Contribution to the PES consultation process for the 2009 European Elections Manifesto

ENSoF member foundations: Karl Renner Institute(RI), Austria Institute for Social Integration(ISI), Bulgaria Kalevi Sorsa Säätiö, Finland Fondation Jean-Jaurès(FJJ), France Freedom and Solidarity Foundation, Latvia Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES), Germany Institute of Strategic and Development Studies-Andreas Greece M. Táncsics-Milhály Foundation, Hungary Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Italy Fondazione Italianieuropei(IE), Italy Alfred Mozer Stichting(AMS), The Netherlands Fundatia Institutul Ovidiu Sincai, Romania Kalandar Foundation, Slovenia Fundacion Pablo Iglesias, Spain Olof Palme International Centre(OPIC), Sweden New Society Foundation, Croatia Papandreou(ISTAME), ENSoF coordination: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, EU Office Brussels

The ENSoF project“Contribution to the PES consultation process for the 2009 European Elections Manifesto” presented in this booklet was realised through the close cooperation of the following foundations: Institute for Social Integration(ISI), Bulgaria Fondation Jean-Jaurès(FJJ), France Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES), Germany Institute of Strategic and Development Studies-Andreas Papandreou(ISTAME), Greece Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Italy Fondazione Italianieuropei(IE), Italy Fundatia Institutul Ovidiu Sincai, Romania Fundacion Pablo Iglesias, Spain Foundations in charge of drafting the papers: “Europe in the World“: Institute for Social Integration(Bulgaria) “European Democracy and Diversity“: INSTITUTE OF STRATEGIC AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES(ISTAME)-ANDREAS PAPANDREOU(Greece) “Save our Planet”: Fondation Jean-Jaurès(France) “New Social Europe”: Fondazione Italianieuropei(Italy), Fondazione Istituto Gramsci(Italy) Workshops: Vienna, 18 January 2008: Preparatory workshop Sofia, 29 March 2008:“Europe in the World“ Athens, 14 April 2008:“European Democracy and Diversity“ Paris, 25 April:“Save our Planet” Rome, 20 May(via email exchange):“New Social Europe” Brussels, 29 May: Final presentation of the ENSoF papers and recommendations

ENSOF RECOMMENDATIONS Europe in the World 1. Speaking with one voice: member states must show political will. The strengthening of EU foreign policies must start in the member states. If it is to have a global role, Europe needs more political will on the part of the EU member states to strengthen what is common in their external policies. 2. Going beyond the Lisbon Treaty: We welcome the achievements of the Lisbon Reform Treaty. Nevertheless, the supranational character of CFSP and ESDP needs to be gradually increased by promoting forms of enhanced cooperation of willing member states. 3. Give EU foreign policy the financial means needed: sufficient financial resources are the key to a successful foreign policy. We thus continue to insist on an increased EU budget in the spheres of foreign policy, security and defence. 4. Strengthening the dialogue with EU’s strategic partners: USA and Russia. 5. Strengthening ESDP without excluding a close cooperation with NATO. 6. Reinforce the United Nations and regional organisations in order to further the EU’s objective of effective multilateralism. 7. Stabilizing the European neighbourhood by accelerating the enlargement process and improving the European Neighbourhood Policy(focus point: Middle East). 8. Fighting poverty: foster a new single system for global governance through increased coordination under the UN Human Development Council, reduction of inequality, protection of the right to decent work, decent living conditions for the citizens of the poorest states. 9. Intervention policy: create a more credible and transparent EU intervention policy through the more coordinated use of all available instruments and the orientation of their deployment in terms of comprehensible criteria. 10.Disarmament policy: commit to a strengthening of international agreements on arms control and non-proliferation; make the largely ineffective EU Code of Conduct on weapons exports more restrictive and more transparent.

European Democracy and Diversity 1. The monitoring role of the European Parliament must be reinforced and widened. 2. Priority for Social Democrats must be the strengthening of the European public sphere, where a horizontal consultation for generating common policies must take place. 3. Electing the President of the European Commission by the European Parliament on the basis of the recommendation by the European Political Parties of a personality as a candidate for the office of the President of the Commission, before the European elections. 4. European political families should increasingly develop into real European parties. 5. Reinforcing the consultation process between the Commission and the opinion-making institutions of the EU. 6. The Convention method should become again a primary mechanism for European decision making and citizen participation by substituting the IGC. 7. European regional policy must be further strengthened. To that end, we propose the formulation and adoption of a Charter of the Rights of European Union Regional and Local Societies. 8. There is a need for more progressive and bold immigration policies that safeguard the multiculturalism of today’s European societies. 9. Renew efforts to achieve the completion of the anti-discrimination legislative package based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty and on the Charter of the Fundamental Rights.

Save our Planet 1. Help poorer countries by attributing them negotiable greenhouse gas emission quotas, a distribution proportionate to their population and inversely proportionate to their GDP per capita. 2. Extend the Kyoto Protocol by determining a global objective in greenhouse gas emission per inhabitant to a given horizon, objective that will then be distributed by country or area according to the level of development (which equates to a limited growth for some, a reduction for others). 3. Define inside European Union evolutionary norms for housing insulation, means of transport, greenhouse gas emission in industry(especially for electricity producers who should in the end produce none). 4. Give the European Union a strong research and development policy in renewable energies, reaching 0.5% of the EU GDP in 2014. 5. Implement in a vigorous way the principle“those spoiling, those same paying”, especially in areas where it is not implemented today(agriculture, road transport), where it is not sufficiently implemented(sea transport), or where too many legal subterfuges remain(industrial pollutions). 6. Create a green tax proportionate to the carbon weight produced by each agent. This green tax will be redistributed as an aid to invest to the agents (small business and individuals), in inverse proportion to their financing capacity and in a way that guarantees the neutrality of the tax.

