24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/1

—

stresses the urgent need to consider demographic trends at the level of regions, cities and municipalities and in a more differentiated way, as very different and in some cases contrary trends are underway simultaneously within the Member States and, on the other hand, similar patterns of development are discernible in different regions of Europe. In future the regions, cities and municipalities will need to have their own policy strategies and guidelines based on realistic population forecasts;

—

considers that the demographic trend must be a horizontal political topic to ensure that action can be taken in good time to counteract the long-term risks and recognise and exploit the opportunities. To this end, it is necessary to face up to uncomfortable truths and to take all factors into account in the public debate. Only when policy-makers and the public have accepted a shrinking as well as an ageing population as an irreversible structural fact can appropriate reactions be formulated;

—

stresses that the demographic challenge should not be seen in a purely negative light. On the one hand too few children are being born to maintain current population levels. This will in the long term become a problem for European societies, for which a solution must be found. At the same time people are also living and staying healthy longer, and that is good news. In addition it must be recognised that older people have the potential to make a real contribution to society and this must be recognised within this debate. Economically prosperous urban areas continue to benefit from inward migration, which can at present still compensate for the low birth rate

1.

wholeheartedly welcomes the Commission initiative which aims to follow on from the discussion of the Green Paper entitled Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations while stressing a change of perception from challenge to opportunity. The Commission's approach, based on an exchange of experience and the launching of a European discussion on dealing with demographic change which will culminate every two years in the holding of a European Demographic Forum, is an important contribution to supporting the Member States and the local and regional authorities. The creation and support of networks of regions at European level and the use and promotion of examples of best practice will make a significant contribution to a constructive and forward-looking discussion of the subject;

2.

supports the Commission's general strategies aimed at creating a Europe:

3.

considers that the demographic trend must be a horizontal political topic to ensure that action can be taken in good time to counteract the long-term risks and recognise and exploit the opportunities. To this end, it is necessary to face up to uncomfortable truths and to take all factors into account in the public debate. Only when policy-makers and the public have accepted a shrinking as well as an ageing population as an irreversible structural fact can appropriate reactions be formulated;

4.

stresses that the demographic challenge should not be seen in a purely negative light. On the one hand too few children are being born to maintain current population levels. This will in the long term become a problem for European societies, for which a solution must be found. At the same time people are also living and staying healthy longer, and that is good news. In addition it must be recognised that older people have the potential to make a real contribution to society and this must be recognised within this debate. Economically prosperous urban areas continue to benefit from inward migration, which can at present still compensate for the low birth rate. On the other hand, in comparison, demographic change is happening significantly faster in many rural areas due to the mass outward migration of young people and partly an inward migration of older, retired people. This trend only exacerbates the problems of the shrinking regions of origin, however;

5.

shares the Commission's view that the rights of every generation must be preserved, as the Commission's communication of 10 May 2007 on Promoting solidarity between the generations explicitly acknowledges. Children and young people need the opportunity to participate in society in the broadest sense. This requires the support of their families, the creation and maintenance of high-quality childcare and educational institutions, vocational training and job prospects. The middle generations needs help and support in looking after and bringing up their children, and also in caring for the elderly. As for the elderly, they need help in participating as independently and actively as possible in social life;

6.

sees as fundamental the factors identified by the Commission as determining demographic trends. The fall in the average number of children per woman, the rising number of old and very old people as a proportion of the overall population, longer and still increasing life expectancy and the only partial counterbalancing of these changes in the population structure by immigration are all general features of the European trend. Aggregate, Member State-level data only provide us with limited information on actual trends, however;

7.

stresses the urgent need to consider demographic trends at the level of regions, cities and municipalities and in a more differentiated way, as very different and in some cases contrary trends are underway simultaneously within the Member States and, on the other hand, similar patterns of development are discernible in different regions of Europe. In future the regions, cities and municipalities will need to have their own policy strategies and guidelines based on realistic, small-scale population forecasts which should deliver equality of opportunity to all;

8.

reiterates the views expressed in its opinion on the Green Paper entitled Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations. It notes that essential features of its opinion have been taken up by the Commission in its communication on The demographic future of Europe — from challenge to opportunity and Promoting solidarity between the generations;

9.

shares the Commission's view that specific reactions to the demographic challenge are above all the responsibility of the Member States. It stresses, however, the special responsibility of the regional and local authorities for tackling demographic challenges. The cities and municipalities are particularly affected by the consequences of demographic change;

10.

strongly supports the European Commission in its efforts to achieve a new intergenerational pact. This means that:

11.

considers it necessary to make reference to the reforms already initiated at national and European level, such as the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, the stability and growth pact, the sustainable development strategy, cohesion policy and the open method of coordination in the field of social protection and integration. It points out, however, that merely stating that we need to commit to continuing and deepening these efforts, even in connection with the five core policy directions outlined, is by no means sufficient to create the conditions for the necessary approaches at European, national, regional and local level;

12.

fails to find in the Commission's communication any description of the role of national, regional and local policies. Demographic trends are to a great extent regional and local developments. The communication, by aggregating data at national and European level, gives the misleading impression that problems need to be tackled mainly at these levels. This inhibits the identification of growing regional disparities including those caused by internal migration within Member States;

13.

welcomes the Commission's intention of holding a European Demographic Forum every two years, the results of which will form the subject of a chapter in the Annual Progress Report. It considers the one-sided concentration on the issue of longer life expectancy to be inappropriate, however. Rather, it is necessary to consider the various aspects of demographic change on an equal footing;

14.

emphasises that demographic change presents significant opportunities to improve the quality of life of the elderly by means of new products and services, thus creating jobs and economic growth in Europe and improving European competitiveness. This concerns all areas which contribute to independent and active lifestyles for the elderly: crafts, industry, trade and social organisations, in fields such as tourism, culture, home help, mobility services or financial services;

15.

is in favour of taking the needs of the elderly and the opportunities presented by the ‘silver economy’ more closely into account at EU level, for example by means of inclusion in the Lisbon strategy;

16.

notes that there are significant regional variations in the general demographic trends at European level. Different trends are superimposed, leading to a situation where there are winners (e.g. Greater London and Munich) and losers (e.g. eastern Germany or the regions of western Poland) among the regions of Europe. The result of these trends will be to endanger territorial cohesion. In parallel with these demographic changes, migration from outside the Community is also having an impact on population trends. Internal migration within the EU is also accentuating the large-scale trends, whereby prosperous urban areas are increasingly acting as a magnet for migration. These various trends result in parallel growth and shrinking processes;

17.

concurs with the Commission that the correlation between innovation capacity and skills in demographic change is becoming even stronger. In future, women, and particularly mothers, should be better enabled to put their skills to use according to their own needs and wishes. In addition, educational systems and companies must begin right now to prepare themselves gradually for an increase in the number of older people and immigrants and must cooperate on putting new forms of lifelong learning into practice;

18.

considers reconciling work and family life to be a key requirement for competitiveness of locations, which European employment policy should support and which plays an important role in the development of a strategy for a Europe that favours demographic development;

19.

in this context, welcomes the Commission's communication on Promoting solidarity between the generations. However, the CoR would point out that measures to promote families and to reconcile work and private life should not be seen as the only political response to demographic change. Many regions need to respond to demographic change in a very specific way by adapting services or infrastructure; necessary though they are, family policy measures can only influence demographic change slowly. Furthermore, in many regions emigration of skilled young people is more of a problem than the actual birth rates of those who stay;

20.

welcomes the idea mentioned in the communication on Promoting solidarity between the generations of developing an ‘Alliance for Families’ in order to encourage the necessary exchange of best practices and comprehensive information; however, would strongly advise against seeing such an ‘Alliance for Families’ exclusively in terms of raising birth rates; rather, it should be considered as part of a comprehensive response to demographic change. The Committee of the Regions and the local and regional authorities associated with it should be fully involved in the work of the Alliance; they emphasise their interest in engaging in constructive cooperation and presenting proposals for further development of European generation policy;

21.

stresses the regional disparities in demographic trends. Growing regions are attracting above all young people, women and those from migrant backgrounds. In these regions social disparities are also exacerbated by segregation processes, which leads on the one hand to an increasing need for integration and on the other hand to greater efforts to build and improve an infrastructure appropriate for older people, in order to prevent excessive social exclusion;

22.

recognises that the integration of immigrants is key for the future of society. It assumes that, despite the increased education and training efforts to make better use of the potential of the young generation, there will be a need for skilled workers from countries outside Europe. Important though the competition for skilled workers is, it will have only a limited impact on demographic development;

23.

points out that shrinking regions are not only losing population — they are above all losing young people (especially in the 20 to 30 age bracket) and women, as well as the well educated. Shrinking regions, unlike growing ones, are not a target for inward migration. Thus very diverse problems are arising in European regions against a background of uniform trends at the macro level;

24.

draws attention in this context to the problem of future care needs. Shrinking regions are disproportionately losing their active population. Age-related dependency is not increasing evenly. Rather, particularly given the need for private-sector care in the home, the problem of the emigration of young people is exacerbating the problem of the future support of the care-dependent. Thus, in shrinking regions in particular, the importance of public and independent welfare provision is set to rise;

25.

considers it necessary to focus on the very diverse trends at regional level and to develop the necessary data resources for assessing these trends. Local, regional and national data need to be presented in a comparable way. This, in the form ‘socio-demographic monitoring’, should become an ongoing task;

26.

stresses the particular trend in the Central and Eastern European Member States and the new Länder of Germany. The effects of a falling birth rate and structural changes in demographic factors are most clearly visible in these regions; moreover this is taking place at an accelerated rate. These regions are experiencing a trend which will occur later in most European regions, or else not with the same severity. The CoR sees support of these regions, for example in the framework of the Commission's Regions for Economic Change initiative, as an appropriate way of tackling demographic change throughout Europe;

27.

draws attention to the problems faced by minority cultures within Member States which can be particularly vulnerable to the challenges posed by population movement and demographic change in respect of their culture and continuation of their languages. Changes in composition of communities and families leads to changes in habit and use of languages, for which communities need to plan and prepare;

28.

points out that the current demographic challenge is unique in European history. There are therefore no tried and tested guidelines for European societies to use in tackling this trend. Until now only Japan has had similar experience. The CoR therefore welcomes the Commission's open approach to this issue;

29.

considers that the Commission communication concentrates too much on the issue of increased life expectancy and its consequences. The equally important subject of facing the consequences of a shrinking population and the related restructuring issues in the affected regions is not dealt with. Even given that these questions need to be tackled mainly at national and regional level, they are nonetheless, where infrastructure is concerned, also the focus of a necessary discussion on the use of the Structural Funds;

30.

considers in this context that there is a need to re-examine the disproportionate concentration of European strategies on growth. Regions with a shrinking population have to adopt different development strategies. Infrastructure has to be sustainable for a smaller population and regional development strategies also have to take account of the needs of a smaller number of people. This does not mean, however, that less needs to be invested; rather, a different kind of investment is needed. The development of the economy and society against a backdrop of a shrinking population and strong regional disparities are qualitative rather than primarily quantitative issues. This means that policy, which has hitherto been focused exclusively on growth, will need in addition to take account of contraction and reconstruction;

31.

considers that the following political conditions are needed if the challenges of demographic change are to be successfully tackled:

32.

considers it necessary to support regionally adapted and differentiated strategies to guarantee the best possible public access to services of general interest, ICT services and education;

33.

stresses that demographic change means that employment histories need to be seen in a new light. Business and government will need to make greater use of the experience of older workers. It is essential that older people have greater flexibility in the final years of their working life. Initiatives such as home working, flexible working hours and gradual retirement are essential choices that need to be offered, which may encourage older workers to stay in employment for longer. European societies and above all the two sides of industry should develop new models for the distribution of work over a lifetime, in order to create better employment prospects for younger workers and to promote employment suitable for older workers;

34.

calls for greater emphasis on lifelong learning as people's right and obligation in order to adapt to the constantly changing demands of industry and society;

35.

notes that in shrinking regions there is a need to adapt services of general interest, infrastructure and the life of society to the population, and to changing and falling demand. The problems existing in the Central and Eastern European States of the last accession wave and in eastern Germany show that policies based on scaling down and restructuring infrastructure can affect the future competitiveness of regions;

36.

therefore considers it necessary to re-examine the Structural Funds and the EAFRD in relation to managing the consequences of demographic change in general. It therefore welcomes the Commission's announcement that it will, in the communication to be adopted by the end of 2008, containing proposals as to how the needs of an ageing population can be better taken into account, pay particular attention to the potential role of the Structural Funds in this area;

37.

recommends in this connection that the role of the Structural Funds and the EAFRD be examined inter alia to assess whether the needs of growing and shrinking regions are sufficiently covered in the instruments. The CoR also asks that this assessment be timed in such a way as to ensure that its results are available during the first half of the funding period. The CoR expects the Commission to ensure that demographic change features prominently among the priorities for the Objective 3 programmes/Interreg IVc;

38.

draws attention to the fact that urban regions experiencing high levels of inward migration face major problems with the integration of the various population groups. Demographic effects impact on population groups to different degrees. The integration of young people from migrant backgrounds is an issue of key importance for the future of European societies. The very rapid change in the demographic composition of various population groups is a particular challenge facing the urban regions;

39.

in the light of these findings proposes that typical regional and local problems and trends requiring different responses and strategies be identified at European level. The case studies presented in the appendix are a contribution to this process.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/7

—

considers that integration capacity is a condition to be taken into account in determining the pace of the enlargement process, but not a pretext to block accession or an additional criterion; viewing it rather as a vital factor for transparency affecting first of all the EU and subsequently the candidate countries;

—

believes that enlarging the EU primarily means sharing a common political project, based on values and principles, as well as on common policies and institutions, and that integration capacity should be seen as a means of upholding these principles and values, its policies and the way the Community institutions work. So as not to water down the common political project, this project should be strengthened by means of successive enlargements;

—

recalls that as the EU becomes larger, it must be able to retain its capacity for action and decision-making by implementing effective common policies; it must therefore tie its enlargement policy to its capacity to maintain its specific institutional, financial and political structure. Enlargement must not cause this structure to be weakened, and its initial purpose and scope must not be endangered;

—

points out that in every single enlargement process — none of which are likely to go ahead against a backdrop of the current Treaties (and in particular unless the Treaty of Nice is amended) or unchanging financial perspectives — all the European institutions and bodies should be required to contribute to the assessment of any modifications;

—

considers it a positive step to bring it into the reform of the EU funding system, which is due to take place in conjunction with the institutional reform process, and which cannot be detached from the Union's enlargement policy. In this connection, it restates its conviction that it is impossible to achieve ‘more Europe’ with less resources, and reiterates that for the future financial structure it is particularly important for resources to be concentrated on areas which create European added value.

