building on europe's strengths

Building on Europe’s strengths Recommendations for action in the years ahead

2 BDI – Federation of German IndustriesBDA – Confederation of German Employers’ Associations

Building on Europe’s strengthsContent

Content

Foreword ......................................................................................5

Drive integration forward, strengthen capacity for action .......................................................................................7Bring Treaty of Lisbon into force rapidly ................................8Move ahead judiciously with EU enlargement .....................9

Give priority to competitiveness ..........................................11Intensify the drive for better regulation ................................12Modernise the EU budget .........................................................13Adapt the Lisbon strategy to meet future needs ..................14Implement EU industry policy in a targeted way ................15Promote entrepreneurship and SMEs ..................................16

Make more progress with education and research .......17Promote transparency, transfer possibilities and mobility in education ...............................................................18Continue the Bologna process ................................................19Deepen the European research area .................................... 20EIT – excellence in research, education and innovation 21Prepare the new research framework programme ............ 22Achieve the Barcelona objectives for research ................... 23

Complete the EU internal market/strengthen the euro ...................................................................................... 25Complete the EU internal market ......................................... 26Regulate fi nancial markets in a responsible manner ........ 27Extend the euro zone ............................................................... 28Adapt company law .................................................................. 29Harmonise corporation tax .................................................... 30Safeguard VAT revenues ......................................................... 31Avoid class action in antitrust law and consumer protection .................................................................................. 32Simplify consumer legislation without new burdens on companies ............................................................................ 33Ensure legal certainty for defence and security procurement ............................................................................... 34

Shape labour market and social policy for the future .. 35Flexicurity: create security through fl exibility ................... 36Breathe life into employment strategy ................................ 37»Green jobs«: realise the employment potential of environment and climate policy ....................................... 38Make the European globalisation fund more effective .... 39Further improve compatibility of work and private life .. 40Further strengthen the social dialogue ................................41Use open method of coordination ........................................ 42Further strengthen diversity in the economy ..................... 43CSR: pursue the success story ................................................ 44

Frame labour law in a way that promotes employment ............................................................................. 45Inject more fl exibility into working time ............................. 46Avoid over-regulation of occupational pensions ................47Place information and consultation for employees in a workable framework ............................................................. 48Verify the need for new anti-discrimination rules ............ 49Design practical health and safety rules ............................. 50

Guarantee worker mobility in the internal market .........51Facilitate cross-border deployment of employees in other European countries ...................................................... 52Allow work-related immigration from non-EU countries ..................................................................... 53Ensure free movement – work against segregation tendencies ................................................................................... 54Prevent protectionism under the cloak of worker protection .................................................................... 55

3BDI – Federation of German IndustriesBDA – Confederation of German Employers’ Associations

Building on Europe’s strengthsContent

Underpin modern mobility and infrastructure/strengthen the information society .................................. 57Use PPP/concessions ................................................................ 58Interconnect the trans-European transport network more closely .............................................................. 59Network transport operations intelligently/promote telematics and traffi c management systems ....................... 60Shape air transport more effi ciently .................................... 61Improve rail transport performance .................................... 62Further modernise maritime transport ............................... 63Drive the information society forward ................................ 64Orient telecommunications regulation on growth ........... 65Strengthen trust and security in the digital world ............ 66

Shape climate and environmental protection in a measured way ................................................................... 67Give concrete form to emission trading rules .................... 68Promote environment-friendly mobility ............................. 69Ensure environmental protection and tax competitiveness ........................................................................ 70Organise environment-oriented procurement transparently ............................................................................. 71Regulate products coherently ................................................ 72Place proportionate requirements on industrial installations ............................................................................... 73Tighten and harmonise European chemicals law ..............74

Secure a sustainable supply of energy and raw materials ................................................................... 75Create a European internal energy market ........................ 76Secure the energy supply for the long term ........................ 77Expand renewable energies ................................................... 78Safeguard the functioning of international raw materials markets ............................................................. 79Ensure access to raw materials in Germany and Europe ................................................................................ 80Improve the availability of secondary raw materials ....... 81

Strengthen the external dimension ................................... 83Global trade liberalisation ...................................................... 84Bilateral free-trade agreements ............................................. 85Create coherence on issues linked to the social dimension of globalisation .......................................... 86EU-Asia relations ...................................................................... 87EU-Russia relations .................................................................. 88EU-USA relations/transatlantic economic integration.... 89EU-Mercosur relations ............................................................ 90European neighbourhood: EU-Mediterranean relations 91European neighbourhood: the eastern dimension ............ 92EU development policy ............................................................ 93


Building on Europe’s strengthsForeword

In times of serious fi nancial and economic crisis, a united Europe has even more reason to refl ect on its foundations and its achievements. These are and result from the shared values based on democracy and human rights, the principles of the social market economy and free, undistorted competition.

For companies, not least in Germany, the large EU internal market without national frontiers is a source of reliable and competitively priced supplies, a crucial sales market, an important location of investments as well as a stable basis for global activities. For consumers, the internal market offers a wide range of goods and services of high quality at an at-tractive price.

Germany is closely intertwined with its EU partners: 59.5 % of our imports and 64.7 % of our exports are traded with our EU partner countries. At a fi gure of 447.5 billion euros, around 55 % of all German foreign investments are deployed in the EU. The European internal market underpins growth and income as well as around 5 million jobs in Germany.

Europe works to the benefi t of businesses, workers and consumers. That should not end at the EU’s borders. The goal must be to open markets around the world from a strong European base, to put in place transparent rules as well as to promote economic and social development. Where free trade holds sway, people are the winners. Germany is the best example of this. The internationally competitive products and services supplied by German companies make us the world’s export champion. They make a decisive contribution to the performance of our social market economy. They are the reason why we can maintain and even increase our share on world markets despite increasing competition from Asia and other emerging regions of the world. That is a success for Germany, for the German economy in Europe. It would be unimaginable without an open and competitive European Union capable of action.

The past teaches us that trade barriers or subsidies to industries that are no longer competitive, along with attempts by the state to run businesses, block the route to the future. Such state intervention tends to exacerbate a crisis rather than shorten it, reduces prosperity, and destroys more jobs in the long term than it saves in the short term.

There are good reasons to have confi dence that Europe can overcome the current economic and fi nancial crisis. Europe can recover its full economic strength, which is also the indispensable basis for social balance. To that end, we must refl ect on essentials: a functioning internal market, a common currency with balanced budgets, an internationally at-tractive legal framework, global free trade as well as freedom for its business people and citizens to take responsible ini-tiatives. That is what must be at the heart of concerns in Brussels and Berlin in the coming years. That is foundation and achievement at the same time.

Foreword

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hans-Peter KeitelPresidentFederation of German Industries (BDI)

Dr. sc. techn. Dieter HundtPresidentBDA | Confederation of German Employers’ Associations

Drive integration forward, strengthen capacity for actionRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsBring Treaty of Lisbon into force rapidly

What needs to be done?

The Treaty of Lisbon must now enter into force rapidly. ·

The EU should focus on meeting the current challen- ·

ges, such as enhancing competitiveness and climate

protection.

Individual member states must not be able to prevent ·

the EU from safeguarding its long-term capacity for

action by agreeing treaty amendments. That would

stand the point of the integration process on its head.

What is at stake?

In December 2007 heads of state and government sol-emnly signed the »Treaty of Lisbon« on EU reform. Since then, 23 member states have fully ratifi ed the treaty. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court is currently deliberating on several complaints. The German president has not yet lodged the ratifi cation document. The same ap-plies for Poland. The Czech Republic has not yet ratifi ed. Following a fi rst rejection by voters in 2008, Ireland plans to hold a second referendum this coming autumn.

Where are we now?

Thanks to a series of modifi cations, the Treaty of Lisbon improves the capacity for action of a European Union which has now grown to 27 member states. These include a better demarcation of competences between the European Union and the member states, e.g. through the introduc-tion of competence categories and a right for national par-liaments to lodge complaints. In addition, the Council of Ministers will in future decide more often on the principle of majority voting. Despite criticism of many details, these are all compelling reasons for the Treaty of Lisbon to enter into force rapidly. It improves the European Union’s capac-ity for action decisively and thereby creates a more reliable framework for the further development of businesses in the EU internal market.

Bring Treaty of Lisbon into force rapidly


Building on Europe’s strengthsMove ahead judiciously with EU enlargement


»Enhanced monitoring« for Bulgaria and Romania ·

should be kept in place. The European Commission

should press for complete implementation of all under-

takings entered into.

The European enlargement strategy should be moved ·

forward judiciously. Technical timetables which only

refl ect political expectations rather than solid progress

in the negotiations and implementation of underta-

kings in the countries concerned should be avoided.

The current accession negotiations should continue on ·

the basis of the principles and processes agreed in the

negotiating mandates.

What is at stake?

The European Commission is pursuing an appropriately differentiated strategy based on »consolidation«, »condi-tionality« and »communication« with a view to enabling EU enlargement taking account of its absorption capacity.

Where are we now?

The 2004 EU accessions have been implemented on the ground in political, economic and administrative terms subject to agreed transitional arrangements (free move-ment of workers, environment, energy, transport, etc.).

Bulgaria and Romania acceded to the EU on 1 January 2007 with application of previously agreed safeguard clauses. Complete implementation of all undertakings is still a long way off.

Turkey and Croatia have been negotiating EU accession since October 2005. The talks are at an early stage.

The western Balkan countries have a clear prospect of EU membership based on their individual progress. The European Commission rightly paints a very differentiated picture of the situation in the region.

Move ahead judiciously with EU enlargement

Give priority to competitivenessRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsIntensify the drive for better regulation


Early involvement of businesses in impact assessment ·

and estimation of administrative costs.

Ongoing monitoring of progress in reduction of admi- ·

nistrative burdens through the setting of interim targets

and progress reports.

Rapid and consistent implementation of the HLG’s ·

proposals as well as examination of other areas of re-

gulation for excessive administrative burdens.

Possibilities for Europe-wide legal protection should ·

not be weakened, such as the envisaged increase in

the EC threshold values for awarding public contracts

would entail.

What is at stake?

Better regulation and a comprehensive and ongoing dis-mantling of red tape at national and European level are indispensable in order to strengthen the conditions for companies. What they need is a simple, coherent and sta-ble legal framework in order to be able to prosper on in-creasingly global markets.

Better regulation / less red tape is one of the EU’s politi-cal priorities. The purpose of the »Action programme for reducing administrative burdens« published in 2007 is to measure the costs of bureaucracy caused by EU legisla-tive acts and to cut them by 25 % by 2012. To that end, the European Commission has set up a »High Level Group« (HLG) of independent stakeholders whose task is to re-duce administrative burdens in the EU caused by legal pro-visions. Furthermore, it has initiated measures to simplify current legal provisions and to enhance impact assessment in the legislative procedure.

Where are we now?

The EU’s ambitious plans are beginning to produce tangi-ble results. According to fi gures from the European Com-mission, the measures taken have reduced the acquis communautaire by around 10 % through simplifi cation and codifi cation. Altogether, more than 30 billion euros can be saved. Nevertheless, there are still unnecessary de-lays in measurement and reduction of administrative bur-dens in many areas. Also crucial is the extent to which the HLG’s proposals are actually implemented. Rapid imple-mentation coupled with a widening of the HLG’s powers would send an important signal regarding the seriousness of efforts.

Intensify the drive for better regulation


Building on Europe’s strengthsModernise the EU budget


The current budget volume is appropriate. An increase ·

in the budget to more than 1 % of EU gross national in-

come is not necessary.

The EU budget should be oriented towards adding ·

perceptible value in terms of growth, employment and

competitiveness via a restructuring and concentration

of resources. Research/development/innovation and

education/training should receive particular attention.

Effi ciency reserves in structural policy should be used ·

to the full. Higher co-fi nancing rates can contribute to

more effi cient deployment of EU structural funds, since

free-rider effects would be avoided and the individual

responsibility of regions/member states would be pro-

moted.

A transparent and simple correction mechanism ·

should ensure that no EU member state has to make

disproportionate net contributions.

Introduction of a European tax is unnecessary. ·

What is at stake?

The budget is a central policy instrument of the EU. In light of growing challenges, the EU budget needs to be thoroughly modernised. The decisive lever for more trans-parency and fairness in the fi nancing mechanism should be sought above all in a comprehensive reform on the expenditure side. Areas ripe for reform are structural pol-icy and in particular agricultural policy.

Where are we now?

European Commission, European Parliament and Council have rightly agreed to hold a far-reaching debate on re-form of the EU budget. The essential aim for a modern EU budget continues to be that principles for revenues and expenditures as well as targeted resource allocation must be enshrined in the EU fi nancial perspectives for 2014 and subsequent years.

Modernise the EU budget


Building on Europe’s strengthsAdapt the Lisbon strategy to meet future needs


It is essential to continue a strategy for growth and jobs ·

after 2010.

Member states and EU institutions alike have a duty to ·

promote competitiveness, in particular through innova-

tion. It is the task of the European Commission to for-

mulate its legislative proposals accordingly. Member

states need to carry through structural reforms more

rapidly and with a greater sense of purpose.

Effi ciency and simplicity of the post-2010 strategy ·

must be considerably improved: procedures need to

be simplifi ed, national reporting obligations need to be

reduced.

What is at stake?

The overall goal of the »strategy for growth and jobs« agreed in March 2000 in Lisbon was to develop the EU into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economic region in the world by 2010. To that end, an »open method of coordination« between member states was agreed which is closely fl anked by the European Commission. Following a sobering mid-term review, the EU spring summit in 2005 decided to simplify and reorient the strategy. In addition, »integrated guidelines« and »na-tional progress reports« were introduced. A continuation of the Lisbon strategy beyond 2010 is currently being dis-cussed in the European Council.

Where are we now?

One objective of the Lisbon strategy is to increase ex-penditure on research and development across Europe to 3 % of GDP by 2010. Nevertheless, the quota has not been met since 2000. Only a few countries such as Finland and Sweden have achieved the 3 % target. The objective of a 70 % employment rate by 2010 also looks as if it will not be achieved, especially against the background of the cur-rent economic and fi nancial crisis. Proposals from the European Commission such as the revision of the emission trading directive or the anti-discrimination directive harm the competitiveness of companies and thwart the objec-tives of the Lisbon strategy. Transposition defi cits must be reduced with determination.

Adapt the Lisbon strategy to meet future needs


Building on Europe’s strengthsImplement EU industry policy in a targeted way


The European Commission and European Parliament ·

should make greater efforts to develop an industry-

friendly EU economic policy based on market eco-

nomy principles.

The aim should be to have a stronger coherence bet- ·

ween economic policy, on the one hand, and an ambi-

tious environment and climate policy, on the other

hand.

EU regulation, in particular in the areas of environmen- ·

tal, climate, consumer and social protection, should

not contain new and unnecessary or disproportionate

burdens on businesses.

The Lisbon strategy, the »better regulation« initiative ·

together with results of sectoral initiatives and high le-

vel groups must be taken into greater account in con-

crete legislative proposals.

What is at stake?

German industry accounts for 26.8 % of the gross value creation of all European industry. A policy that puts in place the right framework conditions at European level for a productive and internationally competitive industry is of the greatest interest for Germany. A sensible industry policy does not involve the state becoming active in busi-nesses itself or subsidising uncompetitive sectors. In order to promote growth and jobs, it is more important to create attractive framework conditions for innovation and pro-duction.

Where are we now?

The European Commission, in close liaison with industry, has developed very promising sector-specifi c initiatives including Electra (electrical and electronics industry), Engine Europe (mechanical engineering), Cars 21 (auto-motive industry) or the »High Level Group on the compet-itiveness of the chemical industry«. These initiatives enjoy industry’s full support. Unfortunately, the results of these sector- specifi c initiatives – and of the »High Level Group on competitiveness, energy and environment« – have so far received only limited or no consideration in concrete legislative procedures. Despite paying tribute to greater competitiveness (»Lisbon strategy«), the European Com-mission is pushing ahead with numerous legislative initia-tives which contradict this aim. Revision of the emission trading directive, the regulation on CO2 and cars, revision of the EU waste equipment regulation, the anti-discrimi-nation directive as well as the European Commission’s ini-tiatives for introduction of collective redress are so many examples which will have unnecessary or disproportionate consequences for the competitiveness of EU industry. The role of the European Parliament has remained ambivalent: some of the European Commission’s initiatives have been made more stringent, some have been modifi ed to take greater account of competitiveness.

Implement EU industry policy in a targeted way


Building on Europe’s strengthsPromote entrepreneurship and SMEs


EU and member states must apply the »think small ·

fi rst« approach consistently and over the long term.

SME representatives at EU level (SME envoy and

chamber of commerce) need to be strengthened.

Implementation of the SBA in EU and member states ·

must be monitored and rendered comparable through

incorporation in the Lisbon strategy.

SME aspects should be taken into consideration parti- ·

cularly in the new climate policy, energy and raw mate-

rials policy, in labour and social legislation as well as in

consumer policy.

