AaE

Italy – Operational Programme 2007-13: Lombardia Regional Operational Programme

1. Operational Programme “Lombardia Regional Operational Programme” – Programme under the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
[ Figures and graphics available in PDF and WORD PROCESSED ] [ Figures and graphics available in PDF and WORD PROCESSED ]
2. Overview
On 1 August 2007, the European Commission approved a Regional Operational Programme for the region of Lombardia in Italy for the period 2007-13. The Operational Programme falls within the framework laid out for the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective and has a total budget of around €532 million. Community funding through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) amounts to some €211 million, which represents approximately 0.7% of the total EU investment earmarked for Italy under the Cohesion Policy for 2007-13.
3. Aim and purpose of the programme
Lombardia's Operational Programme will be an important tool in the realisation of the objectives laid down in the revised Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, as it allocates more than 68% of its total budget to this end. The Programme will play a key role in:
Boosting competitiveness through research and innovation;
Reducing carbon emissions through the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency;
Supporting sustainable mobility;
Enhancing the attractiveness of the region with a particular focus on cities, environmental and cultural promotion.
4. The expected impact of the investments
The programme will ensure creation of about 1800 direct new jobs. With regard to energy development and usage the region, the program aims to decrease CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by 50 000 ton per year by 2013.
5. Priorities
The Operational Programme is structured according to the following priorities:
Priority 1: Innovation and knowledge economy [approximately 49.4% of total funding]
The priority is centred on regional research and innovation with particular focus on promoting a favourable environment for this area as part of the so-called “Lombardy knowledge system”. It will support cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), research centres and “poles of excellence”. The intention is to work towards creating a network of existing centres as opposed to creating new ones while simultaneously strengthening regional governance and supporting private Research and Development (R&D) and ICT demand.
Priority 2: Energy [approximately 9.4% of total funding]
The priority aims both to reduce energy consumption and to increase energy production from renewable energy in an effort to significantly reduce atmospheric pollution and climate-changing emissions.
Priority 3: Sustainable mobility [approximately 26.1% of total funding]
The priority aims to increase sustainable mobility by means of modal integration (road, rail and metro) and by encouraging the widespread use of forms of transport which have a reduced environmental impact (car pooling, car sharing, road pricing, etc.)
Priority 4: Protection and enhancement of natural and cultural heritage [approximately 11.3% of total funding]
The priority aims to attract tourism and exploit the potential of those parts of Lombardy whose natural and cultural assets are not yet widely-known.
Priority 5: Technical assistance [approximately 3.8% of total funding]
There is also provision for technical assistance to implement the programme. Financial support is available for administration, monitoring, evaluation and control.
6. Managing Authority: Unità Organizzativa Competitività del Sistema delle Imprese della Direzione Generale Industria, Piccola Media Impresa e Cooperazione – Milano, Italy

