Devastating by nature. A section of the press presented the recent communication by the European Commission on industrial policy (see this column yesterday) as an element in the quarrel between protectionism and liberalism, because Vice-President Verheugen explained that he was rejecting protectionism, interventionism and subsidies. This presentation boils things down a bit too much; the Commission's document is far more than that. The Vice-President of the Commission above all reaffirmed the role of the manufacturing industry for Europe (20% of EU GDP, 34 million jobs, 75% of European exports and 80% of private expenditure for research and development) and announced an "integrated" approach to the industrial policy, taking account of the requirements of the environment, employment, innovation and energy (for his press conference, see our bulletin 9040).
I'm not going to go back over the content of the document, which has been widely distributed and is available on the Commission's website. In order to grasp something of its significance and scope, it must be taken in the context of the initiatives surrounding it. It is extremely unlikely to be a coincidence that, at just about the same time, the Commission announced new assessment criteria for aid to innovation, resumed discussions with the Council on the framework programme for research and announced initiatives against the plague which is counterfeiting and piracy. On this last point, the Commission has finally emphasised just how devastating this is, endangering not only such or such a European industry, but also the health and safety of millions and millions of people, because falsification has invested in medicines, foodstuffs, fertiliser, cosmetic products, and spare parts for a variety of machines. On this, it would be in the Commission's interest to take account of the investigations revealing the role of fake spare parts in recent fatal air accidents. It transpires that a copy of an original part built to last 6000 flying hours, a fake but absolutely identical at first sight, is good for only around 600 hours; you can imagine the consequences of this difference. The Commission has announced an "action plan" for the customs authorities, which are to step up controls and cooperation (see our bulletin 9046); I feel that it should act with force and determination under the heading of its trade policy as well. Counterfeiting and piracy costs the EU 10 times more than its common agricultural policy (CAP) and at least 200,000 jobs in industry, not to mention threats to health and safety, according to Commissioner Laszló Kovàcs. Organised crime has an increasing role to play in trafficking of this nature, because the profit is enormous and the risks, comparatively speaking, minimal.
Action at European level is vital. This global approach to the industrial policy makes no sense unless it is carried out at European level, because no single Member State can act effectively alone. The unified market can only work if the environmental and technical rules are the same, its fiscal and social regimes compatible, protection for consumers similar and the competition rules (including those governing State aid) applied in the same way across the board. It is true that harmonisation is not easy; the example of the REACH regime for chemicals proves just how difficult an undertaking it can be. But the same time, it shows that the scope and transparency of European debates are far superior to what exists at national level. Criticism for the way the parliamentary debate on REACH was conducted (pressure from lobbies, dubious alliances, inconsistency, etc) do not hide the fundamental reality: that all opinions are voiced and given a forum to go head to head, in areas where producers used to enjoy total liberty. For the harsh and occasionally disagreeable nature of the discussions can be explained by the fact that it is, objectivity, very difficult to define a balance between protecting health and the environment on the one hand, and the requirements of efficiency and competitiveness on the other. Anyone able to strike this balance straight off is very lucky. For the ordinary citizens, such as myself, it's a lot harder.
Anybody familiarising themselves directly with the text of the "communication" of the Commission may well be somewhat disappointed. Sometimes, official documents have more than a whiff of pomposity and scholasticism about them, which does not do justice to the scope and verve of the debates which preceded them between the Commissioners, on controversial aspects such as the ratio between competitiveness/environment, or between free competition/promoting "European industrial champions". But although the debates of the Commission are secret, other bodies, as well as the European Parliament, work with their doors wide open. Tomorrow, I will report back on a few aspects of the colloquium "In Favour of European Industrial Dialogue", organised by the association "Confrontations Europe".
(F.R.)