1.

considers that integration capacity is a condition to be taken into account in determining the pace of the enlargement process, but not a pretext to block accession or an additional criterion; viewing it rather as a vital factor for transparency, affecting first of all the EU and subsequently the candidate countries;

2.

therefore agrees with the conclusions of the December 2006 European Council which sees integration capacity as one of the keys to generating a renewed consensus among citizens in favour of enlargement policy;

3.

recalls that the European Union's capacity to integrate new Member States is reflected in particular in the Union's financial capacity to implement its policies, especially the CAP and cohesion policy or in the labour market's capacity to absorb new workers from new Member States, and in the ability of the Union's institutions to work effectively with a larger number of Member States, as indicated by the Copenhagen European Council;

4.

recalls that as the EU becomes larger, it must be able to retain its capacity for action and decision-making by implementing effective common policies; it must therefore tie its enlargement policy to its capacity to maintain its specific institutional, financial and political structure. Enlargement must not cause this structure to be weakened, and its initial purpose and scope must not be endangered;

5.

believes that enlarging the EU primarily means sharing a common political project, based on values and principles, as well as on common policies and institutions, and that integration capacity should be seen as a means of upholding these principles and values, its policies and the way the Community institutions operate. So as not to water down the common political project, this project should be strengthened by means of successive enlargements;

6.

considers the current debate on integration capacity to have come late in the day: it ought to have taken place during the negotiations on Agenda 2000 and thereafter in the immediate run-up to each subsequent enlargement, as well as during the negotiations on the financial perspective 2007-2013;

7.

notes the lack of balance in the way the Commission document presents the debate on integration capacity, seeing it as more of a responsibility for the applicant countries than for the EU itself;

8.

points out that in every single enlargement process — none of which are likely to go ahead against a backdrop of the current Treaties (and in particular unless the Treaty of Nice is amended) or unchanging financial perspectives — all the European institutions and bodies should be required to contribute to the assessment of any modifications (in the area, for example, of single market rules, the EU budget and finances or its institutional arrangements) that are needed to ensure its success. Regional and local authorities, alongside national parliaments and civil society, have an important role to play in this assessment, in terms of social acceptance (society's capacity for integrating new European citizens sharing the same values, producing a shared identity and common citizenship, aimed at achieving an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe);

9.

considers that the EU should be in a position to check whether or not integration capacity condition is being complied with during the negotiations with a given applicant country, and that this should take place in parallel with the monitoring of compliance with the Copenhagen criteria for each individual applicant country, and endorses the criticism levelled by the European Parliament, which judged the Commission's response to be inadequate as it fails to provide details of the current negotiations from the integration capacity point of view, and does not state the principles which should underpin such a definition.

10.

expects the Commission, during the phase preceding the next enlargements, to analyse the impact of enlargement on the different policies concerned and their financing, together with the institutional structure of the Union; this exercise should also contain an analysis of the various reform processes under way in the applicant countries, concentrating especially on greater public involvement in the accession process and on administrative decentralisation;

11.

suggests that the institutions promote measures enabling the public and the associations representing them publicly to state and exchange their views on the integration process,

12.

against this backdrop, feels that a particular analysis of the future of Cohesion Policy is essential, and emphasises the value of providing simulations reflecting the various possible enlargement scenarios; an integration capacity exercise of this kind concerning one of Europe's most important policies from the economic and political points of view, and in terms of the visibility of European added value for citizens, must be carried out in cooperation with it;

13.

is however aware of the difficulty of measuring integration capacity since is it by nature changing, since the means provided by the Union to achieve its aims can change over the years; asks therefore for a clearer definition of integration capacity and how it is to be measured;

14.

emphasises that regional and local authorities should be directly involved in assessing the impact of the individual policies which affect them whenever they are amended as a result of enlargement. This is especially important for regions bordering on candidate countries;

15.

backs the European Parliament's call to be allowed to give its own assent, not only at the end of the negotiations, but also before they commence;

16.

recalls its decision to set up working groups (Western Balkans, Croatia and Turkey) as a practical means of assisting regional and local authorities in the candidate countries with their capacity-building efforts and of carrying forward the necessary political dialogue between the EU and these countries; it also hopes that they will develop into Joint Consultative Committees, where envisaged in the various association agreements, becoming a relay for the views of candidate country regional and local authorities throughout the negotiating phase;

17.

emphasises that the integration capacity debate should also serve to discuss and identify alternative ways ahead in the event of a decision not to extend enlargement to a given candidate country or to other countries who have applied but whose applications have been rejected, such as stepping up the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) or implementing a functional approach (free trade or territorial cooperation, for example) potentially leading to differentiated forms of integration and/or special partnerships. This does not concern the countries which have currently been given the status of candidate and potential candidate countries;

18.

agrees with the conclusions of the December 2006 European Council, and emphasises for its part that the institutional issues must be resolved prior to any further enlargement and before the European Parliament elections in 2009; it once again calls for the reform process to find ways of making the EU's decision-making procedures more efficient and, at the same time, to boost participation by citizens and local and regional authorities in the European legislative process, recognising the potential of multi-level governance in an enlarged Europe;

19.

considers it a positive step to bring the Committee of the Regions into the reform of the EU funding system, which is due to take place in conjunction with the institutional reform process, and which cannot be detached from the Union's enlargement policy. In this connection, it restates its conviction that it is impossible to achieve ‘more Europe’ with less resources, and reiterates that for the future financial structure it is particularly important for resources to be concentrated on areas which create European added value;

20.

welcomes the Commission's proposals on transparency of accession negotiations with the applicant countries in order to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the enlargement process and to narrow the gap between the public and their political leaders who are engaged in making choices on accession and enlargement, and considers it appropriate — with a view to achieving this aim, and to enhancing the quality of the negotiations — that civil society and the regional and local authorities of the candidate countries should be actively involved in the various stages of the accession process, and that the Committee of the Regions should be involved in the screening process for the chapters regarding cohesion policy and decentralisation;

21.

points out that, in the interests of consistency with its approach of transparency and openness towards citizens, the Commission should provide the text of its annual report on the EU candidate and potential candidate countries in the languages spoken by the people of these countries, thereby enhancing the quality of the accession process by enabling citizens to take part in the national debate on entry to the EU;

22.

underlines moreover that the accession process, in its present form, is generally imposed from above and is not necessarily subject to the democratic control of the parliaments or regional and local authorities of the candidate countries, throughout the accession process, and that neither does it directly involve citizens, political parties, civil society or local and regional authorities. This state of affairs means that:

23.

believes therefore that it is helpful to propose a more participatory approach, in part through twinning, which has proved crucial in getting populations to know one another, helping applicant country authorities to implement anti-corruption measures in their public administrations, and prompting local, regional and national governments to carry out the necessary administrative and judicial reforms;

24.

supports the approach underlined by the European Parliament and the European Commission concerning the role played by regional and local authorities in communication, a policy which should be more fully decentralised and opened up to contributions from civil society in order to generate a public opinion consensus in both the Member States and applicant countries, by striving to help boost transparency and responsibility in the enlargement process, making this process a shared one as far as possible; it therefore endorses the Commission's proposals, at the same time feeling that the Commission should not shed its political responsibilities towards the communication policy on enlargement. It therefore calls upon the Commission to urge regional and local authorities to adopt the tools they need to make a success of this joint effort;

25.

calls upon the EU budget authority to make a financial contribution to the efforts that the regional and local authorities of EU applicant countries will have to make, providing funds for information campaigns on enlargement at regional and local level, and to give support to the regional and local authorities of the Member States and applicant countries in conveying the European message.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/12

—

recalls that the Enlargement has been a success story for the European Union and Europe as a whole and stresses the importance of a regional and local perspective on the enlargement process for ensuring internal stability, democracy at grassroots level being a vital part thereof;

—

stresses the importance of continued fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria with particular regard to the need for strengthening freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights and trade union rights and the need for further upgrading of the human rights institutional framework;

—

stresses that political follow-up of the enlargement process at national, regional and local levels is a major challenge given the relevance of the issue to the European Union's future. This is why it decided to create a Working Party on Croatia and on Turkey, which involves fostering dialogue with all stakeholders in order to define its political positions;

—

welcomes progress made on the political and economic criteria in Croatia, and on the acquis as well as on the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and welcomes the continued fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria by Croatian authorities;

—

welcomes the substantial reforms enacted by Turkey but remains concerned about the pace of reforms having slowed down and recalls that the setting-up of a JCC with Turkey remains its political objective;

—

welcomes the continued progress of the reforms and that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is well on track to satisfy the Copenhagen political criteria, but takes note of the slower pace of reforms in 2006.

1.

recalls that the successive rounds of enlargement have from the outset been of central importance to the project of European integration;

2.

recognises the important role of the enlargement process for the democratic and stable development of the countries in the process of accession, for the stability of the European region and the security of the European Union;

3.

recalls that the Enlargement has been a success story for the European Union and Europe as a whole. It has helped to overcome the division of Europe and contributed to peace and stability throughout the continent;

4.

stresses the importance of a regional and local perspective on the enlargement process and recognises the important role of regional and local policies for ensuring internal stability, democracy at grassroots level being a vital part thereof;

5.

stresses that each country pursuing membership of the European Union must be evaluated on its own merits according to its achievements in aligning itself with the rigorous criteria of membership;

6.

stresses that good European governance, based on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, can be achieved through decentralisation without imposing a uniform template;

7.

points out that a balanced transfer of powers and financial resources to decentralised authorities is essential to the exercise of effective local and regional democracy;

8.

calls for cooperation efforts and exchanges of experiences and best practices gained under the pre-accession policy implemented with the local and regional authorities of the EU member states and candidate countries.

9.

welcomes progress made on the political and economic criteria, and on the acquis as well as on the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and welcomes the continued fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria;

10.

stresses that political follow-up of the enlargement process at national, regional and local levels is a major challenge given the relevance of the issue to the European Union's future. This is why it decided to create a Working Party on Croatia, which involves fostering dialogue with all stakeholders in order to define its political positions;

11.

outlines that through this working party, it intends to foster permanent dialogue with political representatives in Croatia. In addition, it will encourage and support the organisation of information and communication campaigns on the enlargement process in the cities and regions of the European Union and Croatia;

12.

stresses that one way of developing prosperity and stability in Croatia and the Western Balkan region is through active cross-border cooperation between local and regional authorities;

13.

welcomes that a strategy for public administration reform is being drawn up and draws attention to the need to address capacity issues in local and regional administrations;

14.

considers it important that the government has begun implementing strategies for reforming the judiciary and fighting corruption, and welcomes that Croatia has moved forward on minorities and refugee return, but stresses the need for continued reform efforts in all of these areas and recommends that progress be accelerated especially on the latter two issues;

15.

stresses the importance of good democratic and decentralised governance in addressing citizens' needs and points to the significant role of local and regional authorities in conducting reform policies;

16.

welcomes the continuation of Croatia's full cooperation with the ICTY and stresses the need for further progress in the conduct of war crimes trials, including witness protection;

17.

recommends that progress be made in addressing issues of public procurement to ensure transparent procedures are available to all levels of the administration;

18.

welcomes the recent evolutions in regional policy and coordination of structural instruments but draws attention to the need for greater administrative capacity for the implementation of EU funding.

