23.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/12

1.1

The March 2006 European Council centred on the relaunch of the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment and on an integrated, governance-based approach to the new challenges of globalisation.

1.2

The EU must be committed to securing innovative, competitive and sustainable development for its people, in order to secure greater economic and social cohesion and spark the generation and development of new businesses, new professional profiles and more and better jobs, while preserving the European social model and focusing on a knowledge-based economy.

1.2.1

The Committee is strongly convinced that without ‘a new governance cycle based on partnership and ownership’ (1), all Europe's efforts at boosting competitiveness and employment will be in vain, and that new models for governance must be adopted and implemented rapidly and widely.

1.2.2

The Committee feels that both the seventh RTD Framework programme (FP7) and the new CIP are still excessively top-down in their outlook and do not yet allow for the appropriate level of integration and responsible participation of public and private development players at local and regional level, optimising the essential role of the social partners to promote sustainable and lasting growth.

1.3

The European Union ought to encourage this type of partnership at local level with authorities and economic players and especially with the social partners, not least through the two instruments mentioned above, in order to nurture a new generation of territorial pacts for development within the context of globalisation (2).

1.4

The EESC is convinced that there is no one form of governance to suit all. Each regional/local tier must seek the formula that best services the requirements of local or regional governance, while remaining compatible with the national, European or international frame of reference.

1.5

There are however certain common features:

1.5.1

Lastly, it is absolutely essential that this integrated regional policy include a structured social dialogue, not least by making more of existing local/regional economic and social councils with the social partners and representatives of organised civil society and by establishing effective forms of economic and social partnership (3).

1.5.2

In this respect, the route indicated by the EESC should be followed, involving the ESCs and similar bodies of individual European countries in a structured dialogue with the EESC.

1.6

The success of this new form of governance depends increasingly on the capacity to pinpoint the most effective degree of proximity for managing problems and finding solutions, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, while also maintaining a coherent framework and shared vision with other levels of intervention (4).

1.7

The Committee is convinced that the practice of exploring possible routes, actions and measures with a medium- to long-term view, shared by means of foresight exercises, can make a real bottom-up contribution to the cultural growth of society and can help to enrich the choices of politicians and administrators. Most importantly, it can also nurture and strengthen the local interaction between technological, economic, social, political and cultural sectors necessary for ensuring sustainable and competitive development.

1.8

First and foremost, the social partners and representatives of organised civil society must be involved in forming a clear understanding of strengths and weaknesses with a view to finding new niches on the internal and international market.

1.9

Globalisation generates competitive pressure to modernise, innovate and move up the value chain, and enables goods and services to be produced and distributed more efficiently and cheaply. However, there is a danger that if nothing is done in time, it will generate new divisions and fragmentation in the economic and social fabric, particularly at local and regional level.

1.9.1

This, in the Committee's view, necessitates the formation of new areas of responsibility as soon as possible in order to guide the public through the changes. Joint training measures should be set up for district managers, business leaders and financial and credit system managers, to be implemented in conjunction with politicians, public sector officials and local and regional authority managers.

1.10

Only an integrated and jointly-framed territorial approach will ensure that knowledge accumulated through investment in research and development, innovation and education can generate the capacity for innovation, giving the European industrial base a competitive edge and enabling it to attract human and financial resources.

1.10.1

In that context, it is of the utmost importance to examine new ways of attracting human resources to a region, not least by improving work-life balance and introducing incentives, especially for white collar and highly qualified workers, such as managers, researchers and industry experts, securing for them sufficiently attractive benefits in their working life.

1.11

The new CIP programme (2007-2013) cannot be looked at in isolation from the Community's other regional policies and programmes. It aims to address the issues by means of a three-pronged approach: the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme; the ICT Policy Support Programme; and the Intelligent Energy Programme.

