Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions on the COVID-19 pandemic vaccination campaign

(2021/C 106/01)

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR)

1.

supports the EU’s vaccine strategy as an expression of solidarity, unity and efficiency, and as a process based on the principles of equal access to vaccines for all EU citizens, affordability and safety; rejects vaccine ‘nationalism’, which runs counter to these principles;

2.

welcomes the breakthrough in scientific research and innovation that has brought safe and effective vaccines in record time, thanks to global collaboration; considers vaccination to be a game-changer that will enable us to begin to emerge from the worst of the pandemic and its dramatic effects on social and economic life and mental health in the EU. However, vaccination alone is not sufficient and numbers of infections have to decrease rapidly before the arrival of new variants, for which the current vaccines’ effectiveness is not yet proven;

3.

insists that the process of approving and negotiating access to COVID-19 vaccines must be transparent and hopes that ongoing and subsequent purchases of vaccine doses continue to be well coordinated and communicated at EU level; encourages the Member States to avoid dealing with the vaccines in the same way they dealt with the beginning of the pandemic, when some of them displayed a lack of solidarity, leading to shortages of protective equipment, masks and ventilators;

4.

supports the vaccination campaigns of the EU, the World Health Organization and the Member States, and calls for vaccine production and delivery to be increased, for vaccination to be sped up and for more information to be provided so that EU citizens can receive a vaccination appointment as soon as possible following a simple and streamlined procedure and irrespective of their geographical location;

5.

notes with concern the persistence of the COVID-19 virus and the difficulties encountered globally and in Europe in bringing the pandemic under control and exiting the cycle of restrictive measures; is also concerned by current vaccine production and roll-out across the EU, as some vaccine producers are having significantly reduced deliveries and thereby forcing national authorities to revise their plans for vaccine distribution; therefore deems it essential for the EU institutions to take appropriate measures to ensure that producers comply with their contracts;

6.

stresses that many local and regional authorities have competence in health matters and are ready to support vaccine deployment — in particular in terms of logistics — and participate in campaigns and outreach activities to increase citizens’ confidence and take-up and to accelerate the vaccination process; therefore urges the Member States to actively involve local and regional authorities in their campaigns and in the rapid implementation of their vaccine strategies;

7.

is concerned that, with 70 % of the population needing to be vaccinated for the pandemic to end, less than half of the European population is willing to be vaccinated in 2021, nearly one third of the population in seven Member States is opposed to being vaccinated at all, and nearly two thirds of Europeans believe the vaccines have been produced too quickly (1);

8.

believes that it is vital to reassure the public that the technology used is safe and that the swift production is due to the above-average level of financial and human resources dedicated to developing the vaccines, and thinks that subnational leaders are ideally placed to help convey this message of reassurance;

9.

warns against the effects of fake news and disinformation, which could hamper the prospects of prompt mass vaccination, and calls for greater awareness of the possibility of vaccination campaign scams; believes that involving local and regional authorities could significantly contribute to countering disinformation and uncertainty surrounding vaccination;

10.

calls for a European dashboard to allow vaccine uptake and distribution to be monitored by region, thus improving transparency and coordination and helping to identify any gaps; believes that the public should be fully informed about authorisations, availability and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines;

11.

offers the help of the European Committee of the Regions and its members to the European Commission and the Member States in supporting vaccination campaigns through the exchange of best practices and dissemination of information;

12.

supports the Council’s intention to create a standardised and interoperable form of proof of vaccination for medical purposes, considering that documentation of vaccination is a medical necessity;

13.

insists that the EU play a leading role in facilitating access to vaccines across the world;

14.

calls for the responses of the European Union, the Member States, and regions and municipalities to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic to be thoroughly evaluated and appropriate conclusions to be drawn in terms of medicine, the economy, society, administration and competences.

---

(1)  European Commission (DG COMM.A3) survey: ‘Public Opinion on COVID-19 Vaccination in the EU’, December 2020.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience

(2021/C 106/02)

Rapporteur: Csaba BORBOLY (RO/EPP), President of Harghita County Council Reference documents: Communication on a European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience COM(2020) 274 final Proposal for a Council Recommendation on vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience COM(2020) 275 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Main messages

1.

advocates for the recognition of and respect for the crucial role local and regional authorities (LRAs), and Member States, play in the EU’s main policies, and also in the realm of skills, as owners of the relevant infrastructure, as beneficiaries of EU Funds and of national and regional support, and also as the main gateways to local and regional communities. At the same time, regrets the lack of recognition of this role in the current European Commission Communications;

2.

underlines the need to inform employees in energy-intensive sectors about the challenges and opportunities caused by the digital and green transitions and accompany them accordingly;

3.

welcomes with interest the launch of the European Pact promoting joint action to maximise the impact of investment in upgrading existing skills (upskilling) and training in new skills (reskilling). Local and regional authorities must be part of this Pact, working together and making a clear commitment to training for everyone of working age throughout the European Union;

4.

suggests that regional territorial strategies and Green-Deal-related pacts should refer to the skills policy and investments that the region needs. There is also a need for a better understanding of regional skills-related needs and opportunities, analysed for each sector concerned, emphasising low carbon technologies and sustainability, but in particular car manufacturing, construction, building services, the design and creative industries, pharmaceutics, ITC and the food sector;

5.

highlights that, in most Member States, LRAs play a major role in funding education and developing skills-related policies. The Commission should take steps to build direct links with LRAs interested in fast-tracking of EU funds in the form of pilot projects, the formulation of local and regional strategies and action plans, and increased financing for new initiatives, so that actions can be carried out, even if there are no partnership agreements in the medium turn;

6.

notes that, during the current pandemic, most education systems have responded quickly and flexibly to new challenges, and some Member States have rapidly accelerated the digitalisation of education. While there are real success stories in the regions, the Committee of the Regions suggests focusing on: a. equal access to the new forms of education and training for all, with a special focus on the most vulnerable children and adolescents, b. removing obstacles in the area of the language, including the language rights of ethnic minorities and the language rights of deaf people, as well as people with hard of hearing using sign language, c. ensuring that the new initiatives and forms of education have had a positive impact on access to education and training for all, reducing the digital divide and accessibility deficit, so that all people have full access to collaborative tools, regardless of where they are, d. promoting digital connectivity, particularly in areas with low population density, including technology and educational materials and tools that facilitates access to digital education;

7.

points out that the European Commission’s Guidance to Member States Recovery and Resilience Plans of 17 September 2020, under NextGenerationEU, includes ‘Reskill and upskill’ as one of its flagship initiatives together with the adaptation of education systems to support digital skills and vocational education and training at all ages, which entails a new financial perspective for the Member States, and thus for regional and local authorities;

Policy recommendations

8.

notes that LRAs are facing new challenges, in particular with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many new initiatives emerge also every day, as a reply to these challenges. The digitalisation of education and local business are the most prominent examples. The Commission should analyse whether it can set up a European platform with a selection of best practices, which would be accessible to LRAs and which would support the development of adaptation and resilience strategies and action plans, inspiring new local and regional initiatives. Any such initiative would be welcomed and supported by the Committee of the Regions and its members;

9.

highlights that vocational and technological education both need practice and are mostly connected to places and educational facilities, much more so than digital, language and other soft skills. We should start identifying best practices in some regions that can inspire new initiatives in other regions;

10.

asks the Commission to revise the approach set out in the communication and take into account the major role LRAs play in supporting and developing skills-related infrastructure in most Member States, because local and regional authorities hold key responsibilities for education and training policy and play an important role in youth and employment policies;

11.

underscores that times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupt education and training systems and are often followed by a period of high unemployment rates and economic uncertainty. At the same time, in addition to changes in the labour market from the green and digital transitions, low-qualified adults need urgent support to enter or remain in the labour market (1). In this regard, the proposed initiatives for skills and vocational education and training (VET) are very much needed in order to ensure the implementation of the 1st principle of the European Pillar of Social Rights on the right to quality and inclusive education, training and life-long learning;

12.

looks forward to the upcoming endorsement of the ‘Osnabrück Declaration’ by the EU education ministers with a view to modernising European VET and deepening cross-border cooperation within a European Education Area (2), and as a means to strengthen the voluntary nature of the recommendation. Underlines to this effect that local and regional authorities must be fully involved in the design and implementation of national strategies regarding adult learning policies;

13.

underlines, in light of the COVID-19 crisis, the need to improve digital training solutions and distance learning including for VET and to improve tracking of VET graduates when appropriate, without creating unnecessary administrative burdens. Further points to the need to boost VET’s attractiveness and to ensure coherence and synergies between the VET sector and the general education system. Moreover, the CoR calls for a review of the European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships in order to ensure high quality, diversified and tailor-made apprenticeships: further underlines the importance of equal access and the right to training for all employees;

14.

notes that the situation varies widely across the EU, and that this is one of the main challenges when designing and implementing new standards and practices for education and training. These regional disparities are created by the skills gap and mismatch in the EU and are likely to be widened if local and regional policies are not well designed and not financed accordingly. Therefore, the Committee of the Regions reiterates its demand for a more regional focus when assessing progress on the implementation of the new Skills Agenda and VET policy;

15.

holds the opinion that any policy intervention must be in keeping with the regional context, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach does not work. In local and regional-level policy, solutions must be adapted accordingly;

16.

points out that the issue of socially excluded or vulnerable people’s access to high-quality education and training needs to be addressed, to ensure that there are no barriers to equal access in any of the Member States;

17.

is in favour of speeding up the implementation of a European Education Area to guarantee high-quality education for all. The EU should encourage, support and supplement cooperation and exchanges between education systems and different curricula based on citizens’ needs, in line with the division of competences, the subsidiarity principle, and the prohibition on harmonisation in this field;

18.

stresses that there is a risk that the green transition and the pandemic will have a more detrimental effect on minorities, women, children, adolescents, youth and people from disadvantaged communities, especially in remote, sparsely populated or mountainous regions where the population faces greater barriers and difficulties in accessing quality training and education. These issues should be tackled in a way that is evidence-based and that addresses the specific needs of these groups in all regions; to this end, we propose including people with disabilities as one of the groups particularly badly affected by the problems described;

19.

given the important role of the new STEM skills (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), these shall be accessible in all regions, at all levels of education, respecting gender balance, while in promoting the twin transitions, the relevance of these disciplines to the future labour market, and the opportunities they have for future employees, should be disseminated to students in ISCED 2 and 3, when they choose their career path. The aim is to guide their future training and education towards these sectors, bearing in mind language rights and the accessibility of these new skills for all generations and groups;

20.

points out that public universities should be prioritised in order to boost local and regional initiatives, and that public and private investment should be found to promote new skills-related opportunities, while local and regional research in this field should focus on the uptake of new skills in all European regions;

21.

would stress that European cooperation on skills and vocational training should have a local and regional focus, aimed at LRAs and at stabilising access to schools and training providers. Such platforms should not focus purely on Member States and those already involved;

22.

warmly welcomes the fact that the Action 7 of the Skills Agenda introduces the promotion of entrepreneurial opportunities yielded by the social economy, such as helping local communities, striking local green deals and activating vulnerable groups. In this regard, we recommend closer involvement of local and regional authorities in drafting the Social Economy Action Plan announced by the European Commission for 2021;

23.

holds the opinion that EU’s Erasmus+ education scheme plays an important role in the acquisition of intercultural and multilingual skills. Due to the pandemic, there is a risk that many students, pupils and apprentices will be unable to take up this opportunity. Consequently, quick solutions adapted to the new circumstances must be found, so that the goals of the Erasmus+ can continue to be met, while supporting those students, pupils and apprentices who have in the past been less likely to make use of the opportunities offered by Erasmus+, in the interests of social inclusion;

24.

maintains that the pandemic, the Green Deal and digitalisation are the main drivers of change in the European economy. Changes are welcome when it comes to targeted outcomes for the environment and for the future of European economic development. Employees need to have access to new skills for the new era of green and digital growth, to build resilience, in line with the emerging and growing sectors, so that any skills mismatch can be tackled. Employees must be supported with targeted, tailored guidance in the workplace and people looking for new job opportunities are most open to learning new skills; at the same time, businesses should be supported in providing training guidance to their staff;

25.

underlines that there is a need for a critical mass in terms of funding and support for recovery, resilience-building and new skills related to education and training in all regions, including the training of teachers and trainers, in all areas and at all levels of education; with this in mind, insists that the budget of those EU programmes directly investing in education and skills, especially Erasmus+ and ESF+, should not be cut;

26.

highlights that in the rapidly digitalising worlds of education and training, teachers, trainers, students and pupils need new ICT-based and operational skills but at the same time behavioural skills pertaining to information, digital and media literacies (3). Regions and cities need to design evidence based on local and regional policies, reflecting if teachers and trainers have the requisite skills and have adapted to the new situation, and if there are bottlenecks and mismatches, these require tailored, coordinated solutions in teacher training curricula and continuous teachers’ skills improvement;

27.

supports the idea that, in the future Horizon Europe, we need to see the results of evidence-based, applied research on identifying new skills, on teaching methods in the online digitised form, on offering the basic set of skills to all, including language minorities, ethnic groups and marginalised groups, and also on the multi-level governance of skills-related policy areas, with the active participation of LRAs;

28.

believes that local and regional partnerships, formed by LRAs, expert groups, representatives of employers, education and training providers can lead to a better understanding of how regionally embedded skills acquisition works in the most effective and rapid way. Such partnerships can serve as the motor of local and regional change in this respect, by building knowledge, understanding and trust, and also by involving all the different actors concerned.

---

(1)  According to Cedefop, in 2016, 23 % of people aged 25-64 in the EU had a low level of education attainment, at or below lower secondary education (ISCED 2). (https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/statistics-and-indicators/statistics-and-graphs/33-how-many-adults-have-low-level-education#:~:text=%202016%2C%2023.0%25%20of%20people,followed%20by%20Portugal%20(53.1%25)

(2)  https://www.eu2020.de/eu2020-en/news/article/eu-education-ministers-karliczek-osnabrueck/2384182

(3)  JRC Technical Notes: ‘Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding’, by Kirsti Ala-Mutka (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340375234_Mapping_Digital_Competence_Towards_a_Conceptual_Understanding).

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Youth Employment Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee

(2021/C 106/03)

Rapporteur: Romy KARIER (LU/EPP), Member of Clervaux Municipal Council Reference documents: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Youth Employment Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation COM(2020) 276 final Proposal for a Council Recommendation on A Bridge to Jobs — Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee and replacing Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee COM(2020) 277 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

welcomes the proposed Council Recommendation on reinforcing the Youth Guarantee which builds on the lessons learned since the adoption of the original Youth Guarantee on 22 April 2013, thus making important improvements to the instrument, such as a new and more coherent structure divided into four distinct phases, a strengthened focus on long-term NEETs and the enhancement of its inclusive elements. The proposal is particularly significant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, which is having a disproportionate effect on young people;

2.

welcomes the Commission’s proposal to widen the age bracket of the Youth Guarantee beneficiaries to include young people aged 25-29, thus reaching out to an increased number of young people. This makes the proposal more consistent with the implementation rules applied in most Member States but also more inclusive, recognising that during the economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic unemployment among young people aged 15-29 will continue to rise drastically and they will require support services (1); highlights that after an offer has been made, or after the four-month period to provide an offer has passed, support should continue to be provided to young people, ensuring that their motivation, skills and abilities can be continually strengthened, especially for more vulnerable young people who may need more long-term support for successful integration in the labour market;

3.

highlights the important role of regional and local authorities in the fields of employment, training, education and youth policies, and suggest that partnerships in all phases of the Youth Guarantee should include local and regional authorities. This is particularly the case regarding the mapping phase and the outreach phase, in which local and regional authorities could be a bridge between different stakeholders such as the social partners, educational institutions, youth organisations, public employment services and the local and regional business sector;

4.

welcomes the Commission’s suggestion that local and regional authorities should be the driving force behind apprenticeships within the local business environment, thus recognising the crucial role they play in fostering economic development through partnerships and acknowledging the previous positions of the Committee of the Regions on this matter (2). Apprenticeships should be encouraged as an important instrument in the fight against youth unemployment by combining intellectual and technical skills with professional experience. It is therefore important to boost the supply and quality of this type of training, with a particular focus on digital training;

5.

local authorities play an important role in raising awareness of the Youth Guarantee among young people, and in engaging in outreach, for example by ensuring visibility of the scheme in Public Employment Services and implementing a partnership approach with all relevant stakeholders that work with young people;

6.

underlines the important role that the social, health, employment and youth services of local and regional authorities play in early warning systems, and highlights their ability to track and identify young people at risk of becoming NEETs, while at the same time helping to prevent them from leaving education and training prematurely, especially in those regions that have the highest numbers of early school leavers in the EU;

7.