CSR Europe – GAIN Working Lunch on Base of the PyramidBruxelles, le 8 mai 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to be with you today for an exchange on such an exciting subject matter as the Base of the Pyramid.
This is so for two reasons:
First because it is extremely important that business, not the least, have started to opt for new ways of looking at doing business with and in developing countries and in dealing with poverty situations.
Second, because this happens in a context where donors and developing countries have realized that public intervention can only be a part of the solutions for the multiple problems with which developing countries and their populations have to cope.
Indeed, several decades of development aid did not bring the results we hoped. Donors, including the Commission, concluded that we could not go on in the way we did. Therefore we took a number of important decisions over the past years, both at the international and the EU level. Let me briefly go through them :
First of all, in 2000, donors defined specific goals in order to increase the focusing of their aid and to make its objectives more concrete: they adopted the Millennium Development Goals, to be reached in 2015.
Today we know that certain developing countries may reach most or several of these goals, but several countries will not. Many African countries are in this last category.
Second, in 2003, donors committed themselves in Monterrey to increase substantially the levels of financing of aid. At the EU level, Member states committed themselves to increase development aid to 0.7% of their Gross national Income in 2015, with an intermediate objective of 0,51% in 2010. The 2010 objective corresponds to some additional 30 billion euros per year, 90% of which is to come from their national budgets.
Thirdly, the donors adopted in 2005 the so-called Paris declaration in order to make aid more effective :
- better donor coordination
- harmonization of procedures
- alignment on the priorities, institutions and systems of the recipient countries, and to ensure leadership of the recipient country.
Part of the Paris declaration is about increasing sector-wide programmes and increasing budget support.
In order to cope with that on the EU side, the Commission has convinced the Member states in 2005 to agree on development policy and priorities, the so called European consensus; and in 2007 to agree on more and better division of labour at the recipient country level.
All these changes cannot take away the fact that effective results in development will require much more than only public development aid :
What is also needed is a strong role of the private sector as being the most essential engine of economic growth.
This recognition has been at the basis of the global Aid for trade strategy agreed some years ago alongside the ongoing international trade negotiations at the WTO. It was recognized that developing countries needed to overcome many barriers to make their private sectors compete and to attract investments.
Aid for trade is there to tackle the numerous supply side constraints:
infrastructure, transport, energy, water and telecommunications.
The European Commission has been a major donor for infrastructures. It will continue to be so, through the bilateral programmes financed at the country levels and through horizontal initiatives, in particular the EU Africa Infrastructure Trust fund. This Trust Fund was set up with the European Investment Bank. It should help us to leverage even more aid for the building of infrastructures.
Other barriers relate to the business regulatory environment. Many regulations and procedures need to be changed, modernised and simplified, including for customs and other trade facilitation measures.
An important problem is furthermore that the markets in many developing countries are simply too small to make investments attractive. Therefore the creation of larger, regional markets is a must and has been one of the Commission's priorities since quite some time already.
As I have made clear at other occasions, I believe that the Economic Partnership Agreements can play an important role in getting there, in Africa in particular.
Another very important constraint for developing countries, is the lack of skills, at all levels. You also suffer from this constraint to develop your activities. Donors, like the European Commission, can assist in building capacities, but the private sector's assistance is equally indispensable as many of the skills are needed there and need to be adapted to what is required for the private sector's development.
All these constraints are also the background for what you have called the Laboratories on Sustainable Business at the "Base of the Pyramid", also called "BOP" which brings us together today.
These "BOP initiatives" are interesting because: they are looking for opportunities to set up business in a sustainable way, at scales and with approaches adapted to local circumstances. They aim at working with local businesses and partners, also NGOs, in a way to allow them to expand and to structure themselves. These can add much needed value through local production and transformation processes, thus generating jobs and revenues.
What is particular for BOP initiatives, compared to corporate social responsibility initiatives in general, is that they are about business, profitable business. The initiatives are not limited to the food sector and include the development and use of promising microfinance and other financial schemes and institutions.
What is needed to develop these initiatives? It may be that shareholders need additional encouragement to support such initiatives of their companies. And to accept that it requires a more long term approach than they may have been used to adopt, in terms of the time period allowed for profit generation by new business activities.
But, the advantage I see, is: where these initiatives are undertaken, it is to be in the market place for a long time and as solidly as possible; using company and brand names to establish reputations.
Possible role of the European Commission and other donors:
CSR Europe has started discussions with my services on possible synergies and ways to collaborate. Further meetings are planned for June and September. Of course, I welcome and encourage these discussions. The process up to now has been focusing above all on mutual understanding of what each is doing. This takes time because our respective organisations work according to a very different logic. In the Commission, many have been inspired by almost anti-business philosophies. We also have complex procedures...
The meetings of June and September will still be needed to improve on that as well.
But what has already become clear is that many of the constraints which prevent BOP initiatives to be undertaken or to be successful are also the constraints on which the Commission and other donors are working through the programmes they finance :
Be it through private sector development programmes or trade related assistance in order to help facilitating trade and business creation and development,
be it through infrastructure programmes, vocational training programmes or other types of programmes;
be it on governance and public financial management aiming to improve the environment in which people and companies can develop and scale up their capacities and possibilities.
The interventions financed by the European Investment Bank with "donor money" from the European Development Fund, have similar aims where it intervenes to improve access to finance to SME's as well as to participate in the financing of important infrastructures.
The coming meetings at work level must also help us to clarify how public donors and private sector could closer work together.
As I understand it, it goes beyond the simple co-financing of initiatives of the type the Commission already does since a number of years in the field of NGO managed fair trade projects for example.
I see this lunch discussion as an opportunity to explore further the potential for synergies. In this connection, we are of course aware of similar projects financed by USAID for example, which also has financed some BOP initiatives involving US companies.
We will need to clarify a number of issues, including the question whether the Commission is better placed than the EU Member states to engage directly, financially in projects involving specific companies, not the smallest ones moreover.
In that respect, it will also be useful to see what types of initiatives could be proposed by private sector, involving groups of companies for example. And coherence which may be needed between our approach to BOP initiatives and that to other private sector initiatives aiming at sustainable ways of production.
Aspects which are also to be taken into account are the Commission's strive to intervene through larger, sector wide programmes, its wish to play the card of division of labour, not only as between donors but also in the full respect of the comparative advantages of each of the actors, including private sector.
I would like to conclude my intervention by thanking you Mr Davignon and Mr Nadoo for having invited me, and for having provided me with the opportunity to discuss with you on the essential role to play by the private sector in generating growth in developing countries, both through BOP but also initiatives.
I trust that our exchanges and the coming meetings with my services will be fruitful. They should lead to better mutual understanding of our respective roles, and more importantly to achieve a realistic identification of potential synergies.
I am sure that the first draft of the working paper you transmitted to us yesterday will be a useful further contribution to the process you initiated with us.

