04/10/2010 • Issue 4

Belgian EU Presidency Business Newsletter

Brussels calling
CONTENTS

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Climate and energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Internal market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Events & meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Economic and Financial Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In the spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In the spotlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Corrigendum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Team presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

Editorial
An efficient patent for Europe: no time to affordable and high-quality EU patent which ensures
waste! legal certainty for our companies.
It is common knowledge that for
many years now, the language aspect The recent proposal of the Commission relies on the cur-
has been an obstacle to the creation rent language system of the European Patent Convention
of an efficient patent in Europe. Our – that all EU member states have adhered to – which
enterprises have been asking for the offers the possibility to an enterprise applying for a
latter repeatedly, and rightfully so! patent to choose between 3 languages for the proce-
After all, in the current system, a dure, namely English, French and German. Moreover,
company that opts for a patent which companies in Europe are familiar with this language sys-
offers protection throughout the EU, tem, having used it for a long time in the framework of
Diane Struyven, needs to file an application in every the European Patent Office. The Commission’s proposal
Director of the European goes also in the right direction in terms of enhancing
Department of the FEB member state. This application is still
subject to national provisions which legal certainty, as only the text in the language in which
require a translation into the official language of each of the patent was granted will be the authentic one. It is
these countries. This implies translation costs which are obvious that the adoption, without any delay, of the
unacceptably high, especially for SMEs. Moreover, the patent of the EU will boost innovation in Europe, which,
current fragmentation of the European patent system in this area, is lagging behind in a multipolar world.
leads to an excessive administrative burden and legal
uncertainty. Although an overwhelming majority of member states and
business organizations all over the EU fully support the
It is not acceptable that due to the absence of an EU Commission’s proposal, it is necessary to put an end to
patent, companies which have already been strongly the political games of some protagonists who are still
affected by the economic and financial crisis, have to defending an ‘English-only’ solution, even though they are
spend 20 000 EUR for a patent covering 13 member perfectly conscious of the fact that this is not realistic in
states, whereby translation costs represent 14 000 EUR. the current situation.
This cost is 11 times as high as in the United States and
13 times as high as in Japan. What a waste, especially Therefore, entrepreneurs and member states with a heart
now Europe faces increasing competition in the field of for innovation should grasp with both hands the unique
innovation, in particular from emerging countries such window of opportunity which currently exists to adopt the
as China. If our continent wants to get back on the long-awaited EU patent. It is time to act and to set aside
economic growth track, it should urgently adopt an political considerations which will lead us nowhere. 

Brussels calling - 1 -
 EVENTS&MEETINGS
Internal market 4-5/10/2010 Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Royal Palace,
Brussels

4/10/2010 Asia Europe Business Forum Egmont Palace,

Informal Competitiveness Council (AEBF) Brussels
(September 29-30, 2010) 4-5/10/2010 Conference (organized with the sup- Ghent
port of the Belgian Presidency) –
On September 29-30, an informal meeting of the “Flexicurity to the benefit of wor-
Competitiveness Council was held in Brussels under the kers: making transitions pay”
presidency of Vincent Van Quickenborne, Belgian
4-9/10/2010 United Nations Climate Change Tianjin, China
Minister of Enterprise and Administrative Simplification. Conference – Sessions of the
Ad-Hoc Working Groups
The topic of discussion for the two-day meeting was the
internal market. During the evening of September 29, 6/10/2010 EU-China Business Summit Egmont Palace,
ministers participated in a working dinner where the Brussels
dossier of the EU patent, and translation arrange- 6/10/2010 EU-China Summit Brussels
ments in particular, were discussed. The next day, on
6/10/2010 EU-Republic of Korea Summit Brussels
September 30, a high-level panel, which included inter
6-7/10/2010 Plenary session of the European Brussels
alia Máire Geoghegan-Quinn (European Commissioner Parliament
for Research, Innovation and Science) and Philippe De
6-7/10/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
Buck (Director General of BUSINESSEUROPE), discussed support of the Belgian Presidency)
whether member states will succeed to realize the – “Towards more integration of
social and environmental policies
Europe 2020 strategy. In the afternoon, four break-out for a change in the way societies
sessions were organized. Ministers and European top produce and consume”
managers exchanged views on four topics: 7-8/10/2010 Justice and Home Affairs Council Luxembourg
• green growth, governments and markets;
11-12/10/2010 Competitiveness Council Luxembourg
• stimulating growth and competitiveness in the EU;
11-12/10/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
• labour market reform, employment protection and support of the Belgian Presidency)
competitiveness in the EU; – “International forum: a new glo-
bal momentum for the promotion
• enhancing the internal market to drive growth and of decent work. Challenges for the
achieve greater competitiveness in the EU. dimension of European Union
employment and social policies”

