement in a border-control free zone. More needs to be done to reinforce the management of this common space and provide adequate support to Member States confronted with critical situations.

Together with an explanatory Communication, the Commission has therefore adopted two legislative proposals with the following aims: 1) strengthening the management of the Schengen area; 2) defining a European decision making mechanism to protect the common interest.

1) Strengthening the management of the Schengen area The existing tools at our disposal for monitoring and remedying weaknesses are insufficient. The proposal – building on the revised Schengen evaluation mechanism proposed by the Commission in November 2010 (IP/11/1493) – would transform the current inter-governmental peer review approach into an EU-based Schengen governance. Announced and unannounced monitoring visits to a given Member State by Commission-led teams with experts from other Member States and Frontex will verify the application of the Schengen rules. A report drawn up following each visit would identify any shortcomings and make clear proposals for remedial action, with a deadline for implementing them. As a follow up, the Member State in question would have to establish an action plan setting out how it intends to address these recommendations. Another important innovation is a ''Schengen health check'' that will take place twice a year with a debate in the Council and in the European Parliament on the functioning of Schengen, based on an overview presented by the European Commission. 2) An EU-based decision making mechanism to protect a common good The current rules, which foresee passport-free travel in 25 European countries, allow national authorities to exceptionally and temporarily reintroduce border controls in case of a serious threat to public policy and internal security. However, the Commission is convinced that, since such measures have an impact for the whole of the Schengen area, the possibility to re-introduce

65 internal border controls should be handled at the European level in a transparent, consistent and efficient way. The proposals will ensure that a mechanism for a coordinated EU response is available to protect the functioning and the integrity of the Schengen area as a whole. Under the new regime, a decision on the reintroduction of internal border controls for foreseeable events (such as an important sporting event or a major political meeting) would be taken at the European level on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission backed by a 'qualified majority' of Member States' experts. The grounds on which such a decision could be taken will remain the same as today: that the measure is necessary in order to off-set a serious threat to public policy and internal security. As a general rule, controls could then be allowed at designated borders for a renewable period of 30 days. Member States could still take unilateral action to reintroduce controls when they are faced with unforeseen emergencies requiring immediate action, but only for a period not exceeding 5 days, after which an EU-level decision would be taken allowing for any extension. In case of serious deficiencies in the application of the Schengen rules, such as if a Member State fails to adequately protect a part of the EU's external border, support measures including technical and financial support from the Commission, from Member States, from FRONTEX or other agencies like Europol or the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), can be taken. If, however, notwithstanding these support measures, serious deficiencies persist, a decision to allow a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls can be taken. Any such last resort measure would be taken at the EU level, thereby avoiding unilateral decisions by individual Member States and establishing a collective approach to protect our common interests. The new proposals fully respect the right to the free movement of EU citizens and their family members. The Commission will inform the European Parliament on the outcome of the different monitoring visits in the context of the Schengen evaluation mechanism, and on any steps taken that might lead to the possible re-introduction of border controls.

The initiatives adopted today are: A Communication ("Schengen governance – strengthening the area without internal border control ") A proposal to strengthen the Schengen evaluation mechanism (revising the proposal made last year, see IP/10/1493) A proposal to establish a mechanism for the coordinated reintroduction of controls at internal borders in exceptional circumstances (amending the Schengen Border Code). These proposals will be examined by the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision).

For more information Homepage DG Home Affairs: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/index_en.htm 15.3.3 Visa Information System On 11 October 2011, the Visa Information System (VIS) started operations. Visa applications will now be processed much faster thanks to the use of biometrics (fingerprints and a digital facial image) which will facilitate the identification of visa holders and help to avoid identity theft. This new system will allow for a quick and effective exchange of data on short-stay visas among Schengen countries. The VIS will also reinforce the integrity of the system and strengthen trust among its member states. The first consular posts to be connected to the system are those in North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia).

Background Currently, around 13 million Schengen visas are issued every year by the 25 countries of the Schengen area, and numbers are likely to increase in the future. The current visa delivering, monitoring and verifying system is struggling to cope with such big numbers. It is not always easy to prevent frauds and abuses and the application process can be cumbersome for those who are legitimately seeking a short stay visa for travel within the EU. The new technologically advanced Visa information system (VIS) helps to tackle these challenges by introducing digital facial image and fingerprints. The VIS will not only speed up the processing of visa applications but will also make checks at external borders more efficient and enhance overall border security.

66 Thanks to the new system it will take just a few clicks to verify the real identity of a visa holder, and therefore prevent and fight fraudulent use of visas. At the same time, visa applicants will see their applications processed much faster. Visa authorities in all Schengen states will be able to consult the VIS data, for example when a previous applicant applies for a new visa. The VIS will contain all Schengen visa applications and all subsequent decisions taken by the visa authorities. This will allow applicants to obtain new visas quicker and more easily, as authorities will be able to verify the applicant's good track-record and reliability. The VIS will not become operational in all Schengen countries consulates worldwide at once. Rather, it will be progressively deployed region by region. The North Africa region will soon be followed by the Near East (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), and the Gulf regions (Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen). All Schengen states' consular posts worldwide should be connected to the VIS within two years.