EU and member states must continue their efforts to ·

reduce bureaucracy and administrative costs; in parti-

cular, effective impact assessment for new EU legisla-

tion taking particular account of SMEs (»SME test«) is

important.

The EU should facilitate the cross-border activities of ·

small and medium enterprises, e.g. through introduc-

tion of a legal statute for a »European private com-

pany«.

What is at stake?

The European level plays an ever greater role for in-dustrial SMEs. The legal climate for companies is in-creasingly determined by the EU. REACH regulation, anti- discrimination directives or services directive are just a few examples of the direct infl uence that European rules have on the competitive environment of SMEs.

Where are we now?

With the institution of »SME envoys«, »chamber of commerce«, »business policy group« and the »SME advisory committee«, the European Commission wants to encourage policy-makers to think through situations from the angle of SMEs in all their fi elds of activity. In the »Small Business Act« (SBA), EU and member states under-take to implement »think small fi rst« as the guiding prin-ciple of all legislation at European and national level. This could fi nally help to translate this approach from theory into practice. The SME test defi ned in the SBA is an impor-tant instrument which should now be applied consistently with transparent and effi cient involvement of companies and their representatives.

Promote entrepreneurship and SMEs

Make more progress with education and researchRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsPromote transparency, transfer possibilities and mobility in education


Implementation of EQF is the task of member states. ·

EQF can only function if the outcome approach is pur-

sued consistently, i.e. qualifi cations are classifi ed ex-

clusively on the basis of acquired skills. The EU can

accompany this process and give advice.

The long-term goal for implementation and further de- ·

velopment of ECVET must be to achieve compatibility

with ECTS in order to allow transfers between the sy-

stems.

For implementation of EQARF, it is of decisive impor- ·

tance to recognise that different vocational training

systems require different quality instruments and that

a uniform system is not possible, only common prin-

ciples. It is essential to avoid creating additional bu-

reaucracy, which could discourage SMEs – important

players in German vocational training – from offering

training.

What is at stake?

Priorities for European education policy are improved transparency and transfer possibilities in education sys-tems as well as an increase in mobility. An important instrument for this is the European Qualifi cations Frame-work (EQF). Qualifi cations from all areas of education should in future be classifi ed – on a voluntary basis – in the eight levels of EQF. The basis for classifi cation is not constituted by input factors such as place, duration or in-tensity of learning, but exclusively on the level of acquired skills (outcome). This means that it is also possible to clas-sify and recognise qualifi cations acquired informally or non-formally – a central element for businesses. In voca-tional training, EQF is set to be complemented by the Eu-ropean credit point system in vocational education and training (ECVET) which will facilitate recognition of full or partial qualifi cations acquired in the various education systems. A European quality assurance reference frame-work (EQARF) for vocational training is supposed to put in place uniform quality standards in very heterogeneous European vocational training systems.

Where are we now?

Under an EU recommendation, the member states are in-vited to link their education systems to EQF by 2010 and to ensure that every qualifi cation diploma comprises a reference to the corresponding EQF level by 2012. To do this, most member states are developing national qualifi -cation frameworks. The proposals for a European credit point system in vocational education and training and for development of a European quality assurance reference framework still have to be approved in the Council of Edu-cation Ministers. Implementation of ECVET is still unclear and questionable particularly with respect to the award of credit points. The workability is currently being tested in European projects. Problematic is the absence of compat-ibility with ECTS, the credit point system for universities.

Promote transparency, transfer possibilities and mobility in education


Building on Europe’s strengthsContinue the Bologna process


Against the background of demographic change, over ·

the next decade a larger share of an age cohort will

attend a higher education institution than in the past.

New target groups for higher education and further

education need to be identifi ed.

This must entail a clear opening of higher education ·

institutions also for people with vocational qualifi ca-

tions with no entitlement to a higher education place.

Genuine opening of access to higher education for

people with vocational qualifi cations will be achie-

ved if a vocational training is suffi cient as a formal

condition and further selection is left in the hands

of higher education institutions. In this connection,

crediting vocational skills for higher education courses

is an important instrument. An important aim conti-

nues to be improvement of student employability and

a strengthening of course relevance on the labour

market. This calls for intensive cooperation between

higher education institutions and businesses, which

should be further extended in the future. In this area,

companies offer their assistance and their commit-

ment in all areas.

The positive assessment of the Bologna process in ·

countries outside Europe should be used more than in

the past for active promotion of Europe as a location

for study and research, and for the recruitment of inter-

national students.

What is at stake?

Creation of a European higher education area, as agreed with signature of the »Bologna declaration« in 1999, is an important step for improving the quality of higher educa-tion in Europe. The Bologna process pursues three main objectives: promotion of mobility, of international compet-itiveness and of employability. The introduction of graded study cycles promotes a targeted and streamlined study, guarantees the international comparability of diplomas and at the same time leaves suffi cient leeway for individual higher education institutions to build their profi les.

Where are we now?

2010 was originally set as the target year for the Bologna process. However, by now it is clear that this will only be a staging post to be followed by others. At European level, an intensive discussion started in 2008 on the issue of how the Bologna process should develop after 2010. In the relevant committees, there is agreement that there are still defi cits in implementation of the Bologna structures, which require further work. Priorities here are the issues of mobility, learning outcome orientation and qualifi cation framework.

Continue the Bologna process


Building on Europe’s strengthsDeepen the European research area


ERA should be organised as an internal market for ed- ·

ucation and research, in order to encourage excellence

in competition. European Commission and member

states must do everything to leave research institutions

their autonomy. This presupposes competitive fi nan-

cing, also where public resources are involved.

If fi nancing is organised in competition, institutions can ·

also be given complete staffi ng and pay autonomy.

Germany has introduced the research premium to ·

strengthen cooperation between companies and re-

search institutions. EU member states should follow

this example. The research premium for cross-border

projects should be paid by the EU.

In the case of a combination with teaching tasks (uni- ·

versities), public resources should be awarded to

students via »education vouchers« which they can

transfer to the university of their choice. It must be pos-

sible to exchange the vouchers at any European uni-

versity.

What is at stake?

The European research area (ERA) is a core element of the Lisbon strategy. ERA is supposed to facilitate the free movement of researchers, and to achieve effective ex-change of knowledge as well as optimisation of European, national and regional research programmes. Another ob-jective is to build a strong network of researchers world-wide.

Where are we now?

In its key fi gures report 2008 on research, technology and competitiveness, the European Commission explains that networking of actors and programmes in ERA is mak-ing progress. With the »Ljubljana process« decided by the Council in early 2008, defi cits in selected areas are to be made good. Better social security rules, competition-based and cross-border recruitment, portability of fi nancing, employment and working conditions as well as education are intended to further promote researcher mobility. Large European research infrastructures should be given a Com-munity legislative framework. Recommendations from the European Commission on how to deal with intellectual property in the case of knowledge transfer activities as well as a code of practice for universities and other public research institutions are on the table and should facilitate cooperation between academia and business. For joint programme planning, the Council has called on member states to determine themes and procedures.

Deepen the European research area


Building on Europe’s strengthsEIT – excellence in research, education and innovation


The EU has to place EIT on a secure fi nancial footing ·

with additional budget resources, in order to encou-

rage the participation of private investors.

The political independence of EIT should be ensured ·

so that the choice of themes under the Strategic Inno-

vation Agenda and the work of the KICs can be aligned

on innovation needs on the market.

The bureaucratic effort involved in submitting appli- ·

cations for and organising the work of KICs should be

kept to a minimum in order to facilitate potential part-

nerships.

Only the best (fi ve to ten) innovation-oriented networks ·

of European universities, research institutions and

companies should be distinguished as KICs with the

label »EIT«. The possibility of promotion and relegation

should generate a European Innovation Champions

League.

What is at stake?

The »European Institute for Innovation and Technology« (EIT) serves to demonstrate excellence in science, tech-nology and education, and to strengthen Europe’s innova-tion capacity. Excellent workers will be won for scientifi c education, research and innovation. EIT should cooperate with companies across Europe on development and de-ployment of knowledge and research.

Where are we now?

With the decision to establish EIT, the choice of Budapest as administrative headquarters and nomination of the governing board, the legal conditions for the construction of EIT have been in place since July 2008. In early 2009 the governing board is preparing the fi rst tender notices for creation of »Knowledge and Innovation Communities« (KIC), bringing together universities, research institutions and companies in the thematic areas of climate change mitigation, sustainable energy provision and future infor-mation and communication society. In early 2010 the selected KICs will start their work, in which non-EU research partners can also participate. The European Commission makes 25 % of the necessary fi nancial re-sources available. The other 75 % will come from the 7th EU research framework programme, the EU CIP frame-work programme, the EU structural fund as well as private resources from companies, foundations, venture capital-ists, investment banks or member states. The EIT govern-ing board is due to present a »Strategic Innovation Agenda« (SIA) to the European Commission by 30 June 2011.

EIT – excellence in research, education and innovation


Building on Europe’s strengthsPrepare the new research framework programme


The EU must deploy more resources for research, de- ·

velopment and innovation if the Barcelona objective –

3 % of GDP spent on research and development – is to

be achieved.

On the basis of a mid-term review of the 7 · th research

framework programme, themes and promotion incen-

tives for the follow-on programme should be designed.

What is at stake?

The EU promotes research, development and innovation with multiannual »research framework programmes« (RFP) in order to increase Europe’s innovation capac-ity and competitiveness. The current 7th research frame-work programme runs until 2013 with a support volume of around 50 billion euros. For the subsequent period, a new 8th RFP is to be prepared on the basis of current experi-ence.

Where are we now?

Industry currently inputs its themes into the tender calls issued under the technology programmes in the 7th re-search framework programme via the »European technol-ogy platforms« (ETP). In addition, six »joint technology initiatives« (JTI) have so far been developed as public- private partnerships, which also comprise research re-sources from other EU programmes and national budgets. A robust mid-term review will be drawn up halfway through the programming period in 2010.

Prepare the new research framework programme


Building on Europe’s strengthsAchieve the Barcelona objectives for research


As an important EU member state, Germany must sup- ·

port the 3 % target to the best of its ability.

Proposals from the European Commission and ·

German research ministry on introduction of tax in-

centives for R&D promotion should be implemented.

Measures to that end should include: inclusion of com-

panies of all sizes without distinction, no upper limit,

no disadvantage to the target project promotion with

a higher level of promotion and higher application and

reporting requirements, as well as direct tax-deducti-

bility of expenditure.

What is at stake?

With the Lisbon strategy, the EU is pursing the goal of making Europe the most dynamic knowledge-based region in the world. A concrete element for the growth strategy is the EU’s target of increasing expenditure on research and development (R&D) to 3 % of GDP by 2010. One third should come from the state, two thirds from companies.

Where are we now?

Recent interim reports on science, technology and com-petitiveness show that progress on R&D investments in the EU and on realisation of the »European research area« between 2000 and 2006 was still too little. The number of researchers active in Europe is increasing and the EU has become more attractive for foreign researchers and for pri-vate R&D investments. Yet, despite higher research invest-ments in many member states and better effi ciency in their research systems, the EU is still a long way from reaching the target of 3 % of GDP invested in R&D. R&D intensity (R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP) in EU-27 has stagnated at 1.84 %. A continuing low level of R&D invest-ments by companies and an industrial landscape marked by a smaller high-tech sector than in the USA are holding back progress in the EU. The 3 % target is also a long way off in Germany. In 2007 the share of R&D in GDP was 2.54 %, with 1.77 % provided by the business sector

Achieve the Barcelona objectives for research

Complete the EU internal market/strengthen the euroRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsComplete the EU internal market


EU and member states are still encouraged to create a ·

simple, coherent and stable regulatory environment. It

should impose as few burdens on companies as pos-

sible, and promote business activity rather than hem-

ming it in.

EU law should be transposed promptly and without na- ·

tional »gold-plating«.

The services directive should be implemented within ·

the deadline, and EU and member states should be en-

couraged to carry through far-reaching liberalisation in

the booming services sector.

Community strategies for completion of the inter- ·

nal market are not enough on their own. The member

states also continue to have a duty, inter alia to open

markets further with application of appropriate verifi -

cation mechanisms.

What is at stake?

Completion of the EU internal market is a long-haul task. It is still ongoing, even more than 20 years after the »Sin-gle European Act« and 50 years after signature of the treaties of Rome. A fully functioning EU market is of par-ticularly great importance for the German economy. Ger-many trades 59.5 % of its imports and 64.7 % of its exports with our EU partner countries. At a fi gure of 447.5 billion euros, around 55 % of all German foreign investments are deployed in the EU. The European internal market under-pins growth and income as well as around 5 million jobs in Germany. For many German companies, the EU inter-nal market without national frontiers is a source of reliable and competitively priced supplies, a crucial sales market, an important location of investments as well as a stable ba-sis for global activities.

Where are we now?

A smoothly functioning EU internal market is rightly rec-ognised as a contribution to the growth and jobs strat-egy. The European Commission is undoubtedly pursuing the goal of implementing the four fundamental freedoms (goods, persons, services and capital) through legislation and hence also strengthening Europe’s international com-petitiveness. Another positive element is the effort to bring about »better regulation«, in particular the aim of reducing the cost of bureaucracy by 25 % by 2012. A critical element is the tendency in Brussels to pursue consumer, environ-ment and social projects through ever more regulation.

Complete the EU internal market


Building on Europe’s strengthsRegulate fi nancial markets in a responsible manner


Current own capital rules for banks should be brought ·

into line with increased risks. The procyclical nature of

the existing supervision regime needs to be reduced.

Coordination of fi nancial supervision must be intensi-

fi ed across Europe and worldwide.

A particular role in supervision of fi nancial markets ·

should be played by the International Monetary Fund.

In order to come to grips better with tensions on, inter-

national fi nancial markets in future, there needs to be

an effi cient and global »early warning system« on fi -

nancial markets.

More transparency and more quality on the ratings ·

market are essential. To this end, internationally uni-

form or at least comparable authorisation and supervi-

sion procedures are needed to monitor the activities of

rating agencies. In particular, it is important to prevent

any confl ict of interests within agencies.

Financial investors must organise their business more ·

transparently. It would be desirable to create an inter-

national credit register which gives clarity as to the in-

debtedness of fi nancial investors. In addition, effective

measures against a »stalking« of investors by issuers

as well as timely disclosure of short selling are neces-

sary.

What is at stake?

The most recent developments on international fi nancial markets are dramatic. The fi nancial market crisis has seri-ous consequences for the economy. In order to restore and secure long-term stability in the system, there needs to be a better balance between market effi ciency, competitiveness and risk prevention. A new regulatory framework must change the incentives system on fi nancial markets to the extent that the current situation is corrected and undesir-able developments are prevented in future. The aim should be to identify international/global solutions wherever pos-sible.

Where are we now?

The EU extraordinary summit on 22 February 2009 marked out a common line for improving the fi nancial system. The European Commission has presented propos-als for central projects, for instance on authorisation and supervision of rating agencies, on tightening up own capi-tal rules for banks as well as on more strongly coordinated European fi nancial supervision. A consultation of market participants has been carried out on regulation of hedge funds.

Regulate fi nancial markets in a responsible manner


Building on Europe’s strengthsExtend the euro zone


The fl exibility provided for in the stability and growth ·

pact should be fully exploited. The underlying idea

of determined budget consolidation must not be gi-

ven up. The consolidation route must be maintained

through the economic cycle and the current economic

and fi nancial crisis.

All attempts to hollow out the independence of the ·

European Central Bank directly or under cover must be

fi rmly resisted. An independent central bank offers a

guarantee for a stability-oriented monetary policy.

Complete compliance with the nominal convergence ·

criteria, measured against infl ation, interest rates and

public debt, must continue to be a strict condition for

access to the monetary union and the euro. They are a

necessary but by no means suffi cient condition for the

stability of the monetary union.

The high trade imbalances in the euro zone must be re- ·

duced with determination. They are also an expression

of different levels of competitiveness in the context of

fi xed monetary relations. They conceal the danger of

an increase in protectionism.

What is at stake?

The euro zone currently has 16 members. The common currency is proving to be a stabilising factor in the fi nan-cial market and economic crisis. At the same time, how-ever, national efforts to consolidate state fi nances are fl agging. Trade imbalances in the euro zone are increasing, as is pressure on the European Central Bank.

Where are we now?

Ten years of the euro – a success story from which Germany has benefi ted to a particular extent. The stabil-ity of the euro internally and externally is an important condition for growth and jobs. Introduction of the euro in more EU states would allow the advantages of the com-mon market to come to the fore even more clearly. With the disappearance of currency diversity and the associ-ated adjustment requirements would make it possible to exploit globalisation possibilities even better. Whether and to what extent this will be the case depends in a decisive measure on the willingness of participants to accept the framework conditions and rules of the game in full. In-creasingly, the rules of the »stability and growth pact« and the independence of ECB are felt to be disruptive or are questioned.

Extend the euro zone


Building on Europe’s strengthsAdapt company law


Work on SPE should be completed rapidly. ·

The German government should take a constructive ·

stance on SPE as a whole.

The European Commission should also present a ·

directive for transfer of seat.

Further changes to company law should consistently ·

expand the scope for entrepreneurial action and dis-

mantle remaining burdens.

What is at stake?

The internal market should guarantee entrepreneurial freedom without national barriers. For its completion, the instruments contained in existing company law need to be supplemented. The European private company (SPE) is an important element for this, along with the still pending directive on transfer of seat. SPE should make it possible to found companies with the same legal form in several mem-ber states. It will take its place alongside national legal forms such as GmbH, SARL or BV. For company start-ups as well as SMEs and larger corporate groups, SPE offers considerable potential for simplifi cation as compared with existing instruments.

Where are we now?

At the urging of the European Parliament, in mid-2008 the European Commission presented a draft regulation which entered into the legislative process in early 2009. The text essentially covers practical requirements. It looks unlikely that SPE will be available by 1 July 2010 as originally en-visaged by the European Commission. Whereas the Euro-pean Parliament adopted the mergers directive in the last legislative period and set some simplifying measures in train, by contrast a directive on transfer of seat still has to be presented.

Adapt company law


Building on Europe’s strengthsHarmonise corporation tax


In essence, national tax rules concerning cross-border ·

business transactions between companies should be

further harmonised or coordinated in order to make the

internal market more competitive.

The Council should rapidly reach agreement on the ·

draft directive which has already been presented.

In order to improve cross-border payments of interest ·

and royalties, a revision of the interest and royalties

directive is overdue. The share ownership rate should

be reduced to 10 % and indirect holdings should also

be eligible.

Introduction of CCCTB seems to be advantageous for ·

all economic stakeholders and should therefore be

kept in focus.

What is at stake?

Parallel national tax systems can lead to distortion of com-petition and impediments to cross-border activities due to double taxation or no taxation. Hence, the tax framework for cross-border transactions should be harmonised or at least coordinated. The European Commission has already adopted several directives in the area of direct taxation, in-cluding a directive on the treatment of cross-border inter-est and royalties between associated companies (2003/49/EC). Furthermore, the introduction of a common consoli-dated corporate tax base (CCCTB) is planned for groups that operate across borders. This should specify all the necessary technical rules for uniform profi t determination as well as for a subsequent consolidation and allocation of the tax base.

Where are we now?

A draft revision of the interest and royalties directive is on the Council’s table. The European public limited com-pany (SE) and the European cooperative (SCE) should be integrated in the directive. Moreover, there is a clause stipulating that advantages should only be applicable if the interest and royalty revenues are actually taxed in the member state where they are collected. A planned report by the European Commission is also expected to con-tain improvement proposals. The text of the directive on the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) has been completed by the European Commission, but its adoption has been deferred until all member states have ratifi ed the treaty of Lisbon. Publica-tion cannot be expected before the end of 2009.

Harmonise corporation tax


Building on Europe’s strengthsSafeguard VAT revenues


The most effective means of combating fraud is not ·

to be found in a far-reaching change to the system

defi ned in the directive 2006/112/EC, but in selective

improvements to this directive through conventional

measures.

A comprehensive overhaul of the VAT system (e.g. ·

through introduction of a general reverse charge

system) should be rejected.

Consideration should also be given to non-legislative ·

possibilities to combat fraud, e.g. improved coopera-

tion between fi nancial administrations and taxpayers.

The use of dynamic progress in the area of information ·

technology as well as electronic tax inspections should

be further analysed.

Companies should not be burdened with additional ·

obligations and/or risks.

What is at stake?

At the end of 2008 the European Commission presented a coordinated strategy for combating VAT fraud. This con-centrates on »conventional« measures and embraces in the fi rst instance short-term measures which are to be pro-posed in detail in three packages of measures. The exist-ing system has proved its worth to a large extent. For that reason, the European Commission’s approach which seeks to improve the Council Directive on the common system of VAT (2006/112/EC) on a selective basis through con-ventional measures is welcome. All measures should es-pecially target prevention of fraud cases and not impose burdens on companies.

Where are we now?

The European Commission has already published a few concrete directive amendment proposals. Most proposals are selective improvements to the VAT system. However, some modifi cations must give rise to concern. Thus, the introduction of joint and several liability for declaration er-rors in the framework of intra-Community deliveries con-stitutes a considerable risk for companies. In particular, the plan to make the supplier liable for the VAT in the des-tination member state also in the case of simple declara-tion errors deserves criticism. This seems to jeopardise the principle of proportionality and legal certainty for compa-nies.

Safeguard VAT revenues


Building on Europe’s strengthsAvoid class action in antitrust law and consumer protection


Due to existing uncertainties, the European ·

Commission still has to prove unambiguously the legal

basis for far-reaching changes in member states’ civil

law and civil procedural law.

It is the task of national damages legislation and codes ·

of procedure to stipulate the conditions needed for

compensation of damage including the arrangements

for enforcement. In the case of defi cits, these should

be addressed at the initiative of the Member States, as

has happened in Germany.

The danger of excessive compensation, e.g. through ·

punitive damages and exaggerated consumer protec-

tion rights should be avoided.

In the end, procedural law must maintain the balance ·

between effective legal protection and appropriate

defence. It should not lead to inappropriate disadvan-

tages for a given party.

What is at stake?

Thought is being given at European level to strengthen-ing the civil law aspects of antitrust liability law in order to compensate for damage caused by cartels. To this end, there is a green paper and, since April 2008, a white paper. »DG Competition« is pursuing the goal of creating greater incentives for damages claims and building up »private en-forcement« as a second pillar alongside prosecution of car-tels by the authorities. Collective enforcement of law (class actions) is to be strengthened and the burden of proof is to be facilitated for plaintiffs. Parallel developments are un-der way in »DG Health and Consumer Protection«. At the end of 2008 it published a green paper on consumer collec-tive redress, in which it also discusses the introduction of representative action, group action or a test case mecha-nism for effective collective redress in courts.

Where are we now?

It is to be feared that the introduction of collective redress will become an open door for abusive rules and practices. The US legal system offers an illustration here. Even with extremely high damages payments, very little fi nds its way to the victims. A large portion of the money goes to pay lawyers’ fees and administration of payment procedures. Europe-wide harmonisation of collective redress instru-ments is not necessary either for consumer complaints or for antitrust law.

Avoid class action in antitrust law and consumer protection


Building on Europe’s strengthsSimplify consumer legislation without new burdens on companies


The EU should make the existing directives workable ·

in practice through full harmonisation, but not create a

higher level of consumer protection.

Binding lists of bans for consumer contracts as well as ·

European damages actions should be deleted. They

interfere in the overall architecture of civil law systems

and make it more diffi cult to draft and implement con-

tracts. If general representation, rescission and dama-

ges provisions for individual areas of consumer law are

amended, the application of national law will be more

diffi cult.

Initiatives to introduce collective redress through the ·

planned directive should be rejected. They demolish

the framework of EU law and are inappropriate.

Civil law is a matter for parliaments. Additions to a bin- ·

ding list of banned contract terms must not be decided

in a comitology procedure.

What is at stake?

The existing consumer protection directives on contract law lack a uniform terminology. They enable member states to create more consumer protection in the same area. The draft directive on consumer rights seeks to merge the issues of sale of consumer goods, unfair contract terms, distance selling and door-to-door selling. The pro-posal sets out twenty defi nitions from »consumer« through »trader«, »business premises« and »professional diligence« to »ancillary contract«. It creates new information obliga-tions, guarantee rules and a binding list of unfair contract terms. However, full harmonisation should rule out further national consumer protection in the same area.

Where are we now?

Simplifi cation of EU consumer contract law with defi ni-tions for »consumer« and »trader« as well as a uniform withdrawal rights creates more clarity and legal certainty. Rules for repair, replacement return and price reduction in product defect law in line with the applicable sale of con-sumer goods directive are useful. All other additions on representation, rescission and damages overburden na-tional civil law and make it more diffi cult to apply. Rules on collective redress do not belong in a draft directive on contract law. Parliaments are responsible for legislat-ing civil law. Additions to a binding list of banned clauses should not be made by a European Commission commit-tee.

Simplify consumer legislation without new burdens on companies


Building on Europe’s strengthsEnsure legal certainty for defence and security procurement


The two new directives should be implemented in due ·

time.

Attention must be paid to ensure that the exemption ·

provisions in the new procurement directive are not ap-

plied excessively in member states which have hitherto

walled off their markets in practice.

The battle against »offset« continues to be particularly ·

important. The European Commission’s communi-

cation rightly points out that this exemption provision

should be applied restrictively.

The provisions on award of subcontracts are proble- ·

matic and should therefore be implemented very re-

strictively.

The European Commission should safeguard that the ·

procedure of self-cleaning is recognised throughout

the EU.

What is at stake?

In early 2009 the EU Parliament approved the EU de-fence package. It encompasses a sector-specifi c directive for certain sensitive procurement operations in the areas of defence and security. After it became clear that many member states were circumventing the general public pro-curement directives in the case of defence and security contracts and hence impeding the internal market, the new directive puts in place a special set of rules. It sets out to do greater justice to the specifi c requirements of this particularly sensitive market segment, inter alia with pro-visions on how to deal with confi dential data and security of supply. Furthermore the defence package comprises a directive on intra-EU transfers of defence products which seeks to adapt and simplify export conditions for these products in the EU. The package also comprises an accom-panying communication from the European Commission.

Where are we now?

The new procurement directive provides for effective le-gal remedies in the case of infringement of EU law, as is the case for awards in the civil sector. This is important to guarantee unimpeded market access in other EU mem-ber states. It is welcome that the scope of the new directive also covers non-military procurement in the area of home-land security, whereby exceptions are also possible for specifi cally sensitive awards, e.g. in the secret service. It is also positive that the new procurement directive expressly addresses the important item of recognition of »self-clean-ing«. Companies which are convicted abroad, for instance, must be able to regain their reliability by demonstrating an effective »self-cleaning«. Unfortunate are provisions on the award of subcontracts which generate a disproportion-ate amount of red tape. Finally it is of crucial importance to combat »offset transactions« which are stipulated as a condition for the award of a contract and often damage competition.

Ensure legal certainty for defence and security procurement

Shape labour market and social policy for the futureRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsFlexicurity: create security through fl exibility


Flexicurity must receive broad relevance for European ·

and national social policy through »fl exicurity main-

streaming«. Social policy should consistently and re-

solutely set a course in the direction of »integration« as

the top priority.

The European Commission should monitor implemen- ·

tation of the fl exicurity principles by the member states

and expressly issue reminders as and when necessary.

For its part, the European Commission should itself ·

contribute to implementation of the fl exicurity concept

through a clear orientation of the European social fund

in the form of a vocational qualifi cation fund geared

to the practical situation in companies. Above all, the

EU should not thwart implementation of the fl exicurity

concept through its own initiatives. On the contrary,

the existing social acquis communautaire should be

tested for its employment-friendliness and adapted if

necessary.

The report by the High Level Group of experts on fl e- ·

xicurity should not remain an isolated exercise. The

European Commission should regularly report on im-

plementation of the fl exicurity concept at European

and national level, with the involvement of social part-

ners.

What is at stake?

Given the increasingly global nature of competition and in particular against the background of the economic and fi nancial crisis, employment security cannot be realised in the fi rst instance merely through protection of existing work relationships, but above all through framework con-ditions which are consistently oriented on integration in the world of work and career progression through train-ing. The point of fl exicurity is that it gives people security through more and new employment opportunities.

Where are we now?

In its June 2007 fl exicurity communication (COM(2007) 359 fi nal), the European Commission followed the fl exicu-rity approach and specifi ed the concept in eight common principles. These were adopted by the European Council in December 2007 and should now be implemented in the framework of the Lisbon strategy. In addition, the Euro-pean Commission put in place a High Level Group of ex-perts, including German business representatives, which presented a report on implementation of fl exicurity strate-gies in December 2008.

Flexicurity: create security through fl exibility


Building on Europe’s strengthsBreathe life into employment strategy


Integration in the world of work and career progres- ·

sion through training should be the central approach

in EES. To that end, the fl exicurity concept should be

consistently implemented in the framework of EES.

The European Commission should highlight implemen-

tation defi cits much more clearly than in the past.

The member states should take their self-commit- ·

ments entered into at European level much more se-

riously. The economic and fi nancial crisis means that

modernisation of labour markets must be pushed for-

ward. The social partners should be better involved in

this process.

The European social fund – the EU’s main instrument ·

for implementation of EES – should be aligned more

effi ciently in realisation of the Lisbon objectives in light

of limited fi nancial resources, and should return to its

core tasks of preventing and combating unemploy-

ment.

EES should continue to be integrated in the Lisbon ·

strategy’s steering mechanism also after 2010. Only

through a merging of the economic and social policy

guidelines can trade-offs be avoided and coherence

ensured

What is at stake?

The EU coordinates labour market policies in the member states via the European employment strategy (EES). Mem-ber states undertake at EU level to implement common employment policy guidelines and to report on this imple-mentation every year. Since 2005, EES has been integrated in the steering mechanism of the newly oriented Lisbon strategy. The task of the EU is to support and to fl ank re-form of labour markets, which is the responsibility of the member states in the fi rst instance.

Where are we now?

EES has provided an important impetus for reform of na-tional labour markets. It has created the framework for a deeper exchange of experience and contributed to greater transparency in the assessment of labour market reform thanks to the setting of benchmarks. However, a funda-mental problem is defi cient implementation by member states of their self-commitments entered into at European level. The European Commission has often been too reti-cent in its comments on publication of implementation defi cits. In addition, it has itself thwarted the objectives of EES – contributing to sustainable employment growth – through other initiatives.

Breathe life into employment strategy


Building on Europe’s strengths»Green jobs«: realise the employment potential of environment

and climate policy


The need for worldwide environmental protection ef- ·

forts must be regarded as an opportunity, not only for

a small group of workers in the so-called environment

industry but also for climate-friendly services and

products generally. In addition, a new, holistic under-

standing of green jobs should be developed which

releases the concept from an artifi cially demarcated

environment area and instead is oriented on the three

sustainability pillars of economically, ecologically and

socially responsible action.

Predictable and investment-friendly framework condi- ·

tions are necessary so that innovative companies can

make optimal use of the opportunities for environment-

friendly services and products. Innovation is the key

to meeting the challenge of generating prosperity and

growth and at the same time preserving the living envi-

ronment.

What is at stake?

Climate change and its implications are pushing the issue of »green jobs – employment and environmental protec-tion« up the agenda. Nevertheless, the theme of »green jobs« still leaves many questions open. It is diffi cult to distinguish the employment areas currently lumped to-gether under the heading of »green jobs« from traditional economic sectors. Furthermore, environmental protection takes place largely at the level of products and production processes. But the employment policy effect of product- and process-related environmental protection is very dif-fi cult to classify. In addition, the environment industry depends on the products and innovations of »traditional« industry.

Where are we now?

The current debate on green jobs is confusing and too nar-row, since it focuses one-sidedly on a very small section of the economy and disregards the major links between the various economic sectors. This narrow vision does not help to come to grips with the employment policy chal-lenges of climate change or to create work and prosper-ity for a growing world population. At the same time, the debate forgets that environmental protection is not a new country for German companies but a reality that they have lived with for decades. German business has assumed its responsibility for environmental protection effectively and effi ciently for many years. Hitherto this has not been suffi -ciently recognised in the debate on green jobs

»Green jobs«: realise the employment potential of environment

and climate policy


Building on Europe’s strengthsMake the European globalisation fund more effective


The proposed massive extension and orientation of ·

EGF as a general instrument for intervention in connec-

tion with the economic and fi nancial crisis should be

rejected, since it is not possible to use the fi nancial and

economic crisis as a criterion for support in practice.

Instead, there is an urgent need to build rapidly a trans- ·

parent evaluation system in order to be able to assess

the real effect of EGF and identify areas for improve-

ment. The social partners should be closely involved in

the evaluation.

An increase in EGF’s resources is not a good idea and ·

unnecessary. Labour market policy is in the fi rst in-

stance a national task and should therefore remain in

the hands of the member states.

What is at stake?

The European Commission wants to redesign the Euro-pean fund for adaptation to globalisation (EGF) as a gen-eral instrument for intervention in connection with the economic and fi nancial crisis. To date the objective of EGF has been limited to making it easier for workers who have lost their jobs because of far-reaching changes in the structure of world trade to return to the world of gainful employment. The European Commission proposes (for a limited period until end-2010) an extension of the scope of EGF in order to allow the fund also to support workers who have been made redundant as a result of the global fi nancial and economic crisis. In addition, the criteria for intervention would be relaxed, the EU co-fi nancing rate in-creased and the period of eligibility for EGF resources ex-tended. Lastly, the European Commission has announced that it wants to review the resources allocated to EGF, bearing in mind the widening of its scope.

Where are we now?