New Social Europe 1. Our general aims: build up a more universalistic social security system, implement preventive policies aimed at supporting self-determination, promote equal opportunities for all people, improve the suitability of services to meet citizens’ needs and focusing on citizen empowerment. 2. Improve personal taxation and family benefit systems in order to support low and medium incomes, incentive labour market participation, help families with children; negative income tax schemes can encourage low income citizens to work. 3. Give a standardised adequate support to all workers through the unemployment benefit system and design benefit rules so as to encourage an active attitude towards job-seeking. 4. Develop services for children and the elderly, by strengthening social housing programs, providing a widespread network of kindergartens and home care services for children, organising a broad system of home services for the elderly; implement co-payment schemes through a citizen endowment of vouchers that can be used to pay service providers within a regulated market. 5. Guarantee equal access to education to everybody, independently of personal origin, implement a school system based on compulsory education up to 10th grade, bring about high quality professional training for young people and lifelong learning for adults. 6. Confirm universal access to the health system and improve its quality by optimising the hospital network, reorganising general practitioners into associated teams, testing forms of administered competition among hospitals and forms of evaluation by results. 7. Improve equity and sustainability of pension systems by ensuring the consistency between the pension and security contributions the worker paid during his working life on the one hand, and integrative contributions financed by the budget for periods of unemployment on the other; guarantee a basic“last resort” pension for those who have not been able to build up a proper pension; promote the possibility of postponing retirement by implementing part-time work and pension schemes. 8. Promote equal access to all services and benefits of our welfare system for immigrants with a residence permit as a key factor for their social integration.

9. Innovate the Lisbon strategy and its governance set-up by going beyond the Open Method of Coordination: establish a Social Inclusion Fund in the EU budget – that should include the Globalisation Fund- aimed at co-financing national and local specific programs according to an incentive mechanism based on rules similar to those of the Cohesion Fund; programs have to refer to measurable specific targets regarding the actual supply of upgrading welfare services. 10. Enhance the EU budget and perhaps resort to a Euro Bond programme for financing part of the Cohesion Fund in order to free resources for the Social Inclusion Fund.

Europe in the World Paper drafted by Institute for Social Integration(Bulgaria) We, as socialist and socialdemocratic foundations, members of ENSoF, consider it as extremely important that the EU – which already is an economic giant – also becomes a more decisive political player in the world in order to spread our European values of peace, democracy, social justice, equality, liberty, solidarity, respect for differences and diversity. Speaking with one voice- members states must show political will Europe is increasingly facing foreign and security policy challenges that no individual state can cope with on its own. New and latent regional conflicts, crises in its direct neighbourhood, terrorism, social and economic consequences of globalisation and ecological threats require a collective response. There is no doubt that on such issues the joining together of member states would clearly bring added value as opposed to the bundled foreign policies of individual member states. However, the EU has decided to abandon the previous models of communitisation in its intergovernmentally organized foreign and security policy. Hitherto, Brussels and the capital cities too often send out contradictory signals on central questions. This is why the strengthening of EU foreign policies must start in the member states. If it is to have a global role, Europe needs more political will on the part of the EU member states to strengthen what is common in their external policies. Going beyond the Lisbon Treaty We welcome the achievements of the Lisbon reform treaty in these fields and we especially appreciate the creation of the post of High Representative for the Union in Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who will at the same time be Vice-President of the Commission, the new European External Action Service and a single legal personality for the Union. This is a decisive step towards improving the coherence of EU external action. However, we insist that the supranational character of CFSP and ESDP needs to be gradually increased by promoting forms of enhanced cooperation of willing member states. These policies should finally become part of the community’s competence, thus giving the European institutions a greater deal of unity and stability, the European citizens more security and the necessary legal base for the EU to speak with one voice on the international arena. Give EU foreign policies the financial means needed Alongside with that, we continue to insist on an increased EU budget in the spheres of foreign policy, security and defence in order to enable the EU to fulfil its important tasks in this field. Currently the budget is greatly insufficient. This has to go hand in hand with a higher transparency and accountability of the EU external actions to the EU citizens. EU politicians have the task and responsibility to explain to their citizens the EU’s values to defend and commitments on international level to meet that justify a higher budget in this field. Dialogue with EU’s strategic partners The USA should remain Europe’s strategic partner in foreign and security policy. However, the nature of the relationship with the USA is disputed within the EU: the options of competition, partnership or subordination all have their advocates

and opponents. A regular strategic dialogue between the EU and the USA is needed especially in the fields of fight against terrorism and climate change. However, we should give ourselves the means to act independently when there is a disagreement. Furthermore, we want to underline that the strengthening of European Security and Defence Policy(ESDP) must not lead to confrontation with NATO. NATO and ESDP should be used in close cooperation in order to achieve more security in Europe as well as outside the continent. Secondly, Europe should continue to develop its relations with Russia within the framework of a strategic partnership. We consider Russia a strategic partner and a natural extension of European political, economic and cultural area. In the member states attitudes vary between fear of Russia as a security policy threat and hope that energy questions and crisis developments in the common neighbourhood can be resolved cooperatively. The corresponding policy approaches are deterrence or integration by means of cooperation. Therefore, there must be an independent European strategy in relation to Moscow. It should reflect both European anxieties and hopes, and make existing national policies transparent. In addition, there must be a European–Russian dialogue on core strategic issues. United Nations in focus From our perspective, effective multilateralism is a building block of a “better world”(see“European Security Strategy”). We consider the United Nations to be the major factor for safeguarding the international peace and security. That is why we are categorically against disrespecting the UN rules and the imposition of unilateralism. The UN must to an even greater extent become the focus of attention as reference point for European foreign and security policy. The EU should push forward the UN reform to strengthen its legitimacy and effectiveness, creating in this way the prerequisites for a more secure, more democratic and more equitable world. The UN Security Council composition should aim at reflecting fairly the balance of world powers, including seeing the EU as a permanent member of the Security Council with a single voice. More effective multilateralism also requires well-functioning regional organizations, such as the African Union and Mercosur, which must be supported by capable and cooperative actors. A policy of strengthening regional organizations should therefore go hand in hand with the intensification of relations with the most important regional actors. Setting European Priority Policies Stabilizing its neighbourhood Without doubt, the European enlargement policy has been the most successful instrument of the Union’s stabilisation policy so far. We therefore call for an accelerated integration of the Western Balkans into the EU. The perspective of EU membership is the most important driving force for the democratic forces in the candidate and aspiring candidate countries and the only guarantee for maintaining and achieving peace, security and economic prosperity in this region. The EU enlargement policy in the region should be based on incentives and sanctions. We categorically declare that the European Union is not and must not be an“elite club”, open for some and closed for others. Every European country that fulfils the membership criteria can become a member.