The procedure for collecting fingerprints is simple, rapid and discreet. The applicant will only have to place his or her fingers on the surface of a digital scanner. When lodging subsequent applications within five years, the fingerprints will not be taken again but copied from the previous application in the VIS. Fingerprint data will be erased after 5 years. When the visa holder arrives at the external border, the Schengen states' border guards will verify his or her identity and check the authenticity of the visa in the VIS. This will help to avoid the risk of visa fraud (such as trying to use someone else's visa) by allowing quick, safe and secure biometric verifications. At the same time, the procedure will be faster for bona fide applicants, who constitute the overwhelming majority of travellers. The VIS was established by Council Decision 2004/512/EC and EC Regulation 767/2008.

Which data are registered in the VIS? In each region where the VIS will be progressively deployed, Schengen states' visa authorities will register data relating to short-stay visa applications (i.e applications for stays in the Schengen area up to three months) in the VIS. Data on national long-stay visas will not be registered in the VIS. Upon receipt of an application, the visa authorities of the competent Schengen state will create an application file in the VIS and will register the alphanumeric data contained in the Schengen visa application form12, a digital photograph, and ten fingerprints taken of the applicant. If the applicant is travelling in a group, the application files of the travellers will be linked in the VIS. If a previous application has been registered for the same applicant, both applications will also be linked in the VIS. For each region, the Commission will determine the date from which the use of the VIS and the collection of fingerprints is mandatory for all Schengen visa-issuing consulates in the region concerned. Before that date, a Schengen state may decide to start operations ahead of the general rollout planned, with or without collecting the fingerprints of visa applicants. If a Schengen state decides not to collect fingerprints, the other data will be registered in the VIS. When a decision has been taken on the application (issuance/ refusal of the visa) or subsequently (annulment, revocation, extension), the information is registered in the VIS by the visa authorities of the competent Schengen states. When the visa is issued and if all the applicant's data - including his/her fingerprints - was registered in the VIS, a 'VIS code' is inserted in the visa sticker. If the fingerprints were not collected because this was not yet mandatory in the region concerned, a 'VIS code 0' is inserted in the visa sticker. The purpose is to facilitate border controls until the moment the VIS is used in all regions worldwide and fingerprints are systematically collected.

What are the practical consequences of the introduction of the VIS for visa applicants? First-time visa applicants will always have to appear in person when lodging an application in order to provide their photograph and fingerprints. The photograph can be digitally taken at the time of the application or scanned from an existing one. For subsequent applications within five years, fingerprints can be copied from the previous application file in the VIS.

12 including the applicant's name, his/her nationality, his/her place of residence, his/her occupation, the travel document's number, the type of visa requested, the main destination and the duration of the intended stay, the intended border of first entry, the details of the inviting person.

67 Visa applicants' biometric data can be collected by Schengen states' consulates and external service providers but not commercial intermediaries (e.g. travel agencies). From 20 days after the VIS becomes operational in North Africa, Schengen states' border guards will systematically check the visa sticker number in the VIS and possibly the fingerprints of the visa holder as well. After a transitional period of three years, searches in the VIS will be carried out using the visa sticker number in combination with fingerprints, except under a limited set of circumstances (for instance due to the intensity of traffic). When arriving at the external border of the Schengen area, visa holders will have to provide their fingerprints for comparison with those registered in the VIS, if requested by Schengen states' border control authorities. Visa holders whose fingerprints were not collected at the time of application, either because they were exempt from this requirement or because the collection of fingerprints was not yet mandatory in the region concerned, will not be requested to provide fingerprints at the border.

For More Information on the VIS: http://ec.europa.eu/vis 15.3.4 Blue Card – implementation 'Blue Card' – Work permits for highly qualified migrants 6 Member States fail to comply with the rules By not complying with EU rules, a number of Member States are making it too hard for highly skilled people to come to the EU for work. On 27 October, the Commission formally requested 6 Member States comply with the rules of the Blue Card Directive, whose deadline for implementation expired on 19 June 2011. Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Sweden have not yet transposed EU rules for highly qualified migration into national law. The Commission therefore decided to issue reasoned opinions (under Article 258 TFEU) requesting these Member States to take action. Despite being in the midst of an economic crisis with high levels of unemployment, employers often cannot find the highly qualified workers they need13. The EU Blue Card Directive puts in place common and efficient rules that allow highly skilled people from outside Europe to come and work in our labour markets where there is a need. The Directive establishes a fast-track admission procedure for these foreigners and ensures a common set of social and economic rights (equal to those of EU nationals) in a number of areas.

If the EU is to reach the goals of sustainable and inclusive growth, based on research and innovation, Europe needs to attract more talent. This is why it is crucial that all Member States apply these common rules and foster a comprehensive and balanced EU migration policy.

On 18 July 2011, the Commission sent letters of formal notice (the first step of the infringement procedure) to Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Sweden concerning their failure to notify the Commission of measures taken to implement the Directive.

Three of them (Italy, Malta and Portugal) have still not signalled any such measures within the set deadline (two months), prompting the Commission to act.

The three others (Germany, Poland and Sweden) replied to the letters of formal notice but indicated that new implementing legislation would not enter into force until next year. The Commission decided to send reasoned opinions to these Member States as well.

Background The Blue Card Directive (Directive 2009/50/EC) was adopted on 25 May 2009 and Member Sates had until 19 June 2011 to transpose its provisions into national law. All EU Member States except Denmark, the UK and Ireland are bound by the Directive. The EU Blue Card scheme helps attracting highly qualified migrants to Europe, supporting Member States' and EU companies' efforts to fill gaps in their labour markets that cannot be filled by their own nationals, other EU nationals or legally resident non-EU nationals. It provides a common and simplified procedure applicable in the EU Member States bound by the Directive and ensures that

13 Member States report labour and skills shortages in a number of areas, according to the European Migration Network's (EMN) 2011 Study on "Satisfying Labour Demand through Migration"

68 potential migrants know what they need to do, whichever Member State they are planning to go to, rather than having to face 24 different systems. Once a Member State grants a Blue Card to a migrant, that person can then benefit from free access to highly qualified employment positions in that Member State and can also move to another EU Member State where their skills may be needed. Coupled with preferential rules for acquiring long term resident status and for family reunification, the Blue Card scheme presents an attractive package to potential highly qualified migrants. It is a demand-driven instrument which does not grant a right of admission and respects the competences of the Member States to determine the volume of labour immigrants entering their territory for the purpose of highly qualified employment. The Blue Card Directive is one building block of a comprehensive and balanced EU migration policy, which has a role to play not only in filling shortages in the national labour markets but also in helping to face demographic challenges. The Directive does not prevent Member States from having their own system of national residence permits for highly skilled migrants, but such national permits cannot grant the right of residence in other EU Member States that is guaranteed under the Blue Card Directive.

16 EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

16.1 OCTOBER SOCIAL SUMMIT Social Summit: EU working towards solutions for a job-rich, sustainable recovery Brussels, 17 October 2011- In preparation for the summit of Heads of State and Government planned for October 23rd, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, the EU Commissioner responsible for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, László Andor, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy and the Deputy Prime Minister of Poland Waldemar Pawlak met European workers' and employers' representatives at the bi-annual Tripartite Social Summit. Discussions focused on the current economic and employment situation in Europe and the key policy responses required for a sustained recovery, as well as the important role of the social partners in EU governance.

President Barroso said: "The steep rise in joblessness across our Union is the most painful social symptom of this economic crisis. In particular, we hear the message of frustration anger coming from our young people. That is why I want our next country-specific recommendations to address the plight of young people in every one of our Member States. We will also continue to press hard for reforms to remove structural obstacles to employment. The roadmap we have presented ahead of the European Council also proposes growth-enhancing measures capable of creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs."

Speaking to the European social partners, Commissioner László Andor stressed that: "Job creation must go hand in hand with recovery. This is my priority. While increasing the pace of structural reforms, improving governance and reinforcing economic policy coordination, we also need to find the right balance between budgetary consolidation and policies that bolster growth and create jobs. As part of this, we need to strengthen the social dialogue at all levels in every country"

The meeting showed a broad consensus on the importance of close cooperation between EU institutions, governments and social partners at all levels. Participants have acknowledged the need to strengthen mutual trust and promote a growth pattern that ensures the long-term economic and social development of the EU. The key role of social dialogue in sustaining recovery and structural change was highlighted, as well as the need to involve the social partners in the national reform programmes implementing the Europe 2020 objectives.

Background The Tripartite Social Summit meets twice a year, ahead of the spring and autumn European Councils. It is an important opportunity for an exchange of views between the social partners, the Commission and the heads of government and employment ministers of the current and subsequent two Council Presidencies. Further information European social dialogue : http://ec.europa.eu/socialdialogue