Single Market as a driver for a competitive economy

Speech to Members of the Committees of the Greek Parliament Athens, 16 May 2008

Presidents, Honourable Members of Parliament,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here with you this morning. It is, indeed, an honour for me to be here in the cradle of civilisation and the birthplace of democracy. This is my first visit to Greece as Commissioner for the Internal Market. In particular I am glad to have the chance to listen to your views and experiences about the Single Market and on how it should be taken forward. You have the invaluable experience of being involved in implementing various pieces of EU legislation on national level, and this of course includes Single Market rules. What is more, being members of Committees on Economic, Social and European affairs, you follow and analyse Single Market issues from a range of different angles and perspectives, whether economic, social, national or European. So I am very much looking forward to our exchange of views.
I am going to speak today about competitiveness and the role the Single Market has to play in that context. Competitiveness is very much the overriding objective now. I am sure you deliberate on competitiveness just as often here in your national policy discussions as we do in Brussels. There is a reason for that. Globalisation presents us with a challenge. The rising economic strength of countries such as India or China, means that there is no option for Europe but to do everything it can to remain competitive on the world stage.
The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs is our comprehensive approach to achieve this. And I am glad to say that after its revision in 2005, the Strategy is now delivering and has contributed to a better and sound economic structure, helping to create growth and jobs and to increase our ability to resist economic turmoil.
To give you some figures that illustrate this: structural reforms have helped increase the potential estimated growth rate of GDP in the euro zone by 0.2 percentage points since 2005, to some 2.25% in 2007. Almost 6.5 million new jobs have been created in the last two years, and another 5 million are expected in the run up to 2010. Unemployment is expected to fall to under 7%, the lowest since the mid 1980s. For the first time in a decade, strong increases in employment have gone hand in hand with robust productivity growth. What all this means is that the Lisbon Strategy is helping to position Europe and European citizens to succeed in the age of globalisation. It means that Europe's economy today is robust .Robust enough – I am confident – to weather even the difficulties triggered by the financial turmoil that we have seen.
The added value of the current Lisbon process is that it is now properly focused on the key issues necessary for growth and jobs and brings together all the necessary reforms in the different fields of macro and micro economic, and employment policies. It also now pulls together the necessary reforms at both national and Community level. Last but not least, it is not a one-off process. Progress at national and Community level is reviewed every year and on this basis, recommendations are given on what needs to be done in the year ahead. This has introduced more transparency and peer pressure. All of this has started to bear fruit. We should keep up the momentum. I can only advise all Member States to continue addressing their Lisbon key challenges as a matter of priority.
This brings me to the Single Market and its role. The Single Market has served Europe well. It has led to more growth and jobs. It also helps Europe's economy to stay competitive in today's globalised world. For example, the work we have done so far in financial services, through the Financial Services Action Plan, has fundamentally changed - and greatly improved - the global competitiveness of the European financial services sector. But the Single Market is not just an economic success. It creates real opportunities for all of us. We can choose whether to live, work or study abroad. We can travel and telephone more cheaply as prices of flights and phone calls have reduced drastically. And we have a bigger choice of better quality goods in our shops.
But there is much work ahead. We have not yet fully realised the Single Market's potential. That is why last November, the Commission embarked on an ambitious review of the Single Market policy. Many of you will remember the 'Europe 1992' programme. This was a visionary programme designed back in 1985, a few years after Greece joined the EEC, which determined to make the Single Market a reality. The Europe 1992 programme focused on integrating European markets, mainly through EU legislation. We have come a long way since. With the Single Market Review, we are now entering a new, but not less ambitious phase. The primary aim is now to make sure that the Single Market works effectively for all. Integrating markets is not sufficient on its own – we must ensure that everyone reaps the benefits, and that everyone is included into the Single Market story. This means not only big business, but also consumers and small enterprises.
Here are some examples of what we will do for both of those constituencies. To begin with consumers: Retail financial services is the first policy area that comes to mind given how essential bank accounts, credit and debit cards or mortgages are to citizens' economic wellbeing. We have launched here an ambitious package of initiatives to make retail financial markets work better for consumers. For instance, I have asked the banking industry to come up with a "code of conduct" to facilitate switching bank accounts between different banks in the same Member State. I have also made it clear that there should be no discrimination against customers on the basis of nationality or residence when opening bank accounts cross-border. I hope that by working with the banking and insurance industry and with consumers we can get good results, without needing to resort to legislation.