welcomes the Commission’s emphasis on outreach measures, especially regarding long-term NEETs, but stresses the importance of recommending the use of technologies that are used by young people themselves as well as measurable objectives, thus incentivising Youth Guarantee providers to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their outreach strategies. Furthermore, believes that the young people that benefit from this scheme should be made aware that it is a European initiative — something that many of the current beneficiaries are not aware of;

8.

supports the idea of promoting skills that are relevant to the job market and agrees with the emphasis on digital skills, managerial skills, entrepreneurship and autonomy and skills relevant for the green transition; insists, however, on the need to promote language skills as a priority so as to increase young people’s chances of integrating into the labour market, especially in those regions where language skills are particularly important, such as cross-border regions and regions with a tourism orientated economy, and finds it regrettable that this has not been included in the new proposal;

9.

considers it essential to define clear and precise binding criteria regarding the quality of the Youth Guarantee offers of employment, education, training, and apprenticeships. This could be achieved by assessing the level of match between what is being offered and the participant’s profile, by ensuring the offer respects young people’s employment and social rights, by guaranteeing the offer will enable sustainable integration into the labour market and by including the quality of offers in the monitoring and data collection processes of the Youth Guarantee (3);

10.

stresses the importance of promoting labour mobility through the reinforced Youth Guarantee, between Member States and between regions, given the important role that migration plays in shaping labour market opportunities; therefore finds it regrettable that this provision, which existed in the original Youth Guarantee, has not been retained in the new proposal, even though many countries have complemented their Youth Guarantees with regional or international mobility programmes, also advocates linking the Youth Guarantee with quality traineeships and the European Solidarity Corps;

11.

agrees with the idea that particular attention should be paid to regional labour market specificities and the barriers faced by young people living in rural, remote, outermost or disadvantaged urban areas and less developed regions, linguistic minority communities during the mapping phase. However, this approach should also entail specific support measures under the reinforced Youth Guarantee in order to ensure that young people living in those regions have access to the same opportunities and services as in any other region;

12.

recommends the promotion of social dialogue at regional and local level to create better outcomes for unemployed young people, thus fostering more inclusive economic growth, especially in remote and isolated areas, and to create effective strategies for just transition plans at the local and regional level;

13.

finds it regrettable that in the 2021-2027 programming period of the ESF+, the share that will be allocated to support the Youth Guarantee has not been substantially increased despite the critical context of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which youth unemployment has already risen sharply across the European Union; therefore insists on the need to significantly increase the financial support for those Member States and regions, especially those experiencing high levels of unemployment and poverty — such as less developed regions, deindustrialised regions, peripheral regions and outermost regions — which, in addition to having high rates of youth unemployment, are currently under severe budgetary constraints, in order to address the unequal effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee across the European Union; regrets that EU funding for youth employment can no longer be targeted on a regional basis through the Youth Employment Initiative and insists that national governments allocate funding for youth employment to regions where it is most needed whilst ensuring that EU funds do not replace national funding for youth employment measures;

14.

believes that local and regional authorities play a key role in the outreach and mapping phase of the reinforced Youth Guarantee, and therefore need the appropriate financial resources from both national and EU budgets to be invested in achieving real integration of vulnerable young people in a fast-changing labour market. Also, a strong commitment is needed from the National Governments to involve the local and regional level in the implementation of the policy measures. The European Social Fund + should play a key role in supporting the creation of new quality jobs and in promoting social inclusion and social innovation. However, earmarking sufficient national resources for the implementation of the policy measures under the reinforced Youth Guarantee and synergies with Cohesion Policy in the next MFF are also crucial in order to achieve maximum effectiveness;

15.

welcomes the connection between the reinforced Youth Guarantee and the European Pillar of Social Rights. The reinforced Youth Guarantee must ensure universal access to social protection for young participants, to avoid increasing the risk of poverty and precarious work;

16.

believes that many LRAs are not fully aware of all the channels EU support for combatting youth unemployment can reach them. Calls therefore on the European Commission, in partnership with the CoR to organise an information session to remedy this situation. The outcome of the exercise could be published on the website of the CoR, for all interested stakeholders to access;

17.

considers that traineeships and apprenticeships should primarily provide a learning experience for young people, which can help them to decide on their future career and to develop their skills in order to access permanent employment. Highlights that traineeships and apprenticeships undertaken as part of educational curricula or VET should contain clear learning objectives, quality learning content and professional mentoring. Emphasises that, in addition to these learning criteria, further regulations are required to ensure good working conditions for traineeships and apprenticeships on the open labour market and as part of active labour market policies (ALMPs); highlights that the practice of unpaid ALMP and open labour market traineeships and apprenticeships can lead to the replacement of standard jobs, constitutes a form of exploitation which violates young people’s rights and reduces opportunities for young people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds; therefore supports the European Parliament in its efforts to enforce fair remuneration and access to social protection for traineeships and apprenticeships on the open labour market and in ALMPs to ensure young people can access quality opportunities;

18.

local Youth Guarantee providers could include in their schemes young people who are undertaking short training courses or are working part-time whilst seeking full-time work, in recognition that these young people lack a strong connection to the labour market and would benefit from support and a formal offer under the Youth Guarantee;

19.

welcomes the European Commission’s emphasis on the need to consider entrepreneurial education, upskilling, reskilling and training, as well the enhancement of business knowledge and skills, as a means of increasing employment opportunities for young people; however, considers that the positive role of social entrepreneurship, and of the social economy more generally, in reducing youth unemployment could also rightfully be acknowledged in the reinforced Youth Guarantee;

20.

agrees with the need to distinguish between long-term and short-term NEETs in the new proposal, considering the very disappointing outcome that the Youth Guarantee has delivered for the first group. However, the distinction could be further strengthened in the recommended measures for the four phases of the reinforced Youth Guarantee, with a view to better highlighting the support measures that are specifically aimed at long-term unemployed NEETs;

21.

welcomes the European Commission’s emphasis on inclusivity. The new proposal is more inclusive than in the current system on issues such as disability, social background and ethnicity, and puts an especial focus on the gender dimension, thus recognising that the gender gap among NEETs has widened in recent years. However, the proposal could be even stronger in its denunciation of other kinds of job market discrimination, such as discrimination based on ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or discrimination against migrants;

22.

welcomes the importance given to early intervention in changing the prospects of young people most at risk and suggests that the new proposals could include more precise recommendations and priorities for employment and education services in order to better identify non-registered NEETs, and motivate and encourage them to return to education, employment or training, reskilling and upskilling; underlines the importance of mapping the young population at regional and local level to identify the characteristics of local young people and the support they require;

23.

agrees that the starting point for providing the Youth Guarantee to a young person should be their registration with an employment service, but for those NEETs who are not easily reached and are not likely to register with an employment service, the proposal should consider the possibility of defining other entry points to deliver the Youth Guarantee within the same four-month timeframe. It is equally important to reduce the administrative burden on young job-seekers and to keep the number of contact points to the absolute minimum. For this purpose, the proposal should recommend that online registration through specific Youth Guarantee e-platforms be the standard procedure. Meanwhile, the authorities have to ensure that those groups which are not accessible through digital channels get the appropriate support and efforts should be made to pro-actively register eligible young people for the Youth Guarantee. Awareness of the scheme should also be promoted among young people already in education or training. In the same vein, in order to make it easier for young people to take advantage of what the Youth Guarantee has to offer, education and training personnel should be able to signal to public employment services vulnerable young people who may require additional support to access employment after leaving education, in addition to more automatic information sharing between education services and public employment services to pro-actively refer and register young people leaving education or training to the Youth Guarantee;

24.

agrees with the European Commission’s recommendations regarding early school-leavers and low-skilled young people, and more specifically with the need to create flexible pathways to re-enter education and training or second chance education programmes which provide learning environments that respond to their specific needs and enable them to obtain the qualifications they do not have; however, insists on the need to put more emphasis on the merits of vocational guidance as a useful means in this regard;

25.

considers that the measures taken under the Youth Guarantee scheme should be aimed at boosting skills and competences that address existing skill mismatches in the labour market, particularly in the fields linked to EU digitalisation and the Green Deal. Also recognises the added benefit of improving social skills, such as techniques to improve communication and self-confidence;

26.

agrees with the European Commission’s recommendations regarding the reduction of non-wage labour costs, such as targeted and well-designed wage and recruitment subsidies, tax credits and disability benefits to encourage employers to create new opportunities for young people or to retain those who are already employed. Start-up incentives, especially in digital technologies sector, are also highly important in the given context, where digitalisation is accelerating, and could therefore be further emphasised in the proposal;

27.

recommends making full use of the possibilities of the new programme on social change and innovation in order to gather examples of good practice on Youth Guarantee schemes at national, regional, and local level;

28.

recommends enhancing the evaluation of all measures taken under the Youth Guarantee schemes, so that more evidence-based policies and measures can be developed on the basis of what works, where and why, thus ensuring an effective and efficient use of resources;

29.

considers that once phase four is reached and an offer has been accepted, the Youth Guarantee should provide guidance and information aimed at facilitating the upskilling and re-skilling of those young people who are most at risk of returning to unemployment. This will also ensure that young people have the possibility to climb the professional ladder, even if they start their career working in low skilled and subordinate positions;

30.

considers that the effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee should lead to stable and sustainable jobs. This can also be achieved through strong partnerships, solidarity and coordination between public employment services, which are the main providers of the Youth Guarantee, and all other stakeholders, including local and regional authorities;

31.

underlines that, in order to effectively address youth employment in light of the pandemic, the Reinforced Youth Guarantee should be complemented by the prolongation and extension of the temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE), by the inclusion of youth employment measures in National Recovery and Resilience Plans, particularly the creation of quality employment opportunities for young people, and by an explicit mention of better social protection coverage for youth and the combatting of precarious youth employment in the upcoming Action Plan for the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights; and warns against policies that seek to promote youth employment by undermining young people’s rights to fair remuneration and access to social protection as part of the recovery.

---

(1)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52012XR2562

(2)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012AR1186 and https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52013AR0789

(3)  https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_5/SR_YOUTH_GUARANTEE_EN.pdf

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Cross-border public services in Europe

(2021/C 106/04)

Rapporteur: Pavel BRANDA (ECR/CZ), Deputy Mayor of Rádlo

I.   GENERAL COMMENTS

Close to one-third of EU citizens live and work in Europe’s border regions. These borders have a direct and indirect impact on their lives. People living in border regions often encounter peculiar challenges, whether it is finding a job, accessing healthcare and other public services, as well as everyday commuting and overcoming administrative problems. Cross-border cooperation (CBC) has proved to be the most effective tool for overcoming the barrier effect and the dividing role of borders and for strengthening the territorial cohesion of border regions.

Access to public services in border regions, especially those seriously depopulated, is often more limited in comparison to central and capital regions, and is still worse when they face demographic challenges, and constitutes a strong determinant of the quality of life. Providing cross-border public services (CPS) could not only be beneficial for citizens, but could be both more profitable, as these services would become more widely available and cost-efficient.

Successful delivery of cross-border public services could also lead to increased understanding between neighbours and the building of much-needed trust. Such services would have a direct impact on how the European Union is perceived, contributing to strengthening the European identity.

Having more widely available CPS could contribute to reducing negative border effects and increasing the quality of life of citizens living in border regions. By adequately addressing the existing need for public services at our internal and external borders, the EU would demonstrate its clear added value to millions of its citizens that would benefit from such services.

The high-quality ESPON targeted analysis (1) provides the first overview of the topic of CPS. It sets the scene and puts forward some recommendations. In this complex situation that we are facing, which calls for coordinated responses to address challenges, it should now be the CoR’s political initiative through this opinion to endorse the issue of CPS and make political recommendations from LRAs’ point of view and identify the next steps to be taken by EU institutions and other stakeholders to make the delivery of CPS more effective and widespread in the future.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

considers that for the successful, effective and more widespread delivery of CPS, three tools/conditions are essential: a legal framework, structures and financing. Given the European nature of such services, the EU should play an active, leading, role in providing these tools/conditions. The collaboration of national, regional and local authorities according to the partnership principle is necessary in order to remove and/or reduce the costs inherent in the cross-border setting;

EU legal framework

Added value of an EU legal framework

2.

underlines the need for an EU legal framework to allow for an efficient establishment and management of cross-border public services which would address the needs of our citizens living in border regions. This would represent clear EU added value as current frameworks often impose overwhelming administrative burdens and costs, which cause many local and regional authorities to abandon their plans;

3.

strongly supports, in this sense, the European cross-border mechanism (ECBM) which proposal is currently blocked in the Council of the European Union; calls therefore on the Portuguese Presidency to accelerate its adoption quickly;

4.

is of the opinion that, according to the principle of subsidiarity, cross-border cooperation and providing cross-border public services, is European in nature and can be most effectively tackled at the EU level, through close cooperation with national, regional and local authorities (the partnership principle);

Cross-border-friendly implementation of EU law

5.

calls on the European Commission, as the institution in charge of monitoring the implementation of EU legislation, and more importantly the Member States and regions with legislative powers, to coordinate the transposition of directives with the neighbouring states and regions, so that new legal barriers and administrative disparities do not arise as a consequence of a lack of coordination; at the same time, calls on the Member States and regions with legislative powers to examine their national or regional legal frameworks with regard to their impact on border areas;

6.

points out that impact assessments can provide an excellent insight into the effects of EU legislation and calls on the EC, the Member States and regions with legislative powers to establish methodologies that would allow for effective cross-border impact assessments;

Cross-border contact points in European Commission DGs

7.

calls on the European Commission to take a cross-cutting view of the situation of the border regions when drawing up its policies and designate Cross-border Contact Points in all DGs that could potentially deal with cross-border issues, especially in the fields of environment, emergency services, risk management, transport, healthcare, education, spatial planning digitalisation, communication, culture, tourism, economic development and employment (2). New and revised EU legislation should consider the provision of CPS in these relevant sectors, with the aim of supporting their implementation;

National cross-border contact points

8.

calls on Member States, and regions with legislative powers to establish stable, permanent, cross-administration national cross-border contact points, which would exchange experiences and discuss challenges the LRAs are facing on a particular border, coordinate the implementation of EU legislation and work on the systematic removal of border obstacles (also in relation to establishing and providing CPS). These contact points could be the same bodies proposed in the ECBM Regulation, if these are set up in the region in question, but would hold wider responsibilities. The aforementioned contact points should appoint a person in charge with fluency in the official languages of the border regions. The work of these contact points should lead to the removal of obstacles identified by local and regional actors. They could evaluate the situations in border regions and propose joint approaches and actions that would lead to better services for citizens, by optimising the use of available resources on both sides of the border and setting up coordination mechanisms with the cross-border programmes and other EU programmes. The EU Border Focal Point should provide coordination and methodological support, as well as facilitating the exchange of good practices between border regions in Europe;

9.

calls on the Member States to show more flexibility for LRAs wishing to implement cross-border public services, as flexibility, ad hoc solutions and quick responses from the relevant state actors can offer short-term solutions that require a long-term sustainable solution to implement and maintain CPS. The use of intergovernmental agreements such as the recent Treaty of Aachen could also stimulate the provision of CPS;

Border Focal Point (DG REGIO)

10.

underlines its support for DG REGIO’s Border Focal Point and calls for increased human resource support for this action with a view to its potential new role of coordinating the national contact points and contact points at different DGs;

European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM)

11.

believes that the EU should support a coordinated approach at the borders when it comes to implementation of EU legislation. In cases where that was not successful and when national laws do not allow for cooperation, the EU should provide for a European solution/framework to be chosen by CPS providers;

12.

therefore strongly stresses the need for the adoption of the new tool proposed by the European Commission, the European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) (3) as a bottom-up legal instrument which would likely prove to be the adequate solution for overcoming legal and administrative obstacles and creating suitable legal framework for the specific implementation of cross-border public services;

13.

reiterates that the analysis of existing border obstacles carried out by the European Commission within the cross-border review and the consequent b-solutions projects clearly demonstrate the need for such a legal instrument on the ground. In more than one-third of the 43 analysed b-solutions (4) cases, the ECBM would be a suitable tool that would help resolve the obstacles. Notably in those cases where the proposed solution would require amendment to the currently applicable legal or administrative framework on one side of the border;

14.

in this context calls on local and regional stakeholders to strengthen their capacities so they are able to play a stronger and more effective role as ‘initiators’ of solutions under the proposed ECBM. For the mechanism to be implemented correctly, LRAs must be able to understand obstacles sufficiently and thus be capable of clearly defining workable legal or administrative solutions;

15.

notes that the proposed ECBM Regulation has the potential to be of key importance not only for CPS but for the future of CBC in general as it might help remove existing obstacles and unleash the full economic potential of EU border regions (5);

16.

urges the European Council to restart the discussions on the ECBM Regulation and urgently adopt its position on the proposal so that the regulation can be quickly adopted;

17.

urges the Member States to put the discussion on the ‘mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context’ on the agenda of summits between border states, and of any other high-level forum for cross-border cooperation. Analysis of the instrument proposed by the European Commission in decision-making forums should convince Member States of its usefulness in resolving many of the persistent legal and administrative obstacles at EU borders, and thus in establishing cross-border public services;

