brussels calling, belgian eu presidency, business newsletter, 04/10/2010, issue 4

8/8/2019 Brussels calling, Belgian EU Presidency, Business Newsletter, 04/10/2010, Issue 4

1/11

Belgian EU Presidency Business Newsletter

Brussels calling

04/10/2010 Issue 4

An efficient patent for Europe: no time towaste!

It is common knowledge that for

many years now, the language aspect

has been an obstacle to the creation

of an efficient patent in Europe. Our

enterprises have been asking for thelatter repeatedly, and rightfully so!

After all, in the current system, a

company that opts for a patent which

offers protection throughout the EU,

needs to file an application in every

member state. This application is still

subject to national provisions which

require a translation into the official language of each of

these countries. This implies translation costs which are

unacceptably high, especially for SMEs. Moreover, the

current fragmentation of the European patent system

leads to an excessive administrative burden and legal

uncertainty.

It is not acceptable that due to the absence of an EU

patent, companies which have already been strongly

affected by the economic and financial crisis, have to

spend 20 000 EUR for a patent covering 13 member

states, whereby translation costs represent 14 000 EUR.

This cost is 11 times as high as in the United States and

13 times as high as in Japan. What a waste, especially

now Europe faces increasing competition in the field of

innovation, in particular from emerging countries suchas China. If our continent wants to get back on the

economic growth track, it should urgently adopt an

affordable and high-quality EU patent which ensures

legal certainty for our companies.

The recent proposal of the Commission relies on the cur-

rent language system of the European Patent Convention

that all EU member states have adhered to which

offers the possibility to an enterprise applying for a

patent to choose between 3 languages for the proce-

dure, namely English, French and German. Moreover,

companies in Europe are familiar with this language sys-

tem, having used it for a long time in the framework of

the European Patent Office. The Commissions proposal

goes also in the right direction in terms of enhancing

legal certainty, as only the text in the language in which

the patent was granted will be the authentic one. It is

obvious that the adoption, without any delay, of the

patent of the EU will boost innovation in Europe, which,

in this area, is lagging behind in a multipolar world.

Although an overwhelming majority of member states and

business organizations all over the EU fully support the

Commissions proposal, it is necessary to put an end to

the political games of some protagonists who are still

defending an English-only solution, even though they are

perfectly conscious of the fact that this is not realistic in

the current situation.

Therefore, entrepreneurs and member states with a heart

for innovation should grasp with both hands the unique

window of opportunity which currently exists to adopt thelong-awaited EU patent. It is time to act and to set aside

political considerations which will lead us nowhere.

Editorial

Brussels calling - 1 -

CONTENTS Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Internal market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Events & meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Economic and Financial Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

In the spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

In the spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Climate and energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Corrigendum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Team presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Diane Struyven,Director of the European

Department of the FEB

Daily updated info on http://eupresidency.vbo-feb.be


2/11


Informal Competitiveness Council(September 29-30, 2010)

On September 29-30, an informal meeting of the

Competitiveness Council was held in Brussels under the

presidency of Vincent Van Quickenborne, Belgian

Minister of Enterprise and Administrative Simplification.

The topic of discussion for the two-day meeting was the

internal market. During the evening of September 29,

ministers participated in a working dinner where the

dossier of the EU patent, and translation arrange-

ments in particular, were discussed. The next day, on

September 30, a high-level panel, which included inter

alia Mire Geoghegan-Quinn (European Commissioner

for Research, Innovation and Science) and Philippe DeBuck (Director General of BUSINESSEUROPE), discussed

whether member states will succeed to realize the

Europe 2020 strategy. In the afternoon, four break-out

sessions were organized. Ministers and European top

managers exchanged views on four topics:

green growth, governments and markets;

stimulating growth and competitiveness in the EU;

labour market reform, employment protection and

competitiveness in the EU;

enhancing the internal market to drive growth and

achieve greater competitiveness in the EU.

The informal Competitiveness Council was closed with a

plenary session chaired by Vincent Van Quickenborne

and with concluding remarks by Michel Barnier, Euro-

pean Commissioner for Internal Market and Services.

Rudi Thomaes, CEO of the

Federation of Enterprises in

Belgium (FEB), participated on

September 30 in the Councils

break-out session on the inter-

nal market. He mainly stressedat the urgent need for a

strong and cost-effective har-

monized patent system

throughout the EU. He called

upon all parties especially

those that continue advocating

the English-only solution not

to get caught up in political games but to face reality and

support the Commissions three-language proposal cur-

ren tly on the negotiating table (see below). I cant ima-

gine one single moment that entrepreneurs with a heart

for innovation and creativity oppose the unique window

of opportunity that the current proposal offers to achieve

a breakthrough in this dossier, Rudi Thomaes stated.