EGF has been very controversial since its inception. German business has repeatedly pointed out that »globali-sation« is not a sound criterion for support and that it is not possible to apply the award criteria reasonably in prac-tice, that EGF runs counter to the principle of subsidiarity and that there has been no early and thorough evaluation of EGF has been carried out. The fi rst EGF annual report published in July 2008 confi rmed these criticisms.

Make the European globalisation fund more effective


Building on Europe’s strengthsFurther improve compatibility of work and private life


A period of 14 weeks is suffi cient to protect the health ·

of mothers. However, if maternal leave were to be in-

creased to 18 weeks, it should be possible to credit

paid parental leave to maternal leave.

An extension of the childcare infrastructure – in par- ·

ticular with all-day nurseries – should continue to

have priority. Also necessary is improved training and

qualifi cation of nursery nurses, so that they can help

individual children better. This also includes the deve-

lopment of pre-school curricula.

What is at stake?

In order to come to grips with demographic change, in October 2008 the European Commission presented a package of extensive initiatives for better reconciliation of work and family life. The most important part of this pack-age is the proposal for revision of the maternal leave direc-tive. For the European Commission, the aim is to improve security and health protection, give mothers better possi-bilities to recover from confi nement as well as to simplify possibilities for a return to the labour market. Further-more, the European social partners have opened negotia-tions in the framework of the European social dialogue on revision of the parental leave directive. Lastly, regarding care facilities for pre-school children, the European Com-mission has established that, measured against the Barce-lona objectives set by the EU, the offer of childcare places is still insuffi cient to allow parents to take employment.

Where are we now?

The European Commission’s aim of improving the com-patibility of work and private life is right. However, the proposed revision of the maternal leave directive is the wrong route, since this seeks only to protect the health of mothers. This is already adequately achieved with the current 14-week period which must not be increased to 18 weeks.

Rather, the objective should be to modernise parental leave so that family and work can be coordinated more smoothly. To that end, the social partners are working in the framework of the social dialogue on the revision of the parental leave directive. In this forum, real problems are addressed, practical solutions are identifi ed, unnecessary costs are avoided and, in particular, diverse national prac-tices are respected. In this context, a further extension of the childcare infrastructure is of fundamental importance.

Further improve compatibility of work and private life


Building on Europe’s strengthsFurther strengthen the social dialogue


The successful work of the social partners should ·

prompt the European Commission to present fewer

regulatory initiatives and to give greater weight to the

autonomous work of the social partners when selec-

ting social policy instruments.

Tendencies to water down or circumvent the consul- ·

tation process enshrined in the EC treaty, e.g. through

broadly based internet consultations targeting civil so-

ciety generally, must be fi rmly countered.

Whether or not a social dialogue is a success depends ·

on the evaluation of the social partners involved. In this

regard, they have discretion to choose the right instru-

ment from the entire range available. This forms part

of social partner autonomy and should be more clearly

respected by other players in the EU’s institutional ar-

chitecture.

What is at stake?

The European social dialogue is a central pillar of European social policy and is fi rmly enshrined in the EC treaty. Through their work in the social dialogue, the Eu-ropean social partners actively shape European social policy and help to ensure that it is practical and tailored to circumstances. The successful work of the horizontal so-cial dialogue and the numerous work programmes in the various sectoral dialogues are an expression of well func-tioning reform partnerships. In addition, with the social dialogue the social partners make an essential contribu-tion to making citizens familiar with the EU and its poli-cies and underpin European cohesion.

Where are we now?

The social dialogue is a success story. With their work, the social partners have contributed to implementation of the Lisbon strategy and at the same time strengthened the social dimension of European integration. In their 2009-2010 work programme, the European social partners have also undertaken to contribute to the implementation of the Lisbon strategy. Themes include further work on the fl exi-curity concept and the consequences of climate change for employment.

In the sectoral social dialogue, the number of sectoral committees has increased markedly in recent years. In the meantime, the results of the sectoral social dialogue relate to more than 70 million workers. It has developed into an important instrument within European social policy.

Further strengthen the social dialogue


Building on Europe’s strengthsUse open method of coordination


Against the background that the European Commis- ·

sion is applying OMC in areas in which it has no com-

petences, application of this method must under no

circumstances lead to an extension of the EU’s regula-

tory competences through the backdoor.

It is important that common points of orientation en- ·

sure the sustainable affordability of social protection

systems, and help to bring down non-wage labour co-

sts and to provide workers with worthwhile work.

The introduction/defi nition of quantitative objectives ·

in the area of social protection must continue to be the

preserve of the member states. The idea that groups of

member states facing similar challenges and problems

should work together and develop common principles

as with fl exicurity is a move in the right direction.

What is at stake?

The open method of coordination (OMC) is an instrument of the member states which allows member states which face similar problems in a wide range of areas of economic, employment and social policy to exchange information and experience among themselves on a voluntary basis. The aim of OMC is to achieve common goals through ex-change of experience and benchmarks and at the same time to do justice to the individual specifi cities of the mem-ber states. A decisive factor is the selection of indicators, since systems in the member states differ widely.

Where are we now?

During the negotiations on the treaty of Lisbon, the German government with the support of German business managed to clarify in a declaration in the treaty that inclu-sion of the »open method of coordination« in the treaty does not entail any transfer of competences in favour of the European Commission. According to the treaty of Lisbon, OMC should in future be applied in the area of social pol-icy but also in the areas of health, industry and research. The European Commission will establish guidelines and indicators in close cooperation with the Member States in order to implement the exchange of proves practices and put in place the necessary elements for regular monitor-ing and evaluation. The European Parliament is fully con-sulted.

Use open method of coordination


Building on Europe’s strengthsFurther strengthen diversity in the economy


The European Commission should fl ank the voluntary ·

commitment of companies by promoting fora at nati-

onal and European level and underscoring the econo-

mic and holistic character of diversity management.

Diversity, including cultural diversity, only generates

competitive advantages for companies if issues which

are relevant for businesses are taken suffi ciently into

account.

The aim is not diversity at any price and only diver- ·

sity, but should be associated with concrete objec-

tives such as improvement of innovative capacity, a

strengthening of the employer image or a better way of

appealing to customers.

A European charter for diversity established by the ·

European Commission is not a good idea bearing in

mind the different approaches in the member states.

Such initiatives should also be taken by companies

themselves as needed.

What is at stake?

Demographic change and globalisation are decisive driv-ers for the increasing importance of diversity management in companies. Consciously addressing and actively assess-ing the value of diversity in teams can increase the suc-cess of a business in many respects. Companies in Europe are expanding their activities in the area of diversity man-agement. For that reason, consideration is being given at European level to putting the concept on a broader base, e.g. through establishment of a common European charter for promotion of diversity in organisations.

Where are we now?

The individual responsibility of companies has led to nu-merous activities in this area. In December 2006 the busi-ness initiative »charter for diversity« started in Germany. It now has more than 500 signatories. Business supports a widening of the charter and the idea underlying it in companies, also against the background of involving the specifi c competences with a migration background (as a partial aspect) more closely in company processes. In addi-tion, business supported the campaign »diversity as an op-portunity« to promote the cultural diversity of integration offi cers in Germany through various activities and hence draw wider attention to the theme.

Further strengthen diversity in the economy


Building on Europe’s strengthsCSR: pursue the success story


It is important to maintain the diversity of CSR. Com- ·

panies need possibilities for action which put them

in a position to develop and implement the best CSR

approaches. Attempts to force CSR into a straitjacket

through regulation and standardisation would jeopar-

dise the great success of CSR.

CSR should be freed from exaggerated expectations. ·

The role that companies can play in solving society’s

problems is limited. Companies can complement ef-

forts by policy-makers towards societal development

and social progress through their commitment, but

cannot take on their responsibility.

CSR is best promoted through a broad exchange of ·

experience. With the dissemination of good practice

examples, various possibilities can be identifi ed for de-

ploying social and environmental responsibility. In this

way, companies are supported without bureaucracy in

their creativity and their search for best solutions.

What is at stake?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) describes the com-mitment of companies in society which they deploy vol-untarily over and above their statutory obligations. Globalisation has brought CSR into focus worldwide. Ac-ceptance of social responsibility is nothing new: compa-nies have been engaging in society through their business activities for as long as there have been companies. The social responsibility deployed by a company is dependent on the specifi cs of the business, the sector and markets in which the company operates. The complexity and diversity of CSR therefore precludes regulation, standardisation and certifi cation.

Where are we now?

CSR has been an important theme at European level for years. In the fi nal report of the European multi-stake-holder forum on CSR, all relevant stakeholders confi rmed the voluntary character of CSR in June 2004. In 2006 the European Commission jointly with business created a European CSR alliance. The CSR alliance pursues a prac-tical and company-related approach. It aims to establish partnership, exchange of experience, dialogue, transpar-ency and credibility. The CSR alliance is a complete suc-cess. In the last three years countless projects, events and initiatives have been implemented across Europe in the framework of the CSR alliance, promoting CSR and smoothing the path for new partnerships.

CSR: pursue the success story

Frame labour law in a way that promotes employmentRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsInject more fl exibility into working time


In the conciliation procedure, the opt-out clause allow- ·

ing derogation from weekly maximum working time

should be maintained, as provided for in the common

position. Otherwise, fl exible working time models,

which are valued by employers and workers and which

have proved their worth on the ground in companies,

would be perceptibly restricted. The current economic

situation and the widely applied modern working time

models to avoid deep personnel measures in particular

show how important fl exible working times are.

In addition, for the inactive periods of on-call duty, it ·

should at least be possible to differentiate between

levels of workload. By way of example, the need for

such differentiation can be seen in factory fi re brigades

whose on-call duty is marked by long rest periods, by

contrast with on-call duty by doctors.

If the proposal for a directive fails to garner agreement ·

in the conciliation procedure, a new initiative by the

European Commission should concentrate on rever-

sing the problematic jurisprudence of the European

Court of Justice on on-call duty. However, the

European Commission should distance itself from

rules which reduce the current room for fl exibility in

the organisation of working time.

What is at stake?

The working time directive lays down the maximum number of hours that a worker should work and pre-scribes minimum rest periods, in order to protect health and safety at work. As a reaction to judgements from the European Court of Justice on the treatment of on-call duty, in 2004 the European Commission initiated a revision of the working time directive. The Commission proposal, a revised version of which takes account of the European Parliament’s proposals in fi rst reading, makes provision in particular that the inactive parts of on-call duty no longer count as working time. Nevertheless, at the same time the so-called opt-out clause allowing derogation from weekly maximum working time would be restricted.

Where are we now?

Last year the Council reached the political agreement long called for by German business, following a long period of wrangling. The common position takes up the central re-quests of German business. In this position, the inactive parts of on-call duty no longer count as working time. The opt-out clause is maintained with no time limit. Despite this reasonable compromise, the European Parliament had decided considerable amendments in second read-ing, which clearly contradict the common position. As the Council failed to accept these amendments a conciliation procedure will start in March 2009.

Inject more fl exibility into working time


Building on Europe’s strengthsAvoid over-regulation of occupational pensions


The benefi ts paid out from voluntary occupational ·

pension schemes are built up over many decades and

therefore need a stable legal framework. If the EU in-

terferes retrospectively in voluntary pension provision

with rules that push up costs, the necessary confi -

dence will be undermined and voluntary social com-

mitment will be disrupted. Many companies would

then stand back from occupational pension provision,

and this at a time when it is urgently necessary to build

up funded pension provision given the demographic

burdens on statutory pension insurance systems.

Against this background, it would be consistent if the ·

European Commission were to withdraw its draft di-

rective with no replacement. This would head off con-

siderable damage to voluntary occupational pension

provision and prevent over-regulation of occupational

pensions.

The Council should support this process. The failed ·

discussions to date show that an agreement on gene-

ral minimum standards for supplementary pensions is

not possible due to the large national differences.

What is at stake?

In October 2007 the European Commission presented a revised version of its original proposal for a directive on portability of supplementary pensions. The revised pro-posal for a directive also sets general minimum standards for occupational pension provision which would make occupational pension schemes – including existing ones – considerably more expensive. German business believes that the following provisions would have particularly seri-ous consequences:

Extension of the scope to include pension promises • given in the past

Shortening of vesting periods for occupational pension • schemes to one year (currently fi ve years in Germany), with the additional stipulation that this can be no longer than fi ve years for under-25s

Reduction of the minimum age for vesting of pension • entitlements to 21 years (currently 25 years in Ger-many)

Where are we now?

The German government has constructively addressed the massive objections of German business and during its Council presidency in 2007 presented a compromise pro-posal which would at least have minimised the damage for occupational pension provision. However, this proposal fell on a veto by the Netherlands. Not least at the urging of German business, the German government has vehe-mently resisted further attempts to reach an agreement in the Council which would be detrimental to occupational pension provision in Germany.

Avoid over-regulation of occupational pensions


Building on Europe’s strengthsPlace information and consultation for employees in a workable framework


After formal adoption of the EWC directive, it must be ·

ensured that implementation in the member states is

coordinated. Under no circumstances should imple-

mentation at national level lead to additional bureau-

cracy in companies as a result of »gold-plating«.

Demands from the European Parliament for revision ·

of the »directive establishing a general framework for

informing and consulting employees in the European

Community« and for harmonisation of systems for

information and consultation of workers should be

clearly rejected. Against the background of large nati-

onal differences, it is precisely not the purpose of the

directive to harmonise existing national rules.

What is at stake?

As part of efforts to extend the European internal market with a »social component«, measures have now also been adopted at EU level which relate to the right of workers or their representatives to information and consultation. These include in particular the 1994 directive on European works councils (EWC directive) which relates to information and consultation at European level in under-takings with a cross-border dimension. For the national level, this was supplemented in 2002 by the »directive establishing a general framework for informing and con-sulting employees in the European Community«. The new version of the EWC directive launched by the European Commission in July 2008 was adopted in December 2008 through political agreement between Council and Euro-pean Parliament. To the regret of German employers, in spring 2008 the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) rejected the offer from BUSINESSEUROPE to negotiate the content of the revised directive in the social dialogue.

Where are we now?

Thanks to the constructive approach taken by employers throughout the process of revising the EWC directive, it has been possible to maintain the successful fundamental concept whereby preference is given to solutions tailored to the needs of individual companies. The European legis-lator was persuaded not to use the revision to impose new bureaucracy in companies which would only have unnec-essarily narrowed the scope for company-based solutions. The European works council remains in the hands of em-ployees and is not dominated by European social partner organisations. In addition, the continued existence of ex-isting EWC agreements is protected. This practical result can be traced not least to the fact that ETUC came back on board and the European social partners were able to submit joint proposals for amendments to the Commis-sion proposal, which found great resonance in Council and European Parliament.

Place information and consultation for employees in

a workable framework


Building on Europe’s strengthsVerify the need for new anti-discrimination rules


The European Commission contradicts the »better re- ·

gulation« initiative with its proposal. The new rules give

rise to new bureaucratic documentation requirements.

Suppliers of goods and services would in reality be ob-

liged to produce systematic and comprehensive docu-

mentation and to archive its own reasoning regarding

the choice of contractual partners. In this connection,

the reversal of the burden of proof has already proved

to be the biggest problem for application of the existing

equal treatment directives.

Instead of being extended, the existing directives need ·

to be clarifi ed. Only in this way can existing errors

be corrected. Implementation of the existing anti-

discrimination directives in AGG cost German compa-

nies 1.73 billion euros in the fi rst year alone, and has

led to massive legal uncertainty.

German business fi rmly supports the German go- ·

vernment in its efforts to prevent the additional anti-

discrimination directive proposed by the European

Commission.

In the position it is currently preparing, the European ·

Parliament should refrain from proposals for a further

tightening-up of the Commission proposal.

What is at stake?

In addition to the fi ve existing equal treatment directives, on 2 July 2008 the European Commission presented a proposal for a further equal treatment directive based on article 13 EC treaty. This means that the Council decides unanimously and that the European Parliament only sub-mits its position. The goal of the proposal is application of the principle of equal treatment irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation outside the labour market. Despite an extensive arsenal of existing rules in the German general equal treatment law (AGG), this proposal for a directive would generate a considerable need for modifi cations since it adds elements not present in the German law.

Where are we now?

The German government, which can stop the draft pro-posal with its veto in the Council, shares the massive objections of German business, which it has set out repeat-edly in public in the context of presentation of this draft di-rective. At the meeting of the relevant Council of Ministers in October 2008, family minister von der Leyen expressed substantial criticism on behalf of the German government and questioned the need for yet another anti-discrimina-tion directive. She received support in particular from the Czech Republic, which has already announced that it will not actively pursue this issue during its EU Council presi-dency in the fi rst half of 2009.

Verify the need for new anti-discrimination rules


Building on Europe’s strengthsDesign practical health and safety rules


It is necessary to thin the regulatory jungle, in order to ·

do justice to the Lisbon goal of »better and smarter re-

gulation«.

The EU directive on visual display screens should ·

be limited to genuinely important content relevant to

today’s situation.

Plans for a separate EU directive on work-related mus- ·

culo-skeletal disorders should be set aside, since the

existing legal framework is suffi cient.