18.

proposes to the EC, interested Member States, regions with legislative powers and cross-border structures at local and regional level to test applying the principles and procedures of the proposed ECBM on concrete projects to gain a better understanding of how this instrument could apply to specific conditions and could be helpful in overcoming existing legal and administrative obstacles. Many cross-border areas have in the past acted as laboratories of cross-border cooperation and produced positive results in solving cross-border issues;

Cross-border structures

19.

notes that the ESPON analysis has shown that most CPS required the establishment of a new cross-border structure or body, mostly without a new legal personality. Very often, already existing structures were used or adapted. When new cross-border structures were created, it was done using existing inter-state agreements, domestic law or the EGTC regulation;

20.

stresses the advantages of permanent cross-border structures with their own staff and budget and the sole purpose of promoting CBC such as euroregions, working communities and similar structures for the effective development of CPS;

21.

underlines the benefits and not fully used potential of the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) (6) which could serve as ideal managing bodies for CPS, especially in those cases where there is a need for a common budget and employing common staff and where public authorities are the main providers. The efforts of awareness raising carried out by the CoR’s EGTC platform should be strengthened and should focus specifically on using the EGTC for the delivery of CPS;

22.

underlines the fact that the EGTCs, though proven to be very useful in cross-border cooperation, have certain legal limitations which prevent them from fully exploiting the potentials of reinforced cooperation across borders. This is especially evident in cross-border public services and infrastructure projects. This European instrument could be much more widely used if the above-mentioned legal framework were improved;

Financial tools

23.

calls for the development of cross-border public services to be mentioned as an eligible activity in Cohesion Policy, specifically within the Interreg programme (without this entailing any reduction in other items under the programme), as well as in other financial instruments covered by the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework and the Next Generation EU recovery instrument in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To make funding programmes more attractive, the administrative burden of applying for and settling accounts for such funding must also be reduced;

24.

demands all managing authorities in border regions to finance cross-border operations/actions/projects within their mainstream regional programmes (ERDF and ESF) in order to complement and deepen the action of the Interreg programmes;

25.

underlines the importance of the Interreg programme for cross-border regions over the past 30 years. Interreg has backed the cooperation that has enabled the administrations and authorities of the different cross-border regions to draw closer together and enter into dialogue, pushed the limits of cross-border cooperation and has supported projects that have had direct results in the creation of cross-border public services;

26.

mentions the very good experiences of the European Commission’s b-solutions projects, which aimed at resolving border obstacles, including some of those that addressed cross-border public services. These projects showed that even with limited funding, very good results can be achieved;

27.

reiterates its strong disappointment with the proposed budget for the Interreg programme in the proposals for the next financial perspective, which is insufficient for the needs of European territorial cooperation in general and cross-border cooperation in particular, the latter being one of the key elements of Cohesion Policy and the European integration. Many opportunities will be missed due to the smaller budget of the Interreg programme, as even the budget in the previous financing period was largely insufficient;

28.

recommends that Member States jointly allocate part of their additional resources within the REACT-EU initiative to cross-border cooperation programmes in which they participate, thus enabling the efficient restart and strengthening of cross-border cooperation after the COVID-19 crisis, including support for the development of CPS or sanitary corridors. The synergies that can be achieved by pooling emergency services should also be analysed here;

29.

strongly supports the pilot programme ‘Cross-border regions facing COVID-19 outbreak: an opportunity to revive common responses to crises and co-development’ voted during the plenary session of the European Parliament in November aiming at improving the life of citizens in border regions by supporting more integrated and functional cross-border areas. This pilot project shall help border regions to better face future crises and to promote a new model of elaborating public policies, including public services, in border regions based on co-development and through improved multilevel governance. The pilot project combines therefore a short-term and a mid-term approach to provide practitioners and decision-makers with concrete tools and methodology that can be directly translated into reality, tangible for citizens, and applicable to all European borders;

30.

notes that, while the EU, through its programmes, has been supporting the creation of some CPS, the long-term financing is not sustainable. Members States and LRAs should look into additional means of sufficient long-term financing, such as national or regional sources and public-private partnerships, which should also be facilitated to take place and operate across borders, at least within the EEA;

e-services

31.

points out that, in border regions, the process of digitalisation that we are currently in the midst of is three-pronged, concerning the production fabric, the administrations and public bodies that offer services to citizens, and the citizens themselves. In this context, e-services might open a very interesting field of development for the cross-border provision of public services. For example, by using automated translation interface, one of the first obstacles for CBC in general, and the provision of public services across borders in particular, the language barrier, could be overcame. In addition, the creation of electronic cards enabling citizens in border regions to access cross-border public services would be a significant step towards improving the quality of life of the people in those regions. An increased use of e-procedures will lead to a necessary harmonisation of administrative provisions, solving another good set of obstacles. Also, the development of Artificial Intelligence-based systems, could promote further European-wide provision of services;

Role of the private sector

32.

calls on decision-makers to pay special attention to local small and medium-sized providers. Private operators are key players in the provision of certain services and/or in certain countries. Joint ventures across borders by SMPs, for example through a European Company (7), could be better prepared to provide CPS;

Cross-border connectivity

33.

calls for support for cross-border connectivity. In some border regions, citizens face practical difficulties in accessing the other side of the border, owing either to natural barriers (mountains or rivers) which do not have connecting infrastructure such as a road or a bridge between the two sides, or to a lack of suitable regular public transport services. Facilitating connectivity would increase exchanges, leading to greater integration of citizens in border regions;

34.

calls on EU institutions and Member States to restart the discussions on launching a services passport (e-card), which would allow SMEs to provide services across borders without facing additional administrative burdens from foreign regulators;

Better promotion and monitoring of CPS

35.

underlines the fact that an overwhelming majority of all identified CPS (64 %) (8) are located along borders between old EU Member States, and very few of them between the new Member States;

36.

invites the EC, as well as the Member States, together with LRAs and the CoR, to carry out an information campaign in the Member States to demonstrate the benefits and potentials of CPS. These stakeholders should also invest more in the monitoring and promotion of existing CPS as many of them remain unknown to the wider public (e.g. by creating catalogues of CPS);

37.

is ready to play a greater role in monitoring and promoting CPS in Europe, given its very good experience with monitoring and promoting the EGTCs through the CoR’s EGTC Platform. As some of the EGTCs are delivering CPS already, the EGTC Platform should also be given the task of monitoring the development of CPS and promote them together with EGTC as a suitable tool for their implementation;

38.

calls on border regions, and specifically Euroregions, working communities, EGTCs and other cross-border structures to consult their citizens on the services they find to be lacking or those that could be improved in their region and to address these needs and potentially design new or improved cross-border services of common interest;

CPS on EU external land and sea borders

39.

refers to the experience with the EGTC Regulation which has shown that fruitful and better structured cooperation with non-Member States can be established, as is particularly the case with Switzerland and Ukraine;

40.

underlines that 17 % of all identified CPS are established between EU and non-EU countries, which shows a need and potential for such cooperation beyond both the external land and sea borders of the EU. The legislative framework, structures and financing should allow for establishing such services with non-EU countries, which would be in the interest of the citizens of these border regions;

COVID-19 experience: closing borders versus cooperation

41.

reiterates opportunities Member States have missed during the recent pandemic of COVID-19 when they instinctively and unilaterally closed borders, without thinking of combining efforts at the EU internal borders and providing healthcare and emergency services to citizens living in the bordering regions. By working together, and sharing expertise and resources, the crisis could have been better addressed. This should, however, be seen as a lesson which once again proves the need for cross-border public services and coordinated European approaches to common problems. It should be stressed that cross-border cooperation in the field of health and emergency services, even outside of times of crisis, is very important for providing the public with good care and should be particularly encouraged;

42.

points out that closing the borders without coordinating and consulting neighbouring states and also LRAs in border regions not only had a devastating effect on the existing cross-border cooperation, but most importantly had a very negative impact on the lives of people living in border regions, as there were no agreed protocols to ensure the exceptional movement of people and goods, with the ensuing damage to the provision of cross-border public services amongst other things;

43.

sees the need to define a basic minimum level of cross-border cooperation to be maintained even in times of crisis in order to secure the provision of CPS, especially those related to crisis management;

44.

welcomes the partnership between the CoR, the European Commission and the leading associations working on cross-border issues (MOT, AEBR and CESCI) that was established during the COVID-19 crisis. This experience has led to the constitution of a European Cross-Border Citizens’ Alliance;

45.

underlines that, despite the closed borders, many border regions and cities have found ways of cooperating and sharing resources during these difficult times. This proved once again that cross-border cooperation is natural for people living in those regions, and the reasonable way forward for their communities;

Recommendations for the future

46.

states its preparedness to draw lessons from the experiences of border regions and put forward comprehensive recommendations on cross-border cooperation as part of the CoR’s contribution towards the Conference on the Future of Europe;

47.

plans in this respect to deliver specific recommendations to the Conference on two issues: — The first one being a long-term vision of the future of cross-border cooperation in the European Union, that will focus on concrete proposals that the CoR, and the border regions, would call to be implemented by 2050. Cross-border public services will be part of that vision. — The second issue would be a request for legislation that would guarantee minimal standards for cross-border cooperation in the event of EU-wide and/or local crises in order to maintain a sufficient level of public services, allow citizens living in border regions to operate, guarantee the uninterrupted functioning of the Single Market and maintain the momentum of European integration.

---

(1)  ESPON Targeted Analysis on Cross-border Public Services (CPS) from 14 January 2019.

(2)  Policy fields identified by the ESPON Analysis where most CPS are established.

(3)  Regulation COM/2018/373 final — 2018/0198 (COD).

(4)  https://www.b-solutionsproject.com

(5)  European Commission communication Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions states that if only 20 % of the existing obstacles were removed, border regions would still gain 2 % in GDP (…) with potential for over 1 million jobs’ (COM (2017) 534, p. 4).

(6)  Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19).

(7)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE) (OJ L 294, 10.11.2001, p. 1).

(8)  ESPON Targeted Analysis on Cross-border Public Services (CPS) from 14 January 2019.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Agro-ecology

(2021/C 106/05)

Rapporteur: Guillaume CROS (FR/Greens) Member of a Regional Executive: Regional Council of Occitanie

I.   GENERAL COMMENTS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Background

1.

observes that the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the importance and the vulnerability of our food systems in Europe, and highlights the need for resilient, sovereign food systems in which the economic viability of rural territories is essential;

2.

stresses that, in the face of the dangers of global warming, destruction of biodiversity and soil degradation, the pandemic is making it even more urgent for the European Union to take new agronomic, social and territorial approaches that protect natural resources, preserve health, encourage farm renewal and build territorial cohesion;

3.

points out that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture is the only viable option today;

4.

points out that permanent grassland makes up a third of the EU’s agricultural area and plays a major role, storing a lot of organic matter in the soil and fostering biodiversity;

5.

notes that it is necessary to move from an extractive agricultural mindset to a circular one — particularly for the carbon, phosphorus and nitrogen cycle — and to move towards lean, efficient resource management;

6.

points out that homogeneity and uniformity of seeds goes against biodiversity;

7.

points out that public health, global warming and animal welfare require us to change our farming practices for forms of production which play a positive environmental role, namely by maintaining pastures and maintaining woodland, which do not put the health of farmers and the general population at risk, and which respect animals. It is possible to reduce meat consumption while developing sustainable farming;

8.

considers that livestock farmers’ quality of life and animal welfare go hand in hand and deserve an alternative approach to livestock farming, in which farmers no longer sell at a loss and where they respect their animals;

9.

points out that many specialised farms with heavy purchases of inputs (oil, fertilisers, pesticides, antibiotics, etc.) are more economically vulnerable due to their higher production costs, dependence on upstream firms and greater exposure to economic risks;

10.

welcomes the Farm to Fork (F2F) and Biodiversity strategies put forward by the European Commission, which call for a significant transformation in agricultural policy;

11.

notes that the difficulty of accessing land use, through rental or ownership, makes it difficult for new farmers to get established.

The agro-ecological approach

12.

points out that the proposal to significantly reduce the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and antibiotics and to increase ecological focus areas by 2030 implies a systemic transformation of agricultural production methods;

13.

highlights that agro-ecology, which makes the most of ecosystems as a production factor while maintaining their capacity for renewal, meets this challenge;

14.

notes that the FAO summarises agro-ecology as 10 interdependent elements: diversity, co-creation and sharing of knowledge, synergies, efficiency, recycling, resilience, human and social values, culture and food traditions, responsible governance, and circular and solidarity economy;

15.

stresses the need to see waste as resources, for example, reclaimed water, with its essential nutrient inputs, for irrigating areas where there is a shortage, or cereal straw residue that is processed to become a productive asset for livestock farming, green building or mulch;

16.

stresses that agro-ecology reduces the carbon footprint of agriculture, fosters the recovery of biodiversity, ensures or restores the fertility of soil, prevents air and water pollution, increases the economic resilience of farms, and guarantees healthy and accessible food;

17.

stresses that agro-ecology is not a return to the past, that it is more complex than agricultural practices based on chemicals or oil, and that it is a smart form of agriculture that combines environmental, economic and social performance, as well as agronomic and social practices resulting from innovative experiments, expertise and public research;

18.

stresses that agro-ecology develops agriculture with and within nature;

19.

notes that agro-ecology develops living soils which promote healthy plants and store a lot of carbon and water and are more resistant to drought and high temperatures;

20.

underlines that agro-ecology takes account of local agro-climatic and historical conditions to choose products, varieties, breeds and timetables to make farms as resilient as possible to hazards;

21.

notes that agro-ecology develops farms that are on a human scale and as free range as possible, and which aim for self-sufficiency in feeding their animals;

22.

notes that agro-ecology involves more: a. small and medium-sized farms that will help stop the decline in agricultural jobs and start to help young farmers get established again, b. mutual aid networks between farms, c. links with the rest of the population through short supply chains and more local processing of products;

23.

considers that digitalisation can make certain production and marketing practices easier; notes, however, that widespread development of automated and smart agricultural machinery raises the question of data sovereignty, which the farmers may not be able to maintain control over; takes the view that farmers should not outsource the specific knowledge relating to their farms and should retain the right to repair their machinery;

Policies supporting the agro-ecological transition

24.

notes that agro-ecology does not just take account of food production, but covers the entire food system, including fair working conditions;

25.

observes that the CAP reform currently under negotiation, while its main substance does not meet current challenges, nonetheless offers Member States and their regions certain tools to support agro-ecology;

26.

welcomes the European Commission’s memo to the European Council of October 2020 identifying four possible types of eco-scheme, including agroforestry and agro-ecology;

27.

notes that agro-ecology, being based on an ecosystem of small and medium-sized farms, cannot be developed if CAP direct payments are still allocated per hectare and not per person active on the farm;

28.

notes that other European policies (agricultural markets, external trade, climate, seeds, water, soil, research, etc.) should be brought into line with the agro-ecological approach;

29.

considers agro-ecology to be a tool for the management of sustainable rural tourism;

30.

notes that public research must step up its support for agro-ecology;

31.

believes that, by promoting a network of small and medium-sized farms that are updated and adapted to face the challenges of the 21st century, and by bringing urban and rural closer together through short supply chains and organic and local mass catering, agro-ecology will be a powerful engine for revitalising the regions and strengthening cohesion between rural, peri-urban and urban areas;

32.

believes that it is essential to strengthen the position of farmers in the food value chain, particularly through consortia of producers and of local small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises which can achieve economies of scale so that they can receive fairer remuneration for their work, while also helping to make the local economy more dynamic;

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CAP reform

33.

proposes that the future CAP should further promote agro-ecological practices such as: a) crop diversification, which makes farms less vulnerable to natural or sectoral hazards, b) long crop rotations and plant associations that share the agronomic benefits, c) trees, hedges, ponds and stony habitats around/in plots, d) cultivating leguminous plants which naturally incorporate nitrogen into the soil, e) mixing species and varieties in the same plot, f) good and constant soil cover which prevents erosion, g) farmers reclaiming local farmer-saved seeds and local animal breeds that are better adapted to the soil, climate, etc., h) mixed crop-livestock farming, i) replacing the chemical approach to crops with the integrated management approach;

34.

calls, in light of the proposals it made in its opinion on the CAP, for the eco-schemes in the next CAP to incorporate the quantified objectives of the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy: reducing nutrient losses by at least 50 %, fertiliser use by at least 20 %, the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50 % and antimicrobials by 50 %, and achieving 10 % ecological focus areas and 25 % of land under organic farming;

35.

requests that the European Parliament and the Council implement the objectives of the Green Deal within the trilogue on the future common agricultural policy; suggests that at least 30 % of the budget for the first pillar should be set at European level for the eco-schemes of each national strategic plan (NSP);

36.

notes that not all farms have the same conditions in terms of environmental sustainability. Stricter environmental measures should be coupled, through the national eco-scheme, with adequate funding and training that would be determined by farms’ environmental specificities;

37.

recommends, as it said in its opinions on the CAP and pastoralism, broadening conditionality, for all farms, to include respect for the rights of agricultural workers (introducing the concept of social conditionality) and a livestock density limit on farms, and strengthening conditionality regarding animal welfare legislation;

38.

proposes a gradual shift from a basic payment per hectare to a basic payment linked to the number of people working on the farm and for direct payments to be funnelled as a matter of priority to small and medium-sized farms and agro-ecological practices;

39.

proposes that direct payments per farm should be significantly capped;

40.

recommends that, in order to promote the agro-ecological transition, the Member States introduce a system of bonuses and penalties as part of the eco-schemes of the new common agricultural policy: for example, a bonus for increasing crop diversification, financed by a penalty on chemical fertilisers and pesticides and antibiotics, or a bonus for grazing livestock, financed by a greenhouse gas penalty proportional to the number of ruminants reared;

41.

recommends that the system of bonuses/penalties described in point 40 be implemented by the Member States taking in account their environmental priorities

42.

recommends that measures under the second pillar of the CAP should prioritise: a. agro-ecological production methods, including agro-forestry, and collective approaches to them (cooperation), b. systemic agri-environment-climate measures (AECMs), c. short supply chains, d. organic and local catering, e. training and advice on agro-ecology, agroforestry and agro/silvopastoralism;

43.

calls for Article 65 (second pillar) of the Regulation on national strategic plans (NSPs) to be amended to shift from a per-area mindset to an agro-ecological contract;

44.

reiterates the proposal it made in its opinion on the PAC that investment support should be conditional on an environmental audit and that its budgetary envelope should be limited to a maximum of 10 % of second-pillar funds;

45.

suggests that the European Commission draw up guidelines to provide methodological support to managing authorities and regional stakeholders to promote the adoption of the agro-ecological project in the mobilisation of the various voluntary measures of the CAP.