Internal marketEVENTS&MEETINGS

4-5/10/2010 Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Royal Palace,Brussels

4/10/2010 Asia Europe Business Forum(AEBF)

Egmont Palace,Brussels

4-5/10/2010 Conference (organized with the sup-

port of the Belgian Presidency) Flexicurity to the benefit of wor-kers: making transitions pay

Ghent

4-9/10/2010 United Nations Climate ChangeConference Sessions of theAd-Hoc Working Groups

Tianjin, China

6/10/2010 EU-China Business Summit Egmont Palace,Brussels

6/10/2010 EU-China Summit Brussels

6/10/2010 EU-Republic of Korea Summit Brussels

6-7/10/2010 Plenary session of the EuropeanParliament

Brussels

6-7/10/2010 Conference (organized with thesupport of the Belgian Presidency) Towards more integration ofsocial and environmental policiesfor a change in the way societiesproduce and consume

Brussels

7-8/10/2010 Justice and Home Affairs Council Luxembourg

11-12/10/2010 Competitiveness Council Luxembourg

11-12/10/2010 Conference (organized with thesupport of the Belgian Presidency) International forum: a new glo-bal momentum for the promotionof decent work. Challenges for thedimension of European Union

employment and social policies

Brussels

11-14/10/2010 2nd European Innovation Summit:tackling the grand challenges policy meets practice

EuropeanParliament,Brussels

11-15/10/2010 Fifth meeting of the Conference ofthe Parties to the Cartagena Proto-col on Biosafety (COP-MOP 5)

Nagoya, Japan

12-13/10/2010 Conference (organized with thesupport of the Belgian Presidency) Achieving growth through stra-tegic innovation

Egmont Palace,Brussels

13/10/2010 Conference (organized with thesupport of the Belgian Presidency)

Green IT for Green Policy

Brussels

14/10/2010 Environment Council Luxembourg

14-15/10/2010 Conference (organized with thesupport of the Belgian Presidency) Conditions of excellence inuniversities and other researchinstitutions

Brussels

15/10/2010 Transport, Telecommunicationsand Energy Council

Luxembourg

18/10/2010 Conference (organized with thesupport of the Belgian Presidency) Anticipating and managing res-tructuring in a socially responsible

way. New partnerships to preserveemployment.

Brussels

18/10/2010 Eurogroup meeting Brussels


3/11


Business federations have recently been very active in lob-

bying for an affordable EU-wide patent. On September 23,

BUSINESSEUROPE sent a letter to Michel Barnier in which

the organization stated that a large majority of its members

support the Commissions three-language proposal. On

September 28, a joint letter on the EU patent was sent to

Vincent Van Quickenborne by the main Belgian employersfederations to push for a breakthrough in the dossier.

Finally, on September 30, also BUSINESSEUROPE sent a

letter to Vincent Van Quickenborne to inform the minister

of its position regarding the EU patent.

Recent internal market discussions have rightfully been

dominated by the contentious EU patent. The Belgian

Presidency considers finding a political agreement

between the 27 member states on this highly sensitive

matter one of its top priorities. The EU patent dossier has

been blocked for decades now. Although progress hasslowly been made, two important issues remain on the

negotiating table.

The first one concerns the creation of a unified patent

litigation regime. Such a harmonized regime should make

an end to the current situation in which national courts in

the member states retain jurisdiction over patents granted

at national level. This leads to legal uncertainty as it is

possible for courts in two different member states to

come to conflicting conclusions on a same patent. In 2009,

the Council reached a compromise on the establishment

of a unified patent litigation system, and asked the

European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg whether

the compromise was compatible with the EU treaties. A

leaked non-binding opinion of the ECJs Advocates

General (who advise ECJ judges) delivered on July 2,

2010, said it was not, and lists the points in the compro-

mise which need to be adjusted

to ensure compatibility with the

treaties. A formal decision by the

ECJ on the matter is expected

towards the end of 2010.

The second issue concerns the

language regime to which future

EU patents would be subject. This

mainly relates to the question

which language version(s) of a

granted patent would be legally binding.

Currently, parties that seek patent protection in several

member states or even in the EU as a whole can only sub-

mit a European patent application to the European

Patent Office (EPO) in Mnchen in either English, German

or French. The EPO examines the validity of the patent

application (based on novelty) and can grant the European

patent, but the latter must still be validated in each of the

designated member states. However, most member states

require a translation of the European patent in one of their

official languages before they validate it. It goes without

saying that the current procedure to obtain patent pro-

tection in several member states or throughout thewhole EU is very cumbersome and extremely costly

(mainly due to translation requirements). Studies have indi-

cated that European companies in certain cases have to

pay more than 10 times as much as in the United States or

Japan to obtain protection.

On July 1, 2010, the European Commission therefore

tabled a proposal with translation arrangements for the

EU patent. In its proposal, the Commission suggests a

three-language regime. The latter would allow companies

to submit their patent application in English, German or

French. Applications submitted in another language would

be translated for free. If the patent is granted, only one lan-

guage version either English, German or French would

be legally binding throughout the EU. However, costless

machine translations, which would have no legal value,

could be made available.

Two member states strong-

ly oppose the Commissions

proposal: Italy and Spain.