The EU is surrounded by latent disability and conflicts, whether it be in the Caucasus or the Middle East. We think that the EU’s loft aims to become a global player must in the first instance be met by building a“better neighbourhood” through implementing the European Neighbourhood Policy and extending the area of liberty, security and prosperity outside its borders. A Union with global pretensions must be in the position to implement its policies concepts in its direct neighbourhood. Only success in these endeavours will demonstrate the Union’s capability to the world and signal that the unique European instruments of“soft power” are able to deal with crises and conflicts. Today however, four years after its introduction, the European Neighbourhood Policy has an image problem: it is not given the attention it deserves. It needs more visibility and more intensive public debate than hitherto. It also suffers from an implementation deficit: the EU’s offers to its partner in the East and the South have not been taken up by all 16 partner countries. We therefore recommend the review of its instruments and provisions as well as an instrumental differentiation according to the country. In addition, ENP with Eastern partners should supplement the previous dominant bilateral approach with a stronger regional one(as already practiced in the Southern ENP). The Barcelona process should be further enhanced by strengthening the existing institutions and by reinforcing the social and environmental aspects of the partnership. In order to widen its acceptance and attractiveness, ENP should“dare more democracy” by means of more civil society involvement and the inclusion of democratic values in agreements on objectives with the partner states. ENP’s aim of making possible more people-to-people contacts in practice can only be realised if the processing of visa applications is improved and made less costly. Finally, the EU needs more clarity and honesty concerning the finality of its Neighbourhood Policy. The Middle East The situation in the Middle East probably represents today the most dangerous threat to worldwide peace. In terms of justice, the longstanding denial of the continuous threat to the State of Israel is unacceptable. But equally unacceptable is the situation that has been created for Palestinians over the last forty years. In addition, it sets a growing mass of Arab Muslim population against“the West”; it reintroduces a religious conflict into a world where the East-West confrontation has disappeared; it is used to justify Al-Qaeda’s insane terrorism. The European Union must strongly reaffirm its commitment in the region, which could not be limited to a financial drip to the Palestinian Authority. The Union must strongly reaffirm the aim of a peaceful and secure coexistence of two States, Israeli and Palestinian. Fighting poverty The eradication of poverty is the main challenge the international community is facing. We believe that Europe has the responsibility and the opportunity to contribute a great deal to the elimination of poverty and to putting an end to inequality. In order to achieve our goals, we must stand for a globalization with clear rules for everyone. This is the only way that the UN Millennium Goals can be reached. We want a strategy which includes a new single system for global governance to be achieved by increasing coordination under the aegis of UN Human Development Council, reduction

of inequality, protection of the right of decent work, decent living conditions for the citizens of the poorest states. Intervention policy Europe’s interventions have so far followed various criteria. The choice of means was usually made on the basis of what the member states offered rather than what was needed. A(strategic) framework of civil and military capacities, as well as the establishment of a civilian headquarters in Brussels point towards a stronger profile for European intervention policy. This should include the coordinated use of all available instruments – civil, military, economic and diplomatic – and orientate their deployment in terms of comprehensible criteria. The cornerstones of a European strategic narrative(primacy of human rights, legitimate political authority, bottom-up approach, effective multilateralism, integrated regional approach, clear and transparent strategic direction) proposed by the Human Security Study Group could be used to construct a more credible and more transparent European intervention policy. Disarmament policy Europe should also be committed to a strengthening of international agreements on arms control and nonproliferation, and as a first step make the largely ineffective EU Code of Conduct on weapons exports more restrictive and more transparent. Conclusion The EU is a unique actor in international politics and bears the unique responsibility to positively shape the world. We, the European socialist and social-democratic foundations are in favour of a more significant role of the European Union in the world. We expect the PES to declare its commitment to create an EU that will contribute to a lasting peace, that will rely on policies of prevention and soft power, that will struggle for a regulated globalization; a European Union that will be a visible player on the international scene with growing economic and political influence.

European Democracy and Diversity Paper drafted by INSTITUTE OF STRATEGIC AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (ISTAME)-ANDREAS PAPANDREOU(Greece) Introduction Fifty years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the European Union constitutes a unique historical project, an unprecedented unity of states and peoples, within which countries of different cultures, languages, and traditions have been able to forge strong bonds as they share common and non-negotiable values: freedom, democracy, rule of law, respect of human rights, equality. The fruit of this cross-level collaboration is the safeguarding of peace, of stability, of democracy, of the improvement of prosperity throughout the European continent, of renewal of the social model, and of the creation of a strong political pole within the international system. Still, Social Democrats in Europe remain on the alert. They aim at a Europe that is more political and more social. Their main objectives remain more democracy, solidarity and equality within the European Union. Democracy The democratic deficit that can be found in member states in varying degrees and which becomes even more apparent when seen on a European Union level is a cause for worry. If, at the same time, we take into consideration the principle of subsidiarity, then democracy, when viewed within the framework of the European Union, concerns the European Union as much as it concerns its member states, its peoples, and its citizens. • In order to establish the principle of democracy within the European Union framework, we must vest with essential context the transparency of decision making and the broader access and participation of citizens to the European project. The new European Treaty reinforces the democratic traits of the European Union, with the integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being a case in point. The institution of the President of the European Council should promote a model of democratic governance in the European Union. • The national Parliaments, whose role is reinforced by the Treaty of Lisbon, should become levers of substantive control of Community authority which at times seems distant and lacking transparency. To this end, it is essential to find all the appropriate ways of keeping members of national parliaments abreast of European developments. • The upgrading of the institutional role of the European Parliament as well as the citizens’ legislative initiative through a petition containing one million signatures, as they were both stipulated by the new Treaty of Lisbon, contribute to the issue of furthering democracy within the Union. However, the priorities of Social Democrats in Europe must focus on the creation of a European public sphere which allows the substantive horizontal consultation for generating common policy proposals that respect national sensitivities and the promulgation of a pan-European awareness of the “common good” alike. • In order to encourage the participation of European citizens in electing members to the European Parliament, it is necessary to keep