Farming practices

46.

proposes that ruminant farming should move towards permanent grazing, except when wintering;

47.

calls for industrialised off-land farming of monogastric animals (pigs, poultry), which produces many negative externalities in terms of public health and the environment, to evolve fully or partially into free-range farming with a limit on the number of animals per building and per hectare of feeding surface area;

48.

calls for an end to cage rearing, as called for in a recent citizens’ initiative and as it urged in its opinion on the CAP;

49.

suggests, in the interests of animal welfare, developing on-farm slaughter and small local abattoirs;

50.

calls for an extension beyond 31 December 2020 of the derogation allowing producers of poultry and rabbits to slaughter and process their animals on the farm for local sale under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

51.

suggests strengthening the Germany Presidency’s proposal to create a European ‘animal welfare’ label;

52.

also recommends clear, mandatory labelling of the husbandry method, covering the animal’s lifecycle, including its transport, such that producers can obtain recognition of improvements in their practices and consumers can choose products in line with their wishes, along the lines of European egg labelling;

Other policies

53.

recommends that the new law on sustainable food systems announced in the F2F strategy should establish a legal framework obliging the EU to begin a genuine agro-ecological transition that shifts demand for food by providing an environment conducive to dietary changes, curbs the increase in obesity, reduces meat consumption, shortens supply chains and drastically reduces food waste;

54.

calls on the Commission to promote the development of short supply chains: a. adapting hygiene rules and standards to on-farm processing of products and, more generally, applying food legislation in adapted form to small producers, as well as labelling requirements, b. supporting local and collective projects concerning, in the first instance, equipment needed for local processing (small abattoir, mobile abattoir, vegetable area, public kitchen. local market infrastructure such as farm halls or farmers’ shops, etc.), and in the second instance, the formation of small local production, processing and marketing cooperatives;

55.

proposes that the EU implement the recommendations made by the European Parliament in its 2017 own-initiative report (2) on farmland concentration in the EU, including the creation of a European farmland observatory; proposes that the EU implement — in the form of an EU directive such as the Water Directive — the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (3) adopted by the FAO in 2012, in order to improve the security of access to land and thus help young farmers get established.

56.

calls on the European Commission to propose a new European directive on agricultural soils to halt the decrease in their organic matter content, stop erosion and prioritise soil life in agricultural practices;

57.

recommends strengthening the water directives by excluding derogations (Nitrates Directive);

58.

recommends that the introduction of the circular economy be stepped up in the treatment of livestock waste in order to harness this in agronomic (compost and organic fertilisers) terms;

59.

in line with its opinion on agricultural genetic resources, calls for new European legislation on seeds to enable the use and marketing of farmer-saved seeds, in particular by making the changes proposed in the new Organic Farming Regulation for inclusion in the organic seed database;

60.

calls for EU legislation to exclude genetically modified or mutagenic seeds, in order to promote biodiversity;

61.

calls for the societal added value and the positive externalities offered by agro-ecology to be reflected economically for producers, so that they are stakeholders in the transition;

62.

in order to guarantee the right to agro-ecological food for the whole population, recommends measures such as: a. reducing VAT on organic, local and seasonal products, b. ‘local’ meal vouchers for such products, c. a significant percentage of organic, local and seasonal products in mass catering;

63.

proposes that specifications for PDOs and PGIs should include agro-ecological practices;

64.

calls for the EU to stop importing agricultural products that do not comply with European social and environmental production standards, including those set out in the Farm to Fork strategy, and that are in unfair competition with European production, and exporting surpluses at prices below European production costs, often to the detriment of producers in third countries;

65.

recommends, as it did in its opinion on the CAP, introducing new multilateral and bilateral agricultural trade rules that are fairer and more solidarity-based, and incorporate the agro-ecological approach;

66.

calls for more support to be given at European level to independent public research in agro-ecology/agroforestry and participatory research with farmer-researchers, including in the field of social science studying the dynamics of socio-technical transition; welcomes the Commission’s initiative to promote and coordinate a network of agro-ecological experiments;

Local and regional level

67.

recommends providing very active support for local and regional authorities in implementing an agro-ecological approach, in particular in terms of technical training for new entrants, help for young farmers to get established, independent advice for farmers, support for short supply chains and for small-scale processing of agricultural products, rules on agricultural land and urban planning, expansion of protected agricultural areas, creation of agro-ecological demonstration farms, and tools for monitoring the implementation of the agro-ecological transition;

68.

proposes ‘long contracts for agro-ecological innovation’ between groups of farmers and local or regional authorities, in the context of the tools offered by the European Innovation Partnership on agricultural productivity and sustainability;

69.

calls on the EU to coordinate and facilitate a network of municipalities committed to taking measures to promote resilient, sustainable agricultural and food systems, as was done for the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55).

(2)  European Parliament (2017), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0197_EN.html

(3)  http://www.fao.org/3/i2801f/i2801f.pdf

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation

(2021/C 106/06)

Rapporteur-general: Jácint HORVÁTH (HU/PES), Member of Nagykanizsa Municipal Council Reference documents: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation COM(2020) 620 final Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation COM(2020) 621 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments — Roma as a European ethnic minority

1.

welcomes the Commission’s Communication, which further demonstrates the commitment of both the European Commission and the European Council to integrate Roma communities (1) and to eliminate discrimination against and exclusion of Roma. Likewise, welcomes the latest Council recommendation on this issue and emphasises the importance of providing information at local and regional level and of setting specific targets. To this end, calls on the European Commission and the Council to ensure proper monitoring of the results achieved;

2.

emphasises that the Roma are Europe’s largest ethnic minority group. Many Roma people continue to be deprived of their fundamental rights, live in poverty and face extreme discrimination and social exclusion. As this is a European problem and these people are European citizens, it is all the more shocking that Member State governments and the EU have so far failed to implement successful integration and inclusion policies, fully empowering Roma people to exercise their rights and responsibilities linked to EU citizenship;

3.

points out that a Union of Equality, which is one of the main objectives of the European Commission (2), cannot be achieved on the continent without the active participation of Roma communities, which represent an estimated 10-12 million people;

4.

confirms that progress on Roma integration over the last 10 years has been limited. A certain amount of progress has been made on some of the sectoral priorities identified in the Communication, but overall the objectives set have not been met. In the future, therefore, it will be necessary to overhaul the allocation of resources to this area and increase them where necessary, further develop an integrated approach and encourage the use of innovative solutions. Particular emphasis should be placed on ensuring the professional and financial sustainability of successful programmes so that long-term results can be achieved;

5.

also notes that the commitments given on equality, social inclusion and Roma participation need to be renewed and strengthened at European, national, regional and local levels;

6.

given continued unsatisfactory results when it comes to addressing educational, labour market, housing and health problems caused by discrimination and the social context, calls on Member States to step up efforts in this regard, in particular by further empowering regional and local authorities;

7.

recognises that Roma communities have an extremely high level of exposure to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Where these communities are concerned, the pandemic and its socioeconomic and health impacts exacerbate existing disparities and widen the gap still further. What is more, the impact of the pandemic is cancelling out some of the results that have been achieved to date. Resources for Roma should therefore be increased as part of the recovery process;

8.

notes that the promotion of Roma equality and integration is not only essential in terms of fundamental rights, but is also of clear economic importance. Successful implementation of the strategy will also be crucial for the economic performance of Member States with a high proportion of Roma in their population (above 1 %);

9.

welcomes in particular the European Parliament’s 2020 resolution on the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies: combating negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in Europe (3); which clearly sets out specific goals and measures. The Committee also recommends that this report’s forward-looking findings be taken into account when drafting national Roma strategic frameworks;

10.

supports the Declaration of Mayors and Elected Local and Regional Representatives of Council of Europe Member States Against Anti-Gypsyism (4). Calls on the EU institutions to work more closely with the Council of Europe on improving the status of Roma, including supporting the European Alliance of Cities and Regions for the inclusion of Roma and Travellers, and the excellent ‘Dosta!’ awareness-raising campaign;

11.

welcomes and appreciates in particular the adoption by the prime ministers of Western Balkan countries with a high Roma population of the declaration on Roma integration adopted in July 2019 as part of the EU enlargement process (5), in which they pledged to improve the situation of the Roma before gaining EU membership;

National Roma strategic frameworks, horizontal objectives

12.

welcomes the fact that the Communication takes into account the findings of the evaluation of the previous framework, the annual assessments of the implementation of the national strategies and the analysis of the reasons for the limited effectiveness of previous measures, and also the fact that it is based on wide-ranging consultations;

13.

emphasises, however, that the Communication fails to address the experiences, both positive and negative, with the implementation of previous national Roma strategies. It draws no conclusions, contains no reference to best practices and makes no mention of any effective measures taken by Member States that could be adopted or taken up elsewhere;

14.

notes that making a national Roma strategic framework mandatory is one of the key elements for progress in this area and is disappointed that a number of Member States did not prepare strategic frameworks in the previous cycle, due to this being optional;

15.

confirms its support for the European Commission’s efforts to help EU Member States and candidate countries develop successful national Roma strategies by publishing guidelines on integration strategies; notes, however, that drawing the lessons from the numerous negative experiences in the implementation of the EU Roma strategy in the previous cycle would have helped ensure a more consistent approach when drafting the current strategy;

16.

is disturbed to note that surveys conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) confirm that discrimination in the labour market is a cause for concern not only in the process of seeking work, but also in the workplace, where 22 % of respondents felt discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic or immigrant background. As regards access to goods and services (covering public administration, public transport, shops, restaurants, etc.), Roma faced the highest level of discrimination (28 % of respondents);

17.

further notes that the Communication does not take into account the possible lack of civil society organisations and experts, which is a major obstacle to progress in some Member States, mainly because it hampers the work of NGOs. Ultimately, this can have an impact on Roma’s chances of inclusion;

18.

states that national Roma strategic frameworks should contribute to implementing the EU anti-racism action plan and the European Pillar of Social Rights, and to accomplishing the United Nations 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. The links with these different documents, the contribution to their objectives and the scope of this contribution should be specifically mentioned in the National Roma Strategic Frameworks;

19.

notes that, in its Communication and proposal for a Council recommendation, the European Commission has indeed set objectives that are ambitious, but at the same time necessary, multifaceted and balanced, at both the horizontal and sectoral levels. In order to achieve these objectives effectively by 2030, the widest possible range of local and national Roma civil society organisations should be involved in the planning, implementation, monitoring and follow-up of the national Roma strategic frameworks, incorporating the proposals made and allowing for a periodic review of the strategy;

20.

points out that the Communication does not envisage a situation in which the measures provided for in the strategic frameworks have no meaningful effect. In the light of the experience of the previous cycle, the possibility that some Member States might not implement the national strategic frameworks remains a matter of serious concern for the Committee. Urges, therefore, the Commission to closely monitor progress at Member State level, enforce the application of the relevant EU legislation and swiftly assess the necessity for further legislation since the absence of sanctions risks delaying even further the Roma integration and inclusion process. Invites the Commission to consider the creation of a European advisory board, consisting, inter alia, of experts in Roma policies and involving also representatives of local and regional authorities with tangible experience on Roma issues on the ground. Further insists on the need to improve the representativeness of Roma people in the design and implementation of the national Roma strategic frameworks;

21.

supports further cooperation with the FRA in the context of the periodic review of national Roma strategic frameworks. The availability of adequate data is of paramount importance both for assessing the state of play and for measuring progress. Due attention should be paid to this issue as, on many occasions, the problem has arisen that funds earmarked for Roma integration have been spent on non-Roma target groups;

22.

emphasises that the objectives and measures set out in the national Roma strategic frameworks should take into account specific local and regional characteristics within Member States and disadvantaged micro-regions requiring specific measures;

23.

agrees with the view that the challenges of equality, social inclusion and participation of Roma vary greatly depending on the size of the Roma community and its share of the total population, the wider economic context and the extent of traditional exclusion and discrimination. They also depend on where and how Roma live (whether rural, urban, mobile or segregated) and on specific aspects such as international mobility, migration or citizenship documentation issues;

24.

stresses, however, that the national strategic framework must reflect local and regional differences, identify areas facing specific problems and contribute to the application of tailor-made solutions;

25.

welcomes the Commission’s call to Member States with large Roma populations to include more ambitious commitments in their national Roma strategic frameworks, which should mainstream Roma equality and inclusion into regional and local policies;

26.

supports the European Commission’s request for Member States to report every two years on the implementation of their national Roma strategic frameworks, complemented by data from civil society and the FRA; urges the European Commission to seek the broadest possible involvement of civil society organisations and local and regional authorities dealing with Roma issues;

Comments on the sectoral objectives

27.

reaffirms that the four key themes identified by the European Commission when grouping its objectives — education, employment, healthcare and housing — play a key role in the Roma inclusion process, together with the role played by social services, especially at the local and regional levels;

28.

notes that, according to the second EU Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) (6) Roma children lag behind other children in all educational indicators. Only about half (53 %) of Roma children between the age of four and the starting age of compulsory primary education participate in early childhood education. On average, 18 % of Roma aged 6-24 have a lower standard of education than is normal for their age. The proportion of Roma leaving school early is disproportionately high compared to the general population. The CoR condemns school segregation, which continues to be practised in some Member States, despite the legal ban on this practice and the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights;

29.

welcomes the recommendation adopted in July 2020 by the Council of Europe (7) to include the history of the Roma people and/or travellers in school curricula and teaching materials. This is particularly relevant for Member States with a large Roma population;

30.

recommends that one objective of the framework should be the inclusion of information about Roma history and culture in primary and secondary school textbooks and that indicators should be provided to this effect. The aim is to ensure that, especially in countries where Roma account for more than 1 % of the population, pupils acquire positive information about the Roma every year in these fields. Preventing anti-Roma racism through education should be a priority in all Member States, regardless of the size of Roma population;

31.

notes that digital educational models introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are contributing to the early school-leaving of Roma children, most of whom lack the necessary IT tools and access to high-speed internet, or are unable to work independently on the subjects of their school programme without adequate parental support;

32.

stresses, therefore, that once the restrictive measures introduced in education due to the COVID-19 pandemic are lifted, educational catch-up programmes will be of paramount importance;

33.

notes that according to the second EU Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) (8), only a quarter of Roma over the age of 16 are ‘employed’ or ‘self-employed’. The employment rates of Roma women are significantly lower than for men (16 % compared to 34 %). Overall, the survey shows that the share of Roma aged 20-64 in paid employment is 43 %, which is well below the EU average (70 % in 2015);

34.

stresses that, according to the above-mentioned FRA survey, discrimination in healthcare was highest among Roma (8 %), while their life expectancy is lower than that of the overall population;

35.

supports the European Parliament in its call for Member States to ensure effective and timely remedies to all survivors of forced and coercive sterilisation, including through the establishment of effective compensation schemes;

36.

emphasises the fact that a significant proportion of Roma live in households that do not have access to essential utilities and basic services. This puts them at serious risk of housing deprivation;

37.