They essentially claim the

proposal would not create alevel playing field between

companies in different EU

member states. Spain and

Italy therefore essentially

push for an English-only

regime. However, an English-only outcome is to be consi-

dered unrealistic as it implies a substantial modification of

the European Patent Convention (EPC), which also applies

to a number of countries outside the EU. English-only can

therefore impossibly be envisaged in the short run.

In response to the objections of Spain and Italy, the Bel-

gian Presidency recently decided to circulate a non-paper

among national delegations. The document maintains the

EVENTS&MEETINGS

18/10/2010 Fifth newsletter Brussels calling

18-21/10/2010 Plenary session of the EuropeanParliament

Strasbourg

18-29/10/2010 Tenth meeting of the Conferenceof the Parties to the Conventionon Biological Diversity (COP 10)

Nagoya, Japan

28/10/2010 FEB lunch debate with ConnieHedegaard, EuropeanCommissioner for Climate Action

FEB premises,Ravensteinstraat4, Brussels

10/12/2010 EU-India Business Summit Egmont Palace,Brussels


4/11


Informal Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN)Council (September 30 October 1, 2010)

The last week of September was dominated by economic and financial

affairs news. On September 30 and October 1, an informal meeting was

held of the Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council. A couple of

days earlier, on September 27, the Task Force on economic governance,

presided by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, met. On

September 29, the European Commission issued 6 legislative proposals to

reinforce budgetary and macroeconomic surveillance in the EU and in the

euro zone in particular. Finally, onSeptember 30, the Eurogroup issued

two statements in relation to the mea-

sures taken by Ireland and Portugal to

correct their excessive deficits.

At the informal meeting of the ECOFIN

Council on September 30 and October

1, several topics were dealt with. On

September 30, EU Finance Ministers first of all evaluated the economic

situation in the euro zone and the EU as a whole. Second, a competi-

tiveness review of Luxembourg and Portugal was held. Third, they

exchanged views on the position that the EU should adopt at the G20

Summit in Seoul in November, which will inter alia deal with the recent

proposals of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision of the

Basel Committee which recently announced higher global minimum

Economic and FinancialAffairs

substance of the Commissions proposal put forward in July, but tries to

accommodate Spain and Italy by stating that English would be the only

language in which patents would be translated, but only for a transition

period. This transition period would end when machine translations would

be of sufficiently high quality. At that moment, patents would be transla-

ted into all official EU languages, but only for information purposes.

The absence of an affordable patent, which would be valid throughout

the EU and as such would offer the necessary legal certainty to compa-

nies, is widely considered to be a major obstacle to innovation in

Europe. However, innovation is one of the cornerstones of the Europe

2020 strategy. During the informal Internal Market Council of September

29-30, ministers recognized that a solution to the patent issue is urgent,

but there is still no agreement over the Commissions last proposal. The

Belgian Presidency will now continue negotiations, mainly through bila-

teral contacts, to see whether a compromise is feasible. The EU patent

dossier will return to the agenda of the Competitiveness Council of

October 11-12. The Belgian Presidency aims to reach a consensusbetween member states during the Competitiveness Council of De-

cember 10. A deal could then be presented at the European Council of

December 17 which will be dedicated to the topic of research and

innovation.

Karel De Gucht at FEB

On September 29, European Commissioner for Tra-

de Karel De Gucht was invited at a lunch debate

organized by the Federation of Enterprises in Bel-

gium (FEB) to talk about the future of the EU

trade strategy.The Commissioner was introduced by FEB Presi-

dent Thomas Leysen. In his address, Thomas

Leysen touched upon the FEBs priorities with re-

gard to the EUs future trade policy. These include a

swift conclusion of an ambitious and balanced

Doha Round agreement, the negotiation ofdeep

free trade agreements, and the creation of an

economic division in the new European External

Action Service.

During his speech, Karel De Gucht underlined that

tapping into the growth potential outside Europe

will be his crucial challenge in the years to come. A

first prerequisite for this is the swift conclusion of

the Doha Round negotiations in the framework of

the World Trade Organization (WTO). This remains

the first best option for international trade and we

will continue to push hard for a deal, the Commis-

sioner said. However, if an agreement is not

reached in the course of 2011, a new period will

start, and alternative avenues will have to be ex-

plored, he continued. Second, free trade agree-

ments with important Asian and Latin-American

trade partners will also play a role in boosting EU

economic growth. Third, in relation to trade diplo-

macy, Karel De Gucht announced his intention to

work in partnership with European business and

member states to tackle obstacles to trade.

The Commissioner concluded by highlighting hisfive overall priorities for the coming years:

a strong commitment to international trade rules;

the closure of trade negotiations with fastest grow-

ing emerging markets;

a deepening of cooperation with trade giants

such as the United States, Japan and China;

a commitment to fair trade, especially with regard

to counterfeits;

a focus on the role of trade in society at large, e.g.

in relation to development, energy and climate

change.

At the end of October, the European Commission

will present its new EU trade strategy for the co-ming decade.