them fully and readily informed on the legislative and monitoring role of the only directly elected instrument to the Union which now co-decides with the Council on 95% of European issues. Election of the President of the European Commission by the European Parliament would bring about a greater degree of democratic legitimization, thus dispensing with accusations over the existence of non-transparency and dealings between the more powerful member states. The recommendation by the European Political Parties of a personality as a candidate for the office of the President of the Commission, before the Euroelections, would provide European citizens with a further incentive to participate in them. In addition, we believe that the European Parliament must play a more active role in issues concerning foreign policy, exercising democratic control in decisionmaking and demonstrating the particular sensitivity it possesses in matters of democracy and human rights. • Elections for the members of the European Parliament should become truly European. Through different initiatives, such the 2009 Manifesto, Social Democrats can promote this goal. However, this can be fully realized only if the European political families develop into real European parties. The promotion of crossborder candidacies in the European elections will help implement this objective. • Before the formulation of the European Commission’s proposals, we propose the reinforcement of the consultation process between the Commission and the opinion-making institutions of the European Union such as the Economic and Social Committee(ESC) and the Committee of the Regions as well as the more active involvement of the broader social and professional partners and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). • The Convention method should become a primary mechanism of decision-making, vested with decisive powers, as it enables the representation of states (representatives of Prime Ministers or Presidents), peoples(members of national Parliaments) and citizens (MEPs) of Europe. At the same time, it allows public debate, which is vital for democracy as well as consultation with NGOs, political parties and other interested actors, that is, deliberation and participation of European citizens. These advantages contradict the wellknown disclosure and decisionmaking behind closed doors, which characterizes IGCs. Democratic legitimacy of primary community law presupposes a wide representation, public debate and citizens' participation, principles that are being served by the Convention method. That is why we suggest the replacement of IGC, which lacks transparency, with the Convention. • European regional policy must be further strengthened since, apart from being the key to economic and social cohesion, it also promotes the spirit of solidarity and democracy by being close to the European citizen. At the same time, matters of concern to the European citizen are the development of rural areas, employment, combating the downgrading of the environment, and the encouragement of the cultural identity of each of the European Union member states. Within this framework, we propose the formulation of a Charter of the Rights of European Union Regional and Local Societies.

A more democratic Union cannot but be politically more liberal and participatory, socially fairer, providing equal opportunities for economic growth while ensuring at the same time a mandatory prosperity minimum for each and every European citizen. Diversity The European Union is the Union of diverse national traditions, diversity, and difference. That is its great advantage and its great wealth. A diversity that surely does not undermine but, on the contrary, strengthens integration and the fulfilment of the social model, the broadening of cultural traditions, and the economic as well as the political potential of the greater area. We, Europeans, are united in diversity. All of us belong to at least one national community which is a minority within the larger EU family. The accession of the new member states as well as the entrance and residence in our countries of third country nationals has contributed to the strengthening of diversity. What is more, immigrants contribute to the survival of the social state, as they actively participate in insurance funds and the state budget. We want to welcome them as equal fellow citizens, acknowledging the rights and freedoms they are entitled to. Xenophobia can be combated only by immigration management policies that are progressive and forward-looking. In other words, policies which integrate, legitimize, and ensure employment for all. The safety of all citizens and all residents is their inalienable right and can by safeguarded only through social solidarity and justice. One of the major commitments of Europe’s Social Democrats, as reflected in the Article 21 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the EU, is that “any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” Social Democrats should serve as guardians of this principle, assuring that member states implement EU laws and regulations that safeguard the non-discrimination policies. To that end, we should renew our efforts in order to achieve the completion of the anti-discrimination legislative package based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty and on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Diversity is a European Union trait that constitutes a discrete characteristic of each society. Social Democrats believe that every human being is entitled to equal social, economic and political opportunities. Still, it does not suffice to have the acknowledgement of minority rights and diversity in order for them to enjoy equal treatment. European citizens must also become the recipients of substantive support that would dispense with discrimination and lead to the implementation of true equality. We believe in a multicultural Europe, a diverse Europe, a participatory Europe, a Europe that safeguards the freedoms for each and every one of its citizens irrespective of religion, race, language, gender, nationality, and sexual orientation. A Europe that rejects all kinds of exclusion, promotes solidarity and social cohesion and enhances the richness of diversity and multiculturalism.

Save the Planet Paper drafted by Fondation Jean Jaurès(France) Introduction For the first time in its history, mankind is in danger due to its own technological tools, and is questioning the belief that new tools will always allow to repair the damage caused by old ones. The awareness of such a situation had already occurred at the end of the Second World War, when the development of nuclear weapons had made believable the destruction of all life on our planet. However, the imminence and the nature of the risk had allowed reason to overcome danger: anyone starting a war could no longer be assured to survive it. Today’s reality is as dangerous, but much more shifty. What can lead to the extinction of our species is to hold and generalise the model of development chosen by the most favoured nations: human activities could be stopped by the very global warming and climate disturbances they involve. However, the uncertain timetable of the threat makes the risk harder to apprehend, and reason hardly wins when it faces the life or the survival of a majority of human beings. How to convince a man from the South not to cut a tree when it is indeed the one and only way for him to cook his food? How to convince a man from the North to invest in energy saving when his income does not allow him to save any of it? Neither the free wheel of global financial capitalism nor the only rules of market economy can answer the challenge: their concerns are of far too short-term and the goods to be taken into consideration – environment, health – have a value that the current system does not take into account. Only the introduction of new political regulations, at the most appropriate level, from local to global, can help avoid the catastrophe. It has always been a top-ranking preoccupation for Socialists to make sure that people’s concerns prevail over the search for money. Putting economy in its proper place-a means- and giving back to politics its raison d’être-defining objectives- is the only cure that will save mankind from an announced catastrophe! This orientation must translate into strong proposals which cannot be only environmental ones, but which have also to comprise economic, social and institutional measures. Reducing the Emission of Greenhouse Gas Global warming, the human origin of which for a major part is not contested, represents today the main uncontrolled threat to mankind’s future. Its potential consequences in terms of the rising of the sea level, the widening of desert areas(which does not prevent more tornados and floods in other places), or upset ecosystems, may lead to dramatic scenarios. Wars for land or water may result, putting closer to us the risk of our planet becoming inhospitable. All these arguments should make the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gas the priority of governments and citizens. The European Council has decided the first orientations in that way in 2007. The European Commission has strengthened its proposals in 2008. At the eve of the European elections of 2009, the PES considers the restriction of greenhouse gas as one of its prominent priorities regarding its programme.