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 Council’s
break-out session on the inter-
nal market. He mainly stressed
at 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 Commission’s three-language proposal cur-
rently on the negotiating table (see below). “I can’t ima-
gine one single moment that entrepreneurs with a heart
for innovation and creativity oppose the unique window
11-14/10/2010 2nd European Innovation Summit: European
tackling the grand challenges – Parliament,
policy meets practice Brussels
11-15/10/2010 Fifth meeting of the Conference of Nagoya, Japan
the Parties to the Cartagena Proto-
col on Biosafety (COP-MOP 5)
12-13/10/2010 Conference (organized with the Egmont Palace,
support of the Belgian Presidency) Brussels
– “Achieving growth through stra-
tegic innovation”
13/10/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency)
– “Green IT for Green Policy”
14/10/2010 Environment Council Luxembourg
14-15/10/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency)
– “Conditions of excellence in
universities and other research
institutions”
15/10/2010 Transport, Telecommunications Luxembourg
and Energy Council
18/10/2010 Conference (organized with the Brussels
support of the Belgian Presidency)
– “Anticipating and managing res-
tructuring in a socially responsible
way. New partnerships to preserve
employment.”

of opportunity that the current proposal offers to achieve 18/10/2010 Eurogroup meeting Brussels
a breakthrough in this dossier,” Rudi Thomaes stated.

Brussels calling - 2 -
Business federations have recently been very active in lob- EVENTS&MEETINGS
bying for an affordable EU-wide patent. On September 23,
BUSINESSEUROPE sent a letter to Michel Barnier in which 18/10/2010 Fifth newsletter ‘Brussels calling’

the organization stated that a large majority of its members 18-21/10/2010 Plenary session of the European Strasbourg
Parliament
support the Commission’s three-language proposal. On
September 28, a joint letter on the EU patent was sent to 18-29/10/2010 Tenth meeting of the Conference Nagoya, Japan
of the Parties to the Convention
Vincent Van Quickenborne by the main Belgian employers’ on Biological Diversity (COP 10)
federations to push for a breakthrough in the dossier.
28/10/2010 FEB lunch debate with Connie FEB premises,
Finally, on September 30, also BUSINESSEUROPE sent a Hedegaard, European Ravensteinstraat
letter to Vincent Van Quickenborne to inform the minister Commissioner for Climate Action 4, Brussels
of its position regarding the EU patent. 10/12/2010 EU-India Business Summit Egmont Palace,
Brussels
Recent internal market discussions have rightfully been
dominated by the contentious EU patent. The Belgian
Presidency considers finding a political agreement require a translation of the European patent in one of their
between the 27 member states on this highly sensitive official languages before they validate it. It goes without
matter one of its top priorities. The EU patent dossier has saying that the current procedure to obtain patent pro-
been blocked for decades now. Although progress has tection in several member states or throughout the
slowly been made, two important issues remain on the whole EU is very cumbersome and extremely costly
negotiating table. (mainly due to translation requirements). Studies have indi-
cated that European companies in certain cases have to
The first one concerns the creation of a unified patent pay more than 10 times as much as in the United States or
litigation regime. Such a harmonized regime should make Japan to obtain protection.
an end to the current situation in which national courts in
the member states retain jurisdiction over patents granted On July 1, 2010, the European Commission therefore
at national level. This leads to legal uncertainty as it is tabled a proposal with translation arrangements for the
possible for courts in two different member states to EU patent. In its proposal, the Commission suggests a
come to conflicting conclusions on a same patent. In 2009, three-language regime. The latter would allow companies
the Council reached a compromise on the establishment to submit their patent application in English, German or
of a unified patent litigation system, and asked the French. Applications submitted in another language would
European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg whether be translated for free. If the patent is granted, only one lan-
the compromise was compatible with the EU treaties. A guage version – either English, German or French – would
leaked non-binding opinion of the ECJ’s Advocates be legally binding throughout the EU. However, costless
General (who advise ECJ judges) delivered on July 2, machine translations, which would have no legal value,
2010, said it was not, and lists the points in the compro- could be made available.
mise which need to be adjusted
to ensure compatibility with the Two member states strong-
treaties. A formal decision by the ly oppose the Commission’s
ECJ on the matter is expected proposal: Italy and Spain.
towards the end of 2010. They essentially claim the
proposal would not create a
The second issue concerns the level playing field between
language regime to which future companies in different EU
EU patents would be subject. This member states. Spain and
mainly relates to the question Italy therefore essentially
which language version(s) of a push for an ‘English-only’
granted patent would be legally binding. regime. However, an English-only outcome is to be consi-
Currently, parties that seek patent protection in several dered unrealistic as it implies a substantial modification of
member states or even in the EU as a whole can only sub- the European Patent Convention (EPC), which also applies
mit a ‘European patent application’ to the European to a number of countries outside the EU. English-only can
Patent Office (EPO) in München in either English, German therefore impossibly be envisaged in the short run.
or French. The EPO examines the validity of the patent
application (based on novelty) and can grant the European In response to the objections of Spain and Italy, the Bel-
patent, but the latter must still be validated in each of the gian Presidency recently decided to circulate a non-paper
designated member states. However, most member states among national delegations. The document maintains the