The existing European legal framework is suffi cient ·

to protect workers against health risks from tobacco

smoke at the work place. For that reason, the envisa-

ged introduction of further statutory rules to protect

workers from tobacco smoke should be halted.

In the framework of the current revision of the EU direc- ·

tive on electromagnetic fi elds, rules which are accep-

table for all sectors and activities should be identifi ed.

It must be strictly ensured that a realistic and scien-

tifi cally based assessment of potential health risks is

used as a yardstick.

What is at stake?

Since the single European act in 1987, a series of health and safety directives have been adopted. Health and safety at work is now one of the most highly regulated areas of European social policy.

Where are we now?

Health and safety at work makes an effective contribution to further improving safety and health protection at work, to ensuring and enhancing workers’ ability and willing-ness to work effectively and hence also to contribute to the competitiveness of businesses. Differing circumstances and the ongoing innovation process in companies call for a fl exible set of instruments for health and safety at work. Measures should be geared to the real needs of companies.

Through the social partners’ agreement on work-related stress and its implementation, a very wide range of activi-ties by national social partners have been launched, with a strong impact regarding prevention of negative conse-quences. This great effi ciency has been achieved from the efforts of the social partners. At the same time, a directive leading to more bureaucracy has been avoided. Consistent representation of justifi ed reservations from various busi-ness sectors have led to the content of the EU directive on electromagnetic fi elds being fundamentally reviewed prior to implementation in national law.

Design practical health and safety rules

Guarantee worker mobility in the internal marketRecommendations for action in the years ahead



Regulation 1408/71 exhibits shortcomings which ur- ·

gently need to be addressed. In particular, it must be

possible to shape the rules allowing an exemption from

social insurance in the host country more fl exibly. The

current limit of two years with extension possibilities

up to fi ve years is too rigid for an increasingly cohesive

European labour market.

The bureaucratic effort involved in posting workers ·

abroad could be reduced through the creation of a

»one-stop shop« (a single point of contact for all issues

linked to posting) as well as identical forms, rules and

periods in all member states. In addition, employees

and companies should be able to require a decision

from the responsible authorities within a fi xed, short

period in order to avoid uncertainties about status re-

garding insurance cover.

Alternatively, a status for mobile workers which allows ·

them to be exempt from national social insurance re-

quirements could be envisaged.

What is at stake?

Managers and experts are increasingly deployed interna-tionally at a range of locations. Posting workers abroad causes a variety of problems, especially in the area of so-cial insurance (inter alia with respect to continued eligi-bility to German social insurance) which stand in the way of worker mobility. In addition, the administrative effort involved in deploying workers abroad is very large. This not only generates considerable costs but also slows down necessary decisions.

Where are we now?

An example of such problems is the procedure in the Czech Republic where the administration suddenly stopped au-thorising applications for the grant or extension of excep-tions in accordance with article 17 of regulation 1408/71. Yet this regulation was supposed to contribute to creation of a list of common rules and principles to be respected by all national authorities, social insurance institutions and courts.

Facilitate cross-border deployment of employees in other

European countries

Building on Europe’s strengthsFacilitate cross-border deployment of employees in other

European countries


Building on Europe’s strengthsAllow work-related immigration from non-EU countries


Since there is no single EU labour market, and needs ·

and optimal integration conditions can still only be as-

sessed at national level, rules at EU level in the area of

immigration in the member states must leave adequate

leeway for adaptation to national specifi cities. Rules

are only acceptable in the areas where the European

legislator has a real competence to regulate.

It is indispensable that further work on the shaping of ·

legal immigration at European level continues to follow

the principle that regulation of access of third-country

nationals to the domestic labour market and determi-

nation of the number of migrants to be granted permits

is a matter for the member state in question.

The announced sectoral directives should take ac- ·

count of the different traditions in the member states.

Rigid European requirements should be avoided in

particular where fl exible adjustment to changing needs

in individual member states, regions or sectors is ne-

cessary.

Companies should always have suffi cient discretion for ·

individual and customised solutions. This is particu-

larly the case for establishment of a uniform European

legal framework for intra-corporate transferees. From

the German angle, improvements are needed in this

area. If the debate on the directives provides an impe-

tus in this direction, that would be welcome.

What is at stake?

The development of a common immigration policy has gained importance and dynamism at European level in re-cent years. As announced in the 2005 strategic plan for le-gal immigration, the European Commission has presented various proposals for individual directives. The blue card directive for immigration of highly skilled workers and the framework directive containing rules for a combined residence and work permit and for a common set of rights now only need to be formally adopted by the Council. The European Commission has announced three further pro-posals for directives relating to seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and paid trainees for March 2009.

Where are we now?

The goal pursued by the blue card directive of making Europe more attractive for highly skilled workers from non-European countries is right and can be an impor-tant component in international competition for the best brains and to combat current and future skills shortages in Europe. Particularly welcome is the fact that a national labour market and qualifi cation-oriented immigration management system will continue to be possible alongside the blue card directive – as requested by business.

Allow work-related immigration from non-EU countries


Building on Europe’s strengthsEnsure free movement – work against segregation tendencies


It is still the case that the transitional arrangements for ·

free movement of workers should not be extended ge-

nerally and comprehensively after 2009. This does not

rule out targeted sectoral or regional limitations.

Burgeoning protectionism must be fi rmly resisted. ·

Otherwise Europe risks once more becoming a patch-

work of small states. This would not save any jobs,

but would seriously threaten and reduce prosperity in

Europe. There is no reason for segregation, not even

given the particular current diffi culties.

The very wide-ranging legislation on minimum social ·

standards across the entire EU ensures that free move-

ment does not create social distortions. Further rules

in the area of social policy are misplaced if they make it

more diffi cult for companies to create employment.

What is at stake?

Free movement is one of the fundamental freedoms in Europe and constitutes an essential component underly-ing the European internal market. In recent years eleven of the old EU member states have opened their borders to citizens from the central and eastern European countries (EU-8) which acceded to the European Union in 2004. However, in the wake of the fi nancial crisis, tendencies to segregate labour markets can now be observed in individ-ual states.

Where are we now?

The question of establishing complete free movement of workers for the citizens of all member states of the European Union falls within the competence of the mem-ber states. The German government has announced that it wants to maintain the transitional arrangements. German business regrets this, even if it recognises that the German government has at least come some way towards meet-ing the requests of German business and has very widely opened the labour market for academics from the new EU member states from 2009.

Ensure free movement – work against segregation tendencies


Building on Europe’s strengthsPrevent protectionism under the cloak of worker protection


The very wide-ranging legislation on minimum social ·

standards across the entire EU ensures that free move-

ment does not create social distortions.

The European Commission and the member states ·

should remove defi ciencies in the transposition, imple-

mentation and enforcement of the posting of workers

directive. Closer cooperation between the member

states, national authorities and the European Commis-

sion on exchange of good practices and regarding mo-

nitoring instruments can contribute to this aim.

In 2009 the European social partners with the support ·

of the European Commission will analyse the judge-

ments of the European Court of Justice in the Viking,

Laval, Rüffert and European Commission / Luxem-

bourg cases closely to assess the de jure and de facto

consequences for workers in Europe.

What is at stake?

A central provision of the posting of workers directive relates to protection under labour law of workers posted to another EU member state to provide cross-border serv-ices within the EU. To that end, article 3 of the directive specifi es that posted workers must enjoy equal treatment in terms of certain aspects of working conditions as em-ployees in the country of posting insofar as these aspects are covered by statutory or administrative provisions or by generally binding collective agreements in the host coun-try. In this way, the directive ensures that employees work-ing for their employer in another EU member state do not work under worse conditions than comparable workers in the host country. At the same time, however, the directive serves to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of per-sons and services.

Where are we now?

German business agrees with the function of the post-ing of workers directive in terms of ensuring a minimum level of protection for posted workers. By contrast, it is precisely not the objective of the directive to harmonise working and employment conditions in the EU. Under no circumstances should the directive be wrongly applied to bring in protectionist measures to the detriment of full free movement within the EU, under the cover of worker pro-tection. In the Laval, Rüffert and European Commission/ Luxembourg cases, the European Court of Justice con-fi rms: the list of working conditions in article 3 of the di-rective should be regarded as complete. German business agrees with this fi nding. It means that the standard set in the directive is a maximum; more far-reaching provisions are only possible in the exceptional cases provided for in the directive.

Prevent protectionism under the cloak of worker protection

Underpin modern mobility and infrastructure/strengthen the information societyRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsUse PPP/concessions


In the interest of effective promotion of PPP projects, ·

there should be stronger exchange of practice on best

practice in the area of PPP models.

Legislative initiatives on PPP and concessions at EU ·

level should be rejected.

Any attempt to bring about an unacceptable exten- ·

sion of so-called in-house contracts in effect under

the cloak of »clarifi cations« on PPP and concessions

should be fi rmly rejected. This would lead to a hollow-

ing-out of fair competition and would impede the ne-

cessary transparency.

What is at stake?

Public-private partnerships (PPP) and concessions are modern instruments for performing public missions – especially in times of scarce budget resources. In or-der to exploit the full potential, appropriate and fl exible framework conditions are needed, also at EU level. The European Commission’s communication on »institution-alised public-private partnerships« (IPPP) focuses on cooperation between the public and the private sector, with creation of mixed undertakings which implement public contracts or concessions. The communication re-lates above all to questions linked to the establishment of an IPPP, selection of the private partner and changes as the partnership progresses. German business supports the view that no new legislation is needed at EU level but that tools for interpretation of the current EU legal framework are the right instrument to inject the necessary clarity. With the communication, the European Commission also meets the central call made in the European Parliament’s Weiler report for clarifi cation of issues faced in practice.

Where are we now?

The European Commission’s communication on IPPP is welcome. Any more far-reaching legislative initiatives at European level which could confuse the system of the European public procurement directives adopted in 2004 and which have proved their worth should be fi rmly re-jected. Also welcome is the European Commission’s de-cision not to go ahead with the concessions directive originally envisaged, after careful consideration.

Use PPP/concessions


Building on Europe’s strengthsInterconnect the trans-European transport network more closely


The review of EU TEN-T policy now under way is a ·

good step, should be carried out carefully and conclu-

ded rapidly.

EU efforts must concentrate in particular on creation of ·

high quality transport corridors. These are decisive for

effi cient management of cross-border transport ope-

rations. In this context, freight transport must be given

special attention.

Realisation of intelligent traffi c systems for effi cient use ·

of infrastructures should be accelerated in the frame-

work of TEN-T policy. Optimisation of air traffi c ma-

nagement and creation of a single European sky are

indispensable to increase effi ciency, capacity and sa-

fety as well as to reduce the environmental impact.

Furthermore, non-fi nancial instruments need to be fur- ·

ther strengthened, for instance initiatives for coordina-

tion of national infrastructure plans and cross-border

projects.

What is at stake?

The trans-European transport network (TEN-T) is sup-posed to form the basis for seamless functioning of the Eu-ropean internal market. The aim is to create the transport infrastructures necessary for implementation of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. Since the TENT-T guidelines were formulated in 1996, around 400 billion euros, includ-ing almost one third from Community resources, has been invested in the overall network and the total of 30 priority TEN-T projects.

Where are we now?

Although essential progress has been made in realisation of the trans-European transport network, sometimes con-siderable delays have occurred with many of the priority projects. Further efforts for complete implementation of the original plans are necessary. In early February 2009 the European Commission initiated a review and further development of TEN-T policy with a green paper.

Interconnect the trans-European transport network more closely


Building on Europe’s strengthsNetwork transport operations intelligently/

promote telematics and traffi c management systems


The fundamental commitment of EU and member ·

states to coordinated and accelerated deployment of

ITS as a central objective should be strengthened.

The European Commission should underpin the listed ·

projects and areas for action with concrete objectives,

measures (including impact assessment) and fi nan-

cing plans. The focus must be on technical themes and

their implementation.

The action plan must place greater focus on the deve- ·

lopment of solid business models based on the in-

terests of users.

The German government should create the legal fra- ·

mework for introduction across Germany of the ne-

cessary infrastructures (e.g. car-to-x communication,

roadside infrastructures, ecall) and work at European

level for standardisation.

What is at stake?

On 16 December 2008 the European Commission pre-sented an action plan for introduction of intelligent traffi c systems (ITS) in Europe. This comprises a communica-tion and a directive on ITS in road transport. The com-munication brings together projects and new initiatives in six areas for action (in particular use of transport data, safety, networking and European coordination). With the directive, the European Commission wants to set out the framework for coordinated development and introduction of interoperable ITS solutions in road transport as well as their specifi cation for member states. Common European initiatives to avoid congestion, improve infrastructure use and manage traffi c as well as increase traffi c safety could be realised more rapidly on this basis.

Where are we now?

The European Commission’s initiative is essentially wel-come. Transport telematics and traffi c management sys-tems can make essential contributions to effi cient and environment-friendly mobility. The conditions for this are interoperable, compatible and comprehensive service offers. It is pleasing that the current plan, unlike earlier versions, no longer makes reference to a number of cost drivers (digital tachograph, extension of eurovignettes directive). Implementation of the directive on interoper-ability of toll systems is part of the action plan and can be accelerated through it.

Network transport operations intelligently/

promote telematics and traffi c management systems


Building on Europe’s strengthsShape air transport more effi ciently


Optimisation of air traffi c management in European ·

airspace is indispensable to increase effi ciency, capa-

city and safety as well as to reduce environmental im-

pact and must have priority.

Implementation of SES is the EU’s central transport ·

and environment policy project for air transport and

should be implemented rapidly. With its realisation,

CO2 emissions caused by air traffi c could be reduced

by 12 % and up to 16 million tonnes of carbon could be

saved p.a. In addition, realisation of SES would gene-

rate cost savings measured in billions of euros for the

air transport sector and its customers.

The creation of functional airspace blocks now being ·

auctioned in Europe is welcome as an important step

towards overcoming the fragmentation of European

airspace and must be completed by 2012 at the latest.

The tightening of SES-I through the SES-II package is ·

necessary given the unsatisfactory results to date. It

should be decided and implemented rapidly.

What is at stake?

With the creation of a Single European Sky (SES), the current ineffi cient and costly fragmentation of air traf-fi c management in European airspace will be a thing of the past. This fragmentation of competences for air safety services along national frontiers leads to unnecessary route extensions, sub-optimal traffi c fl ows and an envi-ronmentally harmful squandering of kerosene. The four Single European Sky regulations adopted in 2004 (known as »SES-I package«) set out in particular to create a sin-gle institutional and legal framework for SES, put in place »functional airspace blocks« (FABs) and ensure that per-formance of air traffi c control services is kept separate from its regulation and supervision.

Where are we now?

Application of the SES-I legal provisions has not so far led to the hoped-for results in important areas. A Single European Sky is still not a reality. For that reason, the European Commission has presented an »SES-II pack-age« which seeks to build on the SES-I package in relation to performance and environmental sustainability and to make parts more operational. Key elements are the intro-duction of functional airspace blocks by 2012 as well as rules for binding performance targets. The SES-II package is expected to be adopted in mid-2009.

Shape air transport more effi ciently


Building on Europe’s strengthsImprove rail transport performance


There continue to be some considerable differences ·

between member states in terms of implementation of

the railway packages on liberalisation and harmonisa-

tion of the railway transport market in Europe despite

the successes booked to date.

Harmonised market liberalisation for transparent and ·

non-discriminatory competition in rail transport should

therefore be driven forward in all EU member states.

Of particular importance is the interoperability of tech- ·

nical systems. Harmonised standards are necessary to

reduce costs for industry and rail undertakings. Pen-

ding technical specifi cations on interoperability (TSI),

the aim should be to bring about far-reaching harmoni-

sation of procedures for mutual recognition.

The creation of an interoperable European rail traffi c ·

management system (ERTMS) occupies a key position

for cross-border rail transport in Europe. Realisation of

the European train control system (ETCS) should move

ahead in the short term, in particular in the priority cor-

ridors for rail freight transport.

What is at stake?

The railway package I to III aim to establish a single European railway transport market with transparent and fair competition conditions for undertakings in the rail sector. The fi rst and second railway package were intended to bring about non-discriminatory access to infrastruc-tures and to open the European market for rail freight transport. Areas not yet addressed in the area of European rail transport were dealt with in the third railway package. Liberalisation of the European rail market has ushered in a positive development in rail transport in recent years.

Where are we now?

The third railway package was adopted after several years of negotiations. It comprises regulations on strengthen-ing competition in public passenger transport services and on rights and responsibilities of passengers as well as di-rectives on opening cross-border rail passenger transport and on the European train driving licence. The directive on simpler and more rapid authorisation of rail vehicles (»cross-acceptance«) is a welcome development.

Improve rail transport performance


Building on Europe’s strengthsFurther modernise maritime transport


Establishment of a European maritime transport space ·

without barriers should be pushed forward as a pri-

ority. The proposed strategy and the action plan for

European maritime policy until 2018 comprise positive

initiatives for removing the existing obstacles.