As regards SMEs, we will introduce this summer a Small Business Act, which will bring together various SME-targeted measures, such as getting rid of administrative burdens or increasing SME participation in funding programmes. One of the legislative measures I will put forward is a European Private Company Statute. Enterprises that did not qualify under the European (Public) Company Statute –the SE Statute-will now have a tailor-made legal form especially for them. With the European Private Company Statute or SPE, they will be able to carry out their business according to one set of corporate rules across the EU. These measures should encourage SMEs to engage to a much larger extent in cross-border business activities.
However, the Single Market Review is not just about presenting a list of new initiatives. It also focuses on making what we have, work better on the ground. There is a gap between the Single Market as it stands in the Statute book, and the everyday reality. Too often, Single Market rules are not properly transposed, implemented or enforced. And very often there is not enough political awareness and information about the Single Market among the national administrations and citizens.
What we need to improve this situation is a strong partnership between authorities at all levels– at the EU, national but also regional and local levels. This work simply cannot be accomplished from Brussels and by the Commission alone. That is why we have launched discussions with all Member States to identify best practices and agree on common guidelines on how to transpose, implement and enforce Single Market laws; how to spread information on the Single Market; and how to enhance cross-border cooperation between administrations. We count on your involvement in this new initiative.
And we are especially keen to make sure that Member States live up to their legal obligations. The Internal Market Scoreboard is one of the main tools developed in this regard. The most recent Scoreboard of February 2008 showed that although Greece was one of the five Member States with a higher number of untransposed Directives than the 1.5% target, it made very good progress in the last half of the year[1]. Within six months, it cut its backlog from 39 to 27 Directives. My message to you today, however, is that the Greek authorities really need to keep up the good work for the remainder of 2008, particularly because the European Council has now set a new and tougher target for March 2009 of a 1% transposition deficit target.
In addition to this, more work is still necessary when it comes to implementing the Single Market rules properly. Greece is one of 11 Member States with higher number of infringement proceedings than the EU-27 average - although there has been a steady trend of decreasing their number in the last years[2]. I hope that this progress continues and I am looking forward to seeing further improvements in the months to come.
Yet despite these efforts, I think that the Single Market still sometimes suffers from a lack of political attention. National parliaments – such as yours – need to devote their attention to the Single Market. In this respect, I think it is really positive that the Treaty of Lisbon, via the new Article 12, duly recognises the important role of National Parliaments in contributing to "the good functioning of the Union".
And as surveys show, too often citizens and firms are not sufficiently aware of the many opportunities offered by the Single Market. They show that 76% of Greek citizens questioned feel uninformed about their Single Market rights and if they do, they do not know where to turn to if they have a question about their rights or seek to enforce them. For instance, 72% are not familiar with the services put in place to provide information about the Single Market, such as SOLVIT or European Consumer Centres. The situation is fairly similar across the EU. There is a lot more information to be made public also at national level. SOLVIT has been a big success but needs proper staffing and funding to do its job well. Let me say that I believe national parliaments – such as the Hellenic Parliament - can play an important role in helping that citizens can exercise their rights everywhere in the EU.
Last but not least, there is one further element of the Single Market, I would like to mention today - the social angle of our work on the Single Market. There are some who say that the Single Market policy does not take sufficient account of the social dimension. I accept that those who say so express their genuine concerns. But I would like to try to dispel these concerns. The development of the Single Market has gone hand in hand with the development of European social policies and both are mutually reinforcing. What is more, in an effective Single Market, Member States are able to pursue social policy objectives more effectively than without it. For instance, sound public procurement will help reduce pressure on the public purse and make more public funds available for social policy objectives. We need to keep this balance between economic and social policies in the future.
So in conclusion, I believe we can say two things: the Single Market is a key asset for increasing EU's competitiveness and achieving the targets set by the Lisbon Strategy. And the Single Market works for all citizens, consumers and workers. It will deliver even more for Europe's citizens in the future. I hope that we can count on your support in achieving this goal. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to answering your questions.
[1] According to the February 2008 Internal Market Scoreboard: the Greek transposition deficit amounts to 1.7% with 27 Directives which still need to be transposed. This is an improvement as compared to 2.4% deficit and 39 Directives according to the July 2007 Scoreboard.
[2] It has 88 infringement cases for incorrect application of Single Market rules as compared to EU-27 average of 49. Italy and Spain have the worst performance with 134 and 113 cases, respectively. It has improved its performance slightly by one case in comparison with the July 2007 Scoreboard.