19.

welcomes the substantial reforms enacted by Turkey but remains concerned about the pace of reforms having slowed down;

20.

stresses that political follow-up of the enlargement process at national, regional and local levels is a major challenge given the relevance of the issue to the European Union's future. This is why it decided to create a Working Party on relations with Turkey, which involves fostering dialogue with all stakeholders in order to define its political positions;

21.

recalls that the setting-up of a JCC with Turkey remains its political objective;

22.

outlines that through this working party, it intends to foster permanent dialogue with political representatives in Turkey. Furthermore, the working party encourage and support the organisation of information and communication campaigns on the enlargement process in the cities and regions of the European Union and Turkey;

23.

stresses the importance of continued fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria with particular regard to the need for strengthening freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights and trade union rights and the need for further upgrading of the human rights institutional framework;

24.

draws attention to the importance of democracy at grassroots level and the important role that local and regional authorities must play in the implementation of these policies;

25.

emphasises the importance of local administrations and the key role of city councils;

26.

welcomes the recent progress in establishing an ombudsman for public administration disputes;

27.

stresses that improvement in the legal framework governing public procurement is essential to ensure transparent and accountable local governance providing vital services to citizens;

28.

welcomes the passing of the law establishing regional development agencies and suggests that transparency and accountability in agency management be improved.

29.

welcomes the continued progress of the reforms and that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is well on track to satisfy the Copenhagen political criteria, but takes note of the slower pace of reforms in 2006;

30.

welcomes that the elections in July 2006 were conducted generally in accordance with international standards, but stresses that significant efforts are needed to address remaining irregularities and to fully meet those standards at the next elections;

31.

recommends that efforts are made to strengthen the fight against corruption in order to ensure transparency and democratic accountability at all levels and that reforms of the police and the judiciary be implemented;

32.

stresses the importance of full implementation of the Ohrid Agreement;

33.

stresses the importance of democracy at grassroots level and points to the important role that local and regional authorities can play especially in ensuring the correct implementation of the laws governing protection of minorities and fostering good inter-ethnic relations;

34.

welcomes the implementation of the 2000 Law on Civil Servants and the recent decentralisation efforts, and encourages municipal authorities to be pro-active in ensuring their rights and competences are respected;

35.

stresses the need to secure the independence and professionalism of the administration;

36.

calls upon the government to make the considerable efforts needed to align legislation on regional development with the Community acquis and to strengthen administrative capacity in that area to ensure efficient implementation of regional policy;

37.

welcomes the launch of visa facilitation and readmission negotiations with all the countries of the region with a view to concluding the negotiations as soon as possible. The conclusion of such agreements will promote people-to-people contacts between the EU and the Western Balkan countries and will increase the opportunities for travelling, especially for the younger generation;

38.

calls on the European Commission to take the necessary steps for providing a legal basis enabling the setting up of a Joint Consultative Committee between the CoR and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/16

—

trusts that the future of the Western Balkans countries lies in the European Union, and acknowledges the progress made by the potential candidate countries in implementing the road map towards realising their European perspective;

—

also recognises that, taking a realistic view of current circumstances and allowing for all the progress that has been made so far, serious problems remain in key political and economic fields and in relation to civil society, and that solving these problems will require considerable effort on the part of all concerned;

—

would also like to emphasise that the pace of the potential candidate countries' EU accession primarily depends upon the outcome of the reform processes in each country. At the same time, the EU's integration capacity also needs to be taken into account;

—

in that context, would also stress that this is more than just a ‘technical’ issue, given that integration capacity not only involves the EU's institutional capacity to operate effectively but is also always contingent on the political support of the public in the Member States for any decisions that are taken;

—

points out that whilst cooperation between the EU and the Western Balkans region is in place for reform measures such as trade liberalisation, privatisation, regulatory reform and foreign investment promotion, a clear framework for working together on the regional and local level has so far been lacking; the Western Balkans Working Group created by the Committee of the Regions in February 2006 is conceived as providing such a framework, which should place indigenous social and economic development at local and regional level higher on the EU political agenda;

—

recalls that the monitoring of the enlargement process at national, regional and local levels is a major challenge given the relevance of the issue to the European Union's future and the need to stabilise the Western Balkans; this is why it was important for the Committee of the Regions to create a political forum to promote the development of this process, which involves fostering dialogue with all stakeholders in order to define its political positions.

1.

trusts that the future of the Western Balkans countries lies in the European Union, and acknowledges the progress made by the potential candidate countries in implementing the road map towards realising their European perspective;

2.

also recognises that, taking a realistic view of current circumstances and allowing for all the progress that has been made so far, serious problems remain in key political and economic fields and in relation to civil society, and that solving these problems will require considerable effort on the part of all concerned;

3.

emphatically advocates continuation of the reform processes which are needed to stabilise the region as a whole; however, is aware that long-term prospects for accession pose a dilemma for potential candidate countries: the more distant the goal of accession, the greater the risk of the reform process losing momentum; However, this must not involve any watering-down of accession criteria or any backing-away from the principle of strict compliance with conditions; notes that sufficient incentives must be put in place and assistance provided to facilitate continuation of the reform process at all levels;

4.

welcomes all appropriate EU measures to help stabilise the development of individual countries, especially in terms of combating corruption and organised crime, and in assisting the establishment of effective administrative structures, a process which inevitably also has to involve the regional and local levels; in this context, also welcomes any appropriate initiatives to support the autonomous development of political and economic cooperation in the region;

5.

would also like to emphasise that the pace of the potential candidate countries' EU accession primarily depends upon the outcome of the reform processes in each country. At the same time, the EU's integration capacity also needs to be taken into account;

6.

in that context, would also stress that this is more than just a ‘technical’ issue, given that integration capacity not only involves the EU's institutional capacity to operate effectively but is also always contingent on the support of the public in the Member States for any decisions that are taken and reminds EU leaders of the importance of listening to the public, but also of the importance of leadership to secure public support for further enlargements when the overall assessment for enlargement is positive;

7.

suggests that the EU institutions step up measures enabling the public and the associations representing them publicly to state and exchange their views on the integration process;

8.

recognises at the same time the importance, richness and value that the Western Balkans, the individual countries and peoples, will bring to the whole of the European Union;

9.

with this in mind, supports all endeavours to proceed with pre-accession and accession processes while ensuring strict compliance with the criteria that have been set, which — partly in view of possible implications for common policies — must be framed in as transparent a way as possible, enabling broad political debate on future enlargements. This will be the only way to secure the requisite public acceptance. The CoR and its members will play an active role in this debate, aware as they are that the future of the Western Balkan countries is a key test for the vision of a shared Europe;

10.

calls on all stakeholders in the region to play an active and constructive part in resolving those contentious issues that are still obstructing progress towards a shared future; of these, the Kosovo issue is without doubt of particular importance, as it impacts on the entire region;

11.

for the period before eventual accession, strongly calls for suitable measures which, while absolutely maintaining the prospect of accession, would both help to sustainably enhance the outlook for the constructive development of the Western Balkan countries concerned, and also improve the pre-accession process through practical steps;

12.

in this context, recognises that people living in the Western Balkans attach a great deal of importance to the prospect of visa facilitation, and very strongly supports the desire to promote direct contacts including through the provision of more scholarships for students and young workers from the region;

13.

backs suitable measures to promote cross-border and interregional cooperation with local and regional authorities in EU Member States, and approaches to intergovernmental cooperation in the Western Balkan region encompassing as many policy areas as possible;

14.

points out that whilst cooperation between the EU and the Western Balkans region is in place for reform measures such as trade liberalisation, privatisation, regulatory reform and foreign investment promotion, a clear framework for working together on the regional and local level has so far been lacking; the Western Balkans Working Group created by the Committee of the Regions in February 2006 is conceived as providing such a framework, which should place indigenous social and economic development at local and regional level higher on the EU political agenda;

15.

recalls that the monitoring of the enlargement process at national, regional and local levels is a major challenge given the relevance of the issue to the European Union's future and the need to stabilise the Western Balkans; this is why it was important for the Committee of the Regions to create a political forum to promote the development of this process, which involves fostering dialogue with all stakeholders in order to define its political positions;

16.

points out that through this working group, the CoR intends to foster permanent dialogue with local and regional political representatives in the Western Balkans. In addition, it will encourage and support the organisation of information and communication campaigns on the enlargement process in the local authorities and regions of Europe and the Western Balkans.

17.

would point out that substantial efforts are still needed to consolidate devolved structures and thus strengthen conditions for developing local democracy; administrative restructuring and modernisation should help build up — rather than break down — regional and local administrative capacity;

18.

welcomes the progress that has been made in protecting minority rights, but is concerned that too few resources have been put into combating human trafficking. There must be rapid improvements particularly for the weakest in society, such as Roma children; draws attention to the key role of players at local and regional level in implementing the legislative framework in this area in particular;

19.

in the light of the current draft legislation on municipal financing, welcomes any measures that help improve funding arrangements for local and regional levels and expand their scope in promoting investment at local and regional level;

20.

welcomes improvements in public administration, and in particular in the field of public procurement (here too, new draft legislation is in the pipeline, and is currently being debated in parliament), an area which has hitherto lacked transparency; and proposes that the local and regional levels be more closely involved in further shaping the relevant provisions;

21.

is pleased that the economic situation has visibly improved, and expects further efforts to meet the obligations arising from the Stabilisation and Association Agreement signed in 2006;

22.

considering the results of the local elections held on 18 February 2007, takes note of the conclusions of the OSCE observation mission and calls for better focus on ensuring elections in line with the international standards in the future;

23.

welcomes the progress made in combating corruption and protecting human rights, and expects continued endeavours to be made for improvements in these areas.

24.

notes the need for constitutional reforms and the fulfilment of obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU, so as also to give a stronger impetus to the accession process over the coming months;

25.

supports all measures which could help to achieve progress in stabilising Bosnia and Herzegovina; to this end, it attaches particular importance to strengthening local democracy in both entities. A resulting improvement in political relations at local level could substantially contribute to stabilising the overall situation;

26.

welcomes the progress that has been made in combating corruption and in the area of human and minority rights, and calls for the efforts that have been made up to now in these areas to be further strengthened. Vigorous local democracy and stronger civil society can play an important role in this process;

27.

strongly advocates intensive cooperation with the International Criminal Court in The Hague;

28.

supports all measures conducive to establishing a true single market within the country, while noting that activities at local level can play an important role in this regard;

29.

thus, for this reason too, calls for the financial and institutional strengthening of the local level, which must be accompanied by the development of effective administration;

30.

calls for sincere efforts by both entities to achieve more constructive cooperation and welcomes the results of work by non-governmental bodies and non-profit organisations in relation to the new local self-governance development strategy.

31.

acknowledges the work done by the country since independence to build up state structures, and welcomes the progress which has already been made in this direction;

32.

in particular, welcomes the reform of local authorities, which has kicked off with a series of legislative proposals aimed at strengthening local government, in keeping with the work programme for more effective self-government;

33.

also welcomes the government's plans to set up a coordination centre for monitoring the devolution process, whose tasks will include fuller clarification of responsibilities and of the accompanying financial arrangements;

34.

finally, also welcomes the new code of ethics for civil servants, which also applies to local authority employees. The code will help to ensure continued progress in addressing the remaining shortcomings — for example in terms of combating corruption — in the course of public administrative reforms;

35.

acknowledges that progress has been made in combating corruption and welcomes the cooperation with the International Court of Justice in The Hague;

36.

calls for stronger measures to protect minority rights. The situation of Roma and refugees in particular requires special attention.

37.

recalls its opinion on the Western Balkans of October 2006, which states that all of these countries are welcome to join the European Union, and reaffirms its continued engagement with Serbian local and regional authorities;

38.

regrets the decision of the Serbian parliament to reject UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari's proposal on the future status of Kosovo, and hopes that, as talks continue, a constructive solution acceptable to all parties will be found; calls on Belgrade to play an active and constructive part in consultations on resolving the Kosovo issue;

39.

welcomes the progress which has been made in developing public administration and making it more effective, but would also call for corresponding efforts, in line with the subsidiarity principle, in the development of devolved and local administrative structures;

40.

recommends that Commission assistance for institution-building give special consideration to local government capacity, in particular to assist the implementation of law and to improve communication and cooperation between central and local government;

41.

urges Serbia to ratify the European convention on local self-government as soon as possible;

42.

welcomes the progress that has been made in combating corruption, and urges continued endeavours in this field;

43.

calls for unreserved cooperation with the International Court of Justice in The Hague;

44.

welcomes the clear progress that has been made in the negotiations on visa facilitation and readmission.