80 % of world trade uses maritime transport. Preser- ·

ving and increasing the competitiveness of European

maritime transport is of central importance for the

EU in particular, as the world’s largest exporter and

second-largest importer. The legislative measures

announced in the action plan for simplifi cation of cu-

stoms procedures and other notifi cation formalities in

short-sea transport should therefore be decided and

implemented rapidly.

Simplifi ed procedures and more transparency are ur- ·

gently needed for implementation of the »motorways of

the sea« concept.

What is at stake?

Starting with the »Green Paper on a Future Maritime Pol-icy for the European Union« in 2006, in October 2007 the European Commission presented the idea of an integrated European maritime policy in a »Blue Book« and an action plan. In January 2009 it developed this idea further into a comprehensive strategy for European maritime transport policy by 2018 given concrete form in a detailed action plan. The aim is to establish a European maritime trans-port space without barriers. This is intended to promote safer, cleaner and more effi cient maritime transport which will in turn strengthen the competitiveness of European maritime transport, sustainable growth as well as employ-ment in Europe’s maritime industries.

Where are we now?

EU-wide realisation of the essentially correct idea of an in-tegrated European maritime policy is moving forward only at a very slow pace despite a few promising initiatives. For instance, EU-wide implementation of the welcome concept of »motorways of the sea« is progressing very hesitantly in part because the procedures laid down by the European Commission for promotion of such projects in the frame-work of the TEN tender procedure has proved to be too bureaucratic. Rapid realisation of a European maritime transport space without barriers will serve to increase ef-fi ciency, sustainability and security in maritime transport. In particular, it can help to cut the environmental impact of freight transport through a shift from road to sea and hence also to reduce freight costs.

Further modernise maritime transport


Building on Europe’s strengthsDrive the information society forward


ICT should be a component of the post-Lisbon stra- ·

tegy

All EU citizens should be integrated in the information ·

society through broadband access to and improved

acceptance of ICT services

The objectives of the European programme »i2000« ·

(European information society 2010) should be taken

up, consistently implemented and developed further

into a »i2015« strategy

IT infrastructure (networking, broadband) and ICT ser- ·

vices should be strengthened, especially in the edu-

cation, healthcare, public administration and energy

sectors.

EU processes and communication should be optimi- ·

sed through modern, IT-supported applications (»EU

as pioneer«)

What is at stake?

The information society is an expression of a far-reaching change in the economy and society through information and communication technologies (ICT). As key technolo-gies in an increasingly knowledge-based society, ICT are among the most important drivers for economic growth and the creation of new jobs. Today already, more than half of industrial production in Germany and more than 80 % of exports depend on the use of modern ICT systems. Highly modern IT infrastructures and broadband internet enable innovative ICT services capable of strong growth in the health, education and transport sectors as well as in public administration. The competitiveness of German and European industry will depend on the extent to which products can be produced more effi ciently and to a higher level of quality using IT-supported processes than in other parts of the world.

Where are we now?

At European level very promising initiatives have been cre-ated. The strategy for a European information society by 2010 »i2010«) set out the right objectives for the transition to the information era. However, centralising and bureau-cratic elements (e.g. telecom review) are making plans lose considerable impetus at European level. The German gov-ernment needs to take a stronger position in this area in order to counter wrong developments.

Drive the information society forward


Building on Europe’s strengthsOrient telecommunications regulation on growth


Intervention in the telecoms market, in particular in the ·

area of mobile telephony regulation, should be avoided

to the benefi t of developing competition.

The aim should to have comprehensive broadband ·

coverage, which benefi ts consumers and businesses

alike. Incentives for investments in extension of the

broadband infrastructure should therefore take centre

stage.

Regulation should be examined regularly to see ·

whether it is still necessary. The aim of a return to ge-

neral antitrust law for competitively organised markets

should be given stronger attention.

What is at stake?

A condition for the information society is the availability of and access to communication infrastructure. With ap-propriate regulation, it can be ensured that an appropriate balance is struck between the interest of network owners in the highest possible return and the interest of users and network operators in the lowest possible utilisation costs. The extension of highly modern broadband infrastruc-ture is today a central goal of industry policy. With that in mind, the regulatory framework must create effective in-centives for investments.

Where are we now?

The European Commission followed the right approaches in the revision of the European telecommunications direc-tives, in particular regarding liberalisation of radio fre-quencies for broadband utilisation. However, the overall result exhibits centralising and bureaucratic tendencies which lead to an excessive role for the European Commission, disregard the principle of subsidiarity and pose risks for the communications market. The treatment of investments in broadband networks is completely ig-nored. The European Parliament and the Council as well as the German government have corrected this course in part so that an acceptable compromise looks likely.

Orient telecommunications regulation on growth


Building on Europe’s strengthsStrengthen trust and security in the digital world


Industry develops successful solutions for secure in- ·

formation and communication technologies. Policy-

makers should take up these solutions more strongly,

and design and implement an effective security archi-

tecture jointly with industry.

Given international risks through digital misuse and at- ·

tack (cyber-espionage), it is up to policy-makers to fi nd

appropriate, internationally coordinated responses.

The EU must help to provide information on real and ·

supposed risks, and remove unjustifi ed scepticism

about ICT among citizens.

Security and data protection should not be a pretext ·

for disproportionate restrictions on innovative IT appli-

cations. This applies, for instance, for RFID technology

or applications in telemedicine.

What is at stake?

Digitisation and automation of central areas in society and economy lead to new opportunities and challenges. Dependence on secure information and communication technologies (ICT) has increased considerably. This ap-plies in view of protection of personal data. It also applies for business-relevant information and for technologies to protect against attacks, misuse and errors in such areas as the transport, health and public administration sectors. New measures from policy-makers are necessary.

Where are we now?

The fundamental challenges of the »digital world« are described broadly in the right terms at European level and by the German government. However, there is still no overview of risks in the digital society or of appropri-ate defence measures. What are needed are internationally coordinated procedures and standards as well as objective information. It should continue to be borne in mind that policy-makers must not publicly reject innovative product ideas over-hastily during their development with a refer-ence to data protection concerns.

Strengthen trust and security in the digital world

Shape climate and environmental protection in a measured wayRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsGive concrete form to emission trading rules


German and European industry should not be burde- ·

ned with new costs

The manufacturing industry affected by ETS must re- ·

ceive 100 % free allocations in order to avoid carbon

leakage

The quantitative carbon leakage criteria should be spe- ·

cifi ed rapidly

A satisfactory solution must be found rapidly for com- ·

pensation of the indirect effects for energy-intensive

industries

Realistic benchmarks and activity data need to be de- ·

fi ned for the sectors and subsectors. Distortions bet-

ween and within sectoral must be avoided

What is at stake?

With 26 %, Germany has the highest share of industry in EU gross value creation and is also therefore particularly affected by the revision of the EU emission trading scheme directive. German business is critical of the planned intro-duction of auctioning as a general principle for allocation, since free allocation does not jeopardise the reduction target. In itself, auctioning does not lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases. Rather, it deprives those involved of resources for investments in improving their installations. German industry does not question climate protection but makes its constructive contribution and is already a pio-neer with a high competence for fi nding solutions.

Where are we now?

The consequences of European decisions on EU ETS for the industries in question cannot yet be assessed in early 2009, too many questions are still open. The EU decisions taken in December 2008 do not create the urgently needed investment certainty. The exemptions from auctioning in the electricity sector for some EU member states leads to distortions of competition. The criteria for assessing ETS-related additional costs for industrial sectors are not yet manageable. The problem of international distortions of competition has not been solved. A fundamental condition for a level playing fi eld is that other industrialised coun-tries make comparable efforts to reduce emissions. As soon as a result of the Copenhagen negotiations in December is available, it must be clarifi ed whether further industr-ialised countries have committed to comparable emission reductions and economically more advanced developing countries have committed to an appropriate contribution. Only then should a decision be taken on increasing the EU reduction target to 30 %.

Give concrete form to emission trading rules


Building on Europe’s strengthsPromote environment-friendly mobility


Business is committed to the objective and its respon- ·

sibility to reduce the negative impact of modern mo-

bility. There has already been remarkable success

in achieving environment-friendly, low-emission,

low-noise and secure mobility. This includes noise

and emissions-dependent airport charges and the

emission-dependent toll on heavy-goods vehicles.

Possible additional instruments must add clear value in ·

terms of effectiveness and offer cost effi ciency, pro-

mote innovative technologies and strengthen the com-

petitiveness of the European economy.

German business is generally critical of the proposed ·

internalisation strategy. Furthermore, a unilateral or

staggered charging of external costs applicable to only

one transport mode should be rejected.

A strategy for environment-friendly mobility must en- ·

sure transparency and fair competition conditions for

all transport modes. Existing transport-specifi c ta-

xes and levies should be taken into consideration. The

European Commission rightly pursues the principle of

»co-modality«. Every transport mode should be able to

further develop its strengths and effi ciency advantages

in a fair competition environment and optimally net-

worked transport systems.

What is at stake?

On 8 July 2008 the European Commission presented the package of measures on »Greening transport«. At the cen-tre of the proposal is internalisation of so-called »exter-nal costs«. To that end, the EU road costs directive will be amended to impose supplements to HGV tolls in order to take account of the external costs of air pollution, noise and congestion in road freight transport. In rail freight transport, the fl eet of freight wagons is to be fi tted with low-noise braking systems in order to halve noise nuisance by 2014. Further proposals for air transport as well as in-land waterways and maritime transport are in preparation.

Where are we now?

The proposed internalisation of external costs will in-crease costs even for environment-friendly transport operations and will generate distortions of competition between transport modes. By contrast, a reduction in the negative impact of transport can be expected indirectly at best. During the French presidency in 2008 it was not pos-sible for the Council to reach a common position on the package of measures. The European Parliament aims to reach a decision for March 2009.

Promote environment-friendly mobility


Building on Europe’s strengthsEnsure environmental protection and tax competitiveness


A breakdown of the minimum tax rate into energy and ·

environment aspects should be rejected, since this

could lead to an additional »emission tax«. Additio-

nal tax burdens would result in competition disadvan-

tages.

A tax system which distinguishes between taxation of ·

electrical current and the use of energy products as

heating fuel or motor fuel on the one hand and tax free

use of energy products as dual uses or non-fuel uses

i.e. as raw material on the other is sound and deserves

support from the angles of environment and competi-

tion. The system should be maintained.

The current specifi c exemptions for particular pro- ·

cesses and procedures as well as general tax relief

provisions (reduced tax rate, tax cap) must remain in

place in order to ensure the competitiveness of energy-

intensive industries.

Introduction of reduced VAT rates for green products ·

and services should be rejected. The VAT system must

not be made more complicated.

What is at stake?

Thought is increasingly being given also in the EU to the use of tax instruments to promote environmental protec-tion. For instance, the energy tax directive (2003/96/EC) is set to be revised. Introduction of further tax measures such as application of reduced VAT rates to environment-friendly / energy-effi cient products and services is also be-ing considered.

Where are we now?

In January 2009 the European Commission published two studies on this theme. Adoption of a »green tax package« into which the results of the studies will fl ow is planned for April 2009. The package is likely to comprise a com-munication on use of taxes for environment policy pur-poses, a draft amendment of the energy tax directive and a proposal for a directive on the application of reduced VAT rates to environment-friendly / energy-effi cient products and services. In particular regarding revision of the energy tax directive, discussions are under way on a split of the minimum tax rate currently applicable into an energy and an environment component.

Ensure environmental protection and tax competitiveness


Building on Europe’s strengthsOrganise environment-oriented procurement transparently


In all further initiatives on GPP there needs to be impro- ·

ved coordination with the main stakeholders, i.e. public

authorities and business.

To prevent distortions of competition, the environmen- ·

tal orientation should be clearly related to the product

being procured.

Regarding environmental labelling, it must be clear that ·

the supplier can prove the environmental characteri-

stics of the product other than by merely affi xing an

ecolabel.

The proposed threshold value of 15,000 euros to be ·

set as binding for minimum product labelling cate-

gories in public contracts differs from the general EC

thresholds. Further complication of the legal frame-

work should be avoided.

What is at stake?

The European Commission has presented an »Action plan for sustainable production and consumption and a sustainable industrial policy« as well as a communica-tion on green public procurement, abbreviated to »GPP«. At the heart of the action plan the Commission proposes a »dynamic framework« to improve the energy effi ciency and environmental performance of products. Among other things, it provides for further development of prod-uct labelling in the framework of a revised energy label-ling directive. What is relevant for the procurement sector is above all the intention of prescribing a binding mini-mum level of energy effi ciency for public procurement of products from a threshold of 15,000 euros through estab-lishment of minimum labelling categories. In the commu-nication the European Commission names the objective of around 50 % of all procurement awards being »green« by 2010. The European Commission also refers to »train-ing toolkits« for GPP. These toolkits are being prepared for eighteen particularly environment-relevant product groups.

Where are we now?

The European Commission’s action plan and com-munication encompass a very extensive package with wide-ranging individual initiatives. Efforts to enhance environment-oriented procurement in a manner which is transparent across the EU are basically welcome. Never-theless, coordination of the numerous documents – some commissioned from external bodies – seems insuffi cient. German Business calls for improved involvement of the main stakeholders in the issue of green public procure-ment, i.e. public authorities and business.

Organise environment-oriented procurement transparently


Building on Europe’s strengthsRegulate products coherently


The framework concept of the ecodesign directive ·

seems right, despite the absence of experience on its

workability for the product groups selected to date.

A general extension of the ecodesign directive is not ·

the appropriate way to improve the ecodesign of the

product groups covered so far overall. Instead, double

regulation is to be feared, e.g. in the area of chemicals

policy (REACH). But the product areas of food, cars

and buildings are also already highly regulated.

The ongoing implementation of the directive on ecode- ·

sign of energy-using products should not be impaired,

since it has already involved a great deal of effort for

the industries affected. However, the establishment

of environmental standards must not lead in the fore-

seeable future to important product groups no longer

being available with no substitute to replace them.

What is at stake?

The European Commission’s action plan on »Sustainable consumption and production (SCP)« proposes to extend the framework directive on improvement of ecodesign of energy-using products to include »energy-related« product groups. The European Parliament and the Council want to move even farther in this direction by extending the scope to all products. In addition, the directives on award of the European environmental symbol (euro fl ower) as well as the directive on energy-use labelling are set to be revised or adapted to take account of the extended scope of the ecodesign directive.

Where are we now?

The SCP action plan gives concrete form to the initiative for an integrated product policy (IPP) which the European Commission has been pursuing since 2001. The aim was to reduce the environmental impact of products and serv-ices throughout their lifecycle. The IPP initiative made it clear with the help of studies and pilot projects that there is shared responsibility between producers and consum-ers. However, with the adoption of the ecodesign directive for energy-using products in 2005 the route of voluntary participation was abandoned and the design of products is now covered by European legislation. Doubts must remain as to whether this will actually lead to more climate- and environment-friendly products. Rather, a massive inter-vention in companies’ design and innovation competence can be perceived.

Regulate products coherently


Building on Europe’s strengthsPlace proportionate requirements on industrial installations


The recast of the IPPC directive can make a posi- ·

tive contribution to removing distortions of competi-

tion. Nevertheless, additional provisions on soil and

groundwater protection are superfl uous. The moni-

toring rules lead to a great deal of bureaucracy and

should be deleted.

Installation authorisation law should essentially be im- ·

plemented in a harmonised manner at European level.

The German government’s decision to reject the soil ·

protection framework directive deserves support.

There must be considerable doubts about the need

for the directive in view of the principle of subsidiarity

alone.

What is at stake?

The directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC directive) regulates the authorisation of industrial installations. Operators of industrial installa-tions have to apply for a permit. The permit requirements should be oriented on »best available techniques« (BAT). These techniques are described in non-binding »BAT ref-erence documents« (BREFs) which are drawn up jointly by industry representatives and European Commission. Separate from this, under a proposal on the soil protection framework directive EU member states would be obliged to clean up locations with contaminated soil, examine established areas for historical contamination, prepare a clean-up strategy and report regularly on measures and successes in the area of soil protection.

Where are we now?

In a recast IPPC directive, one element is that BREFs would become legally binding. That creates problems, since the BREFs also contain emission limits. These val-ues usually refl ect the average emissions for the described technology in an ideal business. If BREFs become legally binding, these values will apply as limit values. This leads to unreasonable results, because limit values also have to be measured, for instance, when an installation is warm-ing up or running down or under fl uctuating production conditions. As an alternative concept, the European Par-liament’s Environment Committees had adopted the »Eu-ropean safety net« which avoids the diffi culties outlined above. The soil protection proposal also makes provision for additional costly and unnecessary reporting obliga-tions for industry. Furthermore, the sale of land will be made considerably more diffi cult through introduction of the soil status report. This runs counter to efforts to re-strict land use. Brownfi eld sites are no longer sold and new installations are built on Greenfi eld sites. It is diffi cult to understand why there are almost identical rules for both soil protection and in the recast of the IPPC directive.