Responding to Environmental Change: From Words to Deeds

Policy Perspectives on Environmental Research – Conference "Bridging the Gap 2008"
Portorož (Slovenia), 16 May 2008

Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, my thanks go to the Slovenian Environmental Agency for organising this conference in partnership with the European Environment Agency, the Environment Protection Agencies of the UK and Ireland and the European Commission.
I’m very pleased to be here today, not only to discuss the links between environmental science and policy-making, but also to mark the 10th anniversary of the Bridging the Gap process.
During these last 10 years, the challenge of responding to environmental change has continued to rise to the forefront of policymaking in Europe and globally. Our convictions in this area are due to the dedicated work of many tens of thousands of scientists, policymakers, politicians and members of civil society.
It is the dialogue between these partners - in forums such as Bridging the Gap - that helps us to see ever more clearly the effects of human activities on our world, to create the appropriate policies and to respond with effective action.
In the time available to me today, I’d like to address the themes of this conference and some of the outcomes so far. I also want to give you my perspective as a policy-maker, particularly in the area of the research policy of the EU and its support to wider European goals.
To start with the theme of urgency, as our knowledge has increased, the need to take action has never been more apparent. A clear example can be found in the findings of the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where we learned that:
11 of the warmest years since records began have occurred during the last 12 years;
During the 20th Century, the increase in average temperature was three quarters of a degree Celsius, the sea level rose on average by 17 cm, and that
We are approaching several tipping points in the Earth system, like the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest, and the disruption of the African monsoon.
You heard at this conference that we might have already passed one tipping point, so that we will soon loose the Artic summer sea ice.
As global climate change accelerates we are seeing increases in extreme events, such as episodes of extreme rainfall coupled with episodes of serious droughts. Particularly heavy burdens are being placed on the world's most vulnerable regions, raising the prospect of large-scale migration and greater competition and conflict for the Earth's resources.
The effects on biodiversity of climate change and human development are also becoming clearer, although perhaps at a slower rate. To quote my colleague, the Commissioner for Environment, Stavros Dimas: “While climate change takes up much of the media attention, in one fundamental way biodiversity loss is an even more serious threat. This is because the degradation of ecosystems often reaches a point of no return - and because extinction is forever.” At the conference, you pointed out that the consequences of biodiversity loss, are not fully understood. They are most certainly both ecological and economic and closely linked to issues such as climate change, energy, food, and water.
Putting the environment at the heart of economic decision making, is indeed required and has been the second conference theme. Environmental degradation must be internalized in our economic assessments. When the costs and benefits of different policies are weighed against the costs and benefits of inaction, sometimes we are left with little choice but to accelerate policy development and implementation. Again, the field of climate change provides an example in the shape of the well-known report by Lord Stern. A Stern like report on the cost and benefits of maintaining biodiversity is now also under way. I have no doubt that it will be of interest to this debate.
Almost no area of public policy remains unaffected by the state of our knowledge and the commitments that result. This is a direct and happy result of making sustainable development a key facet in the Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth.
To give a few examples:
Implementing our strategies for growth and competitiveness must take into account the effects on soils, water, air quality, biodiversity and health.
Meeting our future energy needs means choosing the investments we choose to make - or not - in renewable energies, in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and on nuclear fusion and fission technologies;
Setting targets and constraints on industry, such as the CO2 emissions goals for the car industry demands judgements of the effects on competitiveness and growth.
Planning the policies for European agriculture and fisheries require predictions of the state of our environment and climate in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Our choices also affect our relationships with our international partners. I'm thinking here about our policies on trade, where we compete and cooperate with nations that might make different choices and pursue different actions to our own in Europe.
I also refer to our planning for aid and development. The recent controversy regarding the encouragement of the production of biofuels at a time of increasing food prices and shortages illustrates the difficulty of using the available information and striking the right balances at the right time.
Making the inevitable tradeoffs and choices is a decision for society as a whole. So these policy examples highlight the need for a dialogue between all the actors, which is the third conference theme. I’ve already mentioned the researchers, policy and decision-makers and NGOs that make up the delegates at this event. At the different sessions of this conference the importance of having this dialogue also with our global partners to find workable solutions has been stressed by you several times.
However, the opinions and decisions of ordinary citizens are paramount.
Concerns were raised at the conference that our societies might actually be moving away from sustainable development. We will need to investigate the requirements for systemic changes that will counter this.
Moving from words to deeds will come at a price, although the os twill be much smaller than the cost of inaction. Taxpayers and individuals must choose to participate in whatever sacrifices must be made; hence the need for effective an effective dialogue with a well-informed public.