agrees with the request to Member States to ensure access to adequate desegregated housing for Roma people and to include in each National Roma strategic framework the objective of preventing forced evictions without alternative housing, as stipulated in the Council Recommendation and Annex 1 to the Communication. Calls for this objective to be met preferably half-way through the period covered by the framework’s implementation because a large number of Roma in the European Union have lost their homes as a result of evictions and live in sub-standard conditions;

Comments on the institutional framework

38.

emphasises that without a comprehensive reform of the resource-allocation system and the development of institutional and absorption capacities, no substantial changes in the use of resources can be envisaged. For catch-up programmes to be effective, procedures also need to be streamlined and simplified and the approach of intermediary organisations needs to change. The catch-up policy needs to be simplified, made clearer and more transparent and brought closer to citizens;

39.

notes that Roma who are particularly affected by exclusion and make use of their right to free movement to live and/or work in other Member States often face discrimination and exploitation there. The CoR highlights the importance of transnational cooperation at national, regional and local level to prevent exploitation organised across borders;

40.

calls for consideration to be given to prioritising other support techniques (priority projects, negotiated procedures, global grants, regulatory support) rather than procurement programmes that create an uneven playing field when it comes to supporting integration programmes;

41.

suggests to stop the use of the common denominator ‘Roma’, as it fails to recognise the diversity within the population of people with Romani background. Instead proposes the adoption of the expression ‘people with Romani identity’;

42.

recommends that Member States ensure, in addition to appropriate professional guarantees, continuous and unhindered funding for successful social catch-up initiatives and related projects. Indeed, it turned out that several previously successful projects only managed to obtain new funding after being presented as unprecedented innovations and developments. It is also essential to ensure continued funding for effective projects carried out by civil society organisations that do not have their own funds or assets or financial reserves;

43.

considers it particularly important that Roma organisations committed to integration have the opportunity to gradually increase their capacities, in line with the principle of gradual development and growth. It should also be possible to implement initial projects requiring only very small amounts of funding so that the most disadvantaged areas can also embark on a path towards a conscious development of Roma integration. This process must be catalysed and supported by a project preparation programme and implemented with the support of mentors;

44.

stresses that the financing of national strategic frameworks also requires an integrated approach to the various development funds. Emphasis should be placed on the need for more effective coordination of infrastructure and human capacity development projects so that the resources of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) are jointly accessible through integrated development programmes for complex projects aimed at strengthening social cohesion. Coordination of these resources requires the development of appropriate implementation tools that support the strategic approach;

45.

welcomes in particular the European Commission’s commitment in the EU anti-racism action plan 2020-25 to lead by example as an institution by taking measures to significantly improve the representativeness of its staff through targeted recruitment and selection measures. When implementing these measures, the European Commission will ensure that they also apply to Roma, and calls on the other EU institutions to take initiatives to promote diversity and integration in the workplace. The CoR supports this approach and considers that it also applies in its own case;

The role of local and regional authorities

46.

draws the attention of the governments of the Member States to the fact that local and regional authorities should be involved in drawing up national policy frameworks for Roma. They are the organisations closest to the Roma, they are on the front line when dealing with the problems and have real approaches and resources at their disposal to improve the situation;

47.

reiterates that local and regional authorities are the level of governance with most responsibilities for the integration of Roma populations, and should support their inclusion in a non-paternalistic bottom-up approach;

48.

calls for local and/or regional exchange forums to be set up and operated in all Member States that would monitor the implementation of national strategic frameworks, in order to strengthen dialogue and ensure a certain level of cooperation. Only proven working relationships between all stakeholders can lead to effective integration, and the strengthening of the decentralised approach ensures a more effective implementation of the programmes;

49.

recommends that local authorities in areas with Roma populations support local community development programmes that provide the relevant Roma groups and small communities with access to basic practical knowledge that is of crucial importance and which must be mastered in everyday life;

50.

urges local and regional authorities to ensure that content that breaks down prejudices against Roma is published in the media they run;

51.

draws the attention of local and regional authorities to the fact that the dissemination of knowledge about Roma history and culture and the promotion of intercultural learning can be effective in reducing racism.

---

(1)  As in the Commission’s Communication, in this opinion ‘Roma’ is used as an umbrella term to refer to a number of different groups of Romani origin such as Roma, Sinti, Kale, Romanichels and Boyash/Rudari. It also encompasses groups such as Ashkali, Egyptians, Yenish, Dom, Lom, Rom, and Abdal, as well as traveller populations, including ethnic Travellers or those designated under the administrative term ‘gens du voyage’, and people who identify as Gypsies, Tsiganes or Tziganes, without denying the specific characteristics of each of these groups.

(2)  A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-25 COM(2020) 565 final.

(3)  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0147_EN.html

(4)  http://a.cs.coe.int/team81/congress_form/Inscriptions/Declaration_Against_anti_gypsyism.aspx

(5)  https://www.romaeducationfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Western-Balkans-Declaration-on-Roma-Integration-and-EU-enlargement.pdf

(6)  https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2015/second-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey

(7)  https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016809ee48c

(8)  https://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2015/second-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — A new European Research Area (ERA) for research and innovation

(2021/C 106/07)

Rapporteur: Christophe CLERGEAU (FR/PES), Member of the Pays-de-la-Loire Regional Council Reference document: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A new European Research Area (ERA) for research and innovation COM(2020) 628 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

points to the conclusions of its opinion on Horizon Europe: Framework Programme 9 for Research and Innovation, which: — ‘calls for genuine account to be taken of the excellence to be found throughout the EU’s Member States and regions in order to improve the level of scientific excellence in Europe as a whole and not in just a few large regions and cities’; — ‘is disappointed to note the ongoing refusal to recognise the territorial roots of scientific excellence [and] the contribution of regional ecosystems and innovation hubs to the EU’s dynamics’; — ‘calls strongly for the full participation of local and regional authorities in the strategic planning exercise […] and for smart specialisation strategies to be taken into account in this context’; — ‘believes that territorial impacts should be recognised as integral components of the impact concept when it comes to evaluating the programme and projects’;

2.

welcomes the opportunity offered by this communication to put forward a coherent strategy for involving all stakeholders in strengthening Europe’s research and innovation work; notes, however, the lack of balance in the communication, which focuses too much on the European Research Area (ERA) as a continuation of Horizon Europe, at the expense of the other aspects to be taken into account;

3.

supports the ambitious initiatives set out in the communication, which will help equip Europe to meet its global challenges and which could transform the research landscape and strengthen Europe through the development of knowledge. Research and innovation (R&I) must play a key role in supporting the environmental, digital, social and economic transitions facing Europe. These policies should also help Europe overcome the challenge of COVID-19, as demonstrated by the ERAvsCorona Action Plan now running;

4.

welcomes the new emphasis the Commission places on engaging citizens in research and innovation matters, calls for such engagement, while respecting scientific freedom, to concern all stages of framing, implementing and monitoring these policies, not being restricted to ‘guiding’ or ‘informing’ citizens, who — on the contrary — want to play an active part; considers that this engagement should firstly be organised at local level, and that the cities and regions are key players in facilitating and developing it, and play an important role in aligning research and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society. In this way, co-design and co-responsibility for the process and results of research and innovation by regional and local players increase the uptake and acceptability of research and innovation by society. Towns and regions also provide important resources to make the broader Open Science Agenda operational, as this is essential to developing a successful European Research Area;

5.

welcomes the Commission’s commitment to reach 3 % of GDP spent on R & D and to set a target of 1,25 % for the public effort in 2030 (compared to the current 0,81 %), but wonders how these targets can be achieved, given that the recovery plan does not provide for substantial spending on R&I and, for example, moves away from the EU4Health programme proposed by the Commission;

6.

regrets that, although there is a Commissioner with a single portfolio covering research, innovation, training and youth policies, it has not been possible to propose a fresh approach for a European Education and Research Area; points to the need for a cross-cutting approach to these issues, which are closely linked to regional policies; hopes that the Communication on the global approach to research, innovation, education and youth, announced by the Commission in its work programme for 2021, will move in this direction;

7.

stresses that this communication is only a starting point, which should lead, firstly, to further tangible actions and, secondly, to the adoption of a ‘pact for research and innovation’; asks to be involved in the preparation of these new steps; calls for this pact to be an opportunity to protect academic and university freedoms, the freedom of expression of lecturers, researchers, students and intellectuals, as well as their freedom of movement, not only within the Union, but also between the Union and all of our partner countries; considers in this regard that international cooperation policy within the ERA must comply with these same principles and is concerned by the rapid erosion of academic freedoms in many countries around the world;

8.

points out that proper monitoring and assessment of innovation and research is essential for effective policy implementation. Refers, in this regard, to the opinion on the Regional Innovation Scoreboard and its impact in regional place-based policies, which states that the RIS is an essential tool for comparing changes in the performance of regional innovation policies, and that its influence on regional decision-making should be boosted to improve regional innovation ecosystems and smart specialisation;

9.

welcomes the progress made in this communication, which puts forward a more strategic vision of the partnership between the Commission and the Member States, with the involvement of regional governments, which are often responsible for promoting these policies, a more integrated approach to research and innovation issues, and a better focus on the objectives that these policies must meet, as well as their impact on our societies; also welcomes the fact that the communication explores an approach based on a more inclusive, multi-level form of governance, that with the ‘ERA hubs’ it proposes a concept that gives greater recognition to the roles of regional ecosystems and innovation hubs, that it boosts measures for coordination with aspects of higher education, digital education and skills, and that it commits to a more inclusive European Research Area, facilitating access to scientific excellence and the sharing of results;

10.

highlights the importance of developing the economy for sharing and the movement of knowledge. The concepts and practices of dissemination of the results — ideas, insights, methodologies, prototypes, inventions, and other similar knowledge outcomes — of research and innovation programmes and projects should be financed so that they are rediscovered, accessed, and applied to active use throughout Europe;

11.

supports the proposal to develop inclusive gender equality plans in order to promote, in the field of R&I, the gender equality advocated by the EU, and calls for cities and regions to be involved. Points out here that the actions of the new ERA include Action 12, on gender equality, which aims to boost European R&I potential, and stresses the need to close gender gaps in the context of the digital transition and innovation, encouraging more women into STEAM and ICT courses and jobs;

12.

welcomes in particular the specific reference to the European Committee of the Regions as a key player in the ERA, especially through the Knowledge Exchange Platform and the Science Meets Regions initiative;

13.

objects, however, to a governance approach that still centres on the relationship between the Commission and the Member States, which usually makes cities and regions recipients of public policy rather than active participants in it, and which leaves the Member States to deal with local and regional issues; therefore once again calls for the full and complete recognition of cities and regions as stakeholders to be mobilised in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating European research and innovation policies, in keeping with the principle of ‘active subsidiarity’ (1);

A new approach for the European Research Area

14.

stresses the importance of the positions set out by the European Research Area Committee (ERAC) (2) (17.12.2019) and by ERRIN (3), and advocates a new approach for the ERA that will move: — drawing on Horizon Europe’s scientific excellence-based approach, to an approach that combines excellence in research with knowledge to build, in particular, European leadership with sustainable growth and processes that will bring about a transition to new models; — from research strategies to knowledge-based strategies, with an integrated approach to research, innovation, education and skills, involving a wide range of stakeholders — universities, industry, different levels of the public sector, citizens and civil society; — from the European Framework Programme and autonomous national research policies to a truly multi-level steering framework and full recognition of the local ties of R&I in cities and regions;

15.

urges that stronger emphasis be put on the relationship between research and business while recognising the key role of local and regional authorities in developing entrepreneurial environments and facilitating connections for knowledge transfer: sponsorship of fundamental research by companies, promotion of science entrepreneurship, while adhering to transparency requirements, private investment, support for companies in developing their innovation;

16.

calls for greater clarity, in relation to the establishment of the ‘ERA Talent Platform’, on how the Commission intends to: (a) ensure continuity with the EURAXESS initiative and the Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R), which have been developed up to now to facilitate the mobility of researchers and their career development in order to contribute to the establishment of a single market for knowledge, research and innovation; and (b) encourage the recognition of research staff in these initiatives and promote mechanisms to support regions committed to attracting and retaining talent, the HRS4R strategy and to support the needs of research institutions and staff;

17.

emphasises the need for the work to involve good local/regional coordination and to provide instruments enabling local or regional authorities to play a leading role, such as the Policy Support Facility, synergies between regional policy and Horizon Europe, and the Seal of Excellence. It is essential to facilitate access to information and data to enhance synergies and complementarities between European funds and allow different authorities to work in a more coordinated way;

18.

calls for clarification of the concept of excellence by clearly distinguishing between excellence in science, the excellence of impacts, which is closely linked to collaboration between science and innovation ecosystems, particularly local and regional ones, and the excellence of ecosystems themselves, through their specific areas of scientific excellence, as well as their ability to provide strategy and coordination (4);

19.

proposes, while fully reiterating the importance of measures to support scientific excellence in the framework of Horizon Europe, in particular, to fully recognise as a complementary objective of the ERA, the availability in all EU cities and regions of high-quality science that can be harnessed to boost innovation and help society and businesses meet the challenges of the Sustainable Development Goals and deal with today’s crises;

20.

welcomes the European Commission’s facilitation of investments and reforms towards the EU’s priorities, especially the green and digital transformations, which have become essential after the COVID-19 crisis;

21.

calls for the ERA to promote the links to be developed between strategies for smart specialisation, ERA priorities and their overall implementation; also calls for the ERA to contribute to a better balance between, on the one hand, the indispensable scientific excellence and, on the other hand, the urgent need to close the research and innovation performance gap between states, regions and cities in the EU;

ERA, smart specialisations and regional policy

22.

considers that a new ERA should be an opportunity to fully recognise the role of smart specialisations and their collective and entrepreneurial process as one of the cornerstones of current and future European research and innovation performance; stresses that smart specialisations bring together local and regional authorities, research institutions, the private sector and civil society and help regions to gain competitive advantage, stimulate private investment and create jobs; also underlines the key role of the regions in the European smart specialisation strategy and the need to preserve the specific approach of regional smart specialisation strategies, including where national smart specialisation strategies also exist; suggests, in this context, carrying out a cross-cutting and dynamic mapping of distributed scientific excellence and smart specialisations, in a partnership between the regions, the Member States and the European Union; proposes also taking account of the necessary shift from S3 to sustainable smart specialisation strategies (S4) and towards better use of the quadruple helix approach, enabling society to play an active part in the strategy;

23.

stresses the importance of using this mapping to contribute to the networking of regional smart specialisations underpinned by scientific excellence and of facilitating trans-regional cooperation, both through Interreg and in particular its interregional innovation investments component, and under Horizon Europe, through practical collective projects carried out by means of the programme as a whole, and especially Pillar 2 thereof, in particular as part of the ‘missions’ and ‘European innovation partnerships’ and in the cross-cutting part of the programme on widening and strengthening the ERA; emphasises the importance of involving towns and regions in ‘missions’ and ‘partnerships’ governance;

24.

supports the Commission’s aim to guide the development of common technology roadmaps with industry in order to include R&I investment programmes, but is surprised to see that they are only linked to the Member States and industry under the European partnerships planned under Horizon 2020; argues that this should be carried out while taking account of the regions’ smart specialisations and the role of regional innovation ecosystems and hubs which also shape industrial value chains;

25.

reaffirms the role of cities and regions as partners in the development and networking of research and technology infrastructure and the ESFRI programme; highlights their major role in the emergence, encouragement and promotion of this infrastructure (5); reiterates, furthermore, that local and regional authorities are key players in the creation of effective regional ecosystems and innovation hubs (6);

26.

proposes moving towards partnership contracts between the regions, the Member States and the EU, to mobilise all stakeholders with the focus on shared research, innovation and higher education, digital education and skills objectives, and on plans to support smart specialisation areas, bringing all EU policies to bear, and not limited to the rules for mobilising the ERDF. This approach could be the subject of a pilot action;

27.

recalls that ERDF mobilisation for research and innovation has increased considerably over the programming periods to more than EUR 100 billion for 2014-2020, and that over the same period the financial mobilisation of cities and regions from their own budgets has reached a level which in total represents almost twice the volume of the European Research Framework Programme. These data highlight the issues of coordination between European, national, local and regional policies, as well as the issues of synergies between intervention tools;

28.

is concerned at the limited progress made in the field of synergies, due in particular to the slow progress on State aid framework schemes, reiterates its hope that ‘all funding harnessed to co-finance an action or action programme under Horizon Europe will be subject to the legal rules applying to this programme, in particular those concerning State aid’ (7), and reaffirms its view of synergies as a form of willing cooperation based on the 5Cs principle (coherence, complementarity, compatibility, co-construction, recognition of local stakeholder collectives) (8); again stresses the need for an effective co-construction approach and control of possible financial transfers by the managing authority;

29.

considers that, in view of these factors, the full involvement of cities and regions in the ERA Forum for Transition is essential, in the light not only of the cooperation and coordination challenges to be addressed, but also of the role of local actors in implementing the transformation agenda in relation to crises and transitions;

