8. Points out that effective governance of RM policy is key to an effective RM strategy; notes that an effective strategy must include a continuous dialogue with the stakeholders concerned; emphasises the need for close coordination and provision of information within the Commission and the European Parliament and between Member States; recommends the establishment of a high-level interdepartmental RM task force in 2011, as is the case in France and the United States, encompassing the relevant DGs, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Environment Agency and the EEAS, to elaborate, monitor and review policies, including partnership agreements, to ensure strategic coherence and to promote the establishment of an early-warning syst ...[+++]em, inter alia for market distortion and resource-fuelled conflicts, complemented by a monitoring group; calls on the Commission to set up a long-term ‘European Raw Materials Roadmap to 2050’, which would identify future developments, threats and opportunities in the RM and CRM sectors and which could help European industries, academic and research institutions to engage in long-term planning and investment; calls further on the Commission to support Member States in developing their own RM strategies and to foster coordination and the exchange of best practice among them, including on the external dimension; suggests that the upcoming communication on the external dimension of energy could serve as a template;

Other Commission services and European External Action Service may be invited to the meetings of the Group and its sub-groups when directly concerned by the matters to be discussed.

(1) Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors has been the subject of a review by a group of experts set up by the Commission services, the Working Group on Outdoor Equipment.

I believe that, in fact, the four fundamental objectives that were set for us at Laeken form part of this action plan: increasing mutual trust between the Member States with regard to controlling our external border, which is a common border, which means that poor control over the border in one State has inevitable knock-on effects on the security of all the other Member States of the European Union, the effectiveness of the fight against illegal immigration, the particular priority that must be given to controlling the external borders to prevent the entry of terrorist groups or agents and, finally, to safeguard the high level of intern ...[+++]al security in the European Union, without which we cannot preserve freedom of movement and the abolition of controls at our external borders.

The current working structure of JHA includes no group, with the exception of the high-level working group on asylum and immigration, with an external-relations remit allowing of a ‘cross-pillar’ approach combined with overall coherence of the EU’s external policy in this area.

Why was the establishment of an interdepartmental Quality Support Group for External Assistance programmes, as set out in the Commission Communication of 16 May 2000, not included in the most recent Progress Report on the Reform Actions dated 10 July 2000?