In the spotlight


5/11

capital standards for financial institutions. Fourth, European

Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Michel

Barnier presented a report comparing financial sector

reforms in the EU and the US.

On October 1, credit rating agencies were first of all on

the agenda of EU Finance Ministers. The EU intends to

im pose regulation on the credit rating market which is

currently dominated by only three players (i.e. Moodys,

Fitch and Standard & Poor). The Commission identified a

number of problems in relation to credit rating agencies,

including the excessive confidence which financial markets

place in them, the rating of sovereign debt, the insufficient

competition between them, and conflicts of interest. On

June 2, 2010, the European Commission adopted a pro-

posal to amend the current regulation on credit rating

agencies. Secondly, the Council exchanged views on how

the financial sector could contribute to the costs of the

recent financial crisis. The contentious financial transac-tions tax and bank tax were back on the agenda.

On September 27, for the 5th time since it was set up,

the Task Force on economic governance presided by

European Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, met in

Brussels to further discuss measures to strengthen

economic governance in the EU. For this, the Task Force

built further upon European Council decisions taken in

June and September.

First, in terms ofbudgetary and economic surveillance,

the discussion was characterised by a large degree of con-

vergence. An economic pillar would be added to the cur-

rent budgetary pillar of the Stability and Growth Pact

(SGP) to better monitor competitiveness evolutions and

spot harmful imbalances, bubbles and contagion risks in

time. Second, it was agreed that much more attention

must be paid to public debt. Concretely, this means that

more ambitious

measures would be

required for coun-

tries with a debt level

exceeding 60% ofgross domestic prod-

uct (GDP). Third, with

regard to sanctions

and their so-called

automaticity, diver-

gences still exist. Germany in particular, as well as the

European Central Bank (ECB), are in favour of a strict regi-

me, with sanctions applying quasi automatically based on

reverse voting procedures. The latter means that Commis-

sion proposals are adopted unless rejected by the Council.

France however is not in favour of such a system. Conse-

quently, in his declaration, Herman Van Rompuy remained

neutral about the topic, stating that whenever possible,

decision-making rules with regard to sanctions should be

more automatic and based on the reverse majority rule.

With regard to the sanction regime, Rudi Thomaes, CEO

of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), stated in

a press release just before the meeting that a large degree

of automaticity is very important for the enforcement ofnew rules. The Task Force is expected to present its final

report at the European Council at the end of October.

On September 29, the European Commission issued its

own proposals to strengthen economic governance in

the EU. Four proposals deal with fiscal issues and include a

reform of the SGP. Especially euro area countries would

become subject to a stronger enforcement mechanism,

with sanctions being characterized by greater automaticity.

Two other proposals concern the detection and addressing

of emerging macroeconomic imbalances within the EU

and the euro area. The content of these six proposals is

similar to what the Task Force on economic governance is

proposing.


Deadline to submit refund requests for VATincurred abroad extended to March 31, 2011

Since 1 January 2010, EU-based companies that purchase goods

and services in other member states have to submit their

request for a refund of value added tax (VAT) paid in other

member states through an electronic portal managed by theirown national tax administration. The latter then passes the re-

quest to the mem-

ber state(s) where

foreign VAT was

levied. The annual

deadline for sub-

mitting requests

via the electronic

portals has been

set at September

30 of the year following on the one in which the VAT was levied.

Hence, the deadline for submitting refund requests for VAT paidin other member states in 2009 expired on September 30, 2010.

However, in several member states, the electronic portals were

not up and running in time, and many technical problems were

reported. When errors occur during submission, companies are

reluctant to send their application again out of fear to be sanc-

tioned for filing a double refund request.

The European Commission therefore proposed on July 15, 2010

to exceptionally extend the deadline for the submission of

VAT refund requests to March 31, 2011. In addition, the Com-

mission suggested to develop technical requirements to ensu-

re the interoperability of electronic portals in the different

member states. On September 29, one day before the initial

deadline of September 30, a technical working group of the Coun-cil agreed to authorize the extension of the deadline to March

31 next year. The Council is expected to adopt this point with-

out further discussion. On the development of technical re quire-

ments for electronic portals, an agreement was not yet reached.

In the spotlight


6/11


A first proposal amends the current rules relating to the

preventive arm of the SGP. It introduces the concept of

prudent fiscal policy-making to make an end to past com-

placency in good economic times. The Commission could

issue a warning in case a euro area member deviates sig-

nificantly from prudent fiscal policy.

A second proposal brings amendments to the corrective

arm of the SGP. According to the proposal, public debt

developments would be followed more closely and

become as important as public deficit developments.

Member states whose debt exceeds 60% of GDP should

take measures to reduce it at a satisfactory pace. The latter

is defined as an annual reduction of 5% of the difference

with the 60% threshold over the last three years.

A third proposal concerns the enforcement of budgetary

surveillance in the euro area. With regard to the preven-

tive arm of the SGP,an interest-bearing

deposit is proposed

in case of significant

deviations from

prudent fiscal policy.