This reduction must go along with courageous decisions to be made, in particular in the following areas. A voluntarist energy-saving policy First efforts should be made. It constitutes the most important sign to give in order to change a model of development, which cannot, in any case, be generalized in the whole world. It should follow three directions: 1. Housing, thanks to reinforced standards of heat insulation, compulsory for new constructions, progressively implemented in older houses; the building of houses with more energetic autonomy(recovering as many sources as possible: solar energy, geothermic energy, heat pumps, etc.), or even positive energy(producing more than consuming) must also become the norm. 2. Transports, where the efforts made for cars and public transport must be extended to the transport of goods; railway and inland waterway must be favoured again by a comparison taking into account the environmental costs of each of those means of transport. 3. The industry naturally seeks the reduction of its production costs, including energy: a significant effort remains to be done concerning waste; the principle “those spoiling, those same paying” should progressively become the norm. Developing sources renewable energy Obviously, this is the best means to lower the rate of fossil-fuel energy in ways of depletion and to ensure the implementation of a sustainable development. However, the sources to be favoured to lower the greenhouse gas are not always easy to choose. It requires a stronger effort in research and development: 4. Hydraulic energy is the least contestable one, provided sufficient care is paid to ecosystems concerned by a dam. 5. Solar energy still has a problem of cost; the rise of the price of fossil fuels cannot be sufficient, in short term, to solve the problem, especially concerning the photovoltaics. 6. Biofuels show very diverse energetic balance sheets according to products: their putting aside food-producing cultivations should be taken into consideration; in fact, one should not mix up energy policy and agricultural policy; we cannot either ignore the negative interactions between them. 7. Wind power could not stand as a basic energy source given its random character(wind pumps work about 30% of the time): it should be possible to replace it by other sources of energy at any moment, which may lead to investment overlapping. It also implies important constraints in managing networks; however, its cost has considerably decreased, making it the most competitive renewable energy after hydraulics. 8. The possibility to stock electricity, especially producing free hydrogen, has to be strongly encouraged because it can allow an optimal use of non-stockable renewable energies.

A place to discuss nuclear energy Is implementing the preceding measures, at the proper pace, sufficient to reduce drastically greenhouse gas and to face climate change? All solutions shall be implemented simultaneously, along with a strong investment in research and development to improve competition. It seems difficult, however, not to raise the issue of the possible appeal of nuclear energy, which would produce less waste with a view to facing an inevitable growing global demand for power, all the more predictable with the development of countries in the South. The development of the South, even reoriented, supposes that the countries can access hydrocarbons at reasonable prices, which means that countries of the North would consume substantially less. Preserving and developing“carbon pits” Carbon pits have been and still are the main natural regulating element of the volume of the greenhouse gas. 9. The fight against deforestation and an increased effort in reforestation are a priority in this area; their realisation, beyond speeches, implies important financial transfers to tropical or equatorial zones of the planet, which often happen to be the most deprived ones. 10. More attention should be paid to the role of oceans and their capacities to absorb CO2. This implies a vigorous fight against sea pollution, especially in inland seas. 11. The balance sheet of the different agricultural practices, in terms of greenhouse gas, must become a decisive element in the support that may be given to one or the other of them. 12. The storage of some greenhouse gas should be considered and studied, without underestimating the limits and risks of the process. To give priority to these measures requires a profound reconsideration of former policies. It will have positive effects not only on energy independence of the European Union, but also for its innovative capacity and for the creation of new jobs. In this purpose, all the actors have to want and to be able to play the game. Fighting Poverty and Inequalities The implementation of the abovementioned measures requires new investments to be made. All countries may not be able to assume them. It also implies public awareness, which means to be able to look beyond the short term. The fight against greenhouse gas cannot be separated from the fight against poverty of countries and of people. To achieve this, an unprecedented effort has to be made against global inequalities. New ways for development With a view to their modernisation, developing countries are not bound to follow the paths carved by Europe and the United States at times when environmental problems were simply ignored and social problems often denied. The idea that our old technologies still represent a potential progress for these countries is both wrong and dangerous: firstly, because the replication of old recipes at a global scale would surely lead to catastrophe; secondly, for that would be pretending to ignore the health consequences of the use of working conditions that are past in the North or of environmental standards that would remain lower in the South. The sale of pesticides that are now forbidden in our countries or the transfer of hazardous waste is only one

example that repeatedly makes it into the headlines. The way to resist such a temptation consists in having all technologies linked to new energies and environment protection to be easily transferable. This implies that they are considered as global public goods, and therefore that all related patents do not lead to limit the right either to produce or to communicate the information required in order to exercise this right. Increasing financial towards poor countries transfers The measures required in order to reduce greenhouse gas bear a cost that any country, even ill-favoured, should be able to cover. Merely aiming to bring public aid to 0.7% of GDP – a level never reached – will not be enough. The recent G8-granted debt cancellations are a positive sign, but the beneficiaries of such cancellations should be better targeted; in addition, the advantages given to countries are minor when compared to the sole recent rise of the price of crude oil and imported foodstuffs. Amongst measures that have drawn some attention in the last few years, the Tobin Tax excepted, the interesting idea of a distribution of emission quotas(regrettably designed as “right to pollute” in common language) has been planned by the Kyoto Protocol; a distribution proportionate to the population of a country and inversely proportionate to its GDP per capita could be an answer to the abovementioned demands. Reducing countries’ inequalities internal Improving housing, paying road transportation and waste treatment at their proper price and introducing more renewable energy sources are measures that bear a cost for each and every citizen. All of them cannot face these costs and may find themselves even more excluded from society. In order to make voluntarist greenhouse gas reduction policies work, they should go along with a particular concern for efficiency and social justice: all people should be helped to face the costs involved by new measures, but the more modest incomes are, the stronger the support should be. One should also expect another positive effect resulting from the reduction of inequalities that is quite rarely evoked: experience proved that it can be the best way to lower high birth rates that sometimes can put excessive pressure on environment. Any manifesto willing to save our planet and not integrating ambitious redistributive objectives, between countries and inside each country, will see limited its effect on reality and cannot be considered as serious. Voluntarist Policies of Commitment and Regulation Clearly, most of the abovementioned measures cannot be implemented within the framework of a sole country, as it is evolving in a global economy with fierce competition. For Europeans, the framework of the Union appears as the first relevant dimension for policies to be efficient and reliable. But global policies cannot be ignored, even if they need to be designed differently according to actors involved. Two difficulties should be avoided: -“free riding”, i.e. a country that would benefit from the improvement of global wellbeing without taking part to the efforts to achieve it; - an unfair distribution of costs: the fight against climate change has a cost that should be distributed according to wealth and the efforts already undertaken by each and every country.