45.

welcomes the efforts by UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari to determine the future status of Kosovo, and stresses that a viable solution to the status issue must be found in the near future that safeguards the rights of all people living in Kosovo;

46.

calls on Pristina to play an active and constructive part in the consultations to resolve the Kosovo issue;

47.

welcomes the progress that has been made in combating corruption, acknowledges the efforts which have been made up to now in the field of human and minority rights, and calls for further action in this area;

48.

is pleased that the Kosovo institutions have drawn up a framework programme for local government reform, with the aim of improving security and living conditions in municipalities;

49.

although some progress has been made, emphasises that local-level administrative capacity remains inadequate, both in terms of the administration itself and of strategic planning.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/21

—

recommends that the provisions of EC Treaty Articles 99 and 128, which underpin the three-year policy cycle and the definition of the integrated guidelines for economic and employment policies, should be implemented in a comprehensive context including environmental and institutional as well as economic and social aspects in the integrated package of guidelines, so as to enable the Sustainable Development Strategy to put the cross-cutting and overarching nature of sustainable development into practice;

—

proposes that the Commission develop stronger cooperation when it comes to assessing the contribution of local and regional authorities to sustainability policies, as part of a multi-annual institutional partnership;

—

calls on the Commission to propose appropriate policies, such as ceilings for the production of certain pollutants or exploitation of certain resources, including farming and fishing practices, to accompany market regulation mechanisms and environmental tax policy. As far as the latter is concerned, there is an urgent need to eliminate the market distortions generated by subsidies that encourage forms of production or products that have a high environmental impact or risk level;

—

believes that the Strategy should make it clear that in order to break the link between economic growth and environmental decline, it will be necessary to monitor, reduce and stabilise the flow of energy, materials and associated waste that feeds the economic system before returning to the ecosystem in less useable forms;

—

stresses the important role that local and regional authorities can play in achieving sustainable development; recommends promoting Local Agenda 21 as the main instrument for the implementation of broad participatory processes, not least in the use of European funds; recommends promoting the full implementation and extension of the Aarhus Convention provisions on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice with reference to all areas of sustainable development.

1.1

warmly welcomes the approval of the European Union's new Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS);

1.2

is pleased to see that the new strategy reaffirms the cross-cutting nature of the sustainable development objective, which overarches (1) and governs all the Union's policies and activities;

1.3

echoes the conclusions of the European Council of 16 and 17 June 2006 in stressing that the progress made since the adoption of the sustainable development strategy in Gothenburg in 2001 is insufficient; and expresses its concern at the absence of an in-depth study of the causes of this unsatisfactory progress and the negative trends in the main environmental variables;

1.4

agrees with the Commission that it is time to focus on a proactive approach to sustainable development, on practical action in the field and on the decisive role that local and regional authorities can play in order to achieve a sustainable society both within the European Union and in the rest of the world;

1.5

points out, as in a previous opinion, the importance of highlighting sustainable development and building it into all sectors of EU policy. The call for cohesion policy to underpin the economic, ecological, institutional and social dimensions and for the long-term effects of all policies to be properly assessed is still relevant today;

1.6

wishes to stress that safety and security are important to achieving a good quality of life. Together with a broad public health perspective, safety and security provide the necessary basis for sustainable development efforts. Safety and security encompass everything from the impact of climate change and war, to violence against women and children. The Committee would also emphasise the need to include an equal opportunities perspective in sustainable development work;

1.7

recalls the various fields in which local and regional authorities play a key part. These include spatial planning, where many of the measures necessary to promote development, concerning for instance land use, water resources, waste management and urban environmental policies, fall largely within the local and regional domain; and believes that local and regional authorities should play leading roles in the process of implementing, monitoring and reviewing the Strategy;

1.8

reiterates the attention that should be given to environmental requirements in public contracts — in the technology sector, and especially in the area of waste, energy, transport, water supplies and sewage, road and other infrastructure networks — and to the promotion of green public procurement. The Eco-Management and Audit scheme (EMAS) should be extended to local areas and public offices, and should be improved and tailored to the issues and demands of sustainable development, taking into account the economic, ecological and social dimensions. In this context, further consideration should be given to the possibility of taking the environmental benefits of locally-produced goods and services into account;

1.9

considers that the possibility of pooling experiences and acquiring new knowledge by means of cooperation and interaction between the various players is a major part of the drive towards sustainable development;

1.10

endorses the key objectives set out in the new strategy, which need to be further fleshed out;

1.11

believes that it should be made clear that if the link between economic growth and environmental decline is to be broken, the rate of regeneration of renewable resources must be equal to or more than the sum of the rate of use of renewable and non-renewable resources; and the rate of waste production must be lower than the rate at which it is regenerated by means of natural systems; therefore, strategies should focus not only on preventing the decline of ecosystems but also, above all, on helping to fully restore their functions, by promoting management measures to recover and safeguard their health and integrity, and thus ensure that the consumption of environmental goods and services is compatible with the socio-ecological functionality of the area;

1.12

maintains that it is not enough to speak of an eco-efficient economy: it must be made clear that eco-efficient here means that the prosperity generated by growth is commensurate with, or is not outweighed by the associated social and environmental costs;

1.13

would clarify that in this context sustainability requires equity in the use of resources and the production of pollution. A world in which the rich (11 % of the world's population) own over 80 % of the natural resources and a corresponding share of global income is not sustainable;

1.14

endorses the guiding principles set out in the new strategy, which need to be further fleshed out;

1.15

believes, with regard to citizen, business and social partner involvement, that there should be more specific reference to types of participatory and deliberative democracy, i.e. to mechanisms for participation and decision-making that depending on the circumstances can be combined with forms of traditional representative democracy; and maintains that the promotion of corporate social responsibility should include experimentation with measures regarding business ownership structure, such as cooperatives and programmes for the distribution of shares to the workers or communities concerned;

1.16

agrees that it is necessary to secure coherence between governance policies, policy mainstreaming and the use of the best available knowledge; feels, however, that this coherence has yet to be achieved, that there is a lack of integration, and that the best knowledge is geared primarily towards competitiveness and innovation serving economic growth and the conquest of new markets and much less towards the requirements of sustainable development;

1.17

to this end states that it is necessary to clarify that sustainable development refers to a quality of life that can be achieved even in the absence of economic growth understood in terms of greater production of goods and services or per capita gross domestic profit. This means above all sustainable development that responds to current demands while also taking into account the needs of future generations;

1.18

agrees that all the European institutions and Member States, at all levels, should ensure that the main policy decisions are based on proposals that have been subject to a high-quality impact evaluation, that weighs up the social, environmental, institutional and economic dimensions of sustainable development;

1.19

recalls, in terms of the potential synergy between the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies, a point it made in a previous opinion, stressing that the Lisbon strategy provides the basis for the EU's response to the impact of globalisation on competition, the economy and the workforce in Europe but should also reflect the impact on sustainable development in Europe and internationally;

1.20

would contend that the link between the two strategies has lost its way; the Gothenburg strategy should have been a synthesis of the Lisbon strategy and the process of reviewing the Fifth Environmental Action Programme and defining the sixth;

1.21

regrets that this has not been the case, and that the two strategies are implemented through separate decision-making procedures and that sustainability has effectively been confined to the environmental dimension, with the sustainable development strategy relegated to second position by the Lisbon strategy and its key words of growth, competitiveness and innovation;

1.22

notes that the call for greater synergy appears faint and is not backed up by the governance of the two processes. The Lisbon strategy is founded on the procedures provided for by Treaty Articles 99 and 128. It has an impact on the framing of economic and employment policies in the various countries and on the decisions of the council meetings that define EU policy;

1.23

regrets that the Spring Council meeting, which should have been the time to assess the implementation of internal and external commitments in the realm of sustainable development (2) has so far been given over entirely to the cycle of Lisbon economic and social policies;

1.24

notes the intention of the Commission to present an annual report on the environment, to feed into the work of the Environment Council in the Spring Summit preparation phase;

1.25

notes the seven key challenges identified by the strategy and the corresponding targets, operational objectives and actions; considers, however, that there is a danger that the division of tasks could lead to a neglect of the deep interconnection between the various areas of action identified, diluting the main issue of the integrated and comprehensive control of the flow of materials and energy that feeds the economic system;

1.26

is concerned that the targets and operational objectives make no reference to precisely defined goals, as might have been hoped, but rather to principles and guidelines, and notes that the objectives relating to climate change should be reviewed in the light of the findings of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the guidelines that arose recently from the March 2007 European Council;

1.27

calls for the promotion of the use of biomass as a means of diversifying EU fuel supply sources to be reconsidered in the light of the most recent studies;

1.28

notes the recent Eurobarometer survey, which indicates that 61 % of the EU population believes that the share of energy produced using nuclear technology should be reduced; and considers that the strategy should indicate the need to eliminate market distortions generated by EU budget support for nuclear energy (over EUR 550 million a year), which is four times higher than the support for renewable energies and energy efficiency (EUR 168 million);

1.29

regrets that the objectives given for transport are limited to the characteristics of cars and do not cover the modes of transport themselves. Specific targets should be set for the relationship between the various modes of transport, market rules should be introduced to make rail transport more competitive, not least by introducing innovative instruments such as ceilings for kilometres travelled/year for individual means of transport and exchangeable permits for goods transport. When defining targets consideration should be given to the specific situations of different individuals, families, companies and economies, and different geographical factors and the differing ranges of transport options and other infrastructure currently available;

1.30

carefully considers the role that local government can play, as indicated in the strategy, in shaping and implementing transport plans and systems in the context of the urban environment thematic strategy;

1.31

welcomes the importance placed on the challenge of world poverty and development, but expresses concern at the delays in meeting the aid quotas for developing countries; believes that the strategy should reconsider the approach to aid for developing countries and trade policies, in the light of the broadening gap between the world's rich and poor and also of the looming ecological crisis;

1.32

agrees that education is a prerequisite for promoting changes in consumption models and in patterns of behaviour in general and is aware that these can be at odds with the requirements of sustainability if nothing is done in the areas that influence or determine them; there is a need to establish a value system that is more easily applicable to lifestyle (and therefore production and consumption models);

1.33

welcomes the current initiatives in the context of the UN decade of education for sustainable development; but is aware that more than education is needed to make market behaviour consistent with the requirements of sustainability and that there is a need for market regulation and social control mechanisms;

1.34

considers that a distinction must be made between the education and training sectors and believes that life–long training is one of the most important instruments when it comes to securing equal opportunities for all in the context of a market society, strengthening the social pillar to promote sustainable development;

1.35

agrees that research into sustainable development should include short-term projects to back up decision making, as well as long-term projects, and that it should address regional and global issues;

1.36

considers it urgent and necessary to develop new technologies that are kinder to the environment. In this context the objectives of the Seventh Research Framework Programme seem useful, as do measures which can foster schemes to promote sustainable development at local level and to support the development of environment-minded companies, SMEs in particular; such measures ought to be stepped up;

1.37

agrees on the need to promote interdisciplinary approaches in the light of the constant changes in the relationship between the various economic, ecological, social and institutional systems; and considers that maximum transparency and participation are vital, given the level of uncertainty surrounding the development of the systems, the many interests vested in the decision-making processes, the need to respond to issues concerning scientific research itself (e.g. the premises underpinning it), as well as the need to safeguard health and the quality of the environment and ensure that decision-making processes adhere to ethical principles and values;

1.38

agrees on the need for greater understanding of the connection between income generation, income accounting and wellbeing. More specifically, the Committee considers that the calculation of national income should include indicators designed to cost the flow of energy and materials that feeds the economic system and to assess the full range of economic activity;

1.39

considers that the range of sustainability policy instruments cannot be limited to market regulation measures, however useful and necessary these may be. The search, through transparency and corrective measures, for the ‘right price’ — one that reflects social and environmental costs — takes no account of the fact that it is impossible to gain an accurate enough picture of changing trends in the various systems;

1.40

agrees on the need for greater coordination between Member States and the Commission to ensure or a better use of European funds; on that note, expresses concern regarding the possibility that the 2007-2013 Structural Funds may end up contributing to an increase in CO2 emissions, as stated in a recent report of the CEE Bankwatch Network;

1.41

agrees that appropriate communication measures should be used to facilitate information and raise awareness regarding sustainability issues and that the latter should tie in with the shaping of a coherent and realistic EU vision for sustainable development in the long term;

1.42

agrees on the role that local and regional authorities can play in achieving sustainable development with community action in urban and rural areas: Local Agenda 21 is the prime tool for implementing policies that are designed and carried out through broad participatory processes; believes, however, that these participatory processes cannot be fully developed unless they are accorded real importance in the budget management of the corresponding tiers of government, particularly when managing resources from the Community budget;

1.43

considers that monitoring should focus not only on defining and tracking the progress of indicators, but also on tracking the policies and actions of the EU, individual Member States and even local and regional authorities;

1.44

believes that this will require changes to the current decision-making procedures in the sphere of European governance for sustainable development;

1.45

is convinced that this demands an about-turn in the relationship between the Lisbon and Gothenburg processes, back to what it was originally intended to be. By way of example: it should not be results from the EU's SDS contributing to the work in the Lisbon context, as stated in Point 38 of the Sustainable Development Strategy, but rather the results of the Lisbon strategy contributing to the objectives of sustainable development, bearing in mind the latter's overarching position among European policies;

1.46

underlines the need to frame and take forward the Commission's proposed sustainable development measures in a way that facilitates their implementation at local and regional level in the 27 Member States. It is important that the suggested measures can be implemented at local and regional level whatever the different circumstances that apply in the various Member States;

1.47

expresses concern at the Commission's suggestion that an SDS governance plan should be referred to the December European Council; this would serve to worsen the decoupling of the Gothenburg and Lisbon strategies and further marginalise sustainability in European governance;

1.48

recalls on this note how, at the time of the Lisbon strategy relaunch, the 2005 Spring Council reaffirmed that it fitted into the broader context of the sustainable development imperative.