Also, one does not need to be an economist – as I am – to realise that we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we did not give an audience to the representatives of industry, on whose shoulders rests our future competitiveness and growth.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
The need for urgency in our actions, which leads to often difficult economic choices, requires effective communication between all elements of society. This fact reinforces the value of what I will call the knowledge-action chain.
We all agree that we must base our policy commitments and our actions on sound science and respond to our best understanding of the situation we are facing. If sound knowledge is a prerequisite, then routine observations and assessments of our planet are not optional.
The knowledge-action chain has developed differently - or not, as the case may be - for the different thematic areas under discussion. Each topic - from information gathering and adaptation to climate change, through to sustainable consumption, energy and biodiversity - is located at a different point, or moving at different rates, along this chain.
So it is in our interest to understand what mechanisms successfully push or pull issues from the research domain to knowledge and eventually to political actions in order to streamline and speed up the process.
To take just one example, we see that after years of promotion efforts from scientists, Adaptation to Climate Change is well situated towards the end of the chain. With the completion of the debate initiated last year, we look forward to concrete plans for action at the end of 2008. On the other hand where would we agree to place biodiversity and ecosystem services along this chain? And how would we explain the differences in the progress of the two areas?
These are questions that I hope that we addressed in this forum.
***
Despite our references to the knowledge-to-action process as a linear one, it is in fact a cyclical one. Following the implementation of any policy, we must perform research, monitoring and assessments to verify the impacts and costs of our actions. As we improve our scientific knowledge, data, models, methods and technologies, we are bound to refine our results in order to improve the effectiveness of our policies.
In this way we continually strengthen the link between science and research on the one hand and policy-making and implementation on the other. Since the last Bridging the Gap conference, the Commission has made progress to achieve this, both in the design and running of our research programmes and in the way we are organised. As I understand, on the first day of the conference, a question was raised whether the Commission links its own research programmes to the policy needs. The answer is clearly yes,
In developing the 7th Framework Programme,
We’ve embedded policy relevant research in all areas of the programme, rather than in a specific thematic area, as previously;
We’ve made the expected impacts of research part of the evaluation criteria for research proposals;
We’ve increased the flexibility in the programme to be able to accommodate unforeseen policy needs, such as responses to epidemics, natural disasters and other emerging concerns;
We ask researchers to consider the socio-economic dimension of their topics and to plan substantial dissemination activities; and
We have tuned the Joint Research Centre work programme to directly respond to needs of policy making in support to sustainability.
In terms of the topics covered within the programme, in the Environment theme, we are currently looking for research that will support European and global commitments. This includes the UN conventions on climate change, biodiversity, desertification, as well the Kyoto and Montreal protocols.
At the same time, the environmental research we sponsor contributes to better implementation of EU policies, such as the 6th Environmental Action Plan and the action plans on Environmental Technologies and Environment and Health. Research related to the EU directives on water, chemicals, clean air and the collection and management of environmental data are supported, as well as for the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy.
To raise another example, achieving Europe's 2020 and 2050 targets on greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy and energy efficiency will require action on a number of fronts. Research supported by FP7, as outlined in our Strategic Energy Technology Plan, will help ensure that twill down the cost of necessary action and speed up the delivery of solutions.
Looking towards the future, the priorities for our Environment research strategy next year will be the cross-cutting issue of adaptation to climate and environmental change, plus related issues such as sustainable cities and coastal zones. These complex issues will be addressed in a problem-solving and integrated manner, including their socio-economic aspects.
This research will enhance our understanding of processes, limits and trends of the natural and man-made environment and support policy-making with improved tools and indicators. However, twill particularly focus on methods and strategies for anticipating and responding to the huge environmental and societal challenges we face.
***
Ladies and gentlemen,
As I have said on other occasions, humanity is facing an enormous test of its stewardship of the Earth. This test will require all our commitment, resourcefulness and ingenuity, and the European Union is keen to play its part.
To move from words to deeds:
We're strengthening the link between science and policy, to understand and then engage with the dangers that we are causing, predicting and experiencing.
We're sharpening our research, to be ready with solutions and effective tools; and
We're engaging in dialogue, because the hard choices we must make must be the choices of society as a whole.
I believe that the ideas and solutions being developed in this forum are of the greatest value in this endeavour.
Thank you very much.

Hübner welcomes Lombardy's flair for innovation
Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, visits Milan today to attend a launch event for Lombardy's new 2007-2013 regional programme, which strongly features research and innovation. She will meet Mr Roberto Formigoni, President of the region, the mayor of Milan, Mrs Letizia Moratti, and representatives from the regional government, local businesses, universities and research centres. The Commissioner will also visit EU co-funded projects north-west of Milan.

EU listens to people experiencing poverty to help improve their lives

Around 200 Europeans on the front line of the battle against social exclusion will today meet EU and national policy makers in Brussels for a direct dialogue. They will discuss issues ranging from minimum income to housing, social services and services of general interest. The annual event aims to include marginal groups in the process of seeking solutions and building policies to improve their lives.

Civil Protection: European assistance prepares to leave for China

The Community Civil Protection Mechanism will be sending a team of experts to China on 17 May to help coordinate expert and material assistance from Member States. The Chinese authorities made an official request for assistance following the massive earthquake that struck south-western China on 12 May, and help is being offered by Austria, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Malta.

Euro area external trade deficit € 2.3 billion

The first estimate for the euro area (EA15) trade balance with the rest of the world in March 2008 gave a 2.3 bn euro deficit, compared with +7.5 bn in March 2007. The February 20082 balance was +0.8 bn, compared with -1.6 bn in February 2007. In March 2008 compared with February 2008, seasonally adjusted exports fell by 2.9% while imports remained stable. The first estimate for the March 2008 extra-EU27 trade balance was a deficit of 20.5 bn euro, compared with -10.5 bn in March 2007. In February 2008, the balance was -15.6 bn, compared with -17.5 bn in February 2007. In March 2008 compared with February 2008, seasonally adjusted exports fell by 4.9% while imports rose by 0.3%. These data are released by Eurostat.
First International Carbon Action Partnership forum to be held in Brussels
The International Carbon Action Partnership will hold its first Global Carbon Market Forum in Brussels on 19-20 May, hosted by the European Commission. Launched last October, the International Carbon Action Partnership brings together public authorities that operate or are developing mandatory 'cap and trade' systems for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. By sharing experience and best practices through the International Carbon Action Partnership, different emission trading systems can be made compatible and able to work together as key pillars of the global carbon market that is essential for mobilising investment in low-carbon technologies and projects worldwide. The event will be opened by Mogens Peter Carl, the Commission's Director General for Environment. High level interventions will also be made by Teresa Ribera Rodriguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate Change, and Pete Grannis, Commissioner for Environmental Conservation of New York State in the US. Over 150 participants from XX countries will discuss monitoring, reporting, verification, compliance and enforcement - issues that are crucial for the credibility and success of any emissions trading system. The programme is available at http://www.icap-carbonaction.com/docs/ICAP_conference_program_mrvce.pdf

Autre matériel diffusé
• Memo on Italy – Operational Programme 2007-13: Lombardia Regional Operational Programme
• Memo on Brussels debate focused on inter-religious dialogue
• Memo on Preparation Agriculture/Fisheries Council of May 2008
• Speech du Commissaire Špidla 'L'union Européenne dans la lutte contre la pauvreté', Bruxelles - EMBARGO 17 MAI 14H00 –
• Speech by Commissioner Potočnik 'Responding to Environmental Change: From Words to Deeds', Portorož
• Speech by Commissioner McCreevy 'Single Market as a driver for a competitive economy', Athens
• Speech by Commissioner McCreevy 'Development in the field of Company Law', Athens -EMBARGO 16h00 –
• Calendrier hebdomadaire du 19 au 25 mai 2008
• Top News from the European Commission

Questions and Answers: EU-UEFA campaign to inform EURO 2008 fans about their rights

Why did the Commission and UEFA launch a consumer advice campaign?

The 2008 UEFA European Football Championship ("EURO 2008"), will take place in Austria and Switzerland, from 7 June to 29 June 2008. A total of 16 teams will participate in the tournament.
Many people encounter problems when travelling abroad, from air passenger rights, medical insurance cover, ticketing, roaming charges and shopping – and a major event such as EURO 2008 can only magnify the issue. That is why Commissioner Kuneva is teaming up with UEFA President Michel Platini to ensure football fans / consumers know their rights – and how to enforce them. The aim of the campaign is to ensure that consumers, who also happen to be football fans travelling to Austria and Switzerland, are fully informed of their rights and how to use them.

What does the campaign consist of?

The Commission and UEFA will launch an EU consumer helpline, managed by the Europe Direct service, to help answer the most frequently asked questions from consumers and fans travelling abroad. They will also publish an advice brochure. The Commission-sponsored network of European Consumer Centres (ECC-net) will also provide support and advice to consumers – both before they travel to the tournament and once they arrive home.
What are the most common problems reported by tourists travelling within the EU?
In preparing for this campaign, the Commission drew on the experience of Germany during the World Cup 2006 tournament.
The most common consumer problems experienced by fans travelling to this tournament were uncertainty about their rights when it came to delayed flights, lost luggage, faulty purchases, medical care abroad and hiring a car. UEFA also has much experience in assisting fans with ticketing and other tournament-related problems, and this has also been fed into the information being made available through the campaign.

What is covered in the EU-UEFA advice leaflet?

The leaflet presents the EU consumer helpline and points to advice from the Commission-sponsored network of European Consumer Centres. It elaborates on ticketing, the European Single Emergency Number 112, medical cover and the EU health card, air and rail passenger rights, roaming charges, shopping and guarantees, precautions to be taken when driving abroad (insurance, driving licence etc.), and what to do if your goods are stolen.

What is the EU Consumer helpline?

The helpline is managed by the Commission's "Europe Direct" service. It is free-phone[1] from all EU countries and will be available in all EU official languages. You can call 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 from 9h00 to 18h30 CET on weekdays from anywhere in the EU.
What issues does the helpline NOT cover? And where do I go to get advice then?
The helpline has been set up specifically to deal with consumer issues – and the operators are fully briefed by UEFA and the European Commission to help consumers, in all EU languages, on the broad range of issues set out in the leaflet.
For problems or questions related to other issues – such as legal rights, lost property, match information, ticket problems, or reporting a crime – fans need to go to the police, embassy or UEFA fan embassies. All these contact details are available on the web-pages set up by the Commission, ECC-Austria and UEFA for the tournament. Where necessary, the helpline will try to point people in the right direction if they call with a problem outside the scope of consumer rights.

Can the helpline be reached from Switzerland?

No. Fans should be aware that the free-phone helpline number does not work from Switzerland. Instead, they should call the standard number + 32-2-299.96.96 , but be aware that normal international charges apply.

Do EU consumer rights apply in Switzerland?

No. Switzerland is not part of the EU and has its own national legislation. In some instances (e.g. medical cover, driving licence recognition), Switzerland has aligned its policies to those of the EU. But fans must be aware that EU consumer law does not apply in Switzerland.

Do European consumer rights apply to non-EU citizens when they are visiting the EU?

Everybody is protected by EU consumer legislation when staying in an EU country. So, whether you are British, Spanish, Russian, South African or any other nationality, if you have consumer rights when you are in the EU. For instance, if you buy a good in a shop located in the EU you are covered by EU legislation on faulty goods and guarantees. Non-EU football fans can be confident that their rights are protected by stringent EU law!

April 2008

Euro area annual inflation down to 3.3%

EU down to 3.6%

Euro area1 annual inflation was 3.3% in April 20082, down from 3.6% in March. A year earlier the rate was 1.9%. Monthly inflation was 0.3% in April 2008.

EU3 annual inflation was 3.6% in April 2008, down from 3.8% in March. A year earlier the rate was 2.2%. Monthly inflation was 0.4% in April 2008.

These figures come from Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities.

Inflation in the EU Member States

In April 2008, the lowest annual rates were observed in the Netherlands (1.7%), Portugal (2.5%) and Germany (2.6%), and the highest in Latvia (17.4%), Bulgaria (13.4%) and Lithuania (11.9%). Compared with March 2008, annual inflation rose in eight Member States, remained stable in four and fell in fifteen.

The lowest 12-month averages4 up to April 2008 were registered in the Netherlands (1.7%), Malta (1.9%), Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom (2.2% each), and the highest in Latvia (13.0%), Bulgaria (10.1%) and Estonia (8.8%).

Euro area

The main components with the highest annual rates in April 2008 were food (6.0%), housing and transport
(4.8% each), while the lowest annual rates were observed for communications (-1.6%), recreation & culture (-0.4%) and clothing (0.8%). Concerning the detailed sub-indices, fuels for transport (+0.41 percentage points), heating oil (+0.25), milk, cheese & eggs (+0.24) and bread & cereals (+0.16) had the largest upward impacts on the headline rate, while cars (-0.16), telecommunications (-0.15) and garments (-0.14) had the biggest downward impacts.

The main components with the highest monthly rates were clothing (2.5%), housing (0.6%) and food (0.5%), and the lowest were recreation & culture (-1.6%), communications (-0.1%) and education (0.1%). In particular, garments (+0.11 percentage points), footwear (+0.04), heating oil, gas, vegetables and fuels for transport
(+0.02 each) had the largest upward impacts, while package holidays (-0.13), gardens, plants & flowers, accommodation services and telecommunications (-0.02 each) had the biggest downward impacts.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/08/67&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en