Regarding the cor-

rective arm, a non-

interest-bearing

deposit amounting

to 0,2% of GDP would apply if a country is considered to

have an excessive deficit. This deposit would be converted

into a fine if the respective country does not comply with

recommendations to corrective the excessive deficit. To

ensure enforcement of the above sanctions, a reverse

voting mechanism would apply (see above).

A fourth proposal sets out minimum requirements to be

followed by all member states with regard to the elements

that form the basis of their national fiscal governance (i.e.

accounting systems, forecasting practices, statistics, ...).

These should ensure that the objectives of the SGP are

reflected in national budgetary frameworks.

A fifth proposal introduces the new excessive imbalance

procedure (EIP). It comprises a regular assessment of the

risks of imbalances based on a scoreboard composed of

economic indicators. For member states with severe

imbalances or imbalances that jeopardize the functioning

of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the Council

may adopt recommendations or open an EIP. In the latter

case, a member state would have to present a corrective

action plan to be screened by the Council. In case of

repeated non-compliance, euro area member states would

risk sanctions.

A sixth proposal concerns the enforcement measures to

correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances. In case a

euro area country fails repeatedly to comply with Council

EIP recommendations, the Commission proposes that it

pays a yearly fine of 0,1% of GDP. This sanction would also

be subject to reverse voting rules.

In response to the Commissions proposals, Eurogroup

PresidentJean-Claude Juncker said that the proposed

package went into the right direction and that it is get-ting serious now. According to him, the moment has

come for member states to show that they are willing

to live up to the commitments they have made and to

actually implement the necessary measures to reinforce the

SGP.Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the ECB, stated

that his services would examine whether the proposed

measures will fully exploit the possibilities offered by the

treaties to strengthen the SGP.

On September 30 finally, the members of the Eurogroup,

together with the European Commission and the ECB,

welcomed ambitious budgetary measures taken by the

Portuguese and Irish governments. Covering both 2010

and 2011, Portugal has adopted consolidation measures

to stabilise its public debt and bring the deficit back to

7,3% of GDP in 2010 and to 4,6% of GDP in 2011. Ireland

on the other hand announced it would take measures to

reinforce the capital position of its banking sector. In addi-

tion, as previously agreed, the Irish government has com-

mitted itself to correct its excessive budget deficit (esti-

mated at a staggering 32% for 2010, mainly due to bank

bailouts) by 2014. As Irelands track record in terms of fis-

cal adjustment and bringing down deficits so far has beengood, the Eurogroup members said they were confident

Ireland would deliver satisfactory results.

Major Economies Forum on Energy andClimate (September 20-21, 2010)

On September 20-21, for the eighth time, the Major

Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF, see boxed

text) convened in New York City to discuss possible ways

to advance prospects for a successful outcome at the

United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference at

the end of this year in the Mexican city of Cancn. This

time, the leaders representatives of the 17 economies

Climate and energy


7/11


participating in the MEF, met with officials from

the UN, Barbados, Denmark, Egypt, Singapore

and Spain.

The incoming Conference of the Parties (COP,

see boxed text) President, the Mexican Minister

of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinoza, opened the

forum by addressing the participants in a speech

in which she emphasized the importance of a

successful outcome in Cancn. For the multilat-

eral climate talks to remain credible, a negative

outcome of the Cancn summit is not an option,

she said. In addition, she called on the partici-

pants to agree on a balanced package of deci-

sions in Mexico as agreeing on all of the details

will not be possible during the conference.

Participants acknowledged the need for makingprogress at the COP 16 but also expressed their

concern over the pace of the negotiations.

There also was broad support for a balanced

package of decisions in Cancn. This package

would include measures for adaptation, mitiga-

tion, reducing deforestation and forest degrada-

tion as well as sustainable management of

forests (i.e. Reducing Emissions from Deforesta-

tion and Forest Degradation, or REDD+), monitoring,

reporting and verification (MRV), finance and the develop-

ment and diffusion of technology. The issue of what would

constitute a balance was left in the middle. Furthermore,

for more difficult issues, the participants acknowledged

that in Cancn, a more issue-by-issue approach might be

decided. Nonetheless, in order to keep the political ba-

lance, it was also considered that issues should progress

at the same pace.

The possibility of a

more plurilateral

approach was briefly

discussed as well.

Plurilateralism, whichimplies less partici-

pants than a multil-

ateral approach, is

often used in other

multilateral fora and

has the benefit of ea-

sing the alignment of points of view in multilateral nego-

tiations.

More concrete issues discussed included the practical

organisation of fast-start financing, MRV and the

formalisation of Copenhagen mitigation pledges.

Regarding fast-start financing, as a response to concerns

expressed by developing countries, special emphasis was

put on transparency. Moreover, participants expressed

their support to start with readiness activities to make

progress on REDD+.

As for the period after Cancn, there was general consen-

sus that existing mandates will suffice for the work that

needs to be done and that developing new mandates

would be inadvisable as this would be too time consu-

ming during the Cancn meeting.

Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, views

remained divided. Some participants

stressed the need for the Kyoto

Protocol to be continued, while others

opposed a second commitment period.Some participants said they would be

willing to support a second commit-

ment period if an agreement meeting

certain criteria and covering all major

economies would be made.

Finally, participants took note of the common feeling that

negotiations will most probably not result in a binding

agreement in Cancn. Due to the extent of the disagree-

ment and the length of the text, the conference will sim-

ply be too short for an agreement. Negotiations in Tianjin

(October 4-9) should therefore focus on identifying a

number of key issues to be decided on in Cancn.

The Major Economies Forum on Energy and ClimateOn March 28, 2009, United States President Barack Obama launched

the initiative of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

(MEF). The MEF is aimed at facilitating a dialogue among major deve-

loped and developing countries in the run-up to official UN climate

change talks. The participants agreed that the MEF is not an alternative

to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) but rather an enriching complement to it.

There are 17 major economies participating in the MEF. These are

Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union (represented by

Joke Schauvliege, Flemish Environment Minister), France, Germany,

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa,

the United Kingdom and the United States. The United Nations have

also been asked to participate in the MEF.

COPThe COP, or Conference of the Parties, has convened annually since the

UNFCCC entered into force at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The UNFCCC is an international treaty aimed at stabilizing the globalgreenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in order to reduce

the negative impact of human activities on the earths climate sys-

tem. The UNFCCC has 192 UNFCCC signatories.

The next meeting of the COP, the COP 16, will be held in Cancn,

Mexico. In 2011, for the 17th meeting of the Parties, the South African

city of Johannesburg has been chosen as host city.

MEF COP


8/11


Agriculture and Fisheries Council(September 27, 2010)

On September 27, a meeting of the Agriculture

and Fisheries Council was held in Brussels under

the presidency of Sabine Laruelle, Belgian

Agriculture Minister.

Among the points on the agenda was an exchan -

ge of views about the communication of the

European Commission of July 13, 2010 on the

freedom of member states to decide on the

cultivation of genetically modified organisms

(GMOs). The communication was accompanied

by two documents: a Commission recommenda-tion and a proposal for a regulation. The recom-

mendation dealt with guidelines for the deve-

lopment ofnational co-existence measures (see boxed

text) to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in con-

ventional and organic crops and replaced an older recom-

mendation of 2003 on the same topic. Under the new re -

commendation, member states would have more flexibility

to determine national co-existence measures and would

be allowed to define GMO-free areas. The proposal for a

regulation was intended to amend a directive of 2001 on

the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibitthe cultivation of

GMOs in their terri-

tory. The amendment

would enable member

states to restrict or pro-

hibit the cultivation in all

or part of their territory

of GMOs (which are

authorized at the EU

level) on grounds other

than those related to

adverse effects on

health or environment

(e.g. socio-economic, moral or ethical grounds). This

broadens member states possibilities to ban the cultiva-

tion of GMOs within their borders. Together, the docu-

ments constitute the new GMO package of the Com-

mission, which was drafted to give member states more

leeway in determining their national policies towards

GMOs. With the new package, the Commission tries to

combine the current EU-wide science-based GMO authori-

zation procedures (see below) with increased freedom for

member states to decide on GMO cultivation. As such, itintends to end years of controversy around the EUs

GMO policy.

During the Council session of September 27, EU Agriculture

Ministers discussed the economic impact and the conse-

quences of the new GMO package for the internal mar-

ket, as well as the steps to be taken to ensure compa-

tibility of the new package with internal market rules

and rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Al-

though some member states welcomed the Commissions

proposals, criticism was abound. Main opponents of the

Commissions new GMO package are France, Germany,

Italy and Spain. Several objections to the new GMO pack-

age exist. First, many member states argue that the increa-

sed flexibility given to the member states might significantly

fragment the internal market for agricultural goods. This

is especially problematic for countries which do allow the

cultivation of genetically modified crops on their territory.

Second, it is thought by some that the proposals are not

compatible with WTO rules. Third, some stakeholders sus-

pect the Commission of trying to grant more flexibility to

member states in return for the speeding up of ongoing EU

authorization procedures for some GMOs. Fourth, it is

thought that the Commissions proposals do not providethe legal certainty that member states need to adopt per-

manent bans on GMOs which have been approved at EU

level. This could lead to legal disputes between member

states, farmers, biotech companies and other stakeholders.

It is feared by some that the amendment to the existing

directive will enable member states to ban GMO cultivation

based on arbitrary, non-scientific decisions.