2.1

is convinced that an approach to sustainable development encompassing the economic, ecological, social and institutional aspects is a precondition for increased well-being, a high level of good-quality employment, and economic growth that does not generate greater environmental costs and hence only illusory well-being; for such an approach to take root, there must be a thorough reform of the EU's governance of sustainability;

2.2

recommends that the provisions of EC Treaty Articles 99 and 128, which underpin the three-year policy cycle and the definition of the integrated guidelines for economic and employment policies, should be implemented in a comprehensive context including environmental and institutional as well as economic and social aspects in the integrated package of guidelines, so as to enable the SDS to put the cross-cutting and overarching nature of sustainable development into practice;

2.3

also recommends that local and regional authorities should be given a key role in the various phases of this new cycle when it comes to shaping and implementing the global objectives and changes necessary for achieving a sustainable society, when necessary starting from a local standpoint. In this light, a report on the implementation of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme should be added to the reports on economic and employment policies that all Member States have to submit by October of every year. The three reports should interlink and show how each policy is contributing to the sustainability objectives set by the SDS;

2.4

believes that the Strategy should make it clear that in order to break the link between economic growth and environmental decline, it will be necessary to monitor, reduce and stabilise the flow of energy, materials and associated waste that feeds the economic system before returning to the ecosystem in less useable forms;

2.5

recommends that the programme documents be accompanied by an analysis of those flows, so as to verify their contribution to the decoupling of economic growth from environmental impact; and that the aims of cohesion measures should refer first and foremost to achieving the sustainable development strategy objectives, and should only refer to the Lisbon agenda's integrated guidelines for growth and employment insofar as these are consistent with the SDS;

2.6

therefore calls on the Commission to make a proposal to this end, and asks the Council and the European Parliament to give it early consideration;

2.7

calls on the Commission to propose appropriate policies, such as ceilings for the production of certain pollutants or exploitation of certain resources, including farming and fishing practices, to accompany market regulation mechanisms and environmental tax policy. As far as the latter is concerned, there is an urgent need to eliminate the market distortions generated by subsidies that encourage forms of production or products that have a high environmental impact or risk level;

2.8

recommends that the SDS set precise quantitative targets with precise deadlines; and calls on the Member States to develop sustainable development strategies that are consistent with the European strategy and that can contribute to it. In this context, commits regional and local authorities to defining their own strategies in line with the strategic objectives set at national and European level, with appropriate feedback mechanisms;

2.9

calls on the Commission to consider a climate change response plan to address the impact of rising temperatures on fisheries, the protection of coasts and inland waters, and of rainfall fluctuations and other adverse events on arable and livestock farming, aquaculture, forest fires, droughts, biodiversity and forests, tourism, coastal protection, health, etc.;

2.10

recommends defining procedures and strengthening institutional capacity for assessing the environmental sustainability of plans, programmes and projects so as to allow for proper public information and participation; believes that the primary objective of these procedures should be to ascertain whether the planned measures are consistent with, and contribute to, the objectives set at all relevant levels of the sustainability strategy;

2.11

stresses the important role that local and regional authorities can play in achieving sustainable development; calls on the Commission to shape initiatives to boost the social, urban and environmental regeneration of city peripheries; recommends promoting Local Agenda 21 as the main instrument for the implementation of broad participatory processes, not least in the use of European funds; to that end, considers it necessary to extend participation processes, both to ensure that the relevant decision-making processes respect the values systems of the communities concerned (something that the market, given its nature, cannot do) and to improve the quality of scientific practice; recommends promoting the full implementation and extension of the Aarhus Convention provisions on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice with reference to all areas of sustainable development: the economy, society, the environment and institutions;

2.12

recommends, with regard to the participation of the public, business and the social partners, that more specific reference be made to forms of participatory and deliberative democracy and experimentation with measures regarding ownership structure, such as programmes for the distribution of shares to workers and communities, and cooperatives;

2.13

calls for a review of: i) the scale of and procedures for development aid, since the trickle down approach is no longer an option given the growing gap between rich and poor countries and the limits on economic growth imposed by the finite nature of the ecosystem; ii) the growth model deriving from globalisation and its sustainability; iii) the relative priority and the relations between the European regional market and its capital and international markets and capital: iv) the drive, in WTO negotiations, to privatise public services and goods, such as water, and calls for this to be definitively abandoned; v) subsidies, incentives and other measures that create trade barriers for developing countries;

2.14

trusts that the Commission will develop and deepen its dialogue with local and regional authorities in the course of its evaluation of the sustainable development strategy and its work on the action programme; the Committee intends to play an active role in efforts to achieve a sustainable society both within the European Union and in the rest of the world;

2.15

proposes that the Commission develop stronger cooperation when it comes to assessing the contribution of local and regional authorities to sustainability policies, as part of a multi-annual institutional partnership. In the context of this cooperation the Committee of the Regions would inter alia (see Appendix I) draw up specific opinions on a series of dossiers, taken from the Commission work programme for 2007-2009 and considered by regional and local authorities to be especially relevant to sustainable development, and would also make practical proposals for carrying out joint initiatives.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/30

—

supports the EU Presidency in its commitment to the process of reforming the European Union and the need to preserve the substance of the Constitutional Treaty signed by all heads of state or government on 29 October 2004 in Rome;

—

calls on heads of state or government, at the European Council of 21 and 22 June 2007, to commit to working towards bringing the Treaty reform process to a conclusion without going back on the advances obtained by and for local and regional authorities, inter alia with respect to the principles of subsidiarity and good governance, and to the territorial cohesion of the European Union, and calls for these provisions to be retained in their entirety in any future Treaty;

—

asks to be consulted on the road map to be proposed by the European Council for continuing the process of reforming the European Union, and would like to be involved in the negotiation phase;

—

believes that the absence of a Constitutional Treaty would be detrimental to the recognition of the virtues of the model of European integration, which seeks to respect and foster diversity within the EU, and notes that with no Constitutional Treaty, the European Union would not benefit either from the recognition of regional and local autonomy as a pillar of the democratic system of the European Union, or from a relevant capacity to act to guarantee territorial cohesion and strengthen Community solidarity;

—

reiterates that it is convinced of the urgent need to promote, via a decentralised communication policy, debate based on shared values, the achievements of European integration and Community policies, and the challenges for the future of the European Union, and to adopt a two-way approach, as communication with local and regional authorities is currently too unilateral and top-down;

—

believes that the European Union's communication policy will become more coherent and effective if the European institutions find a legal framework or basis conducive to the implementation of a properly targeted programme based on this policy and backed up by sufficient financial resources.

1.

supports the EU Presidency in its commitment to the process of reforming the European Union and the need to preserve the substance of the Constitutional Treaty signed by all heads of state or government on 29 October 2004 in Rome;

2.

welcomes the Berlin Declaration of 25 March 2007, which recognises, fifty years after the signature of the Treaties of Rome, the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the elections to the European Parliament in 2009, and is pleased that it enshrines the recognition of the territorial dimension of the EU and the principles and values it holds dear;

3.

restates its determination, expressed in its Declaration for Europe adopted on 23 March 2007 on the occasion of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, to work for an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, strengthened by its freedoms, its values and its principles of solidarity and responsibility, and developing common policies and joint actions whilst respecting local and regional diversity, identity and autonomy, in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity and good governance;

4.

calls on heads of state or government, at the European Council of 21 and 22 June 2007, to commit to working towards bringing the Treaty reform process to a conclusion without going back on the advances obtained by and for local and regional authorities, inter alia with respect to the principles of subsidiarity and good governance, and to the territorial cohesion of the European Union;

5.

would therefore support the earliest possible calling of a new Intergovernmental Conference with a precise mandate and timetable so as to provide the European Union with a new Treaty that preserves the substance and the balance of the Constitutional Treaty signed in 2004 and enjoys the broadest possible support in the EU;

6.

recognises that for many citizens the purpose of the EU in the 21st century is no longer clear and, in the spirit of Plan D, believes that the EU must recognise that citizens cannot be expected to read lengthy technical treaties and that the EU must be able to explain its ‘raison d'être’ in a clear and concise manner to today's citizens and to future generations; therefore, calls on EU leaders to give the Union an official one-page Mission Statement, valid for the long-term, which would complement any future treaty and which the EU institutions could pro-actively bring to the attention of citizens, now and in the future;

7.

asks to be consulted on and fully involved in the next stages of the process of reforming the European Union, based on the road map to be proposed by the European Council; would like to be involved in the negotiation phase for a future IGC, as its involvement would be conducive to a more inclusive result, which would benefit the public;

8.

supports the Commission's approach as regards to the symbolic impact of a Constitution in terms of strengthening the sense of ownership of European citizenship by the EU's citizens, based on shared values and ambitions;

9.

believes that, with no Constitutional Treaty, the European Union would deprive itself of significant advances in representative and participatory democracy within the European Union, and would have neither a relevant legal framework nor decision-making mechanisms conducive to strengthening the Union's ability to act, in particular by the extension of qualified majority voting, and its capacity to take in new candidate countries;

10.

stresses that with no Constitutional Treaty, the EU would deprive itself of a legal personality and of a common foundation for its fundamental rights in the form of a binding charter, which would provide a real legal and democratic guarantee for the citizens of the European Union;

11.

notes that with no Constitutional Treaty, the European Union would not benefit from the recognition of regional and local autonomy as a pillar of the democratic system of the European Union;

12.

believes that the absence of a Constitutional Treaty would be detrimental to the recognition of the virtues of the model of European integration, which seeks to respect and foster diversity within the EU;

13.

recalls that with no Constitutional Treaty, the Union would deprive itself of a clearer definition of competences and of a political and judicial system that strengthens the implementation of and compliance with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, inter alia as regards the explicit recognition of the local and regional dimension, thus renouncing greater recognition by the Union of the competences of regional and local authorities, greater involvement of the latter in the decision-making process, thanks to their systematic involvement in the pre-legislative consultation phase; and the legal guarantee of this participation, inter alia thanks to the granting to the Committee of the Regions of a right of appeal to the Court of Justice, which would strengthen transparency and democracy in the Union;

14.

notes that, with the Constitutional Treaty, the European Union would have a relevant capacity to act to guarantee territorial cohesion and strengthen Community solidarity;

15.

stresses that, with no Constitutional treaty, Europe would deprive itself of a common asylum policy and concrete tools to fight illegal immigration, which are of particular relevance to local and regional authorities who have to provide for the reception of immigrants in their regions and cities;

16.

recalls that, with no Constitutional Treaty, the Union would not be able to develop a broad energy policy; this would, inter alia, penalise the commitment of local and regional authorities to renewable energy and energy efficiency as part of efforts to reduce climate change;

17.

asks that, in any case, the following provisions be retained in any future Treaty:

18.

therefore requests that the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality be included in any new treaty or maintained as Protocol 2 immediately after Protocol 1 on the role of national parliaments;

19.

recognises the need to take into account the following areas: climate change, energy, the European Social Model in the context of demographic change and globalisation (1), migration policy, inter alia as regards the fight against illegal immigration, economic policy in the Euro area, and stresses that EU action in these areas can only be effective if it draws on and is supported by local and regional authorities; therefore asks that any new Treaty provide for it to be consulted in these new areas of EU action;

20.

points out that, in addition to the EU communication problems which have been identified time and again, the public wants the EU and the Member States to provide policies which are more geared towards its interests. The public's question ‘What do I get out of the EU?’ is legitimate, and European politics must provide convincing answers to these questions.