69 16.2 EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE RULING ON AGE

Judgment in Case C-447/09 Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm and Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG Prohibiting airline pilots from working after the age of 60 constitutes discrimination on grounds of age While the right to act as a pilot may be limited from that age, total prohibition goes beyond that which is necessary to ensure air traffic safety The directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation14 prohibits any unjustified difference in treatment at work that is related to age. Nevertheless, Member States, when implementing the directive, may provide that a difference in treatment which is based on workers’ physical capabilities, which themselves are related to age, does not constitute discrimination if having such capabilities is a genuine and determining requirement for being able to carry out a professional activity. Similarly, the directive does not prevent Member States from adopting all measures necessary to ensure the maintenance of public security. Moreover, Member States may entrust the implementation of the directive to social partners. International and German legislation provide that, between the ages of 60 and 64, an airline pilot may not continue to act as a pilot unless he is a member of a multi-pilot crew and the other pilots are under 60. However, that legislation prohibits pilots from acting as pilots beyond 65. The collective agreement applicable to the crew of the German airline Deutsche Lufthansa – which is recognised by German law – prohibits pilots from acting as pilots after the age of 60. Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm and Volker Lambach were employed for many years by Deutsche Lufthansa as pilots then flight captains. When they reached 60 years of age their employment contracts terminated automatically, in accordance with the collective agreement. Considering themselves to be victims of discrimination on grounds of age, which is prohibited by the directive, they brought an action before the German courts for a declaration that their employment relationships with Deutsche Lufthansa had not terminated at age 60 and an order that their employment contracts should be continued. The Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court, Germany) asked the Court of Justice whether a collective agreement which provides for an age-limit of 60 for airline pilots for the purposes of air safety is compatible with EU law. The Court recalls, firstly, that the collective agreements entered into with the social partners must, as with the national laws of the Member States, respect the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, which is recognised as a general principle of EU law and given specific expression by the directive in the domain of employment and occupation. Next, the Court states that the limitation of the possibility for pilots to act as pilots to age 60 pursues the objective of guaranteeing the safety of passengers, persons in areas over which aircraft fly and the safety and health of pilots themselves, which may justify a difference in treatment, and that that limitation may be provided for in a collective agreement. However, the Court notes that international and German legislation considered that it was not necessary to prohibit pilots from acting as pilots after the age of 60 but that it sufficed merely to restrict those activities. The Court therefore holds that the prohibition on piloting after that age, provided for by the collective agreement, is not a necessary measure for the protection of public health and security. The Court moreover states that possessing particular physical capabilities may be considered as a genuine and determining occupational requirement for acting as an airline pilot and that the possession of such capabilities is related to age. As that requirement is aimed at guaranteeing air traffic safety, it pursues a legitimate objective which may justify a difference in treatment on grounds of age. However, it is only in very limited circumstances that such a difference in treatment may be justified. In that regard, the Court notes that the international and German authorities consider that, until the age of 65, pilots have the physical capabilities to act as a pilot, even if, between 60 and 65, they may do so only as a member of a crew in which the other pilots are younger than 60. On the other hand,

14 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

70 the Lufthansa social partners fixed at 60 the age-limit from which airline pilots are considered as no longer possessing the physical capabilities to carry out their occupational activity. In those circumstances, the Court states that the age-limit of 60, imposed by the social partners, to be able to pilot an airplane, constitutes a disproportionate requirement in light of international and German legislation that fixed that age-limit at 65. NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

16.3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND EMPLOYMENT The Polish presidency organised a conference on 10-11 October to discuss ‘Challenges and opportunities for employment vis-à-vis demographic changes. Presentations during the final session included a number of interesting arguments and conclusions. The selection cited below is an illustration thereof: Determinants of low economic activity of people over 55 years of age are very diverse. The initiative at the European and national level, should help the elderly to maintain their economic activity or return to it. 1. The approach to employment policy, which also includes the elderly, became obsolete, and new definitions, instruments are needed (e.g. forms of work). There is a need for closer cooperation of the competent institutions that create employment policies and public employment services, particularly at the local level. It is desirable to use a more proactive and innovative approach to maintain employment and activation of older people. The contribution of older people working for the economy may be larger than spending on their activation. 2. The economic crisis has greatly exacerbated the challenges of an aging society. Although the Europe 2020 strategy is very important, it is more important to end the crisis, especially to face its second wave. The crisis is also an opportunity to search for new, more ambitious solutions. 3. When creating a policy for employment of older people one cannot focus only on the final stage of career, but should focus on the whole professional career cycle (life-cycle approach), which must be accompanied by solidarity between the generations. This does not relieve the older workers from responsibility to maintain employability, by raising their level of education, improving qualifications and skills. An example of a company benefiting from sound management of age is a chemical company BASF, which implements the provisions of a collective agreement for the elderly. 4. Due to the shrinking labour resources, to ensure economic growth one should not only make a maximum increase in employment, but also increase work productivity. The greatest employment potential is among women 50 +. 5. This time, the job market has coped with the crisis better than during previous crises, reflecting the sustainability of the European social model. The guidelines on employment policy and the need to implement recommendations by Member States with the participation of all parties involved remain relevant. 6. The forecasts for the economy are unpredictable and, therefore, actions to increase employment of older people, mainly by raising the statutory retirement age and further reforms of social insurance, including old age pension systems,, are - from the perspective of employers - a necessity, not a choice, because otherwise, companies operating in the EU will have to move their productions to other parts of the world. 7. Labour productivity in the European Union lags behind other parts of the world, and therefore it is necessary to immediately make companies more flexible, through the use of a variety of employment contracts, make permanent contracts more employment-friendly (at the moment they are the barrier to employers). 8. Increasing investments in education and professional training and lifelong learning needs to ensure that the group of senior staff is efficient, otherwise their employment will not bring the desired economic results. 9. Also important are wage-setting systems. an example of "good practice" is the Netherlands, where since 2007 a collective agreement is implemented, concerning the elderly, which produced good results in improving the employment of seniors. The elements of this agreement cover, in addition to wage conditions, e.g. additional days off for seniors and special contracts of employment.