This being said, a policy is still defined by aims, means to be implemented to achieve and new sources to finance those means. Aims The main aim should be that of a level of emission of greenhouse gas per inhabitant for each country at a given time. These levels should be defined according to both a global objective and each and every situation, some committing themselves to lower their emissions(the European Union, for instance), others committing themselves to limit the increases. In other words, it is a matter of keeping the expiring Kyoto Protocol going, to strengthen it and to reach the universality of its actors; a stronger role of the United Nations in the field of environment could do nothing but favour it! This major aim should then be translated into geographical and sectorial objectives aimed to make its implementation possible, for all areas cited in the first part of this document: housing at regional level, transportation at national level, industry by sectors, reforestation at country level, etc. Means The first tool is obviously the introduction of standards and norms at national, European and- as much as possible- global level(that would be made easier by a modification of the WTO regulations). The standards and norms must be viable, hence discussed with professionals, and go along with a schedule to achieve them. One good example of such a process is the European-level management of pollution standards in the car industry; but many matters evoked in the first part of this document remain desert areas in terms of regulation. Commitment and penalty are the traditional second tool. The reference here should be the principle“those spoiling, those same paying,” managed with intelligence and without mildness. With intelligence: the idea that a decision maker bears the environmental costs of his decisions is a revolution in everyone’s economic calculation; implementing it effectively may be subject to delays; some costs may be shared on a national or on a professional level. Without mildness: for instance, as long as an oil tanker that degases offshore will be fined less than the cost of the process being done properly in a port, the penalty is of no use at all; and as long as it will suffice to an entrepreneur to declare bankruptcy in order to escape any obligation to restore the industrial site he abandons, the many scandals we knew for the last few years will continue to exist! New recipes There lies probably the most difficult aspect of the action to be undertaken: even when applied to its very end, the principle“those spoiling, those same paying” cannot exempt political levels from becoming endowed with new revenues to face the expenses implied in the above-mentioned interventions, even if the cost of these interventions is less important today than it will be tomorrow! Moreover, creating a“green tax system” also stands as a significant sign sent by decision-makers to the citizens for whom the greenhouse gas remains a secondary problem, whether a personal situation or other priorities put it aside. But without a strong commitment of citizens, the efficiency of action will inevitably be reduced! The proposal that logically results from the preceding is the creation of a new tax on greenhouse gas emissions, tax which will be redistributed to everyone depending on their means to

reach the objectives to respect and which would then be fiscally neutral. Such a tax has nothing to do with the above-mentioned emission quotas: although they can be used as a global redistributing instrument, they first and foremost constitute an efficient sharing mechanism of the efforts to be undertaken by big industrial plants. The proposed tax must be based upon the weight of carbon emitted by each and every economic agent. Its level must take into account two considerations: new expenses to be progressively covered, obviously; but also the effects of competition distortion it could generate in the exchanges with countries that will not have implemented such a system or its equivalent. Turning to new sources, neutral vis-à-vis international trade, like VAT for instance, could therefore not be overruled as long as the number of countries implementing an environmental tax proves insufficient. For the European Socialists, the implementation of a green tax is the decisive sign of the will to face climate change. Only the implementing of a new model for development can save our planet tomorrow, and with it, mankind who depends on it.

New Social Europe Paper drafted by Fondazione Italianieuropei(Italy) and Fondazione Istituto Gramsci(Italy) In close cooperation with Fundatia Institutul Ovidiu Sincai(Romania) New social problems and challenges The macroeconomic conditions which favoured the construction of post-war European welfare systems – i.e. a rapidly growing GDP and a relatively low initial fiscal burden – are no longer available. Four main structural trends are at work: • ICT revolution and fast-moving technological changes; • emergence of new global competitors – China, India and other developing countries; • progressive ageing of the European population; • migration processes from Eastern countries within the enlarged European boundaries, and from the developing world, primarily from Asia and North Africa, towards Europe. The new social problems we have to tackle: • the tension between technological change and market dynamics on the one hand, which require the workforce to be flexible and adaptable, and the people’s demand for stable income and employment prospects on the other; • the widening of the area of short-term jobs and the lengthening of the period of job insecurity for young workers; • the obsolescence of skills which affects old workers, undermines the stability of their jobs, increases the risk of long-term unemployment; • the polarisation process in income distribution and the working poor phenomenon which derive from skill-biased technologies and from increasing job insecurity; • the polarisation in income distribution and job insecurity hamper the narrowing of the gender gap in wages and incomes; • the increasing burden which falls on the household as the shock absorber of income shortfalls of individual members and its increasing stress in managing individual frustrations; • the difficulties faced by young people when forming new families and the postponement of the choice to have children; • the imminent problem of ensuring an adequate pension for the elderly in a society in which ageing reduces the number of working people and job insecurity compromises the accumulation of pension contributions; • the need for new assistance and health services for a growing section of the population which is not self-sufficient; • the new poverty risks arising from long-term unemployment, job insecurity, skill-biased technological progress, crippling costs for households in which an elderly person loses selfsufficiency; • the emergence of the problem of managing immigration processes, integrating immigrants and giving them truly equal opportunities.