1.12

In that light, the Committee is in favour of strong coordination of the CIP with regional and cohesion policy and cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation measures as well as with the VIIth RTD framework programme (FP7). A significant part of the latter's ‘Capacities’ programme is also devoted to developing R&D in SMEs, the Regions of Knowledge, support for innovation and innovative services for companies and the necessary links between the world of training and that of enterprise.

1.13

The Committee believes it is essential that these initiatives be carefully coordinated to secure synergy and avoid overlaps or inconsistencies. They should be restyled and taken on board by each region, giving priority to partnership for jointly-framed local development.

1.14

The Committee would reiterate, lastly, the views it has already expressed in a recent opinion on the subject of modern industrial policy: ‘What is missing is a clear link between the efforts at EU level, and the necessary involvement of governments, industry and stakeholders at national and regional level.’

2.1

Governance: anthropological literature draws a distinction between three types of Governance (5). Grassroots governance involves the local coordination of all players, and is characterised by a marked orientation towards all kinds of technology-related activities. Network governance shows a high level of coordination between networked players, in particular firms, research organisations and funding organisations. Dirigiste governance is based on a high level of coordination and central management of key aspects such as funding and research competence.

—

building social and environmental considerations into economic decisions;

—

using a shared system of values and a participatory methodology in decision-making processes;

—

encouraging good practice and continuous pooling of ideas among stakeholders, in order to boost innovation and competitiveness.

—

identify the community living there;

—

identify its guiding values.

—

Institutional capital: the capacity of the formal institutions in an area to concentrate on problem- solving, their capacity to act, their speed in decision-making, the quality of information available to organisations, their flexibility, and lastly existing inter-organisational relations.

—

Cultural capital: the heritage of a region's traditions, values and beliefs, the richness of its language, and lastly social relations and behavioural patterns (7).

—

Symbolic capital: the potential of a region to mobilise the energy necessary to secure its own development and its potential to provide an emblem for local companies.

—

Psychosocial capital: this is based largely on trust, on the conviction that there is a community and that it has the potential to develop and, lastly, on an awareness of the possibility of cooperation with groups and associations.

—

Cognitive capital is represented by collective know-how, not to be confused with the human capital of individuals. Cognitive capital resides in the knowledge infrastructure of organisations such as universities, research centres, cultural and professional organisations, companies and bodies responsible for social dialogue (8).

2.4.1

With a view to underscoring the guidelines established by the Lisbon European Council, the Commission laid the foundations for the European Research Area (ERA) (10), the financing for which was built into the VIth Framework Programme, with particular attention to territorial foresight (11). Later, in 2001, the Commission launched its ‘Science and technology foresight; links with the IPTS (12)’ unit, designed to promote foresight as a model for innovation.

2.5.1

The idea of grassroots has gained importance in recent years along with other concepts such as subsidiarity. A grassroots culture enables members of the public to show they want to play a part in decisions relating to the social sphere. Thanks to new technologies, knowledge is spreading at a speed and on a scale that were previously unthinkable.

3.1

As the third millennium begins, the EU is facing profound structural changes that in the space of just a few years have revolutionised the world environment in which the European economy works and competes. These include the following in particular:

3.2

The Aho (13) report reiterated the need for new models of governance, in order to make Europe competitive and aware of the challenges to the system brought by structural change.

3.2.1

The adoption of this new model for governance requires:

3.3

Research and development, design, manufacturing systems, logistics systems (16), marketing and client services are increasingly integrated as functions, acting together as a single entity that links clients with the inventors of new products.

3.4

Modern company structure has ever less to do with the availability of physical infrastructure and ever more to do with the ownership of intangible assets. It requires an equipped region, with structures for territorial governance, able to sustain the capacity to produce and distribute goods and services and to provide the best possible after-sales service.

3.5

Developing a clear regional or local identity, reflected in the social capital, is proving to be fundamental, both to prevent the risk of relocation, and because new business developments demand specific characteristics and a high quality of locally available services. These standards can be obtained only with well-trained staff with a high level of awareness.