Contribution of regional ecosystems and innovation hubs to the dynamics of the European Research Area

30.

recommends that local or regional good practices be assessed and developed when drawing up the criteria for compliance with the enabling condition for smart specialisation strategies, as laid down in the Regulation on Common Provisions for the Structural Funds. It should be pointed out that good governance of the national, regional or local smart specialisation strategy should form part of the process of drawing up the regional ERDF programmes, in which each regional and local authority must demonstrate the progress it has made on implementing its S3 strategies, including, among other things, measures for international cooperation. This would appear to be an excellent opportunity to develop and share good practices, for example, through platforms such as Science Meets Regions or the Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP);

31.

warmly supports the introduction of the ‘ERA hub’ as an opportunity to give institutional recognition and a tangible form to the concept of regional ecosystems and innovation hubs, which the Committee has been promoting for several years, and to fully recognise a place-based approach to science and innovation; calls for the swift implementation of this proposal and proposes using the Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP) to clarify its terms of reference and to facilitate the start-up of pilot projects. Also welcomes the Commission’s intention, in cooperation with the CoR, to take this initiative to a strategic level, promoting synergies between R&I, education, upskilling, reskilling and training instruments, and mobilising the cohesion funds; urges that this initiative not be limited to the sole aim of facilitating access to excellence;

32.

draws attention to several pitfalls to be avoided: the discussions to be held must take into account the experience of the digital hubs or of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), but the ERA hubs should not be limited to these reference points or confine themselves to organising an ‘interconnected knowledge space’ centred on the exchange of good practice and the circulation of knowledge — moreover, Europe does not need a ‘hubs of hubs’; the ERA Hubs should not merely be a tool for reducing the innovation gap, and nor should they serve once again to highlight only the world-class university sites that are already strongly supported by the Member States and the Framework Programme;

33.

proposes, instead, that groups of stakeholders, regional (or interregional) ecosystems and innovation hubs be recognised within the framework of ERA hubs if they share the following cumulative criteria: — the existence of a knowledge strategy, offering an integrated approach to higher education, digital education, lifelong learning, including upskilling and reskilling, research and innovation; — the involvement of all stakeholders, on the basis of the quadruple helix model, which emphasises the involvement of citizens and local public actors that come from a democratic system; — the capacity for collective coordination, strategy definition and shared decision-making when it comes to adopting priorities and allocating resources; — economic and social performance in terms of territorial impact in all areas: training, innovation, job and business creation, services provided to businesses, public services and the third sector, the contribution to transitions and social and cultural innovation, social cohesion, active citizenship and cultural creativity (e.g. using the Innovation Scoreboard (9)); — having smart specialisations at European and international level in areas of scientific excellence relevant to the ERA hubs, or being on a trajectory that makes it possible to reach this level quickly and credibly; — involvement in thematic interregional or European smart specialisation networks and partnerships; — a background of involvement in European research, training and mobility programmes for researchers and students;

34.

considers that these ERA hubs should be supported directly by the EU, including in financial terms, through a partnership based on three pillars: — recognition by the EU of these ERA hubs as important points of support for achieving the European Union’s objectives and for implementing the relevant policies; this entails the ERA hubs being taken into account both in conducting the ERA Forum for Transition and in Horizon Europe strategic planning; — European support for strengthening key support tasks (strategy, coordination, Europeanisation, internationalisation, training, talent attraction, innovation and transfers) and improved access to the various European programmes, including Horizon Europe; — a commitment by the ERA hub stakeholders to strengthen their strategic capacity and the quality of smart specialisations, to increase their involvement in Community networks and programmes, and to develop cooperation within the European network of ERA hubs;

35.

hopes that at least 50 to 100 sites in Europe can be recognised as ERA hubs and that this network will be open to a broad range of participants, in particular to emerging ecosystems in the EU-13 and the most disadvantaged regions;

36.

stresses the crucial role of cities and regions as initiators and orchestrators of extensive collaboration projects for societal innovations in tackling societal challenges. ERA hubs should act as instruments in developing necessary competencies and practices in accelerating this progress;

37.

stresses that the network of ERA hubs could become an excellent framework to boost the emergence of collective research and innovation projects, combining several regional ecosystems and innovation hubs in a bottom-up approach. These consortia could usefully harness the legal tool of cofund actions, which exist under Horizon Europe, and which can also be used under Pillar 2, which is perfectly suited to develop synergies between the Framework Programme, regional policy and the budgets of cities and regions;

COVID-19 crisis, innovation divide, the distribution of excellence: cohesion at the heart of the ERA

38.

warns of the consequences of the current crises on the most fragile and hardest-hit regions, and notes that the 2008 economic and financial crisis resulted in the collapse of investment in research and innovation in certain regions, particularly in the countries of Southern Europe. The Committee therefore reiterates that the Next Generation EU recovery plan and the next Multiannual Financial Framework should provide greater support for higher education, digital education, lifelong learning, including upskilling and reskilling, research and innovation to help meet the ERA objectives and that, within this framework, the ReactEU programme and the Just Transition Fund should also be harnessed in line with the operational programmes adopted by the regions and their smart specialisation strategies. This is essential because regions need more support for recovery before they can become resilient;

39.

calls on the Commission to explain how, in the current context and without increased support, Member States whose level of investment in R&I is below the European average could achieve the target of a 50 % increase in such investment over the next five years, an objective which the Committee nevertheless supports;

40.

notes that the ERA is fragmented: EU funds are not sufficient to fund collaboration between regional innovation ecosystems, and research results are rarely shared with the general public and other regions, even within a single Member State; at the same time, regrets that supranational R&I programmes traditionally benefit small and relatively ‘closed’ networks of prestigious universities, research centres, large industries and regions containing a capital city, which in many cases have already participated in previous Framework Programmes or which have a substantial presence in Brussels;

41.

agrees that progress on implementation of the ERA has slowed down and that there are still large disparities between countries and regions, as indicated in the 2018 ERA Progress Report. The convergence of European, national and regional research and innovation systems is inadequate, resulting in a damaging concentration of R&I sites of excellence across Europe that leaves entire regions behind. It is in addition producing an unbalanced environment for the mobility and movement of knowledge, running counter to the ERA’s policy objectives;

42.

considers that these observations are widely shared and oft repeated, but that no political lessons have been drawn from them, and that the current budgetary choices, if maintained, will not make it possible to remedy these shortcomings, will ensure that all the talk about closing the innovation gap remains nothing but wishful thinking, and will render the mechanisms for spreading excellence and expanding the take-up of tools inadequate and unable to achieve the desired policy objectives.

---

(1)  COM(2018) 703.

(2)  ERAC Opinion on the future of the European Research Area(https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1201-2020-INIT/en/pdf in English).

(3)  ERRIN Recommendations for the future of the European Research Area (https://errin.eu/system/files/2020-06/200608%20ERRIN_recommendations_for_the_future_of_the_European_Research_Area_approved.pdf).

(4)  According to the European University Association, ‘Excellence is not limited to highly cited publications but needs to be based on the many and diverse contributions of the research community, notably including Open Science practices, citizen engagement, and impact on society’.

(5)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Research infrastructures: The Future of the European Research Area (ERA) from a Regional and Cross-border Perspective (OJ C 39, 5.2.2020, p. 68).

(6)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on ‘A renewed European agenda for research and innovation — Europe’s chance to shape its future’ (OJ C 168, 16.5.2019, p. 4).

(7)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Horizon Europe: the Framework Programme 9 for Research and Innovation (OJ C 461, 21.12.2018, p. 79).

(8)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Local and Regional Dimension of the Horizon 2020 Programme and the New Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (OJ C 342, 12.10.2017, p. 1).

(9)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Regional Innovation Scoreboard and its impact in regional place-based policies (OJ C 440, 18.12.2020, p. 87).

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Restart of cultural and creative sectors

(2021/C 106/08)

Rapporteur: Giuseppe VARACALLI (IT/Renew Europe), Member of Gerace Municipal Council (RC)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

points out that the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically brought to light the idea that we all support, namely that culture can be the trump card for Europe’s social, economic and sustainable development. On the other hand, the reality of the cultural and creative sectors has also become clear. Bearing in mind that the term ‘cultural and creative sectors’ is vague, and the lines between publicly funded or subsidised art/culture and self-supporting cultural and creative workers are just as blurred as the boundaries of the industry itself, this opinion focuses in particular on those operators that in principle get little or no support from the public sector. In almost all countries, the sector is made up largely of small businesses, independent artists and other freelance creative professionals, is vulnerable and often precarious, and has been one of the hardest-hit by the pandemic crisis, as highlighted by the CoR in its resolution on the priorities for 2020-25;

2.

points out that one of the premises on which the cultural and creative sectors (CCS) are based, across the board, is that they involve ‘gatherings’, i.e. collective enjoyment, and that this has made them subject to a lockdown which has not yet been lifted for certain sectors and for the activities linked to those sectors, and is leading to severe financial and job losses; an additional premise, however, is that they are intrinsically linked to progress, research and growth, as well as to tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Called attention to the fact that workers in the live arts sector are among the categories most damaged by the crisis generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These are people and families who risk no longer having an income and being unable to survive. Calls on the European institutions and national governments to support the workers in this sector, by ensuring that funds of the Creative Europe programme reach all forms of the culture and creative sector and all those who are involved in creating it, no matter their employment type, and by finding a way with the Member States of having this support take the form of a minimum subsistence income;

3.

points out that Articles 6 and 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union state that the EU’s competence in the field of culture is to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the CoR supports EU initiatives in this area of competence, as they bring to the fore the important transnational and European dimension of this sector. Local and regional authorities have important competences when it comes to promoting cultural and intercultural dialogue; in the middle of a pandemic, these authorities should also coordinate multi-dimensional local and regional cultural networks involving all the key stakeholders. This opinion is drafted in line with the EU’s annual regional and local barometer;

4.

highlights the importance of arts and culture being free and independent, and stresses the intrinsic value of cultural and artistic production; also believes that they need to be promoted as key enablers for strengthening European identity and enhancing its social function, and would make an appeal for art and culture to be given a more prominent role in the debate on the future of the EU; this would also ensure that the CCS are considered a priority at national level, by creating synergies with other policies and structural funding in the next programming period;

5.

proposes a continuous dialogue with CCS organisations so that easily usable support systems can be developed, resulting in a mobilisation that fosters innovation and education, within a dynamic territorial ecosystem: by establishing ad hoc funds for setting up networks, regulating cultural operators’ mobility, building up dedicated channels and IT platforms to host profiles of artists, associations and cultural operators, etc. to help them operate internationally (as is the case with Europass), and facilitating the publication of all calls, measures and specific and tailored actions enabling individual artists and professionals in the sector to more easily access and make use of them, bearing in mind that the CCS often hire self-employed and precarious workers and mainly involve small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), both commercial and non-profit;

6.

points to the need to inform local and regional governments — even more effectively –of the measures and initiatives put in place for the CCS in the EU, establishing during this period greater monitoring of the CCS at local and regional level and recognising local and regional competences in the field of cultural policy, with a view to the fair distribution of the funding allocated to the sector, as grassroots institutions are more in tune with the basic structures. One starting point could be the existing platform https://creativesunite.eu, as well as fully exploiting the potential of national Creative Europe desks;

7.

reiterates ‘the importance of capitalising on and boosting digital opportunities to promote culture in an interactive way and promoting access to culture for all groups of society, especially young people, as the future custodians and promoters of cultural heritage’ (1). Also underlines the need for increased EU funding to co-finance these digitisation activities. This is all the more pertinent amidst the current pandemic, and in the field of culture in general, which has highlighted the digital divide that exists due to geographical, economic and generational factors;

8.

reaffirms that ‘culture must lie at the heart of the EU’s international relations, and that alternative forms and approaches to international diplomacy have emerged, including cultural diplomacy’ (2). Further argues that European cultural diplomacy should focus on promoting Europe and its Member States, as well as its local and regional authorities, including through educational and cultural exchanges, reaching out to the public and to third countries, and thus helping to promote a positive image of Europe and its Member States and regions, as a way of strengthening identity and therefore bolstering social cohesion and dialogue. In order to retain the leading position of Europe’s diverse forms of cultural expression in the post-COVID era, a paradigm shift is needed in which awareness is increased even more not only of what we already have and what we must promote, including by alternative and virtual means, but above all of creative potential and the capacity for interaction with other sectors (cross-fertilisation)across all areas of culture and the arts. The COVID-19 pandemic has made us understand the importance of strengthening and developing the EU’s cultural diplomacy and of being able to compete by offering a greater range of cultural products and more innovation on the world stage, which has seen new powers emerge, including in the cultural sphere; the economic situation caused by COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of networking and of promoting tours in the performing arts, circuses and exhibitions as a way of sharing projects beyond local and regional borders; to this end, a network must be designed for each sub-sector of the arts in order to start planning tours and itineraries in 2022;

9.

at the same time underlines the continuous importance of promoting traditional access to original heritage, in order to promote and preserve the common artistic, historical and Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe;

10.

would like to see the promotion of EU calls for proposals that, among other things, provide more support for projects promoting the social role of culture, experimentation, and innovation in contemporary visual arts, aimed at the regeneration of peripheral, rural or vulnerable urban areas, schools, hospitals, shelters and prisons, by giving awards to artists and creative professionals for the realisation of a large-scale European cultural project, which, on the one hand, embraces contemporary art and innovation and, on the other, produces output that can connect, in an original, innovative and sensitive way, with its intended audience, with the community, thus helping to develop new models for quality of life;

11.

calls for discussions with the individual Member States to ensure that tools are put in place that are able to capture the diversity of the many sub-sectors within the complex system of the CCS, not all of which can benefit from protective measures for workers. Calls for consideration to be given to the idea of a standard welfare system, that gives access to support and subsidies in the event of particular situations arising, by adapting the existing system and making it less rigid and obsolete, and by providing new regulatory frameworks adapted to the new mechanisms for creation, production and distribution within the sector, with an emphasis on creativity, in order to give recognition to operators’ professionalism. To this end, it is vital for the body of employees working in the public administration to include, where they are not represented, people with qualifications in the dramatic arts and other creative branches so that they can help develop cross-cutting programmes in acting, the audiovisual sector and theatre, i.e. embracing the perspective of the creative industry;

12.

underlines the urgent need to ensure that there is a clear legislative framework explicitly covering the health and safety of all cultural workers and artists in their working environment and to take the precarious working conditions in the CCS into full account during this period of pandemic, and throughout the duration of the recovery and its consequences;

Link with political priorities

13.

is concerned about the fate of the CCS, despite the cross-cutting and sectoral measures that have been put in place since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic;

14.

welcomes the agreement on the Creative Europe Programme reached in December 2020 between the Council and the European Parliament, in particular the EUR 2,2 billion support secured for artists. Such an agreement acknowledges the importance of CCS and provides a significant increase for a sector that will need strong assistance throughout the recovery phase;

15.

points to the need to focus on sustainable cultural activities, encouraging investments without age limits in artists and other cultural workers who express values such as democracy, cosmopolitanism, social integration, inclusion and environmental awareness, and in the public enjoyment of art, promoting its launch and revitalisation through EU programmes and facilitating access to a range of sustainable financial support instruments, such as public subsidies, venture capital and access to credit on long-term favourable repayment terms;

16.

welcomes the decision to facilitate participation of small-scale cultural projects in the Creative Europe Programme by achieving substantial simplification of bureaucratic procedures, mostly in the application stage; recommends furthermore integrating investment from the various EU funds in culture, simplifying the procedures involved and increasing, where provided for, the possibility of co-financing to up to 80 % for projects undertaken by small players, opening up the possibility of foundations, banks and institutions covering the remainder. Joins to this effect the European Parliament’s call ‘for sizeable and primary grant-based support for cultural and creative sectors and industries in order to ensure the livelihoods of local communities’ and agrees on the need ‘to earmark for the cultural and creative sectors and industries, according to their specific needs, at least 2 % of the Recovery and Resilience Facility dedicated to the recovery’ (3). Calls for the inclusion of the CCS in REACT-EU, and stresses the need to integrate culture into national policies for the implementation of REACT-EU, and the EU’s instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE), thus preventing the costs of culture weighing on the budgets of cities and regions, which have already suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic; advocates the use of cascade funding, a mechanism already provided for by the European Commission, referred to as ‘financial support for third parties’;

17.

agrees with the need for an establishment of a single EU portal, combining information from all the EU programmes that are funding cultural heritage (4);

18.

welcomes the growing interest and efforts of local and regional authorities across Europe in promoting shared visions and actions in the Member States. Hopes that similar initiatives to those implemented under the Charter of Agrigento (5), signed by hundreds of mayors and by presidents of Italian regions and supported by particularly representative associations and the European Committee of the Regions (6), can be reproduced in other countries;

19.