21.

asks, if the mandate of the IGC provides for the re-examination of the legal bases contained in Part III of the Constitutional Treaty, that provision be made for it to be consulted on measures relating to civil protection (Article III-284), tourism (Article III-281) and administrative cooperation (Article III-285);

22.

notes that a consensus has emerged since the beginning of the reflection period on the need to discuss Europe at the level closest to the people, and to target information and give it a local and regional slant;

23.

reiterates that it is convinced of the urgent need to promote, via a decentralised communication policy, debate based on shared values, the achievements of European integration and Community policies, and the challenges for the future of the European Union;

24.

stresses that by adding a fourth ‘D’ — Decentralisation — to Plan D (Democracy, Dialogue and Debate) proposed by the European Commission, it wanted to draw attention to the relevance of the political and public debate on proximity and to the need to promote a decentralised communication policy across Europe;

25.

recalls that it is developing a programme of major events in Brussels (Open Days/European week of cities and regions, forums, thematic weeks), thus giving the European institutions involved in their organisation a real platform for communicating with representatives of regional and local authorities, regional and local media, and the editors of the publications of European and national associations of local and regional authorities;

26.

also welcomes all the initiatives taken by its political groups and local and regional authorities in the area of communicating Europe, listed in its first two progress reports on the implementation of Plan D for Decentralisation (2), thus promoting the creation of a public space for dialogue and debate via the local and regional press;

27.

therefore reiterates the need to adopt a two-way approach, as advocated by the European Commission in its White Paper on European information policy; communication with local and regional authorities is currently too unilateral and top-down;

28.

commits, in the current context of prolongation of the Commission's action, to continuing the territorial approach already developed with Plan D for Decentralisation and, with the aim of consolidating a decentralised communication policy, calls for:

29.

welcomes the step the European Commission took in holding the Berlin Conference on 18 and 19 January 2007 with a view to developing a partnership between the European institutions and local and regional authorities in the area of communication;

30.

draws particular attention to the proposals contained in the conclusions of that conference, inter alia the need to:

31.

agrees with the Commission's view about future targeting of communication to specific population groups, inter alia women and young people;

32.

believes that the European Union's communication policy will become more coherent and effective if the European institutions find a legal framework or basis conducive to the implementation of a properly targeted programme based on this policy and backed up by sufficient financial resources; local and regional authorities and their networks should be eligible for Community funding under these future programmes; welcomes in this context the guidelines for the European Parliament's 2008 budget procedure calling for greater involvement and new action plans for communication oriented to the local and regional media;

33.

notes that both the Commission (3) and the European Parliament (4) recognise the need for cooperation between the EU institutions to give the public a consistent message about Europe, and welcomes the fact that cooperation with regional and local institutions has been relaunched with a view to demonstrating the relevance and impact of the EU's decisions in citizens' lives;

34.

supports the European Parliament's proposal regarding an interinstitutional agreement setting out the common principles that might govern cooperation between the institutions in the area of communications, and asks that it be involved in drafting and implementing this agreement (5);

35.

supports the European Parliament's proposal on the evaluation of the activities of the Interinstitutional Information Group (IIG) to establish whether there is scope for improvements and whether a group responsible for coordinating the implementation of the guidelines set by the IIG should be created, and would be willing to participate in such an evaluation (6);

36.

also welcomes the addendum to the cooperation agreement with the European Commission, signed in November 2005, relating to information and communication policy, which strengthens this dimension of interinstitutional cooperation in favour of a genuine decentralised communication policy;

37.

supports the communication activities of regional parliaments, and requests the participation of its members and of regional parliaments and their representative associations in the Inter-parliamentary forums on the future of Europe;

38.

welcomes the European Parliament's initiative proposing the creation of a European journalism fund aimed at making European themes relevant to regional and local circumstances (7);

39.

instructs its President to forward this opinion to the members of the European Council, the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/37

—

is of the view that the timetable for the accomplishment of the postal internal market by 2009 as proposed in the Directive 2002/39 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services should be postponed to 31 December 2010 and also allow for a transitional period until 2012 for those Member States that deem it necessary. The legal issues behind the options presented for the financing of the universal service obligations have to be clarified in advance by the Commission; in its next report, and by 31 December 2010 at the latest, the Commission, following a broad consultation of stakeholders and appropriate studies, will evaluate the effectiveness of the financing methods proposed in the Directive and whether or not the scope of the universal service is able to meet customer needs;

—

believes that the postal network as a whole, including franchised postal outlets, could provide not only postal services but also act as a platform to provide other public services; this would make it possible to meet common needs in rural mountain or remote areas, providing electronic access to essential services;

—

notes that new entrants have created new jobs in liberated markets, and, indirectly, in industries dependent on the postal sector; however, with the liberalisation of the mail market, the postal sector, previously regulated by social guarantees on employment and income, runs the risk of providing less job security and lower wages.

1.

believes that good postal services are essential to all economic and social activities and a vital part of communication within the EU;

2.

stresses the key role played by postal services, and in particular the universal service provisions ensuring the availability of high-quality, reliable and affordable postal services irrespective of geographical or financial conditions, in the territorial and social cohesion of the European Union;

3.

stresses its support and commitment to the completion of the single European market through a regulated liberalisation of the postal market ensuring a durable guarantee of the provision of universal service;

4.

is of the view that the timetable for the accomplishment of the postal internal market by 2009 as proposed in the Directive 2002/39 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services should be postponed to 31 December 2010 and also allow for a transitional period until 2012 for those Member States that deem it necessary. The legal issues behind the options presented for the financing of the universal service obligations have to be clarified in advance by the Commission; in its next report, and by 31 December 2010 at the latest, the Commission, following a broad consultation of stakeholders and appropriate studies, will evaluate the effectiveness of the financing methods proposed in the Directive and whether or not the scope of the universal service is able to meet customer needs;

5.

considers that European and national regulation of postal operations has to consist of regulations ensuring universal services for consumers while guaranteeing postal undertakings a possibility to operate flexibly to serve the changing markets and customer needs;

6.

agrees that the impact of globalisation, market demands for a high-quality service and technological advances means that the postal services industry is facing rapid change. The CoR stresses that a high-quality, modern and technologically advanced universal postal service is a prerequisite for the completion of the Single Market, future economic growth and social inclusion. Consumers and small businesses in remote and excluded urban areas, in particular rely on postal services. However, at the same time, new modern technology has brought new ways of transmitting messages and the scope of universal service required should take account of this;

7.

draws attention to the substitution of traditional postal items by new forms of communication which is taking place in several Member States. This has led to major reductions in mail volumes for postal operators which needs to be taken into account when defining the scope and means of financing the universal service obligation;

8.

recommends that more attention should be given to potential job losses in the process of liberalisation, even though new competitors entering the market, could, in addition, also provide significant avenue for employment opportunities;

9.

suggests that the Member States and the European Commission further examine the possibilities for introducing retraining programmes for current postal operator employees who may become redundant when the monopolies face competition from new entrants to the market;

10.

notes that new entrants have created new jobs in liberated markets, and, indirectly, in industries dependent on the postal sector; however, with the liberalisation of the mail market, the postal sector, previously regulated by social guarantees on employment and income, runs the risk of providing less job security and lower wages;

11.

requests that the Member States and the Commission examine the opportunities arising from franchising the postal outlet network as has been done in some Nordic countries with very positive results. In these countries a franchised postal outlet in combination with another business has proven to be a very customer-friendly way to offer postal services.

12.

believes that the postal network as a whole, including franchised postal outlets, could provide not only postal services but also act as a platform to provide other public services; this would make it possible to meet common needs in rural mountain or remote areas, providing electronic access to essential services;

13.

notes that it remains unclear whether the information referred to in Article 6 on the information to be published on universal service refers to the special characteristics of universal service determined by the authorities or the terms of service for the universal service operator. The Article should be modified so that it clearly states what parties can be subject to measures by the Member States;

14.

notes that the Directive does introduce alternatives in the new Article 7 to include public compensation through direct state subsidies or, indirect, financing through the use of public procurement procedures;

15.

requests further clarification on the financing alternatives proposed in Article 7;

16.

considers that Article 9 does not sufficiently take into account the different circumstances in the different Member States and that this limits alternative solutions. The CoR therefore suggests that the directive should allow for different licensing and authorisation procedures to be combined and co-ordinated by taking into account the local circumstances of each Member State;

17.

considers that the security and operational certainty of an undertaking designated as a universal service provider should not be subject to higher requirements than those generally directed at postal undertakings. If stricter terms are set for a universal service provider, this will result in additional costs;

18.

agrees that in a fully competitive environment, it is important, both for the financial equilibrium of the universal service as well as for limiting market distortions, that the principle that prices reflect normal commercial conditions and costs is only departed from in order to protect or promote public service obligations defined in the relevant national legal acts. This underlines the fact that Member States should, if possible, maintain uniform tariffs for single piece tariff mail, the service most frequently used by consumers and small businesses; in addition, these principles should not prevent universal service providers from voluntarily applying uniform tariffs to universal services;

19.

considers it especially important that the pricing principles of universal service comply with Article 12 and that they are regulated sufficiently clearly and unambiguously;

20.

recommends a clarification as to what is meant by the cost-orientation of prices and the fact that prices have to encourage the attainment of efficiency benefits. The Directive and its Preamble should, furthermore, expressly note that the pricing requirements relating to universal service should not oblige postal undertakings to lower their prices simply because an increased efficiency has led to more profitable operations;

21.

considers it especially important that the requirements for the reasonableness and cost-orientation of the prices of the universal service are sufficiently clearly regulated so that they will not be used as a tool of price control but understood in the perspective of competition-law principles;

22.

considers that the pricing of services other than universal service should not be subject to direct regulation;

23.

notes that Article 14 (2) dealing with the proposed cost-accounting is more uniform than present regulation, because there is no need to differentiate universal service in book-keeping or cost accounting if the postal undertaking does not receive external financing for the provision of the universal service;

24.

considers that the Directive should clearly indicate the principle that a postal undertaking is not responsible for differentiating the costs of universal service if the Member State has not introduced a financing system for universal service or if universal service is left to be handled by market forces;

25.

considers unnecessary the principle in Article 14 (8), that a national regulatory authority could use its discretion in the application of Article 14, for example to set an obligation to differentiate cost-accounting; and considers also that the discretion of the national regulatory authority not to apply the requirements of Article 14 should be removed. Instead, the paragraph should make clear that the requirement to differentiate cost-accounting shall not be applied if a Member State has not created a financing mechanism complying with Article 7 or if no provider of universal service has been designated;

26.

considers it essential for the cost of universal service to be allocated and taken into account when the undertaking designated to provide universal service is one that is bound to apply cost-oriented pricing;

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/48

—

welcomes the fact that the Commission has no intention of substituting Community action for national policies, which have already been put in place in most of the Member States, or to propose the development of harmonised legislation in the field of preventing alcohol-related harm; shares the Commission's view that the national policies which have already been put in place in most of the Member States relate to national competences in accordance with Article 152 of the EC Treaty and the subsidiarity principle;

—

would point out that in executing its plan to map out actions which have already been put in place by Member States and to identify best practices, and in particular to identify areas which it feels offer scope for further progress, the Commission must not go beyond the objectives and competences assigned to it under the Treaties;

—

shares the Commission's view that, in the field of health policy, Article 152 of the EC Treaty provides for a clear division of tasks between the European Union and the Member States, with EU action confined to complementing national policies;

—

disagrees with the Commission's view that there is a need for a common definition of the term ‘binge-drinking’ to prevent and cut back heavy and extreme drinking patterns;

—

strongly doubts the benefit to be gained by the Commission's proposal to analyse differences in drinking patterns by country, age and gender. The same applies to the proposed system for flexible but standardised definitions for alcohol data and the conducting of repeated and comparative surveys on alcohol consumption, which, in view of the diversity of cultural habits related to alcohol consumption which the Commission itself acknowledges, is very unlikely to provide much in the way of new information.

1.

would point out that the health risks of harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption have long been the subject of social and political debate. In this context, it is understandable that the European Commission has chosen to tackle this subject and to place particular emphasis on preventing and cutting back heavy and extreme drinking patterns, as well as under-age drinking, alcohol-related road accidents and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome;

2.

in view of the different cultural habits related to alcohol consumption in the various Member States, considers it important that the communication focuses not on drinking itself, but on alcohol misuse and its harmful consequences;

3.

also welcomes the fact that the Commission has no intention of substituting Community action for national policies, which have already been put in place in most of the Member States, or to propose the development of harmonised legislation in the field of preventing alcohol-related harm; shares the Commission's view that the national policies which have already been put in place in most of the Member States relate to national competences in accordance with Article 152 of the EC Treaty and the subsidiarity principle;

4.

in this context, would point out that in executing its plan to map out actions which have already been put in place by Member States and to identify best practices, and in particular to identify areas which it feels offer scope for further progress, the Commission must not go beyond the objectives and competences assigned to it under the Treaties;

5.

is pleased that when discussing measures to support and complement national policies implemented by Member States, the Commission takes explicit account of the fact that drinking patterns and cultures vary widely across the EU;

6.

shares the Commission's view that, in the field of health policy, Article 152 of the EC Treaty provides for a clear division of tasks between the European Union and the Member States, with EU action confined to complementing national policies;

7.

shares the Commission's view that many Member States already have extensive policies in place to address the adverse health effects related to harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption, and that most Member States have already taken steps to reduce alcohol-related harm;

8.

takes note of the Commission's strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm but does not, for reasons of subsidiarity, and also in view of the different cultural habits related to alcohol consumption acknowledged by the Commission in its Communication agree that potentially similar problems in different Member States necessarily require an EU-wide approach to resolve them;

9.

shares the Commission's view that harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption has a major impact on public health and thus also generates costs related to health care, health insurance, law enforcement and public order, and workplaces, and thus has a negative impact on economic development and on society as a whole. Young people are particularly at risk. In view of this, there is a real need for policies aimed at the prevention and treatment of harmful alcohol consumption;

10.