Place proportionate requirements on industrial installations


Building on Europe’s strengthsTighten and harmonise European chemicals law


The tightening and harmonisation of European chemi- ·

cals legislation fi nally needs to be addressed seriously.

Chemicals rules must be set using uniform criteria

and consistently at one place as provided for under

REACH. Only in this way can companies have more le-

gal certainty on chemicals issues as an essential con-

dition for a strengthening of competitiveness.

The European Commission’s proposal for the RoHS di- ·

rective contributes to a fragmentation of environmental

law. The chemicals foreseen for the RoHS directive are

already completely covered by the REACH candidate

list. Superfl uous double regulation with no advantages

for the environment should be rejected.

For the area of electrical and electronic equipment, ·

substance restrictions should be regulated exclusi-

vely under REACH and not under the RoHS directive.

Similarly, other special rules in this area should be

withdrawn as rapidly as possible.

What is at stake?

The aim of the EU REACH regulation was to tighten and harmonise European law on chemical substances. This also includes central regulation of permits and restrictions on chemicals based on uniform and transparent criteria.

Where are we now?

Irrespective of the goals of the REACH regulation, chemi-cal rules through to application bans continue to be ap-plied under several specifi c legislative acts. Prominent examples are the directive limiting the use of certain haz-ardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS), the toys directive (key elements: plasticisers, phthalates) or the current revision of the biocide directive with its own permitting procedure in each member state. This situation does nothing to strengthen the European economic area.

Tighten and harmonise European chemicals law

Secure a sustainable supply of energy and raw materialsRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsCreate a European internal energy market


The option of a stronger legal unbundling should be ·

incorporated in the internal market directives for elec-

tricity and gas. Only in this way will EU member states

with different market structures retain the necessary

discretion for implementation of effective separation of

energy generation and network management.

The energy sector needs investments more than the ·

average sector and the extension of cross-border en-

ergy infrastructures is particularly urgent. The energy

sector is primarily responsible for investments. It is the

responsibility of the legislator to create reliable frame-

work conditions.

As a necessary interim step on the way to a common ·

EU internal market, regional cooperation arrangements

should be actively supported and developed.

What is at stake?

Hitherto there is no EU internal market for the grid- dependent energies electricity and gas. The different mar-ket structures, a high degree of market concentration and insuffi cient interconnection capacities make it diffi cult to integrate the European market. There are increasingly attempts to let energy markets grow together through regional integration, e. g. through the Pentalateral Energy Forum’s initiative on electricity market coupling, started in 2007.

Where are we now?

In order to accelerate the creation of a European electric-ity and gas market and to breathe competition into both sectors, in autumn 2007 the European Commission pre-sented the third internal energy market package. This makes provision for a strengthening of national regulators, a European regulatory authority, closer cooperation be-tween transmission system operators and further unbun-dling of vertically integrated energy holdings. The package is expected to be adopted by June 2009 in second read-ing. The necessary degree of unbundling continues to be a source of hot controversy. The European Commission and the European Parliament are in favour of strict ownership unbundling of energy generation and network operation. The Commission proposal contains the alternative of a complete transfer of network management to an independ-ent system operator. In October 2008 the Council decided to accept a third option whereby the transmission network can remain in the ownership of the holding company if in-dependence of network management in terms of personnel and organisation is ensured. So far it has not proved pos-sible for an agreement to be reached between Council and European Parliament.

Create a European internal energy market


Building on Europe’s strengthsSecure the energy supply for the long term


Aspects of security of energy supply should be given ·

greater consideration in energy and climate policy de-

cisions.

A secure energy supply at affordable prices can only ·

be ensured with a broad energy mix including fossil

and renewable energy resources as well as nuclear

energy. Policy-makers and business should work to-

gether for greater acceptance in society of the need for

indispensable infrastructure projects.

It is a priority task of business to adapt energy net- ·

works to a growing energy demand and new challen-

ges. The legislator must create the right framework

conditions such as planning certainty for companies

and simplifi ed planning and authorisation procedures.

Climate policy-makers put great hopes in carbon cap- ·

ture and storage technologies (CCS). In December

2008 the European legislator reached agreement on a

framework directive for geological CO2 storage. This

needs to be supplemented in 2009 with a clear national

legal framework to bring CCS technologies to the point

of market maturity by 2020 if possible.

What is at stake?

The EU covers more than half of its energy consumption through imports, and the trend is upwards. The European Commission forecasts that in 2030 the EU will have to import 84 % of its oil needs and 93 % of natural gas. Along-side the growing import dependence, the concentration of a small number of supplier countries in often politically unstable regions is regarded with increasing concern. A growing global energy demand calls for a sustainable and clear strategy for diversifi cation of energy sources as well as greater use of domestic energy sources.

Where are we now?

The European Commission’s Second Strategic Energy Re-port (SER II) rightly sets the priority as security of supply. It therefore addresses the third component of the energy policy triangle (together with competitiveness and envi-ronmental sustainability). SER II is presented as an action plan through which the European Commission above all wants to accelerate infrastructure projects and achieve a diversifi cation of energy sources and transport routes. In addition, it aims to bring more transparency about oil stocks, an extension of gas stocks as well as regional cri-sis and solidarity mechanisms. In external energy policy, stronger coordination between EU and Member States is envisaged, to allow Europe to act with greater resolve.

Secure the energy supply for the long term


Building on Europe’s strengthsExpand renewable energies


Harmonisation of national support systems is desira- ·

ble to avoid distortions of competition within the EU.

The European Commission is due to assess the effect

of the different support systems in the progress report

planned for 2014 and to make an early start on exami-

ning the feasability of harmonising support criterias

across Europe after 2020.

The German EEG is proving effective and stimula- ·

ting for development of the market for renewable en-

ergies. However, it is not cost-effi cient and places

an excessive burden on consumers. In the absence

of a corresponding impetus from the EU, the Ger-

man government should expose new installations for

electricity capture from renewable energy sources to

stronger effi ciency pressure as part of the next EEG

revision.

The fi nancing of expansion of renewable energy sour- ·

ces should be essentially competition-neutral and not

passed on one-sidedly to electricity consumers. Until

this is the case, EEG’s hardship clause should be ex-

tended to energy-intensive SMEs, possibly in the fra-

mework of a graduated model.

What is at stake?

By 2020 one fi fth of EU-wide energy consumption has to be covered from renewable sources. This represents a tri-pling of the current share over the next eleven years. In order to bring forward the use of renewable energies cost-effi ciently, expansion potential needs to be exploited at Europe’s economically and geographically advantageous locations. At the present time, renewable energies are of-ten dependent on fi nancial support in order to be able to hold their own in the market. Public support in the form of start-up fi nance is justifi ed to integrate renewable ener-gies in the EU electricity and heat market which is open to competition.

Where are we now?

In December 2008 Council and European Parliament agreed on a revision of the directive on the promotion of renewable energies in order to put in place a framework for implementation of the EU’s overall target. The revision specifi es the binding targets for expansion of renewable energies to be met by each EU member state. The target to be reached by Germany for 2020 is 18 %. Instruments for reaching national targets are left to the discretion of mem-ber states, no provision is made for EU-wide harmonisa-tion of support criteria. As a result, there will continue to be a wide range of national support systems for the foresee-able future; associated distortions of competition will be further intensifi ed by the intended expansion of renewable energies. The directive gives the member states the pos-sibility to combine their targets and support systems or to achieve their national shares through joint projects. How-ever, the introduction of market instruments is missing.

Expand renewable energies


Building on Europe’s strengthsSafeguard the functioning of international raw materials markets


The European Commission should speedily deploy the ·

planned »raw material diplomacy« and act in a coordi-

nated way against trade distortions affecting raw ma-

terials in the framework of its external, commercial and

development policy.

Infringements of existing WTO rules linked to trade in ·

raw materials should be brought before WTO and dis-

pute settlement procedures opened against the coun-

tries in question. Available policy instruments should

be consistently used to stop trade distortions affecting

raw materials, including the Generalised System of

Preferences (GSP).

European Commission and German government must ·

pursue the initiative for an extension of WTO rules to

include a ban on export restrictions and win support

from other countries for a change to the WTO rules.

The German government must continue to work consi- ·

stently for a dismantling of trade and competition dis-

tortions affecting raw materials in bilateral discussions

with the relevant countries.

What is at stake?

The EU is highly dependent on imports of the raw materi-als it needs for its industry. This is true for oil and gas in the same way as it is for non-energy raw materials, espe-cially metals. European industry’s supply of raw materials is massively impaired due to systematic distortions of trade and competition distortion on the part of a large number of countries. According to the European Commission, in the case of trade in raw materials alone there are more than 450 export restrictions covering more than 400 raw ma-terials. As a result of the fi nancial crisis, additional trade-distorting and protectionist measures can be observed.

Where are we now?

The European Commission meanwhile attaches great im-portance to acting against distortions of trade and com-petition distortions affecting raw materials. In the WTO accession negotiations with Ukraine, it has won the prom-ise of a complete dismantling of the country’s export re-strictions with conclusion of a free-trade agreement. In addition, it wants to address trade distortions affecting raw materials in the framework of a »raw material diplomacy« which links elements of its external, commercial and de-velopment policy. The German government has promised to make trade distortions affecting raw materials a compo-nent of the bilateral dialogue with the relevant countries.

Safeguard the functioning of international raw materials markets


Building on Europe’s strengthsEnsure access to raw materials in Germany and Europe


In addition to preparing clarifying guidelines, the ·

European Commission must carry out an adjustment

of the Nature 2000 directives. It should be ensured that

the relevant areas are reviewed at regular intervals and

that there is an assessment which looks at ecological,

economic and social interests on an equal footing.

The Faune-Flora-Habitat (FFH) and birds directives ·

should be amended in such a way that they also take

account of social and economic interests in line with

the principle of sustainable development.

The German government should set up a spatial deve- ·

lopment plan in which criteria for designations of raw

material deposits which can be derived from the raw

materials section of the spatial development plan are

specifi ed. These can be derived from the raw material

percept of the spatial development act. One compo-

nent of the plan should be that raw materials deposits

are designated independent of the raw materials de-

mand.

What is at stake?

Extraction of raw materials in Germay and Europe is sub-stantially restrained due to designations of protected ar-eas and assignments for other uses. The basis in particular is groundwater, nature and landscape protection (e.g. in the framework of »Natura 2000«). In order to avoid bot-tlenecks in the supply of domestic raw materials and to prevent a further increase in the EU’s import dependence, access to available raw material deposits must be ensured on a long-term basis.

Where are we now?

The European Commission recognises that implementa-tion of provisions on groundwater, nature and landscape protection lead to confl icts with industry’s interest in ex-tracting raw materials. It is therefore currently working jointly with member states on guidelines for industry and authorities which clarify how raw material extraction can take place in and near Natura 2000 areas. The German government has promised to examine with industry and regional authorities the possibilities for improving the framework conditions for extraction of raw materials.

Ensure access to raw materials in Germany and Europe


Building on Europe’s strengthsImprove the availability of secondary raw materials


The new waste framework directive must be imple- ·

mented consistently at European and national level.

The European Commission should make existing gui- ·

delines on the distinction between waste and used

products for electrical equipment binding and develop

binding guidelines for other waste fl ows.

The German government should examine the possibili- ·

ties for the implementation of binding guidelines on the

distinction of waste from non-waste at the internatio-

nal level with the other contracting parties to the Basel

convention.

The German government should strengthen the per- ·

sonnel resources of national export authorities and

work with the European Commission to ensure that

export authorities in other member states are also

strengthened. The shared goal should be to effectively

curb in the number of secondary raw materials ex-

ported illegaly.

What is at stake?

Secondary raw materials, gained from waste, are an important pillar of raw material supply to industry in Germany and Europe. They help to reduce import depend-ence, sometimes to a considerable extent. Since 2003 there have been drastic price rises on raw materials markets and the availability of raw materials has not always been as-sured. Both of these points relate to primary raw materials and secondary raw materials alike. The goal of European and national policy-makers must continue to be ensur-ing and further improving the framework conditions for a secure supply of primary and secondary raw materials. To this end, there needs to be a clear legal basis for the use of secondary raw materials. In addition, existing rules should be implemented consistently in order to prevent the illegal exports of waste and secondary raw materials from the EU.

Where are we now?

The legal conditions for the use of secondary raw materials have been regulated for the fi rst time with the European Commission’s proposal for a revision of the European waste framework directive. This has made an important contribution to increased availability. Nevertheless, there are considerable enforcement defi cits with regard to con-trolling compliance with the European Waste Shipment Regulation for exports, in particular through the ille-gal declaration of waste as usable goods. The European Commission plans an information campaign and wants to propose effective procedures for monitoring waste exports. The German government has said that it will work at Eu-ropean level towards industry’s wish for binding guidelines for differentiation between wastes and used goods.

Improve the availability of secondary raw materials

Strengthen the external dimensionRecommendations for action in the years ahead


Building on Europe’s strengthsGlobal trade liberalisation


The aim must be a successful conclusion of the cur- ·

rent WTO round. That would send an important signal

for combating the global economic and fi nancial crisis,

counter protectionist tendencies and dismantle trade

barriers on a permanent basis.

What is needed is an ambitious, balanced and com- ·

prehensive agreement. All industrial sectors must be

given substantially more market access in emerging

countries. For that reason, the fl exibilities granted to

developing countries must be limited, the anti-concen-

tration clause strengthened and China obliged to ac-

cept shorter implementation periods.

Additional global market access should be achieved in ·

the framework of the Doha round through certain sec-

toral agreements (e.g. chemicals and mechanical engi-

neering) without there having to be more far-reaching

concessions to the detriment of industrialised coun-

tries in the modalities.

After conclusion of the Doha round, all participants ·

should strengthen the World Trade Organisation, for

instance through more effi cient decision-making pro-

cesses, stronger prioritisation and regular ministerial

meetings.

In the framework of G8, G20 and other international ·

groupings, protectionist reactions to the current eco-

nomic and fi nancial crisis should be resisted.

What is at stake?

Access to global sales and procurement markets as well as worldwide implementation of free and transparent trade rules are of central importance for export-oriented German and European industry. Successful conclusion of the WTO negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda would be an important step for free world trade and against latent protectionism.

Where are we now?

The ongoing Doha round started in 2001 has fi rst priority in EU and German trade policy. But it is already clear that sights will have to considerably lowered as compared with the original liberalisation objectives due to the »develop-ment policy« approach. Important themes such as public procurement and foreign investments have already been taken off the negotiating agenda. At the same time, indus-trial countries are expected to make wide-ranging conces-sions to developing and emerging countries. Conclusion of the negotiations was pencilled in for 2005 and most re-cently end-2008. At the present time it is not clear whether an agreement will be reached in 2009.

Global trade liberalisation


Building on Europe’s strengthsBilateral free-trade agreements


The key objective of any FTA negotiations should be ·

a »WTO-plus standard«. This includes complete dis-

mantling of customs duties for all industrial goods,

complete elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade, se-

amlessly implemented protection of intellectual pro-

perty as well as effective rules for dispute settlement.

Further objectives should be opening of international ·

trade in services, liberalisation of direct investments,

effective trade policy safeguard instruments, a further

opening of procurement markets and a structuring of

agreements which means that they are also useful for

smaller companies.

On the basis of a close dialogue between business and ·

European Commission/German government, it should

be ensured that German interests are adequately taken

into account.

What is at stake?

Bilateral free-trade agreements (FTAs) are becoming in-creasingly important as an important complement to ef-forts to achieve multilateral trade liberalisation in WTO. Since non-European competitors with important growth markets have already agreed FTAs, on its side the EU should push FTA negotiations forward. Only in this way can competitive disadvantages be addressed, e.g. those that arise if European companies have to pay compara-tively high import duties whereas competitors such as the USA or Japan enjoy preferential market access thanks to free-trade agreements (FTAs).

Where are we now?

Asia: In April 2007 the European Commission was asked to initiate negotiations on free-trade agreements with South Korea, India and ASEAN. The negotiations with South Korea are the most advanced, the negotiations with India are making only slow progress. Negotiations with the ASEAN countries have so far been held back by politi-cal issues.

Gulf States: the EU’s negotiations with the Gulf Coopera-tion Council (GCC) are comparatively well advanced, even if conclusion was not achieved in 2008. Agreement is still lacking above all on the regulation of export duties and double pricing.

Latin America: there has not yet been a breakthrough in the negotiations with Mercosur. Whereas the Mercosur countries expect facilitations in the form of lower duties and extended EU import quotas in the area of agriculture, the EU is demanding concessions for industrial goods, in the area of services and for public procurement. The EU has been negotiating with Central America for about a year and good progress has been made. After a breakdown in negotiations with the Andean countries, the EU is now ne-gotiating with Peru, Colombia and Ecuador on a plurilat-eral agreement.

Ukraine: the negotiations have made some progress, but the original goal of conclusion in 2009 will probably not be met. Important chapters such as customs duties or dispute settlement mechanisms have still not been opened.