The European Social Model provides the necessary- but not sufficient- base for tackling these new social problems. It is characterised by a key regulatory role of the state, a progressive taxation system and public social expenditure. At the same time, there are major differences among the countries in terms of the rules and institutions of the social security system, which partly reflect differences in economic and social structures and partly point to different degrees of development in welfare policies. There is room for European countries to learn from each other. In any case, there are three general characteristics which are common to the European welfare systems to different degrees and are today troubled by the new economic and demographic trends: • a traditionally work-based set-up of social security guarantees, i.e. guarantees related to the present or past job status of the worker and mainly financed by wage contributions along an insurance approach; following the Second World War this set-up has been partially corrected by more universal guarantees financed by the tax system; • a predominantly compensatory role of the welfare system, i.e. social security tools which are mainly aimed at providing a solution for losers in the market game, a task which is obviously necessary but that implies the risk of social dependence; however, several countries are also making attempts to implement more promotional policies; • government bodies providing welfare services which are prevalently organised according to bureaucratic procedures rather than an evaluation by results, so that their performances often do not fit the needs of citizens and are not cost-efficient; in the past two decades several reforms tried to test new forms of organisation, introducing incentives and mechanisms derived from market rules. Moreover, both the macroeconomic conditions which favoured the construction of post-war European welfare systems – i.e. a rapidly growing GDP and a relatively low initial fiscal burden – are not available anymore. The impasse of the Lisbon strategy • The results obtained by the Open Method of Coordination(OMC) were disappointing in spreading best practices and promoting the actual convergence of social indicators across different European countries; the OMC suffered the absence of an effective incentive-mechanism and often came to a barren exercise among national bureaucracies that lacked transparency; • in 2005, the European Commission proposed a sort of retreat in favour of a less ambitious“new start” to the strategy focused on“growth and jobs” rather than on the virtues of the European Social Model; • now, the risk is that every country is left alone in defending its social security system against globalisation pressures; the consequences would be the weakening of social policies in each country, the deepening of the differences among member states, the loosening of the interstate solidarity and the resurgence of national egoisms. The cornerstones of a new social policy for Europe

Europe needs a reinforced Lisbon strategy, not a retreat from it: • in order to actually obtain stable and higher growth and job creation, a higher quality education system and a pervasive social security system are needed to enable workers to fulfil the adaptability that is required by technological changes and the flexibility that is required by market dynamics; in today’s globalisation framework, human capital is the key factor for the economic competitiveness of advanced countries; • but this is not enough, because a high quality of human capital is the result of a high quality network of social relationships. This requires a set of welfare services and benefits which are able to provide a number of widespread and pervasive externalities; therefore, not only education and labour market shock absorbers but also health, social assistance and pension systems are decisive elements of a social policy that is capable of meeting the demands of an advanced capitalist economy such as the European one; • so, welfare reform issues impact not only the problem of improving the adaptability of European societies to new competitive pressures in the globalisation era, but the problem itself of the social aims of economic growth; by now, the item on the agenda of the European social policy is the formation of a human development welfare. The citizen at the core of the welfare system • a new balance is necessary between universalism and work-based social insurances; basic social rights have to be guaranteed to every individual independently of her/his job status and have to be financed by the tax system; everybody must be guaranteed access to the social insurance system; all workers must be able to have access to the work-based social security system under the same conditions in order to build up a pension that is appropriate to the income they earn during their working life and to insure themselves against adverse events(incapacity and so on); • the welfare system must be more oriented towards preventive policies aimed at promoting selfdetermination of citizens; the welfare state has to provide a solution for losers in the market game, but this necessary assistance has to be accompanied by active policies to reintroduce them into the market(skills retraining, matching demand and supply of labour) and by an incentive-compatible design of unemployment benefits; the education system is the key element in offering equal opportunities for a life of selfdetermination and no child must be left behind; • the health and social assistance systems are also decisive in promoting equal opportunities of self-determination; universal access to the health services is a fundamental achievement of the European Social Model and it has to be preserved, with a view to enhancing the quality of the health service; monetary and in kind support to families with children is an essential tool for guaranteeing equal opportunities to all children; assistance and health services for

the elderly play a key role in extending self-sufficient life and in supporting self-determination when a state of inability arises; • the demand side has to be strengthened in terms of how services are organised, so as to improve the suitability of services to meet citizens’ needs according to an approach focused on citizen empowerment; more efficient forms of organisation, based on incentives and evaluation by results, have to be implemented for providers of welfare services in order to improve their cost-efficiency and their suitability for citizens’ needs; PPP agreements and more market-oriented regulation of services can improve welfare performance in fields as assistance and health. Our welfare guidelines In most European countries, there is no room for further expansion of taxation and overall public spending. This means that the advancement of social policies requires a careful reconsideration of some other areas of spending, but also of the welfare state organization in order to fully protect and develop the conquests of welfare systems by improving efficiency, focusing on the real goals of a democratic state and securing a responsive public administration. All sectors which constitute the welfare system – social security, health, assistance, education- interact with each other in forming the set of services and allowances which have to shape a network of social relationships that are adequate for a higher quality of citizen life and for widespread positive externalities for the economy. Therefore, measures for reform in one sector have to be designed taking into account their fall-out on the other sectors. Our guidelines for each welfare sector • in order to support low and middle class incomes and to give appropriate incentives to work, we have to improve our personal taxation and family benefit systems taking into account the correlation between taxation and benefits in determining actual disposable income of citizens and incentives to work; a progressive tax rate profile combined with tax allowances and family benefits is the best system for balancing the three key objectives of vertical equity, horizontal equity and efficiency(incentive to work); lower tax rates and substantial tax allowances for low and medium incomes support disposable income while improving the incentive to work, two issues which are particularly important for female workers; family benefits have a key role to play in helping families cover maintenance and education costs of children and offering more equal opportunities to them(see the German and Scandinavian experiences); appropriately designed negative income tax schemes can reinforce the support of low income people stimulating them to work(see the British and French experiences of the“working tax credit” and of the“prime pour l’emploi”); • the social security system carries out the main role in guaranteeing intertemporal income stability for people; today it has to face two main problems: population ageing and job insecurity; pension systems have to be improved with respect to their