71 More info: http://www.mpips.gov.pl/en/presidency/events/event/joint-conference-ofthe-employment- committee-emco-andthe-heads-of-public-employment-services-hopes-of-member-states-10-11- october-2011-/

16.4 FLEXICURITY The European Commission will publish in 2012 a Communication on Flexicurity which will revisit the policy approach and launch a renewed political commitment for flexicurity, as outlined in the Europe 2020 initiative 'An Agenda for new skills and jobs'. Flexicurity is an integrated strategy for enhancing, at the same time, flexibility and security in the labour market. It attempts to reconcile employers' need for a flexible workforce with workers' need for security – confidence that they will not face long periods of unemployment. In preparation of this the Commission organised on 14 November a conference to share their past experience and explore ways to adapt flexicurity to the current institutional and economic context. The conference's opening session collected the stakeholders' views on the success and shortcomings of flexicurity policies so far, followed by two panels to address: What flexicurity policies in a context of tight budgetary constraints? What governance for a better balance between flexibility and security? The closing session focused on a proactive vision of flexicurity.

Background What is flexicurity? Flexicurity is an integrated strategy for enhancing, at the same time, flexibility and security in the labour market. It attempts to reconcile employers' need for a flexible workforce with workers' need for security – confidence that they will not face long periods of unemployment. What is the EU doing? Common principles of flexicurity Working with national governments, social partners and academics the EU has identified a set of common flexicurity principles and is exploring how countries can implement them through four components: - flexible and reliable contractual arrangements - comprehensive lifelong learning strategies - effective active labour market policies - modern social security systems Communication of the Commission on the common principles of flexicurity (June 2007) Council conclusions on the common principles of flexicurity (November 2007)

In the European Employment Strategy Flexicurity is a crucial element of the Employment Guidelines and the European Employment Strategy as a whole. Integrated flexicurity policies play a key role in modernising labour markets and contributing to the achievement of the 75% employment rate target set by the Europe 2020 Strategy. Measures taken or initiated in this context include: Agenda for new skills and jobs: for reducing segmentation and supporting transitions by strengthening the flexicurity components and implementation; equipping people with the right skills for employment; improving job quality and the working conditions; and supporting job creation New skills for new jobs: for upgrading, anticipating and better matching skills and jobs Youth on the Move: to help young people acquire skills, qualifications and experience anticipating, preparing and managing company restructuring strengthening public employment services such as job search support, career analyses, validation of experience, etc. Promoting flexicurity at national level Under the initiative "Mission for Flexicurity", EU representatives, together with the social partners visited 5 EU countries and discussed with them how they have been setting up and implementing flexicurity policies.

Also at the European Parliament MEPs from the Employment committee are hosting conferences, hearings and debates on the topic.

16.5 POLISH PRESIDENCY FOCUS

72 The Polish presidency focused in the framework of employment and social affairs on: - Active Europe - Solidarity of generations – toward Europe’s demographic future - Civic partnership – government administration and non-governmental organizations in implementation of social objectives

Active Europe Objective: developing active and innovative measures for employment and active social integration policies; emphasizing how the European Union, through promotion of activity on the labour market and active social integration policy, including financial support, fosters solutions for social issues and social coherence. indicating how investment in social and economic cohesion in the EU is beneficial to Europe as a whole.

Subjects: the influence of the flexicurity model on employment level in different age groups, among men and women and on balance between work and private life in the life cycle of a human being; promotion of self-employment as a result of active labour market policy – sources of financing, procedures, results, professional activity evaluations, assessment of the efficiency of labour market policy instruments; microloans as the area of public-private partnership for the development of entrepreneurship.

Solidarity of generations – toward Europe’s demographic future Objective: providing a new stimulus for the development of solutions which help balance professional and private life and make possible professional activation in the context demographic challenges

Subjects:

- the development of care services for children, elderly and dependent persons and promotion of common access to these services; - equal opportunities for men and women in reconciling work and private life; - professional activity regardless of age – opportunities, challenges and barriers – health and employment, prolonging professional activity, lifelong learning; - corporate social responsibility – the role of employers in adaptation to the changing demographic and labour market realities; - the role of social dialogue in the search for solutions to demographic challenges; - modernisation of pension systems.