Bilateral free-trade agreements


Building on Europe’s strengthsCreate coherence on issues linked to the social dimension

of globalisation


In the debate on the social dimension of globalisation, ·

the concept of decent work should be kept suffi ciently

wide that its implementation takes account of the di-

versity of economic and social realities in the world.

The conditions for Europe’s successful positioning in a ·

global economy set out by the European Commission

itself should be driven forward energetically, precisely

in light of the fi nancial and economic crisis. This inclu-

des optimal use of the internal market, a labour-mar-

ket oriented immigration policy, a sustainable energy

policy, ensuring fi nancial stability and an open global

trade system.

The goal of EU policy should be that open markets lead ·

to investments and job creation in the poorer regions

of the world. That is the best way to promote the social

dimension of globalisation.

What is at stake?

The fi nancial crisis has given the debate on the social di-mension of globalisation fresh impetus. The main issue is the impact that the global economic crisis is having on employment and social protection of people everywhere around the world, and what contribution the EU can make to ensure that as many people as possible are in regular employment and enjoy social protection. In this connec-tion, it is also a matter of meeting the United Nations’ mil-lennium development goals.

In its external policy strategy for social policy, the Euro-pean Commission draws heavily on ILO’s decent work agenda in which productive and freely chosen work, la-bour law, social protection and social dialogue are at the centre of efforts. Just as with the Lisbon strategy, a global and coherent process which brings together the economic, employment, social and environment policy objectives is needed to achieve these objectives.

Where are we now?

With its communication »The European interest: succeed-ing in the age of globalisation«, the European Commission has pointed out the right and necessary steps for posi-tioning Europe in global competition in such a way that external policy objectives are also met. This mirrors a cor-responding internal policy which has the internal market, a dynamic environment for companies and employability at its heart. Only on this basis will the EU succeed in meet-ing its objectives also externally – not least with respect to social development. In addition, cooperation with inter-national organisations such as ILO or UNDP is useful and necessary for reaching an internally coherent policy for social development, and should be intensifi ed.

Create coherence on issues linked to the social dimension

of globalisation


Building on Europe’s strengthsEU-Asia relations


Expansion of face-to-face dialogue with all Asian ·

countries.

Dismantling of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers in ·

Asia, consideration of all industry interests when FTA

negotiations are concluded with South Korea, pro-

gress towards regulatory convergence (norms and

standards).

Equal market access for German investors, in particu- ·

lar opening of sectors in which foreign investors have

only limited access. This also includes equal treatment

of EU subsidiaries in Asia in local public tender calls.

A widening of the international community working ·

responsibly for sustainability, in particular involvement

of central players such as China and India in the areas

of climate protection, open raw materials markets,

protection of intellectual property, »Heiligendamm

process«.

No differentiation of Asian partner countries into those ·

which share European values (e.g. Japan, India) and

those with values defi cits (e.g. China).

Expansion of innovation cooperation with high-tech ·

countries such as Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and South

Korea.

What is at stake?

Fast-growing and populous countries such as China and India are increasing the economic importance of Asia. The economic turbulence that also struck the Asian coun-tries at the end of 2008 has dimmed growth prospects only in the medium term: high demand for investment (con-struction boom, expansion of transport and energy infra-structure), a growing middle-class with money to spend on consumer products as well as the increasing need to anchor the principle of sustainability in local companies in emerging countries offer great market potential for European companies. Asian countries are harnessing a comprehensive network of free-trade agreements (FTAs) to promote trade with partners around the world. The EU must bind Asian countries more strongly into climate pro-tection.

Where are we now?

Trade and investment relations with Asia are increasingly being given priority. Already started or close to conclusion are the free-trade negotiations with India or South Korean. The ASEAN countries should follow. In China, the frame-work conditions for an innovation-friendly location through protection of intellectual property and voluntary technology transfer still need to be perceptibly improved. With high-tech countries such as Japan, Korea or Singa-pore, cooperation in the area of research and development has scope to be expanded.

EU-Asia relations


Building on Europe’s strengthsEU-Russia relations


Russia needs to modernise its economy with know- ·

how and technology from the EU. In addition, it is de-

pendent on revenues from trade in raw materials. A

PCA could place the supply of energy and other ex-

port relations on a more stable footing for the EU and

Germany.

Accession of Russia to WTO cannot be expected in ·

the foreseeable future. Hopes are pinned on the PCA

which could enable rapid economic facilitations. Con-

clusion in 2009 would be an important signal. The

major objective should continue to be creation of a

Russian-European free-trade area.

In the short term it is necessary above all to harmonise ·

customs legislation and certifi cation standards.

Double certifi cation and double taxation should be

avoided.

Elimination or radical simplifi cation of the visa re- ·

gime between Russia and the Schengen area could

give economic relations a fresh impetus. The Russian

proposals for abolition of visas should be taken up

constructively.

What is at stake?

A new partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) be-tween EU and Russia should supersede the old PCA which expired in 2007 but which has been extended by tacit agreement. The most important objectives for business are removal of obstacles to trade and investment as well as es-tablishment of a free-trade area between EU and Russia. The issue of energy security also plays an important role.

Where are we now?

On 26 May 2008 and after long disputes, EU foreign minis-ters agreed a negotiating mandate for the European Com-mission for a new partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia. The negotiations opened in June 2008, but were temporarily suspended due to the Georgia confl ict. The Russian side would like a short document on which agreement can be reached rapidly. Sectoral agreements could follow.

EU-Russia relations


Building on Europe’s strengthsEU-USA relations / transatlantic economic integration


Trade and security (100 % scanning), stronger coope- ·

ration on energy and climate (in particular energy effi -

ciency and emission trading), protection of intellectual

property (IPR), recognition of Supplier`s Declaration of

Conformity (SDoC) by the USA should be positioned as

priority themes.

Policy-makers on both sides of the Atlantic should ·

maintain the political momentum. The new US Admi-

nistration and the new European Commission in 2009

must continue to feel committed to the TEC process.

To that end, high-ranking members of the new US Ad-

ministration and of the European Commission should

be nominated to chair TEC.

The German government should continue to fl ank the ·

transatlantic process actively and to advocate vis-à-vis

the new US Administration and the relevant EU Council

presidency.

In order for the initiative to be an ultimate success, ·

TEC should also draw on the support of parliaments.

The aim should be to have a closer involvement of the

European Parliament and the US Congress.

What is at stake?

Dismantling of non-tariff trade barriers has been advo-cated for many years by German business, which is push-ing for rapid implementation of the EU-US framework agreement in the framework of the transatlantic economic council (TEC). The goal is creation of a barrier-free trans-atlantic market.

Where are we now?

In its three meeting to date, TEC has pointed the way for implementation of the transatlantic framework agree-ment. For German business, important progress has been made in important areas such as mutual recognition of ac-counting standards (IFRS and US-GAAP), the roadmap for mutual recognition of customs security programmes (AEO and C-TPAT) in 2009, progress on harmonisation of patent law, adoption of a joint declaration on removal of barriers to investment in the transatlantic market and progress on imports of EU electrical equipment into the USA. TEC has agreed that the issues of energy and climate should be placed on the agenda. The framework agreement concluded at the EU-USA summit in 2007 and the results of the three TEC meetings are important steps in the right direction of a barrier-free transatlantic market. TEC is now an important institution in transatlantic economic relations.

EU-USA relations / transatlantic economic integration


Building on Europe’s strengthsEU-Mercosur relations


Negotiations between Mercosur and EU should be ·

resumed rapidly. Concrete progress can be made in-

dependent of the status of the WTO Doha round.

Alongside removal of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers ·

for European industrial products, access to public pro-

curement in particular should be opened in Mercosur

countries.

Irrespective of how the negotiations progress, an ac- ·

tion plan should be developed which is workable for

both sides and which aims at more transparency, pre-

dictability and simplifi cation of trade relations.

The strategic partnership entered into by EU and Brazil ·

in December 2008 is no substitute for an agreement.

Rather, the partnership should make a contribution to

making a success of the negotiations.

What is at stake?

Mercosur is one of the world’s emerging economic regions, with Brazil in the leading position. In the internal market around 270 million people generate around 2.3 trillion US dollars. Since the end of 1999 the EU has been negotiating with the South American Economic Community on an as-sociation agreement which is also intended to comprise a comprehensive free-trade agreement. In autumn 2004 the negotiations were suspended due to failure to reach agree-ment on central elements of trade relations. While the Mercosur countries accuse the EU of agricultural protec-tionism and expect facilitations in the form of lower cus-toms duties and wider EU import quotas, the EUJ wants concessions on industrial goods, in the area of services and on public procurement.

Where are we now?

Since the breakdown of the negotiations between Mercosur and EU in autumn 2004, talks have been con-ducted at technical level. The faltering WTO Doha round is also impeding continuation of negotiations. Added to this, tensions within Mercosur are making it diffi cult for the economic area to reach a common position.

EU-Mercosur relations


Building on Europe’s strengthsEuropean neighbourhood: EU-Mediterranean relations


Effi cient governance and sober allocation of resour- ·

ces are indispensable for the success of UfM. A clear

division of tasks between general secretariat and the

»senior offi cials« as central decision-makers must be

ensured. All staffi ng decisions should be taken rapidly

in the general secretariat so that there is complete ca-

pacity for work to go ahead.

The private sector should be closely involved in initia- ·

tives and projects at an early stage. Business- relevant

initiatives should be communicated transparently

from planning through to tender award in order for in-

terested companies to be able to participate.

The modalities for project fi nancing need to be speci- ·

fi ed in the near future.

The Mediterranean region offers great economic po- ·

tential. Despite the primarily project-oriented ap-

proach, UfM should also target an improvement of

business framework conditions as well as intra- and

inter-regional integration.

What is at stake?

At a summit for the Mediterranean in June 2008, it was decided to develop the partnership »Barcelona proc-ess: union for the Mediterranean«. The new partnership, which has now been offi cially abbreviated to »Union for the Mediterranean« (UfM), is intended to breathe new life into the Barcelona process which has existed since 1995. Participants are the 27 EU member states, 15 South Mediterranean neighbours plus Mauretania and Jordan. Along with the goal of creating a free-trade area, concrete projects include expansion of solar energy and infrastruc-ture in the southern partner countries.

Where are we now?

In November 2008 political guidelines and the fi rst institu-tional arrangements for the partnership were put in place. There is a co-presidency with a northern and a southern partner. The general secretariat, the operational arm of UfM, has its headquarters in Barcelona and comprises a secretary general and fi ve deputies. Staffi ng decisions still have to be taken. The Arab League can take part in all meetings as a guest, but has not vote. Envisaged projects are already announced in the June 2008 summit declara-tion. Practical implementation and fi nancing continue to be unclear.

European neighbourhood: EU-Mediterranean relations


Building on Europe’s strengthsEuropean neighbourhood: the eastern dimension


Dividing lines between ENP target countries of the for- ·

mer Soviet Union and Russia should be avoided.

It is necessary to implement free-trade areas between ·

the EU and its neighbours as well as facilitations or

complete elimination of visa requirements. Both points

have rightly been under negotiation with Ukraine since

September 2008 in the framework of the association

agreement.

The EU should give the benefi ciary countries clear in- ·

centives for structural reforms, including improvement

of administrative structures and deregulation and pri-

vatisation of the economy.

The security of Europe’s energy supply and moder- ·

nisation of the corresponding transmission systems

should be moved forward. In this regard, great impor-

tance accrues to the transit countries Belarus, Ukraine

and Georgia, as well as to Azerbaijan as a supplier

country.

What is at stake?

The European neighbourhood policy (ENP) sets out to prevent dividing lines between the EU – including acces-sion and candidate countries – and neighbouring countries in the East and South, and to facilitate trade beyond the EU’s external borders. ENP explicitly creates no automatic link with an EU accession.

Where are we now?

For ENP, it continues to be useful to set out a strategic framework, but to take account of national specifi cities for implementation as well as to promote contacts with the benefi ciary countries. Efforts to give priority to coopera-tion on environment, climate and energy policy are as-sessed positively.

Through the »Union for the Mediterranean« and the en-visaged »Eastern partnership«, ENP has been given a new regional impetus. For instance, six lighthouse projects are planned for the cooperation with states of the former Soviet union (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia). These range from improvement of border controls and protection against catastrophes through promotion programmes for SMEs to a coordi-nated energy policy. To this end, the fi nancial framework will be increased from 450 million euros to 785 million euros in 2013.

European neighbourhood: the eastern dimension


Building on Europe’s strengthsEU development policy


Partner countries should be given greater support for ·

the creation of business-friendly framework condi-

tions. The reduction of transaction costs for business

initiatives should become a central task of develop-

ment cooperation, also under development aspects.

In particular in areas which are of vital importance for

business, good governance must be suffi ciently recog-

nisable. Cross-border investment and trade obstacles

should be removed; regional integration processes

should be actively promoted.

Investments in development-relevant infrastructure ·

should be made in equal cooperation between busi-

ness and state players. To this end, existing PPP ap-

proaches and instruments should be expanded and

innovative co-fi nancing forms should be promoted,

e.g. for energy supply, transport, communication,

health, education, climate protection or energy effi ci-

ency.

Companies must have fair access to contracts fi - ·

nanced with development money. Tender procedures

should be transparent and as harmonised as possible

– also in partner countries.

Qualitative aspects (e.g. costs over the entire lifecycle, ·

suitability of the offered technical solution, corporate

responsibility and feasibility) as well as proof of tech-

nical skills and creditworthiness should be taken into

consideration for all tendering contractors in a harmo-

nised pre-qualifi cation procedure.

The dialog between policy-makers and business must ·

be put on a permanent footing and intensifi ed, for in-

stance through high-level meetings and joint working

groups.

What is at stake?

Taken together, European Commission and EU-27 are by far the largest provider of offi cial development assistance (ODA). With 62 billion US dollars (2007), they account for around 60 % of global ODA. In the framework of the ODA incremental plan, EU member states have committed to further substantial increases. By 2015, an ODA quota of 0.7 % of Community gross national income should be reached.

Where are we now?

Despite serious reform efforts, development policies of European Commission and member states are still poorly coordinated with each other. The possibilities for public-private partnerships (PPP) are only progressively being opened through measures linked to Community develop-ment cooperation.

EU development policy


Building on Europe’s strengths

The Federation of German Industries (BDI) is the cen-tral organisation of German industry and industry-related service providers. It speaks for 36 industry associations and represents more than 100,000 companies that employ more than 8 million persons.

BDI’s headquarters, with 150 employees, are located in Berlin. BDI maintains offi ces in Brussels, London, Wash-ington and Tokyo, and stays in close contact with the mem-ber associations of the European umbrella organisation, BUSINESSEUROPE – and also with our partners around the world. BDI adheres to the guiding principles of the market economy and competition, and supports the shap-ing of German and European economic policy by provid-ing a clear direction.

The BDI is the voice of German industry vis-à-vis the Fed-eral Government, the Bundestag, the Federal Council, the parties and the Ministries. It represents German indus-try’s interests in dealings with the European Commission, the European Parliament and international organisations such as WTO, OECD, World Bank, United Nations and the IWF.

Internet: www.bdi.euE-Mail: [email protected]

BDA is the leading organisation dealing with social policy on behalf of German business as a whole. It represents the interests of small, medium-sized and large companies in all sectors (industry, services, fi nancial sector, handicrafts, etc.) in all issues linked to social and collective bargaining vis-à-vis policy-makers, trade unions and the general pub-lic. It is the voice of business for and provides a compre-hensive range of services to its members. At national and international level, it develops workable and sustainable concepts, and provides its members with up-to-date and competent information and advice.

BDA represents the interests of one million businesses which employ 20 million workers and are linked to BDA through their voluntary membership of 6,500 employer confederations. These employer confederations are organ-ised in the 56 national sectoral organisations and 14 re-gional associations which are direct members of BDA. The confederations are organised sectorally and regionally.

Internet: www.arbeitgeber.deE-mail: [email protected]

BDA | Confederation of German Employers‘ Associations Federation of German Industries (BDI)

ISSN 0407-8977Status: March 2009BDI publications No. 424BDA publications No. IX/025/09

EditorFederation of German Industries (BDI)Breite Straße 29D-10178 BerlinT.: +49 30 2028-0www.bdi.eu

BDA | Confederation of German Employers’ AssociationsBreite Straße 29D-10178 BerlinT.: +49 30 2033-0www.arbeitgeber.de

PublisherIndustrie-Förderung Gesellschaft mbH

EditorialBDI – Department of European Policy

BDA – Department of European and International Affairs

Editorial Deadline4 March 2009

PhotosEU-Commissionwww.photocase.de (akileb, mpmedia)

Graphics and LayoutConcept: Factor Design

Realisation: DCM Druck Center Meckenheim GmbHwww.druckcenter.de

Imprint

building on europe's strengths

Documents

eu enlargement

eu budget

european research area

eu internal marketstrengthen

social policy

implement eu industry

class action

climate policy