hopes that the cultural heritage sector can always enable participation — despite the restrictions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic — sustainability, protection and innovation, the four cornerstones on which the European Year of Cultural Heritage initiatives were designed, and that, given the crisis triggered by COVID-19, the increases in funds for Creative Europe will be made structural and will be managed directly by the regional authorities;

20.

professionals in the field of cultural heritage are ideally placed to make the community as a whole aware that the sector is of vital benefit to the economy, culture, the environment and society;

21.

supports a greater role for creators, artists, technical staff and other cultural and heritage players, not just as a ‘means’ of growing the economy and increasing competitiveness. COVID-19 has further highlighted the need to incorporate culture into the education system as a cross-cutting part of the curriculum. To this end, it is essential to include the performing arts during school hours;

22.

is particularly concerned about the growing shortage of skilled craftsmen, restoration professionals and heritage experts. Calls on the European institutions to include the preservation of valuable practices and knowledge in future cultural heritage preservation initiatives;

Specific local or regional dimension

23.

calls, with due respect for complementarity and subsidiarity — the guiding principle of the EU in the field of cultural relations — for the Member States to step up their action here, carrying out supporting or coordinating measures in order to frame a strategic European approach to the restart of the CCS;

24.

acknowledges that local and regional authorities have been playing a key role in promoting, stimulating and supporting cultural activities related to music, the visual arts, folklore, performing arts, audiovisual arts, publications, cultural heritage and so on, through grants that have been helping to improve beneficiaries’ conditions over months of closure or reduced capacity in public spaces as a result of COVID-19 health measures, as well as through other support measures such as providing spaces for cultural activities free of charge or making it easier to use public areas;

25.

points out that, when talking about culture and creativity, we are not always dealing with tangible objects; sometimes culture and creativity are channelled into the intangible, making the artists themselves a work of art, something that happens with singing and dancing, and with jugglers and trapeze artists, musicians and mime artists, actors and acrobats. Each of them is involved in passing on traditions and customs, creating emotions, giving rise to feelings, promoting their local area, attracting tourists, and overcoming all kinds of psychological barriers, but sometimes they fail to overcome the structural ones that have been exacerbated by the pandemic at this time. The expertise of cultural heritage professionals is a unique public asset, and is crucial in ensuring that work to protect and preserve heritage is imbued with quality and values and is sustainable. This requires strategic action by the authorities in order to protect the different cultural ecosystems;

26.

points out and hopes that the EU will take action to spur on the necessary cooperation between the Member States, to support, promote and revitalise the wide range of sub-sectors within the CCS which the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to a halt. Each sub-sector has different characteristics and needs different spaces and different treatment, but they all contribute to creating opportunities in the regions for tourism and for the social, economic and cultural development of the regions. Examples here, among so many, include: cultural heritage, both tangible, comprising the extremely complex management of monuments and archaeological sites — including underwater ones — museums, archives and libraries; and intangible — regional and local holidays, gastronomy and crafts; forms of dissemination, ranging from conferences to events such as the European capitals of culture; the performing arts and shows, music and dance, from opera and circuses to street artists; the creative industry, including film, publishing, design, advertising, and radio and television, graphics, sculpture, painting and architecture; and cultural institutions and foundations;

27.

urges local and regional authorities to use EU funding and the various programmes and measures to promote individual artists, especially those who are less well known but who are already working in the sector, by developing opportunities now for events and exchanges, including on a virtual basis, which can help unearth the wealth of creative potential hidden in the regions, and thus make those artists, as many have been in the past, ambassadors and promoters of their own cultures. Blending into each other, they manage to create a common European flavour, while at times maintaining features that are specific to each individual country and region. Calls for strong cooperation to be encouraged with the Creative Europe national desks to increase knowledge and information on the ground, and also for cooperation between the regions to be facilitated within the framework of this programme;

28.

strongly supports the decision of the Council and the European Parliament to place cross-border cooperation as a priority for the cultural strand, to strengthen transnational cooperation and the cross-border dimension of creation, circulation and visibility of European works as well as the mobility of cultural and creative operators. Stands ready to contribute to the elaboration of a ‘Status of European artist’, in cooperation with the European Parliament, paying particular attention to the mobility of artists in the remotest European regions. Agrees with the European Parliament on the need to ‘protect employment in the cultural heritage sector, to support restoration professionals and heritage experts, and to give them the tools they need to protect European heritage sites’ (7); also notes that cultural heritage professionals, who work in interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral environments and combine traditional, creative and innovative approaches to safeguarding Europe’s irreplaceable heritage for future generations, should not be forgotten; calls, therefore, for greater mobility to be fostered by enabling cultural heritage professionals to validate the full extent of their formal and non-formal knowledge and skills;

29.

reiterates what has always been clear to those working in the cultural sphere: cities and regions that are able to harness their history, tell their stories, renew and re-imagine themselves, creating space for light, creative and sustainable economies, become attractive not only to tourists and the economic activities they generate, but also to businesses that locate there, the value of property in those areas, and the generational and intercultural balance, in societies that are now structurally multiracial and multi-religious;

30.

calls for the regions to be supported in their efforts to re-launch the arts by being open to experimentation, and to take an interest in the proliferation of new projects and ideas we are seeing at this time when a paradigm shift is needed to revitalise the CCS. The regeneration of urban areas and regions should involve simple projects that make it easier for everyone to acquire knowledge, and this should include peripheral areas, the less developed regions and the outermost regions, by integrating and involving existing or planned cultural infrastructure in the region, and implementing protection and conservation plans for the historical heritage of these areas;

31.

considers it necessary to design creative solutions for rehabilitating, regenerating, reinterpreting and managing the areas themselves, which can range from virtual and intangible measures in relation to the environment, to physical interventions in the places themselves, by turning, for example, to the visual and performing arts and relational art, to applied arts, communication, digital manufacturing and virtual reality, involving communities through activities that foster social cohesion and the development of interpersonal networks, characterised by applicability and sustainability. An example here is the Fiumara d’Arte artistic route: an open-air series of works by world-famous artists dotted across a number of provinces, works which, through particular events, become catalysts for new talents who thus have the opportunity to make themselves known. This is a way of developing local culture, by strengthening its identity and specific nature, creating a unique, place-based, non-transferable value, where cultural factors come to the fore, including at European level;

32.

refers to the views it has previously expressed on the European Capitals of Culture initiative, which has helped to highlight the richness, diversity and common aspects of European cultures. This project and other such initiatives need to continue, and, as is the case with the European Heritage Label, their potential needs to be tapped further. In fact, it is important to develop cultural and creative knowledge especially in the younger generation, without underestimating the value of tourism and school tourism — sectors which are no less seriously affected than the CCS and which cannot operate virtually;

33.

underlines the importance of voluntary work in protecting cultural heritage and therefore welcomes the targeted call for cultural heritage under the European Solidarity Corps;

General comments

34.

considers it necessary to promote throughout Europe the dissemination of artistic and cultural creation, and the international promotion of artists, curators, critics and other cultural workers, as well as creators connected with other disciplines, by means of calls for proposals emphasising the social role of art and culture and involving local authorities, regions, cultural institutions in the strict sense, schools, hospitals, shelters and prisons, to act as the leaders of projects aimed at regenerating peripheral or vulnerable urban areas and buildings. The projects should involve collaboration between European bodies from different countries and a promotion phase in several EU countries, and produce works that can connect, in an original, innovative and sensitive way, with the community, thus helping to develop new models for quality of life and constituting a timely step change towards a genuine democratisation of culture and greater public involvement; likewise, new forms of cultural management innovation should be promoted by fostering incubators for cultural projects and initiatives;

35.

supports the need to produce new works, but above all to use art and culture to support social objectives that are more integrated, structured and efficient, all the more so at a time of market crises that are both systemic and due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, drawing freely on the Art Bonus scheme established by the Italian government, which has led to good practices in the area of patronage, calls for proposals and competitions could be launched to promote the commissioning of works by contemporary European artists and cultural workers by private individuals and companies, works that the purchaser would undertake to make available to the public for a fixed period of time in museums and even as part of a tour;

36.

stresses that, in relation to ‘cultural clusters’ or ‘creative districts’, the COVID-19 crisis has made it essential to position cities and regions at the hub of knowledge networks in order to fully benefit from the free movement of ideas, capital and people in the global network economy. Support from local and regional authorities is vital for the development of such clusters, but these also need to be linked into integrated and scalable European and global knowledge networks to enhance their effectiveness Therefore the EU institutions should support financially Local and Regional Authorities, as well as local actors for the realisation of such projects;

37.

calls for the CCS to be treated like producers of basic commodities, so that, in the event of further extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, they are not penalised by a lockdown. Foresight should therefore be employed and common guidelines drawn up to enable them to continue operating, albeit with restrictions in terms of accessibility;

38.

welcomes with interest the new European Bauhaus initiative announced by the Commission president Ms von der Leyen as part of the Renovation Wave strategy, considering it necessary to nurture a new European aesthetic based on a societal need for beauty, on the interlinkages between existing realities, regeneration and the environment, and on the development and implementation of environmentally sustainable materials, taking as an example the work done by the Superstudio Group in Milan;

39.

reiterates to this effect its earlier call ‘for increased investment in culture and in plans to bring aspects of cultural heritage, including those which have been neglected or abandoned, into use,’ as well as promoting their conservation and dissemination, ‘under interactive and sustainable management within the new 2030 Urban Agenda, capitalising on innovative initiatives promoted by the municipalities and cooperation initiatives promoted by regional stakeholders’ (8).

---

(1)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Culture in a Union that strives for more: the role of regions and cities (OJ C 141, 29.4.2020, p. 39).

(2)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations (OJ C 207, 30.6.2017, p. 95).

(3)  European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 on the cultural recovery of Europe (2020/2708(RSP)).

(4)  European Parliament’s CULT Committee Draft Report, 2019/2194(INI).

(5)  The Charter of Agrigento, signed in Rome on 30 October 2019, aims to promote effective policies to make better use of the EU’s cultural heritage (http://www.anci.it/wp-content/uploads/Carta-di-Agrigento-per-una-nuova-Agenda-europea-della-Cultura.pdf).

(6)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Culture in a Union that strives for more: the role of regions and cities, point 20 (OJ C 141, 29.4.2020, p. 39).

(7)  European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 on the cultural recovery of Europe (2020/2708(RSP)).

(8)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Culture in a Union that strives for more: the role of regions and cities (OJ C 141, 29.4.2020, p. 39).

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — 8th Environment Action Programme

(2021/C 106/09)

Rapporteur-General: Dimitrios KARNAVOS (EL/EPP), Mayor of Kallithea Reference document: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2030, Brussels, 14.10.2020 COM(2020) 652 final, 2020/0300 (COD)

I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital 9

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The 8th EAP should accelerate the transition to a regenerative economy that gives back to the planet more than it takes. A regenerative growth model recognises that the wellbeing and prosperity of our societies depend on a stable climate, a healthy environment and thriving ecosystems, which provide a safe operating space for our economies. As the global population and the demand for natural resources continues to grow, economic activity should develop in a way that does no harm but, on the contrary, reverses climate change and environmental degradation, minimises pollution and results in maintaining and enriching natural capital, therefore ensuring the abundance of renewable and non-renewable resources. Through continuous innovation, adaptation to new challenges and co-creation, the regenerative economy strengthens resilience and protects present and future generations’ wellbeing.

The 8th EAP should accelerate the transition to an economy that gives back to the planet more than it takes. A sustainable growth model recognises that the wellbeing and prosperity of our societies depend on a stable climate, a healthy environment and thriving ecosystems, which provide a safe operating space for our economies. As the global population and the demand for natural resources continues to grow, economic activity should develop in a sustainable way that does no harm but, on the contrary, reverses climate change and environmental degradation with mitigation or compensatory measures and contributory benefits for local environment and communities , follows up on the impacts on environment on a permanent basis , minimises pollution and results in maintaining and enriching natural capital, therefore ensuring the abundance of renewable and non-renewable resources. Through continuous innovation, adaptation to new challenges and co-creation, the sustainable economy strengthens resilience and protects present and future generations’ wellbeing.

Reason

i)

Economic activities should be sustainable and continue to grow ensuring the protection of environment and the sustainable growth of local environment and communities, with dedicated measures and a monitoring mechanism or tools, such as Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMP), etc. ii) The concept of the ‘regenerative economy’ enables the risk implying that nature and our environment can easily be regenerated. As an alternative, it is suggested the term ‘sustainable growth model’.

Amendment 2

Article 2.1

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The 8th EAP has the long-term priority objective for 2050 that citizens live well, within the planetary boundaries in a regenerative economy where nothing is wasted, no net emissions of greenhouse gases are produced and economic growth is decoupled from resource use and environmental degradation. A healthy environment underpins the well — being of citizens, biodiversity thrives and natural capital is protected, restored and valued in ways that enhance resilience to climate change and other environmental risks. The Union sets the pace for ensuring the prosperity of present and future generations globally.

The 8th EAP has the long-term priority objective for 2050 that citizens and their local communities live well, within the planetary boundaries in a sustainable economy where nothing is wasted, no net emissions of greenhouse gases are produced and economic growth is decoupled from resource use and environmental degradation. A healthy environment underpins the well-being and the health of citizens, upgrades ecosystem services, biodiversity thrives and natural capital is protected, restored and valued in ways that enhance resilience to climate change and other environmental risks. The 8th EAP aims to increase the connection between environment policy and health. A healthy living approach needs to be at the basis of all EU policies promoting human health, a healthy planet, a healthy economy and a healthy society with opportunities for all. The Union sets the pace for ensuring the prosperity of present and future generations globally.

Reason

i)

Multiple environmental policies are dealt with not just by individual citizens but also by local communities. ii) Considering the situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the health aspect should be further highlighted. The link between health and environment should also be highlighted, because of its fundamental importance. Local and regional authorities can see in their communities the impacts of environment policies on health and well-being. iii) The concept of ecosystem services is also connected with the healthy environment.

Amendment 3

Article 2.2

Text proposed by the European Commission	CoR amendment
The 8th EAP has the following six thematic priority objectives:	The 8th EAP has the following six thematic priority objectives:
(a) irreversible and gradual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and enhancement of removals by natural and other sinks in the Union to attain the 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target and achieve climate neutrality by 2050 as laid down in Regulation (EU) …/…32;	(a) continuous and gradual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and enhancement of removals by natural and other sinks or green investments contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions at Union, national, regional and local level to attain the 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target and achieve climate neutrality by 2050 as laid down in Regulation (EU) …/…32;
(b) continuous progress in enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change;	(b) constant need for progress, especially in vulnerable regions and local areas, in enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change;
(c) advancing towards a regenerative growth model that gives back to the planet more than it takes, decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental degradation, and accelerating the transition to a circular economy;	(c) advancing towards a sustainable growth model that gives back to the planet more than it takes, decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental degradation, and accelerating the transition to a circular economy;
(d) pursuing a zero-pollution ambition for a toxic free-environment, including for air, water and soil, and protecting the health and well-being of citizens from environment-related risks and impacts;	(d) pursuing a zero-pollution ambition for a toxic free-environment, including for air, water and soil, and protecting the health and well-being of citizens from environment-related risks and impacts;
(e) protecting, preserving and restoring biodiversity and enhancing natural capital, notably air, water, soil, and forest, freshwater, wetland and marine ecosystems;	(e) protecting, preserving and restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services inside and outside protected areas, and enhancing natural capital, notably air, water, soil, and forest, freshwater, wetland and marine ecosystems;
(f) promoting environmental sustainability and reducing key environmental and climate pressures related to production and consumption, in particular in the areas of energy, industrial development, buildings and infrastructure, mobility and the food system.	(f) promoting environmental sustainability and reducing key environmental and climate pressures related to production and consumption, by using tools such as e.g. environmental impact assessments and appropriate assessments and developing methods and instruments for continuous cross-cutting impact monitoring and continuous improvement of environmental performance, in particular in the areas of energy, industrial development, buildings and infrastructure, mobility and the food system.

Reason

i)

The reduction of air emissions could be achieved not only by natural and other sinks, but also with green and sustainable investments, ii) Enhancing adaptive capacity and strengthening resilience to climate change concerns more vulnerable areas, such as coastal areas, etc. Therefore, it could be said that it is mainly a regional and local issue. iii) Most of the areas (e.g. energy, industry, infrastructure, etc.) mentioned in point (f) require the environmental licensing process to be followed. This process can to some extent ensure their construction and operation in a sustainable way. It is therefore crucial to have a mechanism for permanent monitoring and continuous improvement of their environmental performance.