Civic partnership – government administration and non-governmental organizations in implementation of social objectives Objective: promoting diverse forms of cooperation of public administration, self-governments and non- governmental organisations for the implementation of social policy and employment objectives.

Subjects: effective involvement of the third sector in implementation of the State’s active social policy priorities; the role of volunteering in the integration of local communities; e-volunteering as an innovative instrument for implementation of social objectives and for development and support of social ties; animating and strenghtening local initiatives (e.g. by means of Community programmes); exchanging experience concerning public authorities’ effective support for local initiatives; partnership for employment and cohesion as a chance for an innovative approach to solving social issues.

73 16.6 EMPLOYMENT – LEGAL MATTERS 16.6.1 Working Time Directive – state of play on revision

On 14 November the European cross-industry Social partners sent a letter to Commissioner Laszlo Andor, a letter, informing that they will enter into negotiations on revisions to the WTD. The letter also state that a first negotiation meeting is scheduled for 8 December, 2011.

The cross-industry social partners are: Businesseurope – UEAPME (sme’s) – CEEP (public sector) for the employers and ETUC for the trade-union.

The aim of the negotiations will be to conclude an agreement, to be implemented by Council decision in accordance with Article 155 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.Should the European social partners be able to conclude these negotiations within the nine-month period foreseen by the Treaty, they would inform the Commission of the results achieved at the beginning of September 2012.

Background: Following the ECJ rulings (Simap – Jaeger – Dellas) a revision of the WTD is required to respond to the question of the definition of on-call time.

16.6.2 Maternity leave directive – state of play on revision Since the European Parliament adopted its position in first reading on 20 October 2010 on the revision of the "Maternity leave directive", the Council has not reached a formal position on this proposal. The committee adopted a question for oral answer to the Council, in order to enquire about the state of play on the revision of the directive. On 25 October it was discussed at the EP plenary meeting in Strasbourg. The rapporteur at the EP on this issue MEP Edita Estrela (FEMM committee) introduced an oral question to the Council to be informed of the state of play in Council. She reiterated that maternity should not be considered as a burden, but as a service provided to society, and that having a child should not impose a financial penalty on parents. She highlighted the fairness of fully paid maternity leave and said she considered the EP's position to be balanced and feasible. Mr Mleczko, on behalf of the Council, stressed that the discussions on the proposal needed to take into account the balance between EU law and national reality. He reminded members that the institutions shared a common objective. The problem was in finding a common basis for negotiations in order to reach this shared goal. He considered that the EP's amendments took insufficient account of existing national provisions, and that their detailed nature raised concerns over subsidiarity and proportionality. He informed Members of the outcome of the high-level ministerial meeting in Cracow, underlining that the Council could not accept 20 weeks of fully paid maternity leave. He thought that the best solution could be to define a minimum provision at the level of sickness leave and to allow Member States to define the maximum level. On paternity leave, he said that the Member States would not support its inclusion in the framework of the proposed directive. He doubted whether, despite the effort of the Polish Presidency, an early agreement could be reached.

A number of Members expressed their disappointment about the blockage on this file. They agreed that there was a need for protection of mothers and for a reconciliation of private and professional life, which would give women rights to work and to have a family without having to choose between the two. The goal of achieving a 75% employment rate (a goal of the EU2020 strategy) could also contribute to getting out of the economic and demographic crisis, as women would not be obliged to remain outside the labour market. However, some Members were critical of some aspects of the draft report. EPP group members criticised in particular a number of provisions in the report to be unrealistic, in particular the mandatory 20 weeks of fully paid maternity leave and the inclusion of 2 weeks of fully paid paternal leave. Ms Lulling (EPP, LU) criticised the tabling of an oral question to the Council in the middle of a codecision procedure.

Mr Mleczko reiterated that different traditions, cultures and the existence of variety of national provisions needed to be taken into account. He referred in particular to the suggestion of going back to the Commission's initial proposal and the idea of a "passerelle" clause.

74 Comment: the EP keeps the pressure on the Council. A written question from MEP Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D) forces the Council to respond on the prospects of the maternity leave directive. Comment: On 21 October at an informal Ministerial meeting in Poland, Heidi Lougheed, Chair of the Equal Opportunities Network, presented BUSINESSEUROPE’s views on the European Parliament’s position on the directive on pregnant and breastfeeding workers. She reaffirmed that the proposal would be unaffordable and counterproductive. It would harm women’s employment opportunities, negatively impact on companies and put more pressure on member states’ public finances. The objective of protecting the health and safety of pregnant and breastfeeding workers is already assured through the current directive.

The three cross-industry employers organisations wrote a letter to the Polish presidency in September highlighting some serious concerns regarding the position taken by the European Parliament on the Commission’s proposal for a revised directive on pregnant and breastfeeding workers. Length of maternity leave: European employers are strongly against extending maternity leave to 20 weeks. This goes beyond the Commission’s proposal, which was already problematic for enterprises. Putting overly restrictive and costly conditions on enterprises concerning maternity leave will harm women’s employment opportunities and employability. When an employee is absent, the employer is confronted with a lot of challenges in terms of work organisation. With 20 weeks maternity leave, these challenges would be even greater, creating problems in recruiting women, particularly for SMEs, and therefore making this less attractive. It would also make returning to the labour market more difficult. At this time in particular, female employment levels need to be raised, not the opposite. For example, more childcare facilities should be made available at an affordable price. In addition, there is no proof that the current EU minimum entitlement of 14 weeks maternity leave is not appropriate to protect the health and safety of pregnant or breastfeeding workers. Payment of maternity leave: Maternity leave at full pay would be unaffordable for enterprises and member states. Whilst we have strong reservations regarding the European Parliament’s own impact assessment, it does indicate that 20 weeks maternity leave at full pay would cost each year 1.3bn euro in the UK and 1.4bn euro in France. In times of economic recovery and with public finances severely constrained for the foreseeable future, it would not be possible to take on such costs.

“Passerelle clause”: European employers agree on the need to take into account the range of other types of family-related leave available in member states. However, this should be done at national level. Any attempt to do this at EU level, for example through a passerelle clause, would distort the more clearly delineated national approaches. Taking account of all the factors, including the length, payment, coverage etc, in a way which is clearly understandable, is only possible at national level. The current directive provides the minimum requirements at EU level, allowing member states to implement according to their national circumstances. Moreover, we have serious concerns about the level of pay that is proposed in relation to the passerelle clause. Whether 75% or 100% of full pay, which is not clear, this would be very costly for enterprises. It is also not clear with such a system whether member states would be able to continue to cover payment according to sickness pay 16.6.3 Health and safety - ergonomics

A report for the Commission on “Study to analyse and evaluate the socioeconomic impact of possible Community initiatives in the area of ergonomics, in particular with regard to the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and display screen vision problems in the European Union”.

The study presents 4 options: In response to the significance of WRMSDs and screen vision problems and expected future trends, the Commission is currently considering several initiatives at European level. Option 1: No action/status quo – This policy option consists of continued application of the

75 two existing Directives15 in their current form, with the current annexes and guidelines. The impact of this option is considered in the context of the current baseline (extent of WRMSDs and screen vision problems and their impact) and projected future trends. This option directly affects workers who are not or insufficiently covered by the current regulatory framework, public authorities responsible for treatment of WRMSDs and screen vision problems and employers who see the productivity of their workforce affected as a result of preventable work-related conditions. Indirectly, the do nothing option also affects the families of workers as a result of reduced household income and wider society as a result of benefit payments (unemployment/disability, etc.). Option 2: Awareness raising campaign, guidelines and other voluntary initiatives – This policy option recognises differences in implementation, compliance and awareness amongst businesses, workers and national authorities and it proposes to address these using awareness raising tools and guidance documents similar to initiatives that are currently being carried out by EU-OSHA. Concretely, this policy option proposes a number of voluntary awareness-raising activities to encourage stakeholders to: • Familiarise themselves with guidance materials on the two existing Directives • Better communicate guidance materials and other information to employees • Encourage stakeholders to cooperate with possible campaigns to reduce the prevalence of WRMSDs and screen vision problems. • Facilitate organisation of internal training in the workplace In theory, campaigns could include issues going beyond the content of the existing two Directives (90/269 and 90/270). In the face of uncertainty regarding the content of option 2 and to be able to measure the impact of this option, this study assumes that awareness raising will focus on improving the effectiveness of the two specific Directives (e.g. though improved levels or quality of compliance with existing requirements). This option directly affects employers who participate in awareness-raising activities and provide training to their employees, the workers who receive training, as well as workers directly who can be the potential audience for some of the awareness raising materials (i.e. on correct posture)..The option would also affect public authorities responsible for organising, coordinating and (in most cases funding) awareness raising campaigns and material. Option 3: Update to the VDU Directive - This policy option updates the VDU Directive to ensure it remains relevant to today’s working environment. Concretely, the option extends the scope to all activities with "habitual use of a display screen as a significant part of a work activity" thus removing existing derogations.In addition, the option proposes a number of additional requirements in the technical annex of the Directive: • Display screens: Screen specification suitable for task, Provision of adjustable window coverings. • Keyboard: key characters easily readable and adapted to user’s language. • Input devices: positioned close to the user - unless integrated as part of display screen device, Support for wrist and forearm, ability to adjust input device software settings, work at a speed that suits the user. • Software: training available, efficient, functional and user friendly. • Laptop: separate keyboard, mouse and display screen available for workers who habitually use laptop display screens as a significant part of their normal work in a fixed workstation • Accessories: foot rest, document holder and telephone headset available.