agrees with the Commission that harmful alcohol consumption among young people in particular has a negative impact not only on health and social wellbeing, but also on educational attainment and involvement in the social and democratic life of the community to which they belong; also notes increasing trends in under-age ‘binge-drinking’ in many Member States. It is particularly important in the Member States, therefore, also to discuss public policy measures designed to curb under-age drinking and harmful drinking patterns among youth, bearing in mind that any legislative measures must be considered and prepared with particular care in the Member States so as not to make it more difficult to reach the people concerned because of the repressive nature of the measures involved;

11.

shares the Commission's view that effective enforcement of national and regional drink-driving countermeasures could substantially reduce traffic deaths, injuries and disability;

12.

recommends that, by developing a common evidence base at EU level as envisaged in the communication, the Commission take steps to assess the impact of moderate alcohol consumption and arrive at a common definition of ‘harmful and hazardous consumption’;

13.

disagrees with the Commission's view that there is a need for a common definition of the term ‘binge-drinking’ to prevent and cut back heavy and extreme drinking patterns;

14.

would welcome a research initiative to estimate the cost and benefits of policy options as this would also help assess the impact of various campaigns designed to prevent alcohol-related harm;

15.

strongly doubts the benefit to be gained by the Commission's proposal to analyse differences in drinking patterns by country, age and gender. The same applies to the proposed system for flexible but standardised definitions for alcohol data and the conducting of repeated and comparative surveys on alcohol consumption, which, in view of the diversity of cultural habits related to alcohol consumption which the Commission itself acknowledges, is very unlikely to provide much in the way of new information;

16.

apart from this, would strongly emphasise that implementing the EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol-related harm must not impose a financial burden on regional and local authorities;

17.

in view of the Member States' full competence, in this area which the Commission clearly acknowledges, welcomes the Commission's approach to initiating and supporting measures on three different levels of action to address the adverse health effects related to harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption;

18.

in principle welcomes moves to support — in particular in cooperation with the Member States — strategies aimed at curbing under-age drinking, and recommends that the Commission's plans to set up an Alcohol and Health Forum be implemented as an integral part of the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health in order to ensure a cohesive approach and, at the same time, help cut back on red tape and the proliferation of official bodies, as advocated by the Commission on numerous occasions. EU-level work on alcohol and health should focus on sharing knowledge and exchanging best practice on the basis of the measures already in place at national, regional and local levels;

19.

welcomes the Commission's idea of examining how research at the European level can bring value to an EU strategy to support Member States to reduce alcohol related harm, as part of the 7th Research Framework Programme;

20.

is very pleased that the Commission communication addresses and takes due account of national measures and approaches to reducing alcohol abuse; with this in mind, agrees with the Commission that specific measures adopted by Member States to reduce alcohol-related harm with a view to protecting public health, are based on their particular cultural contexts;

21.

strongly agrees with the Commission that national strategies could be more effective if they were supported by local and community-based activities; with this in mind, welcomes any involvement of regional and local decision-makers in EU activities under Article 152 of the EC Treaty;

22.

agrees with the Commission that local communities could contribute to preventive and supportive strategies to protect citizens from alcohol-related harm, but would emphasise that this is already happening in many places and therefore takes note of the Commission's strategy to support local and regional authorities;

23.

with regard to coordination of actions at EU level, would refer to Article 152 of the EC Treaty, which definitively establishes a clear division of tasks between the European Union and the Member States, with EU action confined to complementing national policies; the Commission's efforts to make policy decisions more consistent must not result in infringements of this clear separation of powers; is therefore opposed to the introduction of harmonised warning labels, which the Commission contemplates in its communication; at the same time, is firmly in favour of self-regulatory approaches in the advertising industry;

24.

agrees that the Commission's main contribution to alcohol policies should be to complement national policies and strategies in this field. Indeed, this is the role envisaged by Article 152 of the EC Treaty; is very pleased that, in view of the clear division of powers between the EU and Member States, the Commission is not planning to submit any new legislative proposals;

25.

also welcomes the fact that in, implementing the strategy, the Commission is placing particular emphasis on the principles of subsidiarity and better regulation.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/52

—

believes that democratic governance is the foundation for achieving the millennium development goals (MDGs) and must be based on a broad approach, and that better governance is the key to a successful development policy. The key element of good governance is a recognition that the best decisions are taken as near to grassroots level as possible;

—

believes that it is not nearly enough to talk about the ‘key role that local authorities can play in achieving the MDGs’; governance requires all tiers of authority in a country to govern according to the principles of transparency, public participation and respect for subsidiarity. As a consequence,

—

believes it is essential, under these circumstances, particularly for countries bordering the Mediterranean (many of which are also concerned by the Africa strategy), to reiterate the recommendations it made in its opinion of 13 October 2005 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and repeated in the conclusions of the Valencia seminar on 10 April 2007, for the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean forum of local authorities.

—

draws attention to the financial support that local governance deserves: the maximum 15 % budget allocation which, under the 10th EDF regulation, may be earmarked for support for civil society, technical cooperation and governance (where this has not been chosen as a concentration area) seems manifestly inadequate; this ceiling should be raised to at least 25 %, in order to cover both the national and local dimensions.

—

calls on the European Commission, in accordance with the objectives of the cooperation agreement for the development of decentralised cooperation, to provide technical and financial support and to work with the Committee on the establishment of a decentralised cooperation exchange with a view to facilitating and coordinating more effectively the development of decentralised cooperation activities conducted by EU local and regional authorities and their counterparts in developing countries.

1.

endorses many of the general ideas set out in the Commission's communication to the effect that:

2.

wishes to reaffirm the principle that it expressed in the recommendations made in its own-initiative opinion on the role of decentralised cooperation in development policy reform (CdR 224/2005), namely that better governance is the key to a successful development policy and the key element of good governance is a recognition that the best decisions are taken as near to grassroots level as possible;

3.

considers as a result that the effective implementation of democratic governance means not restricting the principles set out by the Commission to national or intergovernmental level but taking on the issues of decentralisation and democracy at local level; recommends therefore planning not just for interaction between the various sectors of national life only, but also seeking good coordination between national and local tiers of government;

4.

believes that it is not nearly enough to talk about the ‘key role that local authorities can play in achieving the MDGs’; governance requires all tiers of authority in a country to govern according to the principles of transparency, public participation and respect for subsidiarity. This is why implementation of the Commission communication must be based on the following principles:

5.

recommends being prepared for the difficulties that may be encountered in relations with beneficiary country governments, when sub-national layers of government are taken into account, in connection with the implementation of the ownership principle proposed in the European Union's development strategy.

6.

recommends first and foremost giving full effect to the new Article 4 of the revised Cotonou Agreement and providing for proper consultation of decentralised local authorities on the fine-tuning of EU aid programmes negotiated with the government of the country concerned;

7.

believes it is essential that information on the procedures and impact of this consultation be made available to associations of local elected representatives in the countries concerned;

8.

welcomes in this respect the dissemination of guidelines to the Commission Delegations, so as to raise their awareness of the local dimension of EU activities, particularly in the area of governance, in line with the recommendation it made in its opinion CdR 224/2005; but regrets not having received those documents for information;

9.

believes that the structure of the ‘governance profile’ should be revised as it gives little room to the principle of ownership and offers little improvement in promoting democratic governance at local level: far from being a dimension in its own right it is fragmented and divided among a number of the nine headings (1); conversely, the decentralisation dimension of a number of headings (rule of law, economic governance, etc.) deserves to be considered separately;

10.

recommends, meanwhile, that the ‘governance initiative’, a financial reserve designed to act as an incentive for ‘real change and decisive progress in democratic governance’, be used primarily to develop the connection between national and local levels of government, while upholding the principles of fairness, transparency and public participation, and that governments should not benefit unless they are committed to giving local authorities the funds to match the responsibilities conferred on them;

11.

draws attention to the financial support that local governance deserves: the maximum 15 % budget allocation which, under the 10th EDF regulation, may be earmarked for support for civil society, technical cooperation and governance (where this has not been chosen as a concentration area) seems manifestly inadequate; this ceiling should be raised to at least 25 %, in order to cover both the national and local dimensions.

12.

welcomes the fact that the reports generated by the African peer review mechanism (APRM), designed and run by the African countries themselves as part of NEPAD, can be used as the basis for the governance profile;

13.

would like to see the attention and support that the EU is prepared to give to this national self-evaluation exercise contribute to boosting local authority participation and progress in decentralisation and to launching a national action programme to address the weaknesses observed;

14.

reiterates that for the public to see the decentralisation of powers as genuine progress, it is vitally important to strengthen the capacity of local authorities. Action in this area can take various forms, for instance:

15.

recommends involving organisations that bring together local elected representatives and represent their concerns in the bodies that oversee political dialogue between the EU and the countries concerned, in particular the EU-Africa summit planned for the second half of 2007.

16.

is pleased to note that in Latin America, decentralisation appears to be a factor in State modernisation; and wishes to be informed of progress with the implementation of the governance programme announced for 2008 for the Asia region;

17.

welcomes the fact that the ‘governance facility’ announced in the Commission communication appears in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), and asks to be involved in the implementation of the cooperation programme between local and regional authorities in partner and EU countries beyond cross-border areas, provided for in the 2007-2010 interregional programme (IRP) from 2008;

18.

is disappointed, however, that the various agreements signed between the EU and each of the countries concerned by the European neighbourhood policy give very little attention to the local dimension of governance;

19.

believes it is essential, under these circumstances, particularly for countries bordering the Mediterranean (many of which are also concerned by the Africa strategy), to reiterate the recommendations it made in its opinion CdR 142/2005 of 13 October 2005 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and repeated in the conclusions of the Valencia seminar on 10 April 2007 (CdR 59/2007), for the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean forum of local authorities.

20.

recalls, first of all, its previous opinion (CdR 224/2005) calling for these authorities to be given proper consideration in European development policy, and hopes that the organisations that represent them at international and European level will be able to have an effective dialogue with the European institutions;

21.

intends to play to the full its part within the European institutions as the EU body representing local authorities, which both preserve and deliver democratic governance to the people; hopes to be involved in the EU's political dialogue with the various regions of the world, particularly Africa, and believes that the forthcoming EU-Africa summit should provide the first opportunity;

22.

wishes in particular to be involved in the dialogue with local authorities in the countries concerned, so as to pool ideas on the implementation of decentralisation and current practice for encouraging progress with democratic governance; considers for that reason that when the Cotonou Agreement is next revised, decentralised authorities ought to be given the same attention as economic and social interest groups in the institutional mechanism, and that the agreement should have a mechanism similar to the one currently provided for under Protocol 1.4 regarding the European Economic and Social Committee;

23.

reiterates that European local authorities wish to share their experience and know-how with their counterparts in other regions of the world; they are already doing that, not least in peace-related initiatives such as the ‘diplomacy of cities’, but governance policy should also benefit from their help in various ways:

24.

calls on the European Commission, in accordance with the objectives of the cooperation agreement for the development of decentralised cooperation, to provide technical and financial support and to work with the Committee on the establishment of a decentralised cooperation exchange with a view to facilitating and coordinating more effectively the development of decentralised cooperation activities conducted by EU local and regional authorities and their counterparts in developing countries. This cooperation exchange could take the form of an online service where assistance needs and requests could be matched with corresponding expressions of interest or offers.

24.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/57

—

points out that, despite the fact that since the Communication was issued on 8 November 2006 the Regions For Economic Change initiative has changed its approach, i.e. the Commission has abandoned the top-down approach in favour of the bottom-up principle applied by regional and local authorities, there has never been official notification of this from the Commission. In any case, this opinion takes the development into due account.

—

stresses that the Committee of the Regions could contribute actively to monitoring operational programmes in the context of Interreg IV and Urbact II, playing a consultative role in the respective Monitoring Committees.

—

calls for synergy to be achieved between the Lisbon Monitoring Platform and the Regions For Economic Change initiative, while preserving the specific qualities of each. The Lisbon Monitoring Platform is an opportunity to pass on expertise with a view to helping to strengthen cohesion policy and promoting the Lisbon agenda.

—

focuses on communication and provision of information at European level, which are the key to the success of the Regions For Economic Change initiative. In this connection, the Committee of the Regions has a major role to play, working together with the Commission.

—

calls for the initiative to be organised in such a way as to help identify the best practices in use in regions and create simple mechanisms for passing them on to other EU regions. The Regions For Economic Change initiative must serve as a stimulus, a catalyst for good ideas and initiatives, as a number of Community initiatives have in the past.