Currently, EU-wide authorization procedures exist to allow,

on the one hand, the cultivation of GMOs in a member

state, and on the other hand, the import, marketing and

use of GMOs. As such, an internal market for products con-

taining GMOs could be created. Hence, EU member states

are currently only able to restrict cultivation of GMOs under

AgricultureCo-existence measures aim to prevent the unintended presence of

GMOs in conventional and organic crops. Most co-existence measures

relate to the establishment of buffer zones to segregate fields with

and without genetically modified crops cultivation in order to prevent

GMO contamination of the latter. Such measures are in the interest of

producers who want to market their products (e.g. food or feed) as free

of GMOs. The EU imposes GMO labelling requirements when thepresence of GMOs in a product exceeds 0,9% of the content. Over the

past years however, it became clear that this 0,9% threshold was not

strict enough to prevent income loss of organic and conventional pro-

ducers due to GMO traces in their products. Even very low levels of

GMO presence in some products turned out to be sufficient to lose the

price premium related to organic production. Hence, the Commission

decided in its new recommendation to grant member states more

flexibility (e.g. in taking into account particular local, regional or natio-

nal conditions). However, the European Co-Existence Bureau will

continue to work together with member states to develop best prac-

tices for co-existence, and any measures must be proportionate to the

objective pursued.

Co-existence measures


9/11


Presidency conference: Promoting greenemployment (September 28-29, 2010)

On September 28-29, the Belgian

Presidency organized a Ministerial

conference with the support of

the European Commission on the

promotion of green jobs withinthe EU. Under the chairmanship

of Jolle Milquet, Belgian Minister

of Employment and Equal

Opportunities, the conference

was opened in the presence of

Lszl Andor, European

Commissioner for Employment,

Social Affairs and Inclusion. During a number of sessions, in

which representatives from national authorities, European

institutions, social partners, companies and international

organizations participated, views were exchanged on the

impact of the transition towards a low-carbon economy

on European job markets.

Tackling climate change and getting Europe on the path of

green sustainable growth will be one of the main challenges

for the years to come. In this perspective, the promotion of

green employment will be an indispensable driver behind

a successful transition towards a

competitive low-carbon econo-

my. This transition will obviously

have important implications for

labour markets as new green

sectors will be created and more

traditional industries will decline

or drastically change. Studies so

far indicate that the greening of

the European economy is likely

to lead to an intra-sector redis-

tribution of jobs. In addition, the skills composition of the

European labour force will change: some competences

might become obsolete, whereas demand for new green

skills will increase. Lack of adequately skilled labour in

anticipation of the greening of the European economy isbecoming a real concern in many member states. Public

employment services will play a major role in facilitating

Employment

strict conditions (the new proposal of the Commission would

relax these conditions). The directive of 2001 which currently

is still in force does include a safeguard clause by which

member states can prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their

territory under certain conditions. However, it does

not allow them to prohibit the import and marketing

and use of GMOs, although several member stateshave tried to invoke the safeguard clause for these

purposes too. The EUs environmental risk assess-

ments (ERAs) are currently carried out on a case-by-

case basis by the European Food Safety Authority

(EFSA). However, if a case concerns the cultivation

of GMOs, member states are involved as well as

they carry out the initial risk assessment of the

GMO. Following the conclusions of the Environment

Council of December 2008, EFSA is currently revie-

wing its ERA guidelines. The new guidelines are ex-

pected to be finished by November 2010. Furthermore, the

Commission will publish by the end of 2010 a report on the

socio-economic implications of GMOs.

To address the many objections which surfaced during the

Council session of September 27, EU Agriculture Ministers

agreed to establish a working group aimed at addres-

sing the issues raised. EU Environment Ministers will also

discuss the new GMO package of the Commission at the

Environment Council of October 14. Given the contentious

nature of the topic, negotiations between the European

Parliament and the Council over the Commissions propo-

sal for a regulation are expected to be long and difficult.

Member states are very divided

over the topic. GMO-supporting

countries include Spain, Germany,the United Kingdom, the

Netherlands and the Czech

Republic. Opponents include Italy,

Austria, Poland, France, Hungary,

Greece and Luxembourg. It is

therefore unlikely that a political

agreement will still be found under

the Belgian Presidency.

Agricultural biotechnology firms

argue that GMOs could contribute to addressing new chal-

lenges such as climate change, food insecurity and shor-

tage of natural resources. Genetically modified crops are

said to have higher yields and better resist drought and

disease. Opponents warn for potential harmful effects on

the environment and health which cannot yet be disco-

vered by current assessments of health and environmental

risks. They argue the precautionary principle should be

respected.


10/11

Brussels calling

the necessary education and training and improving the

matching of labour demand and supply.

Several instruments exist at EU level to facilitate the restruc-

turing of labour markets in order to accommodate the tran-

sition towards a low-carbon economy. A first element is

effective social dialogue. European social partners have a

major role to play as they are best placed to identify and

anticipate economic mutations and industrial transformations

relating to the greening of the economy. The flexicurity

concept should be given a place in member states labour

market policies to smoothen the transition. Second, policy

learning and knowledge

sharing should be pro-

moted both at the EU and

the national level to

design and implement

appropriate employment

policy measures, includingmonitoring. Third, the

European Social Fund

and European Globali-

zation Adjustment Fund could be leveraged to make the

necessary investments in peoples skills and qualifications.