equity and financial sustainability and this can be done by implementing rules which improve the consistency between the pension and security contributions the worker paid during his working life on one hand(see the Italian experience), and by providing integrative contributions financed by the budget for periods of unemployment on the other; it is also necessary to guarantee a basic“last resort” pension for those who have not been able to build up a proper pension; we have to promote possibility of postponing retirement and building a higher pension by implementing part-time work and pension schemes; the development of the service sector can help in offering older people new jobs that fit their needs; unemployment benefit systems have to give standardised adequate support to all workers without differences among sectors and firms; unemployed people must be supported by retraining and skills improvement programs, and benefit rules have to be shaped so as to couple these programs encouraging job seeking(see the Scandinavian experiences); • social assistance systems have to be reinforced not only through the improvement of personal taxation family benefits, but also and especially by developing a number of services, starting from children and the elderly; they are a central issue of our policy in order to improve the quality of life for families and to promote gender equality and partnership between women and men in sharing family tasks; we have to strengthen social housing programs in order to offer more possibilities for renting a flat at an affordable price; we have to provide a more widespread network of kindergartens in line with the Lisbon objectives, as well as organising a new generation of home care services for children; it is necessary to organise a wide network of home services for the elderly, which help prevent conditions of inability and provide assistance for people who are not selfsufficient, safeguarding their inclusion in family and social relationships; for all these services co-payment schemes, differentiated according to means-testing tools, are useful in order to widen the amount of services that can be supplied on the basis of public finance support; public support for these services should mainly come in the form of a citizen endowment of vouchers that she/he can use to pay service providers within a regulated market; in such a market, government bodies have to guarantee the quality and fair price of services supplied by a number of public, private and non-profit agents(see the French experience); it is urgent to set up some kind of public fund in order to finance future increasing expenditures in services for the elderly(see the German experience); • the education system is decisive in order to ensure equal opportunities in life; it enables people to set goals for themselves in self-determination and qualifies them for democracy and social responsibility; it represents a fast-growing productive force of the economy; therefore, we want everybody to have equal access to education independently of personal origin;

we favour a school system where children learn together and from each other as long as possible, i.e. a school system based on compulsory education up to 10th grade; general education lays the foundation for lifelong vocational learning; to guarantee professional basic training for all young people we need high quality training in public responsibility and cooperative interaction with enterprises; we have to make further education for adults a pillar of a security system which improves the skills of the unemployed and promotes active occupational life for the elderly; • universal access to and public financing of the health system have to be confirmed, because this is a qualifying characteristic of the European Social Model which guarantees high quality performance and macroeconomic sustainability(see the WHO comparative analyses and the ranking of France, Italy and other European countries); but several efficiency gains are possible at the microeconomic level: restructuring the hospital network by optimising the dimensions and specialisations of the single structures, reorganising general practitioners into associated teams(see the British experience), testing forms of administered competition among hospitals and forms of evaluation by results(see the Dutch experience); efficiency gains allow savings on resources, which must be directed to develop medical research and to invest in new advanced technologies and medicines; life sciences are one of the most qualifying sectors for an advanced society; • equal access to all services and benefits of our welfare system for immigrants with a residence permit is a key factor for their social integration: tax allowances, family benefits and unemployment benefits improve their income conditions and give incentives to leave the informal economy; care and education services aid the social integration of their children and of the parents themselves; access to the health service guarantees their acquisition of a full citizenship status. A“new” Lisbon strategy for Europe Of course, the main tasks in implementing social policies belong to member states, but a European coordination strategy has a key role to play in promoting reforms. The European Union has to be the motor of a convergence process towards a social European space just as it is the motor of the economic convergence. To achieve this goal, we need to innovate the Lisbon strategy and its governance setup by going beyond the Open Method of Coordination. The local and national dimensions of social problems and policies imply that the subsidiarity principle has a greater importance in this field than in others. At the same time, national and local policies have everything to gain from European support based on adequate financial resources to be used for promoting shared social objectives: • resume the OMC based on general indicators like long-term unemployment shares, poverty indices, low education quotas for young people and so on; benchmarking and comparative analyses of best practices are also important; however, all these processes should not only be a bureaucratic exercise but must

become the subject of formal sessions of political evaluation; •• in any case, benchmarking processes are necessary but not sufficient in order to implement an effective European promotional policy; for this, we need the introduction of social acceptability checks that evaluate EU policies and laws in terms of their social consequences and we think the EU has to lay down minimum social standards to be implemented by collective agreements and laws; moreover, we propose to enhance the role of the EU budget by establishing a Social Inclusion Fund – of which the Globalisation Fund should be part – aimed at cofinancing national and local specific programs according to an incentive mechanism based on rules similar to those already adopted for investment programs in infrastructures supported by the Cohesion Fund: • screening, selection and monitoring of social programs to be financed by the Social Inclusion Fund cannot refer to general indicators mentioned above, because they are not suitable for an incentive and sanction policy; such a policy has to refer to programs which are designed to meet specific targets that are observable and measurable and whose actual implementation univocally rests on the responsibility of local and national governments; • such targets can be defined with reference to services rather than with reference to monetary benefits or tax expenditures; a few examples can help to clarify our proposal: skills retraining services for the unemployed in industrial areas affected by restructuring processes, where specific quantitative targets can be established in terms of the percentage of unemployed people involved in retraining courses and in terms of the professional qualifications of trainers; for areas relatively lacking in childhood services, the incremental number of children who attend kindergartens and the children/teachers ratio; in the same way, quantitative indicators can be established for cofinancing home care services for the not self-sufficient elderly; verifiable targets can be established in terms of the acquisition of high health technologies and the start-up of correlated hospital wards; and so on; • to finance the Social Inclusion Fund we need to increase the EU budget resources; if this should not be feasible, we can resort to a Euro Bond programme for financing part of the Cohesion Fund and use resources that are released from this fund to finance the Social Inclusion Fund; • programmes for the Social Inclusion Fund have to concern areas characterised by social inadequacies in every European country: it is important to involve each country in a positive-sum game without any losers ex ante, so that all European countries might deem the cooperation process suitable for themselves.