1.

welcomes the Commission's intention to make regional and local development measures more effective through the Regions For Economic Change initiative, harnessing local and regional best practices and promoting their dissemination, exchange and customisation for other contexts through networking actions; these should be given fresh impetus as Community policy instruments for economic modernisation and greater competitiveness;

2.

recognises that the initiative ties in closely with the Committee of the Regions' institutional role; therefore, feels that the CoR's potential for action and participation should be brought into play and calls for its role providing unified representation of the EU's regional and local systems to be exploited;

3.

emphasises that the Committee of the Regions has launched the Lisbon Monitoring Platform, made up of local and regional authorities, which are monitoring and highlighting the implementation of the strategy at local and regional level;

4.

points out that this is the only programme expressly devoted to promoting thematic cooperation between local and regional stakeholders which sets no geographical requirements, there being no need for them to belong to the same border or transnational area. It is potentially the most flexible instrument for European integration available to regions, and it should also help to strengthen regional policy, which is increasingly efficient, comprehensive and ambitious;

5.

supports the Commission's intention to use the Regions For Economic Change initiative to promote a real exchange and dissemination of experience and best practice in development and cohesion among European local and regional authorities in order to achieve the Lisbon strategy. The Committee therefore highlights the importance of involving the operational programmes' regional managing authorities effectively and directly in the networks promoted by the initiative;

6.

notes that the Commission initiative respects the subsidiarity principle and represents a process of learning, networking and taking the best of local and regional achievements towards the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. However, it feels that successful European regional policy requires political reinforcement of the local and regional dimension;

7.

therefore proposes that the European Commission discuss the progress and subject matter of the initiative at a joint annual conference with the Committee of the Regions;

8.

points out that the Regions For Economic Change initiative should be seen as complementary to the existing forms of interregional cooperation, especially since it has been strengthened by the new regional policy goal of European territorial cooperation. It is thus important to ensure that the support for cooperation between regions, cities and other local authorities in Europe, which was launched under Interreg III C, continues at a sufficient level in the future;

9.

considers it necessary to clarify arrangements for cooperation between regions and cities, since although both institutional levels are mentioned and taken into account in the Commission documents available, networks of regions are referred to primarily. In this connection, it should be stressed that regions and cities are both eligible for both the Interreg IV C programme and for the Urbact 2007-2013 programme, although regions will have to be treated as a driving force under the former and this role will be accorded to cities under the latter; also believes that it would be very useful and constructive to encourage the involvement of major bodies and institutions which are active in regions and cities as partners;

10.

calls for more transparency from the Commission than it has displayed in the past. The work programmes of networks which have already been launched should at least be published on the Internet, as should summaries of the various meetings held, as well as the results, current best practice and contact details of the lead partner of the network, so that those interested parties have access to and can make use of the results. It would also be helpful for the Commission to consider setting up a website where anyone who is interested can search for partners and other relevant information;

11.

notes that, following the COTER Commission meetings and discussions held on 31 January and 16 March 2007 and the adoption of the draft opinion at the last meeting, the Commission has updated and clarified its stance on the Regions For Economic Change initiative; stresses, in particular, that although this has not yet been officially formalised in any official EC document, a bottom-up approach will clearly be used to select operations for the fast-track scheme. Moreover, the operations will be implemented in line with the OPs Interreg IV C and Urbact II and their respective implementing regulations. This should in effect ensure equal access to the initiative for all European regions and cities and the hoped-for transparency of the initiative as a whole.

12.

also recommends that notices of interest be published on the websites of the Commission and the Committee of the Regions, and that a letter be sent to the offices of the regions in Brussels or to desk officers for regional affairs at the Member States' permanent representations to the EU, so as to disseminate information and ensure that it reaches the regions and municipalities promptly. Finally, the INFO RELAYS network operated by the Commission in almost all the regions of the EU is available, as well as the promotion and PR network that was set up to support the Community Support Frameworks in the Member States.

13.

proposes, moreover, to define a procedure for active participation (consultation upon invitation/proposal from the Commission?) by the Committee of the Regions in the drawing-up of operational programmes, or — alternatively — to set up a communication channel to convey the CoR's recommendations to the bodies responsible for drawing them up;

14.

understands why the Commission feels the need to make existing networks larger and more general, and why the thematic approach is taking precedence over the geographical approach, but believes that these two approaches can actually be usefully dovetailed: since there is a recognised need to safeguard and reflect diversity, the regional and local patterns of diversity must be taken into account when deciding on themes; synergy between the various networks is also essential, reflecting their complementary features in both thematic and geographical terms. In this context, it also calls for due attention to be given to less prosperous and marginal areas;

15.

stresses the need to leave more scope for grass-roots initiatives. As representatives of local and regional authorities, the CoR's members welcome such measures and will strive to ensure that this ‘open approach’ does not result in a ‘closed approach’ at national level. The CoR will work to ensure that the initiative truly supports and recognises networks maintained by regions and cities that are keen to work together, in order to encourage the best innovations for economic, social and environmental development;

16.

stresses the fact that the networks should be sustainable, i.e. it must be possible to sustain the exchanges launched for long enough periods (which poses a problem of resources), and they must be able to facilitate involvement of and interaction between institutions (genuine involvement of institutional stakeholders) and between regions (involvement of the various regions and districts of the EU and of their respective stakeholders, who can indeed benefit from shared expertise);

17.

urges the Commission to ensure involvement of the different kinds of regional and local authorities so as to reflect the diversity, originality and value of the different development solutions adopted. The initiatives carried out as part of Regions For Economic Change and fast-track actions should draw on these different experiences, and take account of the interplay between the regional and local dimensions in terms of the selected themes. The Committee of the Regions could play an effective role representing integration of the two dimensions, as regards both the definition of the initiative's general thematic guidelines and implementing arrangements, and the framing and implementation of the direct financing programmes (Interreg IV C and Urbact 2007-2013);

18.

fears that although the priority themes may be sufficiently broad and clearly in line with the renewed Lisbon agenda, the way they are defined might be too rigid (1); for example, the role of industry in regional development is not referred to in the themes currently proposed. A process for supplementing or reviewing these themes should therefore be specified and drawn up, ensuring the greatest possible transparency in the decision-making process, in synergy and cooperation with the regions and local authorities. Moreover, regions and local authorities' autonomy in managing their networks should be fully preserved, even though the networks will be focusing on themes selected by the Commission. The Committee also questions the consistency of some of the themes mentioned with the priorities of the European Regional Development Fund (2). For this reason, the admissibility of themes directly relating to the European Social Fund should be specifically spelt out.

19.

recognises that, in order to achieve more efficient and effective use of the financial resources earmarked for cohesion policy, both commitment from national and regional authorities and a more direct role for the Commission are essential, with voluntary definition of new ways in which regions, local authorities and the Commission can network, exchange best practices and work together;

20.

moreover, considers that more precise definition of the financial reference framework for the initiative would be useful, not least because the resources have to come from different sources: any remaining resources available from the 2000-2006 programmes, the two new operational programmes (a particular percentage which has yet to be defined in the respective draft budgets), the regional mainstream programmes, and directly-available resources from Commission technical assistance. In this context, the funding from Interreg IV C and Urbact 2007-2013 can serve only as a catalyst for implementation in the mainstream programmes. The main source of funding for the initiatives must be the mainstream programmes. Moreover, the level of national co-financing needs to be defined, taking into account the limits imposed by the need to maintain budget stability in the Member States;

21.

believes that the initiative must be organised so as to make it easy to identify best practices at regional level, and create simple systems for sharing these with other regions in the EU. In short, the Regions For Economic Change initiative must serve to leverage and catalyse good ideas and initiatives, as other Community initiatives have done in the past;

22.

stresses the importance of demonstration and dissemination to ensure that the initiative is viable. To secure funding, Regions For Economic Change must prove its worth by being dynamic, showing that it will genuinely result in the best projects being included in mainstream cohesion policy programming;

23.

welcomes, in the context of the initiative's communication policy, the information provided by DG Regional Policy during the COTER meeting of 31 January 2006 to the effect that a member of the Committee of the Regions would sit on the annual innovation awards adjudication committee provided for under Regions For Economic Change;

24.

stresses that communication and dissemination are essential to publicise the initiative. The annual conferences planned should focus on presentation of best practices and on the possibility of replicating them in Europe's regions and cities. The Committee of the Regions is ready to work together with the Commission on this point, particularly as regards exchange of information with the Lisbon Monitoring Platform. More information on the initiative should be disseminated during the preparation phase. Some of the reference documents — such as the Staff Working Paper setting forth the proposed themes (3) — are currently only available in English: the CoR proposes that they be issued in the other Community languages as well;

25.

welcomes the three conferences organised by the Commission in connection with the Regions For Economic Change initiative, and recommends that additional communication and dialogue initiatives to those already mentioned be launched (real or virtual meeting points, conferences and forums etc.), and, in particular, that communication, promotion and dissemination measures be made part of a coordinated communication plan which — projecting the measures over a timespan of several years — will enable a coordination framework to be established, to include the endeavours expected from the Commission information units and other stakeholders, with a special role for the Committee of the Regions, which will be happy to provide the necessary details in this regard;

26.

suggests that additional funds be made available to the managing authorities of Objective 3 programmes in order to ensure that the initiative can enhance the territorial cooperation networks' contribution to implementing the Lisbon strategy for the benefit of the public, in the framework of the European Commission's Plan D (4);

27.

supports the European Commission's proposal to organise regular thematic conferences under this initiative and to integrate particularly useful ideas for structural policy into the main programmes under the fast-track scheme;

28.

is concerned about the timeframes necessary to launch the initiative, which will only become fully operational in the second half of 2007. The Commission does state its intention to launch a number of fast-track actions now, using any resources available under the programmes still being implemented (Interreg III C and the current ‘Urbact’ programme), so as to make the new programmes operational sooner. In the light of this, clarification of the overall timeframes laid down would be useful;

29.

suggests that a member of the Committee of the Regions should sit on the Interreg IV C and Urbact 2007-2013 programmes' Monitoring Committees with consultative status, to ensure proper, ongoing interaction and cooperation in the operation of Regions For Economic Change and to acknowledge that it is the Committee of the Regions' prerogative to represent local and regional authorities at EU level;

30.

suggests that the institutions maintain regular dialogue with the associations in which citizens are involved and with civil society, thus boosting participatory democracy;

31.

calls on the Commission to issue more information on the initiative's management procedures. It is important to specify the procedures for cooperation between Commission DGs and regions and cities, and between the Commission and the Committee of the Regions;

32.

calls for the Monitoring Committee to take the decisions on the adoption of innovative operations under an operational programme conducted in the context of a network involving the region;

33.

stresses that the aim of the initiative is to feed mainstream programming with the best of the ideas emanating from networks; calls, therefore, for clarification of the process for selecting the best practices and then monitoring them at the review stage; proposes that, rather than the regions, cities and other local authorities just volunteering contributions for selection, codified, simple, flexible procedures should be introduced to enable them to submit suggestions to the Commission on best practices of particular interest and potential value for the setting-up or expansion of networks, within the themes established in the initiative;

34.

asks the Commission to provide clarification regarding the organisation and funding of technical assistance for the initiative too, as this is crucial for ensuring that best practices are harnessed effectively; in particular, there is a need for methodological support, in order to evaluate significant innovations and identify those which can be transferred or developed; it therefore proposes that the Commission should assume this role in cooperation with external evaluators for each thematic measure, subject to the decisions of the Monitoring Committee;

35.

is concerned that the title given to the initiative might not be wholly accurate and comprehensive. The CoR wonders whether the title Regions For Economic Change is really the most suitable, or whether it might create confusion with other initiatives (such as Regions of Knowledge or the Lisbon Group). While recognising that the umbrella term ‘regions’ has been preferred to refer collectively to all local and regional levels, the Committee believes that, for the purposes of communicative impact, ‘Regions and Cities for Economic Change’ would have been a better title for the initiative;

36.

points out that the Committee of the Regions launched the Lisbon Monitoring Platform, which it regards as an operating tool for local and regional authorities in order to give prominence to their contribution to the Lisbon strategy and increase ownership of the strategy locally. An interactive platform has been operational since 2006. For the moment, 100 regions and cities are taking part. The principal aim of the platform is to help regions to keep pace with modernisation trends in Europe and to move beyond a purely national mindset. The platform is based on monitoring (assessment of needs), comparative analysis (transparency at European level), exchanges within working groups and interactive forums (on-line exchange);

37.

calls on the Commission to ensure that proceedings are guided by the need for maximum streamlining, given the potential for complicating matters; recommends that synergy and compatibility with regional policy be pursued. To this end, it would be useful to find common ground between Regions For Economic Change and the Committee of the Regions' Lisbon Monitoring Platform;

38.

suggests, in particular, simplifying, through more appropriate and efficient arrangements, interactions between the initiative and the Lisbon Monitoring Platform, given the latter's role as a forum for discussing and comparing the experiences of European regions and cities. This would facilitate and fuel, in terms of ideas and proposals, the selection process for the interregional networks of the Regions For Economic Change initiative, especially with regard to the fast track option. At the same time, the platform should maintain and make the most of its own role in monitoring governance and policy orientation in the planning and implementation of the Lisbon strategy. To this end, the Committee of the Regions is prepared to develop any necessary institutional and operational synergies with the Commission and the Interreg IV C and Urbact 2007-2013 programmes;

39.

proposes, on the basis of the above considerations and in view of the role and significance of Regions For Economic Change, that, in line with its institutional responsibilities, the Committee of the Regions take on a role of representation, cooperation and support which could prove decisive. In particular, the following elements (mentioned above) will enable it to perform that role:

40.

recommends discussing and evaluating the progress and subject matter of the initiative at a joint annual conference.