The issues mentioned above were dealt with extensively du-

ring the Ministerial conference of September 28-29. A first

session on September 28 zoomed in on how the transport

sector, the energy sector and the construction industry

are addressing climate change. Representatives exchanged

views on the impact of climate change on the employment

perspectives in their sectors and what could be crucial fac-

tors behind the efficient transformation of their industries.

A second session addressed the question how to ensure

quality transitions to green jobs and what the role of social

dialogue could be in this process. Present in this

session was Helena Strigrd, social affairs advi-

sor at BUSINESSEUROPE. She underlined that

policymakers should not merely focus on green

jobs, but on the overall greening of the econo-

my, all sectors including. Furthermore shestressed the importance of safeguarding a suffi-

cient supply of graduates with high-quality skills

in science, technology, engineering and

mathematics (STEM), in anticipation of the transition to a

low-carbon economy. Finally, she referred to the necessity of

flexible labour markets to reduce the adjustment costs rela-

ting to a greening of the economy, as well as the role of

social partners therein, especially with regard to promoting

flexible contractual arrangements and lifelong learning to

ensure employability. Currently, a joint project is being

carried out by BUSINESSEUROPE, ETUC (European Tra de

Union Confederation), CEEP (European Centre of Employers

and Enterprises providing Public Services) and UEAPME

(European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized

Enterprises), which aims to look into labour market implica-

tions of climate change policies and to identify joint actions.

The two last sessions on September 28 dealt with training

for green skills (including the role of public employment

services and European funds therein), and extended the con-

cept of greening to all jobs in the economy by focusing on

workplaces and work processes in general.

On September 29, the conference was concluded with a

round table chaired by Belgian Minister Jolle Milquet. A

number oflessons were drawn which will serve as input to

the Employment Council of December. These include:

the exchange of good practices between member states in

providing impulses for the greening of labour markets;

the development of a strategy to facilitate reconversions;

the importance of measures to accommodate the training

of employees;

the role of European funds; the support to SMEs;

the role of social partners and social dialogue;

the development of indicators to track the evolution of the

greening of labour markets;

the importance of reducing the cost of labour in green

sectors.

Over the last year, the EU has focused increasingly on the

challenges and opportunities relating to the role of employ-

ment in the greening of the economy. First, the so-called

Employment Guidelines (part of the Europe 2020 Integra-

ted Guidelines which member states have to take into ac-

count), that are likely to be formally adopted during the next

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs

(EPSCO) Council on October 21, explicitly mention the

importance of stimulating green jobs. Second, on December

6-7, the Commission will issue a communication on the Eu-

rope 2020 flagship initiative An

agenda for new skills and jobs.

This communication will be com-

plemented by a staff working

document titled Employment

dimension of a greener economy.Third, the Belgian Presidency aims

by the end of its term to charge

the European Commission with

the drafting of a plan to create green jobs and ensure the

greening of the economy, due in 2011.

The promotion of green employment is considered to be

one of the long-term solutions to EU unemployment rates

which have risen considerably due to the recent economic

and financial crisis. During his State of the Union at the

European Parliament on September 7, Commission Presi-

dent Barroso announced his intention to create 3 million

green jobs by 2020.

- 10 -


11/11


In the box New EU supervisory bodies in the Economic and Financial Affairs section of the third issue of this newsletter,

Jean-Claude Juncker was mentioned as President of the European Central Bank (ECB). This is incorrect. Jean-Claude Juncker

is President of the Eurogroup, whereas Jean-Claude Trichet is President of the ECB. Our apologies for this editorial error.

Corrigendum

Website of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Unionhttp://www.eutrio.be

Website of the Belgian EU Presidency of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB)http://eupresidency.vbo-feb.be

LINKS

Presentation of the European Department of the FEB

Diane StruyvenDirector of the European Department of the FEB Permanent Delegate to BUSINESSEUROPETel: +32 (0)2 515 08 [email protected]

Michael VoordeckersAdvisor at the European Department of the FEBTel: +32 (0)2 515 09 [email protected]

Arnaud ThysenDeputy Advisor at the European Department of the FEBTel: +32 (0)2 515 09 [email protected]

Michiel HumbletIntern at the European Department of the FEBTel: +32 (0)2 515 08 [email protected]

Pieter-Jan Van SteenkisteIntern at the European Department of the FEB

Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 [email protected]

TEAM PRESENTATION

FEB Federation of Enterprises in Belgium

Ravensteinstraat 4 1000 Brussels Tel. 02 515 08 11 Fax. 02 515 09 15

PUBLISHER: Olivier Joris Wolvenbergstraat 17 1180 Brussels

PUBLICATION MANAGER: Stefan Maes Tel. 02 515 08 43 [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGN: Vanessa Solymosi, Landmarks [email protected]

COPYRIGHT: Reproduction with acknowledgement of source is permitted

FEB member of

brussels calling, belgian eu presidency, business newsletter, 04/10/2010, issue 4

Documents