15 In December 2009 the Commission’s advisory committee on health and safety at work (ACSH) issued an opinion which restated some of the objectives of the new Directive. These included: maintaining the level of protection in Directives 90/269/EEC and 90/270/EEC and focus primarily on the prevention of WRMSDs; not increasing unnecessary administrative burdens on Member States and business; leading to modernisation of the current Directives including the annexes to assess whether they reflect current practice and current state of the art; adopting a modern ergonomic approach that covers the various risk factors leading to WRMSDs and relate to display screen conditions and reflects that it is often the combination of these factors that gives rise to risks; simplifying regulation through merging the two existing Directives but also through clear definitions, a clear structure, clarification of provisions and increased user friendliness leading to better applicability. Study to analyse and evaluate the socioeconomic impact of possible Community initiatives in the area of ergonomics, in particular with regard to the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and display screen vision problems in the European Union

76 This option is accompanied by guidance activities aimed at facilitating correct implementation of the new requirements. Awareness-raising and guidance produced as part of this option therefore reinforces the impact of the update to the VDU Directive. This option directly affects workers and employers who are now exempt from the VDU Directive and who would be covered either as a result of the removal of the specific exemptions or as a result of the update to the technical annex. The option may affect public authorities to the extent that enforcement activities need to be widened to a broader range of businesses. At the same time, any WRMSDs or screen vision problems prevented as a result of the update affect wider society in terms of reduced spending on benefits (unemployment/disability) and treatment of work-related conditions. Option 4: New legislative instrument replacing the two existing Directives - after discussion with the Commission, it was decided to consider two sub-options: 1. Sub-option 4.1 repeals the two existing Directives and introduces a shift away from requirements for specific work activities or types of equipment towards an obligation to identify and mitigate ergonomic risks, irrespective of the activity or equipment. This sub-option includes all elements in Option 3 above as well as all the following specific risks: • Task related risks (i.e. use of Force, repetition, duration, working posture, working movements , contact force or localised pressure, vibrations) • Workstation layout (e.g. space, work surface and adjustability, seating, distances, working posture variability, working height variability, neutral postures, support for arms and feet) • Workplace layout (e.g. access and circulation to and between workplaces, floor surfaces, variations in levels of the working surface) Environment (i.e. Ventilation, air movement, and air quality, Lighting, temperature, humidity, Noise) • Load handling (e.g. size and shape, weight distribution, container, tool and equipment handles) • Individual (i.e. new employees, employee physical capability, vulnerable groups, protective equipment) 2. Sub-option 4.2 includes all the elements above and it also extends the scope of the Directive to organisational risks including task demands, psycho-social aspects, work recovery cycles, duration and intensity of work and work rates. Both sub-options directly affect all workers and employers required to consider a wider range of risk factors irrespective of the activities carried out or equipment used. The option also expands the scope of the Directive to all workers (as opposed to just those exposed to the risk of manual handling of loads or those working with VDUs). For employers, there is a shift away from compliance with two separate pieces of legislation to a single text with one list of risk factors. The option affects public authorities to the extent that manual handling of loads and display screen equipment assessment procedures are combined. As for options 2 and 3, any WRMSDs or screen vision problems prevented as a result of the new Directive affect wider society in terms of reduced spending on benefits (unemployment/disability) and treatment of work-related conditions. Both sub-options include additional guidance material to facilitate implementation of the new requirements. Awareness-raising and guidance produced as part of this option therefore reinforces the impact of the Directive

Comment: At a conference on health and safety organised by the Polish presidency, Businesseurope gave its views on a possible commission proposal on ergonomics: This has been labled a simplification initiative. Employers agree on the need to simplify the two existing directives on manual handling of loads and visual display units. However, a broad directive on ergonomics which brings additional obligations, would not lead to simplification on the ground. In any case, broad legislation may not actually help to achieve better MSD prevention, as the factors causing such problems are multiple and therefore difficult to assess and define. Although there can be a direct link between work activities and musculoskeletal disorders, the root of the problem may also be in an individual’s private life. Also, it is likely to increase costs and burdens for employers rather than reduce them. The impact assessment conducted on behalf of the Commission states that the cost of such legislation would be €3.7bn, with SMEs bearing 90% of the costs. Increasing costs so dramatically for companies in the current economic climate would be irresponsible and jeopardise the recovery

77 16.7 EUROPEAN SECTORAL SOCIAL DIALOGUE ‘LIVE PERFORMANCE’ Since the last conference only a steering group (27 September 2011) meeting took place which allowed to take stock of the state of play of the current work programme and to reflect on items for next year’s work programme. Proposed items for next years programme are: - Mobility - Capacity building - Health and safety - Training - Impact of the crisis - (new) equality MEETINGS scheduled in 2012:  Monday 05/03/2012: WG  Tuesday 12/06/2012: WG  Thursday 13/09/2012: WG  Thursday 25/10/2012: SG  Tuesday 04/12/2012: PL Comment: the content of the sectoral social dialogue committee will be discussed at the conference in Tallinn in preparation of the plenary social dialogue meeting on 6 December in Brussels