Amendment 4

Article 3.1(b)

Text proposed by the European Commission	CoR amendment
1.   Achieving the priority objectives of the 8th EAP will require:	1.   Achieving the priority objectives of the 8th EAP will require:
(a) … …	(a) … …
(b) strengthening the integrated approach to policy development and implementation, in particular by:	(b) strengthening the integrated approach to policy development and implementation, in particular by:
— mainstreaming the priority objectives set out in Article 2 in all relevant strategies, legislative and non-legislative initiatives, programmes, investments and projects at Union, national, regional and local levels so that they and their implementation do no harm to any of the priority objectives set out in Article 2;	— mainstreaming the priority objectives set out in Article 2 in all relevant strategies, legislative and non-legislative initiatives, programmes, investments and projects at Union, national, regional and local levels so that they and their implementation do no harm to any of the priority objectives set out in Article 2;
	— developing practices and carrying out activities that support local and regional authorities in meeting their objectives;
	— strengthening the cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions, in the framework of the Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment and exploring how to improve dialogue and information pooling;
— maximising the benefits from implementing the Directives 2014/52/EU and 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;	— maximising the benefits from implementing the Directives 2014/52/EU and 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;
— paying careful attention to synergies and potential trade-offs between economic, environmental and social objectives so as to ensure that citizens’ needs for nutrition, housing and mobility are met in a sustainable way that leaves no-one behind;	— paying careful attention to synergies and potential trade-offs between economic, environmental and social objectives so as to ensure that citizens’ needs for nutrition, housing and mobility are met in a sustainable way that leaves no-one behind;
	— ensuring that reaching the long-term priority objective for 2050 as set out in Article 2.1 will not come at the cost of higher taxes, higher energy prices, and/or elevated regulatory burden for European consumers and businesses;
— regularly evaluating existing policies and preparing impact assessments for new initiatives, which are based on wide consultations following procedures that are accountable, inclusive, informed and simple to implement, and which pay due regard to projected impacts on environment and climate;	— regularly evaluating existing policies and preparing impact assessments for new initiatives, which are based on wide consultations following procedures that are accountable, inclusive, informed and simple to implement, and which pay due regard to projected impacts on environment and climate;
	— promoting communication activities at the EU, national, regional and local level, aimed at raising awareness, especially among young people, about the importance and benefits of a sound implementation of environment policy, as well as about its added value to the citizens, businesses and the planet, in order to increase a sense of ownership and the participation of all the relevant stakeholders in the implementation efforts;

Reason

i)

The Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment was created in 2012 and subsequently included in the 7th EAP. As indicated by the webpage of the platform, its inclusion in the 7th EAP places it on a sound and long-term basis. Considering the positive experience of cooperation, the inclusion in the 8th EAP would be a natural step that would ensure continuing support this forum. ii) Communication needs further improvement and LRAs can play an important role on that.

Amendment 5

Article 3.1(d)

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

mobilising sustainable investments from public and private sources, including of funds and instruments available under the Union budget, via the European Investment Bank and at national level;

mobilising sustainable investments from public and private sources, including of funds and instruments available under the Union budget, via the European Investment Bank and at national level , ensuring the right synergies, while making sure that sufficient investment can be allocated at the level where it is most needed and most effectively employed, ensuring that local and regional communities have adequate resources for implementation on the ground ;

Reason

In many cases, environmental policies are implemented with the strong involvement of local and regional authorities. It is essential to ensure that adequate resources are available to local and regional communities. Even when national authorities have responsibility for executing policies, often the direct and indirect impacts of policies on the ground are managed at local and regional level.

Amendment 6

Article 3.1(e)

Text proposed by the European Commission	CoR amendment
phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies at Union and national level, making the best use of market-based instruments and green budgeting tools , including those required to ensure a socially fair transition, and supporting businesses and other stakeholders in developing standardised natural capital accounting practices;	phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies at Union and national level, making the best use of market-based instruments and green budgeting tools and supporting businesses and other stakeholders in developing standardised natural capital accounting practices while ensuring socially fair transition for all regions, cities and municipalities ;

Reason

Socially fair transition should apply to all the instruments, not only green budgeting tools, and concern all the regions, cities and municipalities across the EU.

Amendment 7

Article 3.1(f)

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

ensuring that environmental policies and action are based on the best available scientific knowledge and strengthening the environmental knowledge base and its uptake, including by research, innovation, fostering green skills, and further building up environmental and ecosystem accounting;

ensuring that environmental policies and action, at the Union, national, regional and local levels, are based on the best available scientific knowledge and strengthening the environmental knowledge base and its uptake, including by research, innovation, fostering green skills, and further building up environmental and ecosystem accounting , as well as fostering the continuous improvement of scientific knowledge on the basis of indicators comparable at regional level as well, in order to inform decision-making ;

Reason

The proposed amendment highlights the critical role of all levels, and seeks to strengthen the capacity to assess progress towards the overall aims of the 8th EAP at all levels, including indicators at regional level.

Amendment 8

Article 3.1 — add a new point (h) after point (g)

Text proposed by the European Commission	CoR amendment
—	(h) ensuring the full participation of, and cooperation with, local and regional authorities across all dimensions of environmental policy-making through a collaborative and multi-level governance approach;

Reason

The proposed amendment is expected to contribute in strengthening of policy development and implementation.

Amendment 9

Article 3.1 — add a new point (j) after point (i)

Text proposed by the European Commission	CoR amendment
—	(j) promoting the benefits of the 8th EAP at local and regional level as an essential part of the effective and efficient implementation of EU environment policy, as set out in the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR);

Reason

It is important to communicate and promote the benefits of the 8th EAP in order to increase the implementation rate of environmental policies.

Amendment 10

Article 3.2

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Reaching the 8th EAP’s priority objectives will require mobilising broad support by involving citizens, social partners and other stakeholders, and encouraging cooperation in the development and implementation of strategies, policies or legislation related to the 8th EAP amongst national, regional and local authorities , in urban and rural areas .

Reaching the 8th EAP’s priority objectives will require mobilising broad support by involving citizens, social partners and other stakeholders, and encouraging cooperation in the development and implementation of strategies, policies or legislation related to the 8th EAP amongst national, regional and local authorities. The EU will promote a holistic place-based and area-oriented approach taking into account the specific challenges and strengths of all typologies of communities such as urban and rural, but also coastal, mountain, island, archipelagic and outermost areas. This approach will consider the interactions between communities and their surrounding areas, in particular hinterlands of urban areas.

Reason

Local and regional authorities in the EU are of multiple typologies, each with its own challenges and strengths. Environmental policies have often a strong territorial component that needs to be adapted to the specific situation on the ground. The 7th EAP focuses mainly on the urban dimension. The proposal for an 8th EAP only mentions urban and rural areas. The rich complexity of EU communities needs to be central for an effective implementation of EU environmental policies.

Amendment 11

Article 4

Text proposed by the European Commission	CoR amendment
1.   The Commission, supported by the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency, shall assess and report on the progress of the Union and the Member States with regard to achieving the priority objectives laid down in Article 2 on a regular basis, taking into consideration the enabling conditions laid down in Article 3.	1.   The Commission, supported by the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency, shall assess and report on the progress of the Union and the Member States with regard to achieving the priority objectives laid down in Article 2 on a regular basis, taking into consideration the enabling conditions laid down in Article 3.
2.   The assessment referred to in paragraph 1 shall reflect the latest developments as regards the availability and relevance of data and indicators, building on data available in the Member States and at the Union level, in particular those operated by the European Environment Agency and the European Statistical System. This assessment shall be without prejudice to existing monitoring, reporting and governance frameworks and exercises covering environment and climate policy.	2.   The assessment referred to in paragraph 1 shall reflect the latest developments as regards the availability and relevance of data and indicators, building on data available in the Member States and at the Union level, in particular those operated by the European Environment Agency and the European Statistical System. This assessment shall be without prejudice to existing monitoring, reporting and governance frameworks and exercises covering environment and climate policy.
3.   The European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency shall support the Commission in improving the availability and relevance of data and knowledge, in particular by carrying out the following:	3.   The European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency shall support the Commission in improving the availability and relevance of data and knowledge, in particular by carrying out the following:
(a) gathering, processing and reporting evidence and data with modern digital tools;	(a) gathering, processing and reporting evidence and data with modern digital tools;
(b) working towards closing the relevant monitoring data gaps;	(b) working towards closing the relevant monitoring data gaps;
(c) delivering policy-relevant and systemic analyses, and contributing to implementing policy objectives at Union and national level;	(c) delivering policy-relevant and systemic analyses, and contributing to implementing policy objectives at Union, national, regional and local level;
(d) integrating data on environmental, social and economic impacts, and exploiting fully other available data, such as those delivered by Copernicus;	(d) integrating data on environmental, social and economic impacts, and exploiting fully other available data, such as those delivered by Copernicus;
(e) further improving access to data through Union programmes;	(e) further improving access to data through Union programmes;
(f) ensuring transparency and accountability;	(f) improve the availability and interoperability of data at local and regional levels;
(g) helping civil society, public authorities, citizens, social partners and the private sector identify climate and environmental risks and take action to prevent, mitigate and adapt to them, and fostering their engagement in closing knowledge gaps.	(g) ensuring transparency and accountability;
	(h) helping civil society, public authorities at national, regional and local level , citizens, social partners and the private sector identify climate and environmental risks and take action to prevent, mitigate and adapt to them, and fostering their engagement in closing knowledge gaps. (i) fostering positive environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas, in line with SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.
4.   The Commission shall regularly examine data and knowledge needs at Union and national level, including the capacity of the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency to carry out the tasks referred to in paragraph 3.	4.   The Commission shall regularly examine data and knowledge needs at Union and national level, and, when necessary, at regional and local levels , including the capacity of the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency to carry out the tasks referred to in paragraph 3.

Reason

Local and regional authorities have an important role in implementing environment policy on the ground. The creation of the new monitoring framework should take these levels into account and also provide data with the aim of supporting implementation in local and regional communities.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

welcomes the 8th EAP, which defines a strategic approach for environment and climate policies to 2030 and keeps a long-term vision for 2050 for living well within the planetary boundaries with a focus on better implementation and monitoring;

2.

calls for the 8th EAP to have a strong complementary role to the European Green Deal and to support the EU’s green recovery, through its long-term orientation and environmental priority objectives;

3.

urges that no precedent be set for future EAPs by the fact that the 8th EAP, unlike previous such programmes, includes no measures; underlines that it is only until 2024 that the Green Deal provides for measures relating to the priority objectives of the 8th EAP, which is valid until 2030; in this connection, calls for clarification in the 8th EAP of how, in the context of its midterm review, new measures to achieve its priority objectives are to be set;

4.

welcomes the fact that the 8th EAP has identified more effective and efficient implementation as a key priority, calls therefore for adequate instruments and resources, as well as innovative approaches that will empower LRAs to provide tailor-made solutions to improve the implementation of environmental policies on the ground;

5.

stresses that implementation problems cannot be solved by more legislation alone. Support mechanisms, new approaches and innovation are also needed to meet target values and standards.

6.

highlights the positive role of the Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment between the European Commission and the European Committee of the Regions and that its insertion in the 7th EAP placed it on a sound long-term basis; calls on the 8th EAP to further enhance the Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment established by the ENVE Commission and DG Environment to foster a dialogue, and gather information on local and regional challenges and solutions in the application of the EU environment law;

7.

calls to strengthen the environmental knowledge base, harnessing the potential of digital and data technologies and increase the use of nature-based solutions and social innovation to improve the implementation;

8.

underlines that the traditional, sectoral environmental policy is largely ineffective, therefore the 8th EAP, in order to strengthen environmental policy, should set up an integrated approach, address the multifaceted nature of environmental challenges, create synergies and avoid mismatches between: a) the ambition, timelines, implementation procedures and tools for different environment, energy and climate policies, b) the ambition and timelines of limit values of the EU environment legislation and those of source-based policies;

9.

points out the mismatch between the adoption of the 8th Environment Action Programme and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-27 and reiterates that the decision — making process of future EAPs should be aligned with the timeframe of the MFF;

10.

notes that effective gathering, processing and exploitation of data on the state of the environment is essential in order to achieve the objectives set. Practices still vary widely, however, and are often rudimentary with too much of the work carried out by humans, especially at local and regional level. The CoR therefore underlines the need for development activities and investments across the whole EU, through which the necessary data processing can be carried out in a uniform manner, emphasising compatibility and making use of automated data flows and open interfaces;

11.

considers that the ‘do not harm’ principle, as well as being a healthy living approach, should guide the recovery and resilience plans to ensure policy integration and coherence;

12.

calls for the full integration of environment and climate policies, and policies that enable a circular economy, into the budgetary, economic and social actions of the EU and reminds that the green recovery efforts should take into consideration territorial disparities and challenges and ensure that no community is left behind;

13.

reiterates its call for a holistic place-based or area-oriented approach as the best way of making healthy living for all a reality in line with the specific features of the place or area in question including biocultural diversity;

14.

welcomes the commitment to a recovery strategy based on the European Green Deal and reiterates its position that environmental, climate and transition challenges require significant green and blue investments and innovation at all levels of governance;

15.

calls for ambitious investments in key green sectors (e.g. renewable energy projects, circular economy, shift to environmentally friendly transport modes) needed to build resilience and create growth and jobs in a fair, inclusive and sustainable society based on solidarity, and highlights the multiple typologies of benefits created by them for the economy and the health and well-being of people. LRAs can have an important role in recovery and they should be involved in planning and execution of those investments when appropriate;

16.

points out that local and regional governments have a crucial role to play in engaging citizens, businesses, research centres, academia and local stakeholders in designing and implementing environmental policies;

17.

calls for a well-functioning multi-level governance framework and encourages all the levels of governance to promote cross-administrative, interregional, intermunicipal and cross-border cooperation to implement the 8th EAP;

18.

points out that more research, data and knowledge is needed to address specific environmental challenges and seize opportunities in different types of local and regional communities, bearing in mind rural depopulation, population ageing and regional differences, and emphasises the need that these data and knowledge should be publicly available and easily accessible;

19.

points out to the need for more local data, including directly collected from citizens or private bodies that develop green projects (e.g. soil, water, bird watching, habitats, etc.), and calls for a cooperation between the European Commission and LRAs to obtain local data, which is necessary for the better implementation of the EAP;

20.

supports the creation of a new monitoring framework with due regard towards existing frameworks such as the Environmental Implementation Review. Advocates the involvement of the CoR and LRAs in the consultation process to define the key indicators to ensure that the local and regional dimension is adequately taken into account;

21.

calls for ongoing efforts to strengthen environmental monitoring (e.g. biodiversity, zero pollution, toxic-free, a revised Circular Economy), linking it with cross-cutting monitoring tools (e.g. SDGs, Resilience Dashboard, etc.) and setting up headline indicators (e.g. Circular Economy, Climate and Energy, Toxic-free, Biodiversity, Zero Pollution, Pressures, EIR — Implementation indicators, etc.) based on general principles, such as quality assurance, balance, applicability, prioritisation, flexibility, timelines and periodicity;

22.

calls for the new monitoring framework to build as much as possible on existing monitoring tools and indicators used in environmental policy and the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, and for it to bring together technical reporting requirements, so that duplication of work can be avoided wherever possible and the administrative burden limited;

23.

points out that the implementation of the 8th EAP can be accelerated by initiatives such as the Green City Accord or the European Year of Greener Cities in 2022, the urban agenda as well as voluntary actions such as the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and the Urban Mobility Observatory and that these should, therefore, be further promoted;

24.

supports greater efforts in environmental education and in youth projects to raise environmental awareness;

25.

acknowledges that the full implementation of many environmental policies can be achieved only with the full engagement in day-to-day actions of the citizens;

26.

recognises that more attention should be given to the interrelations between urban areas and rural actors, and to the fact that geographical typologies such as mountain areas, islands, coastal zones, outermost regions, etc. have incredible potential for the development of green investments (e.g. renewable energy projects);

27.

points out to the commitments made by vulnerable regions, including the coal and carbon intensive regions, as well as the outermost regions that aim to achieve decarbonisation by 2040, therefore asks to support the efforts of these regions to accelerate their strategies for global change, allowing them to become laboratories and testbeds for the difficulties that need to be addressed in order for the objectives in this area to be achieved;

28.

agrees with recital 19 of the EAP proposal stating that its objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone. The proposal, as it stands, does not appear to raise any issue regarding its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Nor does it raise any issue regarding its compliance with the proportionality principle;

29.

supports strengthening the EU system of access to justice and welcomes the proposed changes of the Aarhus Convention (1) underlines the need to strengthen the EU system on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters; calls on the Commission to promote a dialogue with the CoR and LRAs to ensure that local communities have access to appropriate channels for access to justice and can fully contribute to improvement of implementation of EU environment policy.

30.

proposes to assess the possibility to establish a network of ‘ambassadors’ within the Technical Platform for the Cooperation on Environment to promote the implementation of the environment legislation at all levels of governance, in a form that would be compatible and complementary with existing efforts such as Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument (TAIEX) peer-to-peer tool, Environmental Implementation Review (EIR), Green Cities Accord and the Natura 2000 Biogeographical process.

---

(1)  Texts and further information available in the following press release https://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/commission-proposes-improve-public-scrutiny-eu-acts-related-environment-2020-10-14_en