Brussels calling - 3 -

substance of the Commission’s 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 Commission’s 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 consensus
between 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.
In the spotlight
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 FEB’s priorities with re-
gard to the EU’s future trade policy. These include a
swift conclusion of an ambitious and balanced
Doha Round agreement, the negotiation of ‘deep’
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

Economic and Financial
Affairs
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, on
September 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
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 his
five 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.

Brussels calling - 4 -

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
impose regulation on the credit rating market which is
currently dominated by only three players (i.e. Moody’s,
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 of budgetary 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% of
gross 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
In the spotlight
Deadline to submit refund requests for VAT
incurred 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 their
own 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 paid
in 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 require-
ments for electronic portals, an agreement was not yet reached.
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 of
new 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.
Brussels calling - 5 -
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
Climate and energy
Major Economies Forum on Energy and
Climate (September 20-21, 2010)
On September 20-21, for the eighth time, the Major
Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF, see boxed
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 Commission’s proposals, Eurogroup
President Jean-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 Ireland’s track record in terms of fis-
cal adjustment and bringing down deficits so far has been
good, the Eurogroup members said they were confident
Ireland would deliver satisfactory results. 
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 Cancún. This
time, the leaders’ representatives of the 17 economies
Brussels calling - 6 -

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 Cancún. For the multilat-
eral climate talks to remain credible, a negative
outcome of the Cancún 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 making
progress 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 Cancún. 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 Cancún, 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, which
implies 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
MEF COP
The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate
On 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.
COP
The 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 global
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in order to reduce
the negative impact of human activities on the earth’s climate sys-
tem. The UNFCCC has 192 UNFCCC signatories.
The next meeting of the COP, the COP 16, will be held in Cancún,
Mexico. In 2011, for the 17th meeting of the Parties, the South African
city of Johannesburg has been chosen as host city.
put on transparency. Moreover, participants expressed
their support to start with readiness activities to make
progress on REDD+.
As for the period after Cancún, 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 Cancún 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 Cancún. 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 Cancún. 
Brussels calling - 7 -

Agriculture
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 of national 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 prohibit
the 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, it
intends to end years of controversy around the EU’s
GMO policy.
Co-existence measures
Co-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 the
presence 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.
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 Commission’s
proposals, criticism was abound. Main opponents of the
Commission’s 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 Commission’s proposals do not provide
the 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
Brussels calling - 8 -
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 states
have tried to invoke the safeguard clause for these
purposes too. The EU’s 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
Employment
Presidency conference: “Promoting green
employment” (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 within
the EU. Under the chairmanship
of Joëlle Milquet, Belgian Minister
of Employment and Equal
Opportunities, the conference
was opened in the presence of
László 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.
Environment Council of October 14. Given the contentious
nature of the topic, negotiations between the European
Parliament and the Council over the Commission’s 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. 
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 is
becoming a real concern in many member states. Public
employment services will play a major role in facilitating
Brussels calling - 9 -
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, including
monitoring. 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 Strigård, 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 she
stressed 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 Trade
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 Joëlle Milquet. A
number of lessons 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. 
Brussels calling - 10 -
 LINKS

• Website of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union

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

Corrigendum
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.

TEAM PRESENTATION

Presentation of the European Department of the FEB

Diane Struyven
Director of the European Department of the FEB – Permanent Delegate to BUSINESSEUROPE
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 08 34
ds@vbo-feb.be

Michael Voordeckers
Advisor at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 82
mv@vbo-feb.be

Arnaud Thysen
Deputy Advisor at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 31
at@vbo-feb.be

Michiel Humblet
Intern at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 08 04
Guesteurop@vbo-feb.be

Pieter-Jan Van Steenkiste

Intern at the European Department of the FEB
Tel: +32 (0)2 515 09 84
guesteurop2@vbo-feb.be

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 – sm@vbo-feb.be
GRAPHIC DESIGN: Vanessa Solymosi, Landmarks – sm@vbo-feb.be
COPYRIGHT: Reproduction with acknowledgement of source is permitted

FEB – member of

Brussels calling - 11 -