3.6

Awareness of regional/local identity among the public, political decision-makers and social partners allows an integrated approach to environmental and social sustainability, which brings added value when it comes to attracting new investment.

3.7

Regional/local identity as a quality is based on a combination of belonging, recognition and empathy regarding a set of shared values and a shared vision of the future. Promoting regional/local identity involves:

4.1.1

There are various priority areas for actions when it comes to making the most of local human resources:

4.2.1

An integrated territorial approach can encourage and promote the creation and development of businesses, SMEs in particular, by establishing a favourable environment. This involves:

4.3.1

The March 2006 European Council set out the priorities to pursue in the context of the renewed partnership for growth and employment:

4.4

More specifically, the CIP Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme ties into a coherent framework many activities designed to address key problems affecting competitiveness and innovation in the EU's economic and social fabric, by directing development towards innovative and productive measures, protecting the environment and making efficient and socially acceptable use of resources.

4.5

The FP7 specific ‘Capacities’ programme is intended to enhance capacity for research and innovation, in particular:

4.5.1

Optimising the participation of SMEs in research and innovation activities will also involve the other FP7 specific programmes (i.e. ‘Cooperation’, ‘Ideas’, and ‘People’).

4.5.2

The need to make full use of research results is also fundamental and a common feature of all the programmes, and this is done most effectively at territorial level. In this light, there must be high levels of coordination, consistency and synergy with the Community's regional and cohesion policy instruments and other Community support instruments for regional cooperation and education and training.

4.5.3

Furthermore, the above-mentioned actions must be coordinated with regional policies related to the reformed European Structural Funds.

4.6

In order to be properly assimilated in the field, these initiatives, as well as being closely coordinated in order to secure synergies and prevent overlaps or inconsistencies, must also give priority to:

4.6.1

The Committee feels that both the seventh RTD Framework programme (FP7) and the new CIP, on which it has already issued opinions, are still excessively top-down in their outlook and do not yet allow for the appropriate level of integration and responsible participation of public and private development players at local and regional level as is both necessary and desirable. This approach does not in effect give local players their rightful role as joint guardians of European governance.

4.6.2

The European Union ought to encourage this type of partnership at local level with authorities and economic players and especially with the social partners, not least through the two instruments mentioned above, in order to nurture a new generation of territorial pacts for development within the context of globalisation (23). These should involve all the stakeholders in economic and employment development, with a view to responding effectively to the challenges of the market and competitiveness, moving beyond local mindsets that are becoming dangerously restrictive in a world of interconnected realities.

4.7.1

A considerable proportion of sustainable competitiveness measures fall within local and regional responsibility, making governance systems and cooperation between the various local and regional authorities, the various bodies and institutions, the social partners, companies, and civil-society players active in the field a priority.

4.7.2

With regard to the concept of governance, reference should be made to comments made previously by the Committee on the subject: ‘private stakeholders must act and take responsibility through tangible contributions and actions. […] Social and civil dialogue are important accompanying measures’ (24).

4.7.3

As far as strengthening social dialogue is concerned: ‘The EESC agrees […] that, by virtue of their sectoral knowledge, the social partners are able to play a special role in alerting the authorities.’

4.7.4

In the Committee's view, it is a matter of implementing streamlined, proactive and reactive jointly-framed social engineering and decision-making systems, able to maintain a high quality of political, economic and social democracy, without weighing down and holding back the development of actions and initiatives.

4.7.5

The development of a shared medium- to long-term vision is essential here, as is the identification and division of responsibility regarding agreed intermediate objectives, and the use of advanced and proven tools at regional level such as foresight.

4.8

The ITA is a governance strategy for the development of socially responsible regions.

4.8.1

In a context like ours, open to global competition, any governance strategy for socially responsible local and regional development must secure a sustainable trend towards economic development and high social standards. Such a strategy should in particular involve: