26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/1

—

considers Europe's own satellite navigation system, Galileo, essential, given that the project has significant strategic importance in terms of economic, social and security development;

—

is convinced that the Galileo system will significantly contribute to the creation of growth and jobs under the revised Lisbon agenda and, in doing so, enhance territorial cohesion;

—

believes that Galileo will contribute to better management of all forms of transport in towns and regions. It will be possible to more accurately prepare flooding and other crisis management models, to coordinate rescue operations and monitor environmental change. In combination with infrastructure and underground mapping systems, the system will facilitate planning for territorial development and construction projects, notably increase mobility for the disabled, and so on. The European satellite navigation system will provide momentum for continued innovation;

—

stresses that Galileo has the potential to be a real incubator for achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals;

—

thinks that it would be highly appropriate to create a European agency charged with supporting the development of applications and promoting the Galileo project. This agency should have venture capital at its disposal to support SMEs in the development of applications;

—

believes that a Europe-wide system of promotion, incentives and training should be created, because only a coordinated approach can have the desired effect;

—

is ready to assume the role of intermediary and coordinator between the European Commission, the relevant bodies for the Galileo system and local and regional authorities.

Rapporteur

:

Mr Petr OSVALD (CZ/PES) Member of the town assembly of the City of Plzeň

1.

The quality of all our decisions depends on how accurately we can determine our position in space and time;

2.

considers Europe's own satellite navigation system, Galileo, essential, given that the project has significant strategic importance in terms of economic, social and security development. Soon, navigation systems will become an integral part of our lives, just like mobile phones or the Internet. Although we mainly see it used at the moment in transport, in combination with peripheral systems (maps, etc.), it will also greatly influence a range of our other activities from urban and rural planning to environmental protection, crisis management, construction and agriculture;

3.

believes that it would be strategically, as well as politically and economically detrimental for European regions to be dependent on another power's military system (GPS — USA, GLONAS — Russia, Compass/Beidou — China);

4.

is convinced that the Galileo system will significantly contribute to the creation of growth and jobs under the revised Lisbon agenda and, in doing so, enhance territorial cohesion;

5.

expects that Galileo will become a new instrument encouraging further growth and increasing European regions' competitiveness. It will contribute to better management of all forms of transport in towns and regions. It will be possible to more accurately prepare flooding and other crisis management models, to coordinate rescue operations and monitor environmental change. In combination with infrastructure and underground mapping systems, the system will facilitate planning for territorial development and construction projects, notably increase mobility for the disabled, and so on. The European satellite navigation system will provide momentum for continued innovation;

6.

is aware that the Galileo programme represents an important step for the development of European regions. The goals of the initiative are in line with the CoR key priorities. Thanks to Galileo, benefits can be achieved such as greater security and reduced congestion for all forms of transport, improved monitoring of the environment and changes to it, better prevention of crisis situations, improved coordination of crisis management and better targeted, quicker and more effective intervention. GNSS will improve the quality of spatial planning, the preparation and construction and monitoring of building work, increase mobility for the disabled and reduce breakdowns in energy infrastructures. If enough attention, effort and coordination are given to the preparation and operation of Galileo, this project will launch a new wave of innovation, research, development and application of new technologies in industry as well as everyday life. It will thus become a powerful instrument for raising competitiveness both in individual European regions and the EU as a whole;

7.

stresses that Galileo has the potential to be a real incubator for achieving the Lisbon Strategy goals. For this to happen, however, it is essential that not only Member States but also all European regions are actively involved in this process. Its success depends on the level of inclusion and involvement of local and regional partners. In the regions, Galileo will create a raft of new and interesting business opportunities for local and regional stakeholders such as SMEs. Among other things, it will deepen partnerships between local and regional governments, businesses, science and research institutes and citizens in the regions. If all aspects of the Galileo project are implemented in a balanced way not only in the old EU Member States but also in the new ones, which should be integrated much more effectively into the project, it will become one of the leading instruments for strengthening territorial cohesion across the EU;

8.

notes that, despite the fact that Galileo will offer its basic services to the mass market free of charge, services with a higher guaranteed reliability and precision will be subject to a fee. For the strengthening of territorial cohesion, it is important that less developed European regions are not disadvantaged in this regard and are actively involved in the whole process from the very beginning. In particular they should be guaranteed access to the system and applications;

9.

In the transport sector, many Community technical regulations need to be revised so that their requirements conform to the standards of the Galileo system and avoid any conflicts. Only then will it be possible to guarantee the required level of interoperability between the different systems and applications. One of the important factors for speeding up the introduction of safe navigation system applications into the market will be rigorous certification of compatibility with the Galileo system according to the revised Community technical regulations, and the definition of basic technical requirements for trackside and other safety equipment using satellite navigation. In general, it will be necessary to demonstrate the safety of the system as part of the certification process. The certification authority must be a specialised body with the necessary competence and authority to carry out this work (with a distinction being made between the national and European levels). It is also necessary to decide whether other systems or applications will be submitted for certification in relation to the various components of the Galileo system (including the EGNOS system);

10.

New technologies bring with them new risks. That is why it is essential to continue to continue work, for example, in the areas of the prevention and defence against deliberate attacks and to examine carefully issues of accountability (public and private);

11.

In the land survey, energy, water, telecommunications and other sectors, certification and updating of map data need to be ensured by harmonising access to individual bodies. The Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme considerably improves local and regional authorities' access to data and the harmonisation of data as such. It is important to clarify the link between GMES and the INSPIRE directive (Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community) and the method and conditions (e.g. intellectual property, limitations on and conditions of use) under which public authorities will be able to access the data held to provide to private bodies The local and regional level, too, should be able to benefit from GMES, and this should be taken into consideration when developing the initiative and applications. In particular, any additional costs for local and regional authorities arising from adaptations of existing databases that may be required, for example by harmonising existing data or changes to data interfaces, should be offset by appropriate financial mechanisms so as to avoid the local and regional level, which is in possession of much of these data, being left alone to bear the costs. Moreover, appropriate account must be taken of the security aspects and data protection requirements — in some cases we are talking about very detailed data;

12.

Development should begin of reasonably priced applications to improve mobility for the disabled;

13.

New technologies increase the need to responsibly resolve privacy issues and examine them in more detail, not least concerning applications aimed at ensuring protection from illegal acts or those dealing with crisis management. Emphasis should be placed on preventing and countering misuse of the information and data collected;

14.

The limits between potential commercial exploitation of each application and protection of personal data (tracking goods, customers, employees, etc.) must be defined. Applications should be submitted for specific privacy certification and measures must be taken to avoid abuse of the data collected. The majority of the information that could infringe personal privacy is generated by individuals themselves without their knowledge as a side effect of using these products. Therefore it is necessary to assess applications for the potential to create such dangerous side effects;

15.

Common interests and priorities need to be defined and efforts to support development, research and scientific activities — and in particular their financing — need to be linked. For establishing the next strategy it would be advisable to analyse the recommendations of science and research already carried out as part of the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJ), European Space Agency (ESA) and EU framework programmes. The new strategy also needs to take into account the role of local and regional authorities, which could themselves find numerous applications for satellite navigation systems and in particular initiate and stimulate interest in research and development in these areas in the regions;

16.

To identify new applications at local and regional level, local and regional authorities could set up forms of collaboration and research with universities, creating valuable synergy that would improve research through direct observations on the ground;

17.

End-users should both play an increasing role in the development of applications. The effort to develop applications should not be unilateral, i.e. from technology firms. Scope should be given to the future end-users of these products so that technology firms can create tailor-made applications for them. It is often more effective to have a clear idea of the destination for a product at the moment when it is first conceived, and so have a more precise definition, than adapt a universal application later. In addition, functional coherence between the existing and already operational systems needs to be supported;

18.

A Europe-wide system of promotion, incentives and training should be created, because only a coordinated approach can have the desired effect. The Committee of the Regions should be an important element for this system as it can support the involvement of the local and regional authorities in this activity. It is essential that this system operates as closely as possible to the citizens, users (local and regional authorities will themselves be major end-users) and companies which will create actual applications. While it is obvious that SMEs will have an important role in the development of this system, large companies that can play a role in guaranteeing compatibility with other systems that they operate (such as energy companies, mobile phone providers, etc.) should also not be forgotten;

19.

It would be highly appropriate to create a European agency charged with supporting the development of applications and promoting the Galileo project. This agency should have venture capital at its disposal to support SMEs in the development of applications. The agency should have a contact point in each country and work together not only with national bodies but also with local and regional authorities as well as business and research associations. The EU should not only be responsible for the creation of the system as such, but also for its applications and promoting the project. The GSA could also fulfil this role, however, it cannot under its existing remit;

20.

As the European satellite navigation system project has no clearly defined timetable or a study on its economic benefits and profitability, it is very difficult for companies that develop applications to obtain bank loans. The creation of a financial instrument specifically dedicated to this project is therefore of the utmost importance. It would be useful to reflect further on the idea of sharing applications. Given the importance of the project as a whole for achieving the Lisbon Strategy objectives, it is neither appropriate nor sufficient to use solely the Seventh Framework Programme and so on for financial support;

21.

It would be very useful to organise seminars and training, in which local and regional authorities could participate, because they have close links to the end-users of the applications as well as to SMEs and the general public. The Committee of the Regions could play a coordinating role;

22.

The discussions aimed at ensuring compatibility and interoperability of the Galileo, Glonass, Compass and GPS systems (and others) must be supported as well as international coordination of work relative to the various applications, particularly with regard to ensuring cross-border interoperability. It is important not only to ensure the compatibility of the systems but also, as far as possible, the compatibility of the applications. Furthermore, greater attention should be paid to cooperation in the development of systems guarding society against terrorist attacks and all other forms of criminality;

23.

It would be desirable to set in place coordination at the European level so that GNSS applications could be assessed not only for safety considerations but also for their compatibility and interoperability. We find it unfortunate to see incompatible applications developed at national or regional level, as is currently the case for national toll collection systems. Furthermore, it would appropriate to work out a single framework to allow a common approach to be defined in relation to the introduction of measures aiming to guarantee the trouble-free operation of the localisation function of the Galileo system (equipped with a level of integrity with regard to safety conforming to appropriate standards), by taking account of factors which can influence its operation at the local level and other levels required for precision in the localisation. As a matter of urgency, where the level of responsibility falls in the area of ‘regulated public services’ will need to be determined on the European and national levels so that the project can function in a coordinated and comparable way in all the Member States;

24.

Certification is required particularly for those systems and applications taking advantage of guaranteed Galileo services (and in particular all safety-related applications), where it is necessary to proceed in accordance with the appropriate standards. For these services, the transparency of these requirements also needs to be guaranteed to avoid misuse;

25.

In order to show that a certain level of integrity concerning safety of the system is achieved, it would be advisable to adopt the necessary measures applicable to all stages of the life cycle of the device. In general, the issue of the manufacturer's and system operator's responsibility in the event of breakdown or operational failure needs to be resolved;

26.

The problem of ensuring compatibility of the Galileo system with other GNSS systems needs to be furthered considered, not least to ensure that they do not interfere with each other;

27.

understands and supports the intention of the European Commission and the European Parliament to finance the completion of the Galileo system within the current financial perspectives, because it offers the best and only feasible response to the present situation, even at the cost of renegotiation and the minimum changes needed for the immediate continuation of the project. The Committee alerts the Council and European Commission to the fact that the success of the system as a whole depends very much on how quickly it is implemented;

28.

draws the attention of the Council and European Commission to the need for quickly finding a method for financing the completion of the project from European public resources and to agree without delay on the location of the GSA agency and its new roles, resulting from changes in the financing of the system, preferably by the end of 2007;

29.

invites the Council and European Commission to define a precise and realistic timetable, in particular the date for the introduction of the Galileo system into service, as well as monitoring this scrupulously and ensuring it is upheld. Every effort should be made to avoid further delays;

30.

points out to the Council and European Commission that the development of different applications must be carried out at the same time as the preparations and the launch of the Galileo system so that it can be fully utilised as soon as it comes into operation and no further delays are caused by applications being developed only afterwards. Preparation of the applications and their end users must therefore be given the same attention and support as the navigation system itself;

31.

advises the Council and the European Commission that it is not enough to adopt only a national approach for the success of the project, there must be a regional approach too. Local and regional authorities must play their own important and unique role in the preparation process, introduction of the system, development of applications and promotion. To this end, the Committee of the Regions is ready to assume the role of intermediary and coordinator between the European Commission, the relevant bodies for the Galileo system and local and regional authorities.

26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/6

—

notes that although the Union is progressing in reducing disparities, development imbalances persist and Europe faces new challenges (e.g. globalisation, demographic change, climate change, etc.) at regional and local level;

—

considers that cohesion policy, because of its horizontal approach, must continue to play a key role in narrowing development gaps and enhancing competitiveness at local and regional level;

—

is sure that territorial cohesion will become a stronger feature within cohesion policy, and horizontally in relation to thematic policies, once the Reform Treaty is ratified;

—

would like the European Commission to introduce the concept of the leverage effects of cohesion policy in its Fifth Progress Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion and to present a comprehensive plan for future interactions between EU policies in relation to cohesion policy;

—

offers its support to the EU institutions and local and regional players in formulating proposals for the future direction of European cohesion policy.

Rapporteur

:

Dr Michael SCHNEIDER, State Secretary for Federal and European Affairs, representative of Saxony-Anhalt to the German Federal Government (DE/EPP)

1.

considers that the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion confirms its basic position that European cohesion policy is an essential pillar of the principle of solidarity and key factor in the success of the European integration process;

2.

emphasises that, because of its horizontal approach, cohesion policy actively helps to reduce disparities and strengthen equality of opportunities for local and regional authorities in Europe, and urges that this policy should therefore continue to play a key role in narrowing development gaps and enhancing competitiveness at local and regional level;

3.

welcomes the fact that in future issues of territorial cohesion will be addressed more often through cohesion policy, and calls for the new procedural options provided for in the future Treaty to be used actively with respect to territorial cohesion;

4.

calls on the European Commission to introduce the concept of the leverage effects of cohesion policy in its Fifth Progress Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion and to present a comprehensive plan for future interactions between EU policies in relation to cohesion policy;

5.

offers its collaboration and support in formulating proposals for the future direction of European cohesion policy, as part of moves to secure the broad involvement of local and regional players and based on a comprehensive assessment of progress made;

6.

Having regard to the European Commission's obligation under Article 159 of the EU Treaty to submit a report on economic and social cohesion in Europe every three years;

7.

Having regard to the central role that cohesion reports have played in the past in the debate on, and development of, cohesion policy;

8.

Having regard to the fact that the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, presented by the European Commission on 30 May 2007, is a key contribution to the present state of cohesion policy in Europe and the beginning of the debate on the future shape of regional policy;

9.

Having regard to the fact that the debate on the future shape of cohesion policy will be closely linked with the submission in September of a European Commission questionnaire on the EU's future financial reform;

10.

Having regard to the fact that, it is too early, on the basis of current data, to draw conclusions about cohesion policy after 2013, but the need is rather to structure the debate within the Committee of the Regions and with the other European institutions over the coming years logically in order to create common cooperation and discussion forums and to develop the debate incrementally;

11.

supports the statement of the European Commission that the added value of European cohesion policy is not only evident in the promotion of growth and employment in lagging regions, but is also reflected positively in many facets of the programming, implementation and participation of local and regional players and in the strengthening of administrative capacity;

12.

sees the comprehensive presentation of the added value of European cohesion policy as a key means of continuing to ensure an adequate and efficient cohesion policy at EU level into the future;

13.

regrets that the Cohesion Report has not taken account of the comprehensive analyses of the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament on the leverage effects of cohesion policy. Those contributions introduced a framework for evaluating the various dimensions of the added value of European cohesion policy. The CoR sees in its outlook opinion on the leverage effect of cohesion policy an appropriate schema for a uniform evaluation of the EU added value;

14.

therefore, calls on the European institutions to come to an agreement, as the debate continues, on a joint approach to assessing the added value for Europe of cohesion policy;

15.

regards the comprehensive analysis of economic, social and territorial trends in the Member States as a factor in the evaluation and future development of cohesion policy;

16.

points out that the former cohesion countries (Spain, Greece, Portugal and, above all, Ireland) have seen remarkable economic development, with Ireland's sustained high growth rates making it now the Member State with the second highest per capita GDP in the European Union;

17.

draws attention to the speed at which some of the new EU Member States have caught up, with the three Baltic states doubling their GDP between 1995 and 2005;

18.

welcomes the fact that the gap between the richest 20 % and poorest 20 % of the EU's regions narrowed between 1995 and 2004 from a ratio of 4,1 to 3,4. The Committee of the Regions points out, however, that the regions in question at the bottom of the prosperity ladder were not yet members of the EU in 1995 and that the socio-economic disparities within the European Union described above have grown considerably with EU enlargement;

19.

draws attention to the finding that between 1995 and 2005 a total of five regions in the EU-15 registered negative economic growth despite their GDP being above the 75 % threshold. During the same period all capital cities of the EU, with the exception of Berlin, increased or at least maintained their share of national GDP;

20.

draws attention to the findings of the Cohesion Report that, despite high growth rates in the new Member States, a further period of catching-up of anything up to twenty years will be needed before the threshold of 75 % of EU average GDP is passed. Even this timeframe, however, presupposes strong economic growth;

21.

shares the Commission's hope that, if growth in the new Member States remains stable, six of the twelve countries may by 2016 have reached the threshold of 75 % of EU average per capita GDP;

22.

notes the finding of the Cohesion Report that cohesion failures can be put down to differences in productivity rates and employment rates at regional level, and points out that per capita GDP continues to be immensely important as a measure of cohesion failure and a general indicator of prosperity;

23.

notes with concern the Cohesion Report's finding that, while there has been progress in convergence between Member States in recent years, gaps in development within the Member States have widened at the same time in future the Committee would like to see any intraregional disparities assessed;

24.

highlights the key factors determining regional competitiveness mentioned in the Cohesion Report, which singles out the following as particularly important:

25.

notes with concern that research and development expenditure in more than 100 regions in Europe is below 1 % of GDP, while the report notes that there is a direct correlation between innovation capacity and economic capacity and development;

26.

highlights the Cohesion Report's conclusion that regional competitiveness will also depend on investment in human capital to provide a steady supply of skilled workers, and notes in this regard that the skills gap is far greater between regions than between EU Member States;

27.

is especially disturbed that lagging regions have 5 % fewer young people between the ages of 25 and 34 with a tertiary education than other regions;

28.

also points out, however, that many lagging regions have made strenuous efforts to close these gaps. These efforts often prove ineffective for the regions, however, since after completing their education many of these people leave lagging regions. For this reason, cohesion policy must in future also take greater account of population policy and help to forge attractive alternatives to emigration;

29.

with reference to the future role of energy policy in relation to cohesion, points to the fact that Europe's very prosperous Member States have the lowest per capita energy consumption. An energy-price increase will therefore primarily affect the weakest Member States and regions;

30.

stresses, therefore, the role of promoting renewable energies and energy efficiency through regional policy;

31.

is perturbed by the Cohesion Report's finding that the Lisbon process's 70 % employment target for people of working age will not be met for some considerable time;

32.

sees an important role for cohesion policy in combating youth unemployment and notes that the report mentions that the 18,6 % youth unemployment rate is double the overall jobless rate;

33.

emphasises the Cohesion Report's observation that regional differences in EU unemployment rates have declined in recent years, while the gap between the richest 10 % and poorest 10 % of regions narrowed from 19 to 16 percent between 2000 and 2005;

34.

sees the drop in unemployment in lagging regions from an average 13,4 % to 12,4 % between 2000 and 2005 as a sign of the success of cohesion policy. At the same time, however, the Committee points out that joblessness in 17 lagging regions has risen by more than two percent, while average unemployment in the same period in the more developed regions was just 8 %, which means that the gap in average unemployment rates between the two categories of region remains greater than 50 %. Combating unemployment in lagging regions thus remains a primary cohesion policy goal;

35.

draws attention to the Commission's observations concerning the effect of demographic change on economic and social cohesion, with lower birth-rates severely restricting economic growth in Europe over the long term. The effect will be relatively slight up to 2011, since those born in years with a strong birth-rate will still be economically active; in the period 2012 to 2017, a higher employment rate may offset the fall in the number of young workers, while after 2017 such options will no longer be available. What is needed here, above all, is action on population policy in the Member States. At the same time, however, more attention must be paid to demographic factors in the future development of cohesion policy. More account must thereby be taken of different demographic developments in the regions; the effects of demographic change may be felt much sooner in some regions, making prompt action necessary;

36.

notes with concern that, alongside the general trend of lower birth rates, a total of 77 NUTS II regions in Europe also experienced sometimes substantial emigration (above all of young people) in the period 2000 to 2004. The combination of these two effects will constrain those regions' economic and social potential for development even further;

37.

points out that in many large cities the trend towards a relative decrease in population is accompanied by increasing population levels in the suburbs. At the same time intra-urban disparities in employment and the proportion of immigrants are growing, which poses a major challenge for cities in terms of their integration capacity;

38.

notes that the Cohesion Report's analyses of poverty and cohesion, because they are based on different reference periods and do not provide comparisons with the findings of earlier reports, are somewhat descriptive and fail to give a clear assessment of the cohesion policy factors; calls on the Commission to attend more to these factors in the next progress report on economic and social cohesion;

39.

draws attention to the Cohesion Report's assertion that widening gaps in development within the Member States are due first and foremost to the growth of metropolitan regions, and endorses the Commission's observation that Member States need policy approaches which are more focused on narrowing the gap and on promoting growth and employment in order to further develop regional policy;

40.

for this reason, welcomes the fact that this Cohesion Report contains a European audit of medium-sized towns and points here to the multiple interactions between towns or cities and their hinterland, e.g. in relation to commuter flows;

41.

notes that many of the outermost regions of the European Union continue to lag behind, and takes note of the very diverse and significant challenges described in providing basic services and infrastructure to the Union's mountain regions, sparsely populated areas and islands;

42.

highlights the call in many rural areas for emigration to be halted or at least to be made tolerable for the region. In so doing, it is important not to underrate the enormous structural changes that still await new Member States because of their high level of employment in agriculture. There is a risk that these emigration trends will persist in many rural areas of the EU. The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development should thus play an important role in meeting these challenges;

43.

draws attention to the relationship between urban and rural areas and highlights the Cohesion Report's point that integrated development of these areas requires coordinated special planning and strategic management of land use. There can be no doubt that towns also serve as development hubs for rural areas;

44.

regrets in this connection that the Cohesion Report fails to mention the work in the Council and in the Committee of the Regions on the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities and draws particular attention to the conclusions of the German EU Council presidency on the informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial cohesion held in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007;

45.

calls on the European Commission to involve the Committee of the Regions at an early stage in preparing the reports requested in the Leipzig conclusions (the strategy report due by 1 April 2010 with an analysis of how the special consideration given to the urban and territorial dimension in the Structural Funds programmes has facilitated integrated urban development and territorial cohesion, and the report due by 2008 on territorial cohesion as a contribution to the debate on finding synergies between the priorities of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities);

46.

supports both the current debate in the European Parliament on the substance of territorial cohesion and appropriate indicators, and the Council's request to the Slovenian presidency that the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter should be taken into account when preparing the European Council in spring 2008;

47.

points to the Cohesion Report's observation that in the period 2000 to 2006 the Structural Funds were mainly deployed for infrastructure, productive investments and investment in people, while Cohesion Fund resources were used in equal parts for environmental measures and transport infrastructure;

48.

highlights the Cohesion Report's calculations, using the HERMIN model, which show that during the programming period absolute GDP in most of the new Member States has been up to 2,8 % higher and around 570 000 more jobs have been created than would have been the case without cohesion policy. By 2015 — including the 2007-2013 programming period — increases in GDP of up to 9,3 % and two million new jobs are expected; the CoR sees this as a good basis for evaluating the impact of cohesion policy;

49.

draws attention to the calculations based on EcoMod, according to which by 2020 GDP in Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria will be 15 % higher than today;

50.

highlights the Cohesion Report's observation that a total of 450 000 new jobs were created in Objective 2 areas in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK in the 2000-2006 programming period;

51.

welcomes the findings of the Cohesion Report that there have been major improvements in the thematic target areas. In relation to traffic infrastructure, for example, motorway density in Spain and Portugal increased by almost 48 % and 200 % respectively in the period 1995 to 2004;

52.

stresses the fact that, on the environmental infrastructure front, the Cohesion Fund brought about a 37 % increase in public expenditure in recipient countries between 1993 and 2002;

53.

for this reason shares the Cohesion Report's assessment that expenditure to build up environmental infrastructure (especially supply and waste management) will continue to be of particular importance in the new Member States in the future;

54.

highlights the special role of cohesion policy in promoting research and development in the regions. The Structural Funds were responsible for between 5 % (Spain) and 18 % (Lithuania) of research and development expenditure in the countries concerned;

55.

finds the report's comments on the specific impact of cohesion policy on small and medium- sized enterprises inadequate and calls on the Commission to explore the effects of structural policy on SMEs in more detail in the next progress report;

56.

stresses the role of cohesion policy in the development of human resources. Thus in the last programming period, around EUR 69 billion was spent on improving access to the labour market for women (6 %), promoting workforce flexibility (22 %), measures for lifelong learning (23 %), equality and social integration (18 %), and active labour market policies (30 %). According to the Cohesion Report, this produced a 5 % increase in labour productivity;

57.

is generally in favour of the measures for rural areas, which received EUR 14 billion under the Guidance section of the EAGGF during the last programming period. At the same time, the Committee points out that regional policy and agricultural policy instruments for rural areas must be better coordinated in future, especially with a view to achieving the Lisbon objectives. This is one of the greatest challenges of the current programming period particularly now that the instrument for rural areas is no longer enshrined in regional policy;

58.

highlights the beneficial role of the INTERREG programme, through which a total of EUR 5,8 billion was deployed in the 2000-2006 programming period for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. It is precisely in terms of cooperation at borders and the exchange of experience across Europe that these programmes have an inalienable role in actively contributing to the convergence of Europe's regions;

59.

also welcomes the URBAN II measures, which in the last programming period provided support to 70 towns and 2,2 million inhabitants to help them meet social and economic challenges in urban areas. However, further action is also required to improve the effectiveness of urban policy measures within cohesion policy that are intended to promote growth and employment under the operational programmes;

60.

also highlights the role of EQUAL, which over the last seven years has delivered a total of EUR 3,27 billion to around 3 000 projects in the Member States, promoting exchanges of experience on implementing the European employment strategy;

61.

also commends the work of the European Investment Bank, which devoted around 71 % of its resources to regional policy projects in the 2000-2006 programming period;

62.

points out that the combined effects of the 2000-2006 programming period will only be measurable in 2008 with the completion of payments from this period, and therefore requests the Commission to make an assessment of the 2000-2006 programming period a key feature of the next Cohesion Report;

63.

notes that the efforts of Member States to achieve economic and social cohesion are taking place against a backdrop of general budget consolidation and national reform drives to meet the modified Lisbon objectives;

64.

notes, with this in mind, that in many Member States, with the exception of the cohesion countries, public investment was cut from 2,9 % of GDP in 1993 to 2,4 % in 2005. In contrast, public investment in the countries that joined in 2004 has risen sharply and is currently around 50 % higher than in the other Member States;

65.

notes that in the new Member States increased expenditure and budget consolidation measures have taken place simultaneously;

66.

highlights the prevailing trend, in which — despite the difficult situation of national budgets as a result of restructuring — resources for economic and social cohesion in the form of investment in business have fallen only slightly or have even risen;

67.

regrets that the analysis of national budgets pays insufficient attention to the particular situations in certain countries, e.g. the need for public expenditure consolidation in the wake of German unification;

68.

welcomes the overall trend in many Member States to take more account of local and regional authorities as providers of public investment — above all, as noted in the Cohesion Report, in Denmark, Spain, Italy, Portugal, the UK and Finland, where local and regional authorities' share in public investments rose by as much as 10 % in the period 1995 to 2004;

69.

notes that, in the new Member States, with the exception of Poland, the Czech Republic and Latvia, local and regional authorities are responsible for far less than 50 % of public investment expenditure;

70.

highlights the correlation mentioned in the Cohesion Report between the take-up rate and the quality of investment projects on the one hand and the degree of devolution on the other, in so far as efficient administrations in place at the devolved level;

71.

notes with satisfaction the Cohesion Report's statements on the linkage between high levels of transfer from the Structural Funds and development of economic stability in the new Member States. This made it possible to achieve high growth and a consolidation of public finances in those countries. This demonstrates very clearly the results of the European policy mix of fiscal policy stability in relation to the euro and Structural Fund measures in relation to growth and cohesion. This combination has also kept exchange rates against the euro relatively stable in recent years;

72.

emphasises, regarding European research and innovation policy, that the programmes are predominantly geared to promoting Europe's international competitiveness. Resources for this are therefore allocated through EU-wide calls for tender;

73.

notes that only 18 % of participants in the 6th Research Framework Programme came from lagging regions; supports the Cohesion Report's view that European research funding and cohesion policy pursue complementary goals in seeking to improve research and development in Europe; and at the same time welcomes the fact that initiatives such as the 7th Research Programme's KnowReg2 bolster the regional dimension in European research funding;

74.

emphasises that the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) could usefully complement cohesion policy measures aimed for instance at promoting SMEs or renewable forms of energy;

75.

emphasises, with regard to the European competition policy, the Cohesion Report's finding that state aid for lagging regions under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty fell from EUR 19 billion in 2003 to EUR 11 billion in 2005;

76.

points out that, while aid under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty fell, state aid in the cohesion countries was increasingly steered towards Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives (environment, regional aid, SMEs, employment, education and research). More than half of the Member States have focused their aid on these horizontal goals;

77.

notes that, notwithstanding EU enlargement, in the new programming period, only 34 % of the population live in lagging regions as defined by Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty;

78.

takes note of the Cohesion Report's findings that the market organisations of the Common Agricultural Policy predominantly favour stronger regions with larger production units; emphasises, therefore, the need for rural development instruments in the current programming period to be used mainly in convergence regions; and welcomes the possibility of increasing the use of funding for rural development in the current programming period through modulation;

79.

points to the need to impose a binding obligation, especially in countries with high employment in agriculture, to achieve both a transition to a competitive agricultural economy and diversification of economic activities in rural areas over the next few years;

80.

emphasises the Cohesion Report's comment that, in terms of the EU budget, cohesion policy has played a cardinal role in building up the European Union to give all of its citizens equal access to the European single market;

81.

notes, in respect of European budget policy, that cohesion policy at present accounts for around one third of EU expenditure and will reach approximately EUR 54,2 billion in 2013 and points out that cohesion policy's share, measured in terms of the Union's GDP, will fall in 2013 to around 0,35 % compared with almost 0,4 % in 2004;

82.

emphasises that, as a result of EU enlargement, at the end of the current programming period around 85 % of cohesion resources will go to lagging regions, compared with 56 % in 1989. The new Member States look set to receive 52 % of total cohesion resources despite making up only 21 % of the population;

83.

regrets that the relevant section of the Cohesion Report still offers no comprehensive proposal on strengthening the interaction between cohesion policy and the other Community polices, and calls on the Commission to redress this in a future progress report in the context of the intended reform of the EU's financial system;

84.

emphasises the need for dialogue between all the parties involved on how to examine and take into account the potential effects of European legislation on sustainable urban and regional development, and how to improve the coordination of EU policies and initiatives that affect local and regional authorities within the framework of existing procedures (e.g. impact assessments), and calls on the European Commission to involve the Committee in these processes at an early stage;

85.

takes note of the statement in the Cohesion Report that cohesion policy reform for the period 2007-2013 is intended to maintain established principles relating to programming, partnership, co-financing and evaluation, and to introduce changes, such as a stronger strategic approach, further decentralisation, better performance and less red tape;

86.

draws attention to the close link between cohesion policy and the Lisbon strategy, which have led to programmes being more strongly geared to growth and employment during the programming process. However, this can only work if there are close contacts in the Member States between the bodies responsible for cohesion and structural policy and those responsible for drawing up the national reform programmes;

87.

points out, in connection with using the Structural Funds to achieve the Lisbon goals (‘earmarking’), that some 64 % of convergence funding and over 80 % of funding to improve competitiveness are spent on these objectives, and so contribute to achieving the targets that have been jointly set. This has mobilised investment for growth and employment to the tune of EUR 210 billion;

88.

notes, with respect to gearing cohesion policy to the Lisbon objectives, that strengthening economic and social cohesion is a distinct goal of the European Union. Thus it is important not to give the impression that the sole purpose of cohesion policy is to implement the Lisbon objectives;

89.

commends the European Commission's efforts to improve transparency and legal clarity by introducing a single regulation on the Funds to replace the existing ten regulations. The same goes for incorporating the Cohesion Fund into the general regulation on the Funds;

90.

observes that a full evaluation of the impact of the reforms on programming and implementation of the Structural Funds cannot be carried out until after the operational programmes have been approved and launched, and calls on the European Commission to provide such an evaluation in one of its next reports;

91.

calls for the urban dimension to be dealt with in a separate chapter in the Fifth Cohesion Report, given the key importance of European cities for achieving the goals of the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies and for social integration, for instance of migrants;

92.

believes that the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion prefaces the debate on the future shape of cohesion policy for the period after 2013; considers that this will require a comprehensive analysis of future challenges for cohesion policy; and sees the points laid out in the Communication on the Fourth Cohesion Report as a first step in that direction. At the same time, it notes that the challenges recognised by the report are also areas for action under EU policies other than cohesion policy;

93.

draws attention to the necessary pressure for restructuring and modernisation in the Member States, above all at local and regional level, in the context of globalisation and enlargement; draws attention to the Cohesion Report's point that the effects of globalisation on economic sectors and regions will vary; and is aware that this need to adapt will affect not only the lagging regions, but also other regions of the EU. During such processes, one should also bear in mind the cultural heritage of the regions;

94.

notes, however, that a key challenge of cohesion policy is to support adjustment to economic change by promoting technological development and training, so as to take advantage of the opportunities provided by globalisation;

95.

notes that climate change will also affect European regions in different ways: for example flood protection and changing climate conditions will necessitate new restructuring and adjustment measures for agriculture. At the same time, however, the development of renewable energy sources will also provide new opportunities for growth and employment, and new global markets;

96.

agrees with the view expressed in the Cohesion Report that rising energy prices will affect in particular those regions whose energy efficiency is low and which have economic sectors with high energy consumption. This development also poses a challenge for peripheral outermost, island, mountain and isolated regions of the EU to maintain their own growth potential despite higher transport costs;

97.

draws attention to the point made in the Cohesion Report that demographic change may gradually become a major obstacle to growth and development for many regions in the European Union;

98.

sees regional initiatives to improve the general level of education and reduce school drop-out rates as an important basis for mitigating the consequences of an ageing population by increasing productivity and value added;

99.

notes that the debate on the future shape of cohesion policy in the next few years will take place in parallel with the discussion about reforming the EU budget. Options on this are to be formulated over the coming year, and existing EU policies will be assessed. At the same time, the European Commission will provide a further contribution to the debate in the Fifth Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion;

100.

sees the questions that the European Commission has raised in the Communication on the Cohesion Report as an initial contribution to the future debate, and wishes to make the following points as a preliminary response to the questions;

101.

notes that European regions will only be able to meet future challenges if there is a balance between EU-wide strategic guidelines and the flexibility required for investing resources at regional level;

102.

sees a need for efforts to develop specific forward-looking strategies in the regions in order to identify future challenges at an early stage and to determine the situation of individual regions in Europe by comparing regions across the EU. It is necessary here to consider whether and to what extent new indicators are needed to assess cohesion policy;

103.

underlines that it is necessary to mobilise greater exchange of ideas and cooperation on new approaches and models for regional policies between researchers, national research institutes and regional studies associations to seek more effective ways of disseminating ideas and their practical application in the design, implementation and evaluation of policies, and proposes that the European Commission should provide an adequate mechanism that supports cooperation, networking and dissemination in this field;

104.

sees globalisation as a further stage in the process of structural change that presents both opportunities and risks for regions and municipalities in Europe;

105.

Regional policy makes it possible to take a suitable approach to a number of the economic and social consequences of globalisation because it applies multisectoral and grassroots solutions;

106.

welcomes the fact that this Cohesion Report takes a closer look at regional policy in other countries, especially the United States, Russia and China; this is an important contribution to producing global comparisons and to sharing information about regional development strategies;

107.

calls on the Commission to continue gathering more information on the regional and sectoral impact of globalisation, in order to provide local and regional authorities with key data on globalisation trends and challenges at regional level;

108.

sees a forward-looking regional policy based on strengthening supply factors as a crucial means of maintaining into the future the level of development that has already been achieved in the worldwide competition for markets and between businesses;

109.

stresses the need to accept globalisation as an irreversible process and to work out development strategies suitable for the regions based on innovation and performance;

110.

regards climate change as a major global challenge that can be met only on the basis of an integrated, internationally agreed plan with many packages of measures;

111.

sees the role of cohesion policy as mainly to make progress in reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources, especially in lagging regions. Such regions will benefit from the fact that new markets and companies are already active in this area;

112.

also points to the limits of cohesion policy, which for instance cannot compensate for the results of inappropriate distribution policy or potential distortions of competition in emissions trading;

113.

believes that cohesion policy must continue to be governed by the principle of solidarity and focus on growth and jobs in the future. In order to improve its effectiveness, the Committee of the Regions has set up a Lisbon Monitoring Platform which enables local and regional authorities to work in partnership and share good practice in this area;

114.

therefore thinks it is necessary to clarify what role should be played by future funding instruments to achieve these goals, for instance with respect to non-recoverable subsidies versus revolving funds;

115.

suggests that future cohesion policy must take into account the fact that growth and jobs can be achieved both by enhancing existing strengths in Europe and by helping the weakest and most ailing regions to catch up. Analysing the problems involved will provide an answer to the question of the extent to which cohesion policy instruments must be targeted at the various types of objective areas;

116.

calls on the Commission not just to relate the issue of growth and jobs to cohesion policy, but also to ask how other EU policies can as a whole be used to achieve this overarching objective;

117.

points in this connection to the reform of the internal market strategy, which will take place in parallel with the debate about the future direction of cohesion policy;

118.

is encouraged by the point made in the Cohesion Report that effectively including local and regional players has led to better governance and made structural support more efficient;

119.

consequently calls for local and regional authorities to be involved to an even greater extent in planning and implementing cohesion policy;

120.

considers that the debate on future remits in relation to cohesion policy depends very much on the future instruments and goals of cohesion policy; and, in this connection, draws attention to the difficult negotiations on these questions in the debate about the 2007-2013 financial perspective;

121.

proposes that the Commission should draw up a comprehensive assessment of current remits in cohesion policy, which would include experience with the current management system, the midterm review and the length of the programming period;

122.

calls for an appropriate balance to be struck between top-down instructions from the EU and the necessary flexible bottom-up approach to selecting and applying instruments;

123.

believes that an important prerequisite for improving EU support for efforts at national level is a shared understanding of the purpose and objectives of cohesion policy;

124.

therefore asks the Commission to discuss with the Member States the shared goals of national and European regional development instruments and to make those goals even more consistent with each other and with the local situations of regional and municipal authorities, while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This debate must also cover the question of the future structure, number and tasks of the European structural policy instruments;

125.

emphasises the need also to pursue cohesion policy outside the weakest and most ailing regions, and wonders how measures taken in these regions can be made more effective;

126.

sees a strong need for action to place more emphasis on the complementarity between European cohesion policy and other EU policies, and considers the statements made in the relevant section of the Cohesion Report to be inadequate;

127.

sees this as an important way, in the run-up to the debate about future allocation of the EU budget, of developing an effective solution which places cohesion policy goals and other EU goals in the right context;

128.

also emphasises the need to initiate dialogue with the Member States at an dearly stage concerning which instruments are used at national level and how they can be combined with future EU instruments;

129.

considers promoting cooperation between regions within the European Union to be an important means of comparing notes on the efficiency of funding use, future issues and implementation procedures, and the performance of each region and points out that the Commission's ‘Regions for economic change’ initiative, whose purpose is to promote economic modernisation and improved competitiveness, could be an important means of developing and publicising the experience and good practice of more advanced regions;

130.

considers the possible inclusion of local and regional authorities in the recently agreed structured dialogue with China and Russia to be a good way of exploring new approaches in regional policy, allowing those countries to learn from existing experience and so helping to anchor their regional development;

131.

regards the Committee of the Regions as an important medium for promoting dialogue among Europe's regions on the future shape of cohesion policy and finding new forms of cooperation at crossborder, transnational and interregional level, especially with a view to using the new legal instrument for territorial cooperation;

132.

believes that to some extent these questions can only be resolved in close consultation with those concerned and the European institutions, and thus sees this first opinion as just the beginning of a longer-term debate;

133.

notes, however, that the future principles of cohesion policy with respect to focus, partnership, multi-annual programming and governance must be thoroughly discussed, in addition to the above-mentioned issues, and will therefore be setting up a working group within the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy, which will serve as an interlocutor for the other institutions and as a forum for further debate on the future of cohesion policy;

134.

calls on the European Parliament in particular to collaborate with the Committee of the Regions in seeking possible answers to the questions raised above, so as to contribute to the coming debate about European cohesion policy and thus EU policies in general;

135.

therefore proposes that there should be closer cooperation, on the basis of the appropriate agreement, between the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Development and the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy of the Committee of the Regions, in order to discuss the future challenges of cohesion policy over the next few years and serve as a forum for talks with the European Commission. This could for instance take place through a joint working group;

26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/16

—

believes that Member States need this strategy paper as a core document on which to draw as they develop their own strategic development plans to improve health and safety at work; such plans have major implications both for local and regional authorities and for larger businesses and SMEs alike;

—

stresses that regional and local authorities are major employers in all EU Member States and are well-placed to spearhead health and safety initiatives. Therefore the European Commission should, when carrying out the strategy, pay special attention to local and regional authorities;

—

shares the Commission's view that, under the Lisbon strategy, the Member States have acknowledged the major contribution that guaranteeing quality and productivity at work can play in promoting economic growth and employment. Indeed, the lack of effective protection to ensure health and safety at work can result in absenteeism, in the wake of workplace accidents and occupational illnesses, and can lead to permanent occupational disability. This is not only a human tragedy for the people concerned, but also has a major negative impact on the economy. The enormous economic costs of problems associated with health and safety at work inhibits economic growth and affects the competitiveness of businesses in the EU;

—

considers that the Community and the Member States should, as a matter of urgency, have access to the latest reliable statistics and to a data collection and processing system that provides a true overview of the extent of occupational accidents and diseases.; And, in this sense, recommends to start working in order to harmonize statistics of labour accidents and professional illnesses in the European Union.

Rapporteur

:

Uno SILBERG (EE/UEN-EA), Chairman of Kose Municipality Council

1.

welcomes the European Commission's initiative to press ahead with efforts to improve quality and productivity at work and to devise a Community strategy on health and safety at work for the 2007-2012 period. This initiative seeks to secure a 25 % reduction in accidents at work by 2012 in EU-27 by improving health and safety protection for workers. It would also make a major contribution to the success of the Growth and Jobs strategy;

2.

believes that Member States need this strategy paper as a core document on which to draw as they develop their own strategic development plans to improve health and safety at work; such plans have major implications both for local and regional authorities and for larger businesses and SMEs alike;

3.

stresses that regional and local authorities are major employers in all EU Member States and are well-placed to spearhead health and safety initiatives. Therefore the European Commission should, when carrying out the strategy, pay special attention to local and regional authorities;

4.

shares the Commission's view that, under the Lisbon strategy, the Member States have acknowledged the major contribution that guaranteeing quality and productivity at work can play in promoting economic growth and employment. Indeed, the lack of effective protection to ensure health and safety at work can result in absenteeism, in the wake of workplace accidents and occupational illnesses, and can lead to permanent occupational disability. This is not only a human tragedy for the people concerned, but also has a major negative impact on the economy. The enormous economic costs of problems associated with health and safety at work inhibits economic growth and affects the competitiveness of businesses in the EU;

5.

urges the Commission to pool the political synergies that exist between the individual EU institutions, the Member States and above all the local and regional authorities in a bid to improve health and safety at work;

6.

considers that the Community and the Member States should, as a matter of urgency, have access to the latest reliable statistics and to a data collection and processing system that provides a true overview of the extent of occupational accidents and diseases. And, in this sense, recommends to start working in order to harmonize statistics of labour accidents and professional illnesses in the European Union;

7.

feels that Member States must draw on a national strategy, based on the Commission strategy, to foster a safe working environment, covering issues of employment, employment relationships and conditions at the workplace;

8.

considers that an effective insurance scheme must be available to Member States to cover workplace accidents and occupational illnesses. This would provide an incentive not only to increase safety at the workplace but also to keep a record of all workplace accidents and cases of occupational illness;

9.

would stress the need to give sufficient attention to prevention measures in the context of risk management and to ensure that prevention is not seen as part of monitoring. Risk management comprises both prevention (proactive risk management) and a ‘fire brigade strategy’ (reactive risk management), both of which must be given equal importance;

10.

takes due note of Commission's assertion that this is a strategy for health and safety at work for the 2007 to 2012 period. The communication must therefore be deemed to be a strategy document;

11.

is pleased that a strategic development plan (strategy document) is being drawn up in line with Community rules;

12.

notes a discrepancy in point 5 between the section on health surveillance (using certain procedures) and that dealing with social and demographic change (generational aspects). Moreover, the section on the rehabilitation of workers uses very old data (from 1999) which are hardly likely to be of any relevance for a strategy covering the period up to 2012. The 2002-2006 strategy should — at least — be taken as a base;

13.

is surprised that the strategy document gives no real indication of its remit and vision. In terms of targeted Community action, therefore, the document lacks any common approach or purpose. It also fails to state its precise objective or what kind of action is supposed to be taken for which target group. Nor is it wholly clear about what a resolution of the issue is meant to achieve;

14.

considers it important to give expression to Member States' shared values, which form the basis of joint action and underpin moves to achieve the objectives at hand;

15.

notes that, according to the document, the strategic development plan is designed to cover the period 2007-2012. Thus there is some indication of the timeframe involved in pursuing the objectives and measures set out in the development plan, but this is not tied the attainment of any specific targets;

16.

feels that the document should indicate how often — and how thoroughly — the plans are to revised (plans left unrevised for, say, three years risk becoming obsolete);

17.

welcomes with satisfaction the high participation of Member States in drawing up the strategic development plan. However, regrets that the participation of local and regional authorities in drawing up the strategy has not been facilitated, although proximity to citizens is needed in this process. In this sense, regional and local entities are not only employers but also they may be agents responsible for implementing these policies;

18.

urges that the strategic direction of the European Commission's 2002-2006 Community strategy on health and safety at work continue to be pursued;

19.

recognises the earlier strategy's success in raising public awareness of the importance of health and safety at work, which was highlighted as an integral part of quality management and a critical factor in economic performance and competitiveness;

20.

is surprised at the strategy paper's failure to bring quality management into the discussion of health and safety at work, or indeed to take up the issue at all;

21.

notes that that many businesses in the EU Member States, including leading European enterprises, have introduced the EFQM system (European Foundation for Quality Management) as a basis for their activities. All Member States should be made aware of this system as a model for an effective strategy that may also be used in the field of health and safety at work;

22.

urges Member States to take on board the fundamental concepts of the EFQM quality management system — results orientation, customer focus, leadership and constancy of purpose, management by processes and facts, people development and involvement, partnership development and corporate social responsibility — thus encouraging advances in the area of health and safety at work and fostering progress in harmonising the legal framework involved. The Member States should also seek to show understanding for the aspirations of the various interest groups within society and to respond appropriately;

23.

considers that it is essential for an appraisal of the current situation to have available statistical data in respect of the individual EU Member States or general data for the EU as a whole; such data should be time-related, in order to make it possible to recognise the trend;

24.

stresses that the appraisal of the current situation should include an analysis of the available results and current problems, possibilities and risks, broken down by area;

25.

points out that, by their very nature, the dangers and risks have become more complex and inter-dependent. It is therefore essential to carry out a risk analysis in order to make an appraisal of the possible dangers and to carry out risk management, taking account of the various types of risks. It is very important to carry out a critical appraisal of the current situation as this is the only way in which it will be possible to set realistic targets;

26.

takes the view that, if we are to make a realistic appraisal of conceivable damage arising from potential risks, it is very important not merely to bring about an awareness of sources of danger and their overall impact; it is also essential to define the criteria for assessing the damage. When making the assessment of damage, distinctions should be drawn between the technological, psychological, sociological, cultural and economic aspects of the risks involved;

27.

emphasises that the Member States should determine precisely how information is to be gathered and compiled, which parties are to be responsible for these measures and what procedures are to be followed. These elements are frequently not determined by declaratory legal provisions; in the absence of a theoretical and practical basis which is readily understandable to all parties, no positive outcome can, however, be expected;

28.

considers that there is an urgent need for the Member States to have at their disposal a sound methodological basis for risk management, which should, moreover, be drawn up in accordance with scientific principles;

29.

points out that it is necessary to continually monitor conditions and risk factors so as to keep up to date and define any new risk factors that should emerge;

30.

takes the view that the issue of occupational illnesses should be addressed in greater detail in the strategy document. An approach based on adequate degree of flexibility and clarity should be pursued when determining the criteria for analysing occupational illnesses so as to enable such illnesses to be classified by taking account of their original causes;

31.

regards it as vitally important that the diagnosis of occupational illnesses in the Member States should not be rendered more difficult and that the payment of compensation should take place in the most unbureaucratic way possible;

32.

also regards it as vitally important that there should be an effective legal and administrative system which ensures that occupational accident and illness is recorded but should not in particular over-burden SMEs;

33.

calls for occupational accidents and illnesses to be accurately recorded in all Member States and for a strategic action plan to be introduced to improve safety at the workplace, such measures should not over-burden SMEs;

34.

regards as essential that the fulfilment of requirements and rules in respect of the working environment should be monitored in order to reveal any shortcomings and to prevent risks;

35.

recognises that shortcomings in organising the way the working environment is managed are one of the key causes of occupational accidents and illnesses. Every human life which is lost and every working day lost through sickness represents a considerable loss for every Member State, regional or local authority, business and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); the overall costs to society are, however, very much higher;

36.

regrets the absence of any explicit reference to the fact that healthy behaviour patterns can basically only emerge where underlying conditions at the workplace and in society are themselves healthy and salubrious;

37.

wishes to see standard, generally recognised methods of analysis, such as SWOT, PEST, GAP, FFA or CAF, used when a common strategic approach is formulated in the organisations of the various Member States and in order to ensure objective, adequate and comparable results;

38.

welcomes the Commission's proposal under which the main goal of EU strategy is to continue to be the ongoing, steady reduction in the number of industrial accidents in the period 2007-2012; it shares the Commission's view that, during the period in question, the overall objective of the 27 EU Member States should be to bring about a 25 % reduction in the number of industrial accidents and the incidence of occupational illnesses, even though such a goal may appear to be too much of a ‘eye-catching’ objective;

39.

notes that there must be a clear message behind these strategic objectives. The ultimate objective, i.e. what has to be achieved by which date, has to be clearly spelled out;

40.

points out that the strategic objective must be in line with the following (SMART) requirements: it must be specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and timed. These qualities ensure that the task in hand is clearly formulated and numerically measurable, which presupposes that the scales of measurement will be contractual obligations;

41.

draws attention to the fact that the strategic objective must be in line with what is required, i.e. the goals will have to be linked to a specific timetable, so as to ensure that their achievement can be monitored and measured. Hence the concept of setting short- and long-term objectives which would clearly mean that the main objective would have to be subdivided into smaller intermediate objectives so that their realisation could be measured, monitored and managed more precisely;

42.

considers that there is an urgent need to establish a system of indicators for the Member States which would provide the basis for the appraisal of the initial situation and the target situation and the efficiency of the measures taken. The main defining features of such indicators should be relevance, substantiveness, quantifiability, robust nature and the efficiency of the expenditure involved;

43.

welcomes the fact that the Commission is supporting SMEs by making use of existing legal provisions; would like to see the legislative framework brought into line with the development of the labour market and simplified, above all, bearing in mind the situation of SMEs;

44.

stresses that instruments should be defined in support of the measures set out in the strategic development plan. Such instruments would cover programmes, larger projects, strategic investments and other broader fields of action, such as routine tasks, designed to help achieve the objectives which have been set;

45.

notes that, in contrast to the way in which the other issues are treated, the question of the establishment of a legislative framework (chapter 4 of the strategy document) is addressed in too great detail. The various aspects of business life should be systematically scrutinised on the basis of, for example, the PESTLE principle (political, economic, social, technical, legal, environmental). The examination should be carried out not just in the overall framework of the EU but also in the context of the individual Member States; it should cover the fields of politics, the economy, social questions, technological aspects, legal aspects and protection of employees;

46.

advocates support for the establishment of corporate health promotion schemes;

47.

draws attention to the fact that it is absolutely essential for the strategy document to include a financial framework and a timetable, setting out the estimated overall cost of the development plan and the allocation of costs in respect of particular years or other periods of time;

48.

would like to see the section dealing with the planning and implementation of measures to reduce safety hazards and to provide protection at the workplace, make provision for the use of a standard form with regard to the financial framework and the timetable, in order to ensure that data provided by Member States is comparable and can be analysed generally throughout the EU;

49.

points out that the management structure for ensuring safety and health protection at the workplace should include a description of the necessary coordination processes with regard to the drawing up, completion, implementation and appraisal of the development plan and the writing of the final report on the plan. It is essential to indicate in this context how cooperation, work-distribution and feedback processes involving the stakeholders are organised;

50.

draws attention to the fact that it is essential to define the management structure for ensuring safety and health protection at the workplace if agreement is to be reached on the coordination, administration and other relevant aspects of the development plan for the respective areas and if other interested parties are to be kept informed;

51.

draws attention to the International Labour Organisation's global Guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems (ILO-OSH) which, given the refusal to accept the setting of international standards in this area, were drawn up at the request of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) to be implemented — as has to some extent already happened — by the relevant countries at national level; these guidelines reflect ILO values and tools relating to occupational health and safety management and lay down the basic requirements of an occupational safety and health management system designed to secure long-term improvements on this front;

52.

points out that the abovementioned methodological basic principles are set out in the following documents:

53.

stresses that any long-term effective system of heath and safety management designed to secure ongoing improvements in health and safety at the workplace must contain the following key elements:

54.

points out that the section dealing with the structure of the strategic development plan should tie in with the goals to be achieved and the measures to be implemented in the course of the duration of the action plan and the explanations. The action plan and the development plan must be comparable and have a matching structure;

55.

recommends that the action plan be drawn up in tabular form, indicating, in respect of each subgroup, (a) the respective objectives, indicators and the measures which need to be taken to achieve the targets and (b) the activities to be carried out together with the implementing parties, the financial backers and the funding sources and instruments;

56.

points out that supplementary measures should be introduced should it become apparent, in the course of the implementation of the strategic development plan, that changes need to be made or rules need to be laid down in respect of the existing objectives and measures. When decisions are taken regarding additional measures or the termination of existing measures, account should be taken, above all, of the following: the usefulness of the goals which have been set, the effectiveness of the measures adopted and changes which have been carried out or which are at the planning stage in respect of financing and fields of action;

57.

notes that when the objectives have been achieved, when the strategic development plan reaches the end of its duration or when it has been successfully implemented, a final report is to be drawn up on the development plan;

58.

points out that it is essential to stress the following aspects in the section on the Member States dealing with the reporting period:

The layout and structure of the report on the implementation of the strategic development plan should match that of the development plan and the associated action plan.

26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/21

—

urges the Commission to recognise the importance of local and regional authorities in developing and delivering climate change adaptation measures, and to recognise the need to provide them with the powers and support to enable them to develop adaptation strategies;

—

agrees with the assessment of the impact of climate change on physical geography and ecosystems worldwide; however it believes that equal consideration needs to be applied to the economic and social aspects of climate change adaptation as has been applied to the environmental aspects within the Green Paper;

—

acknowledges the threat which climate change poses to our citizens and environment, but believes that tackling adaptation early presents an opportunity to create sustainable communities as well as competitive local and regional economies through the creation of new areas of expertise and employment opportunities, and making the most efficient use of our resources by ensuring their sustainable use;

—

supports the Commission in its call for early action, particularly in areas where the known impact has greater certainty or where failure to act or adopt a precautionary principle would pose a significant risk to society, the economy and the environment of Member States. Adaptation to climate change will be costly but the Stern Review shows that to do nothing is the most expensive option. The Committee of the Regions feels that it is incumbent on local, regional and national politicians to take responsibility for taking the lead in making climate change adaptation a priority;

—

considers that one of the key challenges is likely to be large scale population migration, both from external countries into the EU, between Member States and also between and within regions. Management of the housing, infrastructure, health and public service needs which will arise from this migration will have to be planned for and managed by local and regional authorities;

—

calls for EU budget, programmes, policies and especially key legislation to be revised in the light of the changing parameters that climate change will bring; in particular, the Committee calls for adaptation to climate change to be considered as part of the 2008 Budget Review.

Rapporteur

:

Kay TWITCHEN, Member of Essex County Council (UK/EPP)

1.

welcomes this paper, and the acceptance that the European Union has to take on the challenge of adaptation, working with all partners involved, in particular Member States and partners at the sub-national level, and globally with partner countries. It also welcomes the recognition that a European approach is necessary and that adaptation actions must be consistent with mitigation actions and vice versa;

2.

agrees with the assessment of the impact of climate change on physical geography and ecosystems worldwide; however it believes that equal consideration needs to be applied to the economic and social aspects as has been applied to the environmental aspects;

3.

acknowledges the threat which climate change poses to our citizens and environment, but believes that tackling adaptation early presents an opportunity to create sustainable communities as well as competitive local and regional economies through the creation of new areas of expertise and employment opportunities, and making the most efficient use of our resources by ensuring their sustainable use.

4.

considers that one of the key challenges is likely to be large scale population migration, both from external countries into the EU, between Member States and also between and within regions. Management of the housing, infrastructure, health and public service needs which will arise from this migration will have to be planned for and managed by local and regional authorities;

5.

reinforces the message that climate change will place significant burdens on healthcare and local social services as the lessons of recent heat waves in Europe have taught. With ageing populations in most EU Member States, the social effects of climate change need to be seriously considered;

6.

considers that the item of shade in the public space is missing (see question 3). Providing shade by means of trees, parks, green roofs, a different way of building etc is an important factor in reducing heat deaths and demand for air conditioning and increasing quality of living in an urban area;

7.

in addition, believes that the adaptation of the world's population to a reduction of the use of limited natural resources will prove to be a great challenge requiring a significant change in mindsets. Therefore believes that education, communication programmes as well as market-based instruments (such as the European Emissions Trading scheme) will be necessary to encourage the change of individuals' behaviour in relation to such issues as water use, energy use, recycling and resource conservation.

8.

supports the Commission in its call for early action, particularly in areas where the known impact has greater certainty or where failure to act or adopt a precautionary principle would pose a significant risk to society, the economy and the environment of Member States. Adaptation to climate change will be costly but the Stern Review shows that to do nothing is the most expensive option. We have enough information to start acting now. The Committee of the Regions feels that it is incumbent on local, regional and national politicians to take responsibility for taking the lead in making climate change adaptation a priority.

9.

believes that their participation is fundamental to developing and delivering adaptation measures. Local and regional authorities are key delivery agents in managing the effects of climate change and its impact on citizens' lives. The social and economic costs of dealing with extreme weather conditions are often picked up by local and regional authorities. Therefore they must be supported to develop and deliver adaptation strategies which will need to be integrated into everything they do. The Committee of the Regions considers that there should be greater universal recognition of the vital role local and regional authorities play in safeguarding the future of our communities and protecting vulnerable citizens such as the young, poor and elderly;

10.

acknowledges furthermore that local and regional authorities are at the forefront when dealing with the consequences of climate change, and in particular when the actions to mitigate in one area have a negative effect elsewhere, for example where coastal defences and flood barriers result in moving the problem to neighbouring or cross border areas. Therefore there is a need for co-ordination of strategies and policies between local and regional authorities to adapt to the consequences of climate change. This could take a multitude of forms such as river basin groupings etc.

11.

believes that local and regional authorities are in a unique position to help mainstream adaptation strategies through their responsibilities for areas such as spatial planning, land use planning, building and development regulation, public transport, agriculture, forestry, energy use and production, water and waste management and procurement. The challenge is to ensure that current and future service delivery, infrastructure and buildings are sustainable. Local and regional authorities will need to work in co-operation with others to develop robust strategic and local disaster management plans and to develop and expand existing capacity to respond to extreme weather events as they occur more frequently and on an increasing scale.

12.

believes that an integrated approach between EU Member States is essential. This will reduce costs through the sharing of experience and expertise to enable best practice to be developed and adopted across Member States. The Committee of the Regions could be instrumental in helping local and regional authorities to organise the exchange of experiences having in mind the importance of developing an integrated approach.

13.

considers that adaptation must be mainstreamed into all existing EU policy frameworks as an explicit objective, such as EU agricultural and rural development policies, and funding programmes such as Cohesion policy, so that they are able to change to be more in line with the adaptation needs that fall under the responsibility of local and regional authorities. Their continuing flexibility is important because adaptation will be an ongoing process and local and regional needs will continue to change as time goes by;

14.

considers that some existing legislation is in conflict with the need to adapt to climate change. The Habitats Directive for example will need to be modified in the light of the likely changes to existing designated habitats modified as a consequence of climate change and the Water Framework Directive will need to be adapted as water quality will be adversely affected in certain areas due to a decline in rainfall. A broad range of existing legislation will need to be revised to ensure appropriate and successful adaptation to climate change.

15.

supports the need for further research to establish what will be the impacts on one region of measures taken in another region, or possibly in another Member State. Such research is essential to make sure that planning decisions by one local authority will not impact negatively on neighbouring or cross border authorities. This particularly applies to such issues as efficient use of water and other natural resources;

16.

calls for research and front-line monitoring which will help anticipate extreme meteorological phenomena to assist developing countries, in particular those at risk from desertification;

17.

would also encourage further support for research and development with a view to its role in stimulating innovation and the development of innovative adaptation technologies and products. In this way businesses dealing with the effects of climate change have an immense opportunity to develop innovative products and services.

18.

believes that through private and public sector partnerships and inter-Member State networks such as INTERREG (RFEC), local and regional authorities will play a vital role in the facilitation of access to and the dissemination of information, expertise, and best practice. These partnerships and networks will become increasingly important to enable co-operation between sectors, regions and member states and external partner countries;

19.

supports co-operation with developing countries to assist them with adaptation strategies and suggests that EU external actions support this, and believes that local and regional authorities can play a key role in sharing good practice and knowledge with developing countries using existing links and networks. The amount that the EU will reserve for that aim should be in proportion with the need of developing countries and with the responsibility of the EU.

20.

believes that these issues must be tackled urgently, and that the need for local and regional authorities, in co-operation with the wide group of social and economic partners with whom they already work to manage adaptation to climate change, must be integrated into all future EU communications and directives;

21.

appreciates that work on these issues has already begun, and urges the Commission to continue to regard it as a priority;

22.

urges the Commission to recognise the importance of local and regional authorities in developing and delivering climate change adaptation measures, and to recognise the need to provide them with the powers and financial support to enable them to develop and implement adaptation strategies;

23.

urges the Commission to address not only environmental considerations in the follow-up work to this Green Paper but the social and economic impacts of climate change;

24.

believes that the sharing of best practice between local and regional authorities and Member States is absolutely crucial to successful adaptation measures being developed, and considers that the EU has a role to play in ensuring that this exchange of information and sharing of best practice takes place, both within the EU and externally;

25.

considers that the EU has a strategic role to play in planning for and managing migration of population;

26.

calls for EU budget, programmes, policies and especially key legislation to be revised in the light of the changing parameters that climate change will bring; in particular, the Committee calls for adaptation to climate change to be considered as a specific ringfenced budget line within all key budget items (CAP, Cohesion, Research etc) as part of the 2008 Budget Review;

27.

considers that it is important that the EU focuses more of its existing support for research into finding solutions to the problems caused by climate change as well as innovative adaptation measures. Such research can provide innovative solutions to maintain European competitiveness. Research activity must be better coordinated. It is crucial to bridge the biggest information gaps and also to prevent duplication of research activity;

28.

is concerned at the potential impact on one region or Member State of adaptation measures taken in another region or Member State, and considers that the EU is the appropriate body for establishing strategic frameworks for dealing with these potential problems;

29.

calls for education and communication programmes to encourage the change of individuals' behaviour in relation to such issues as water use, energy use, recycling and resource conservation.

26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/25

—

underlines that local and regional authorities play a key role in developing and fostering culture, especially in protecting cultural heritage and promoting artistic innovation;

—

highlights that the cultural sector plays an important part in attaining the objectives of the renewed Lisbon strategy. It draws attention to the tremendous opportunities afforded by cultural tourism for the economic development of many regions. It nonetheless warns against placing one-sided emphasis on the purely economic importance of culture. Equally important is the importance of culture in creating a good and dynamic living environment, a prerequisite for development;

—

regrets that, in establishing a European agenda for culture in a globalising world, the European Commission makes no reference to the large number of partnerships between cities, local authorities and regions;

—

is critical of the European Commission's failure to provide any information in its communication on how the very ambitious objectives to be pursued under the agenda for culture are to be funded;

—

would like to open a constructive discussion on the European Commission's plan to use the open method of coordination in the area of culture. Attention will have to be paid to the sub-national levels, which are to a large extent responsible for culture, and the added administrative burden involved will have to be kept to a minimum.

Rapporteur

:

Mr Gerd HARMS (DE/PES), Plenipotentiary of the Land of Brandenburg for federal and European affairs and state secretary in the Brandenburg state chancellery

1.

explicitly welcomes the European Commission's submission on a European agenda for culture in a globalising world. The document rightly sets out the key role of culture in the integration process and notes the need for appropriate tools to promote to the full Europe's cultural richness and diversity and thus achieve the ‘strategic objectives of prosperity, solidarity and security’ both inside and outside the EU.

This requires increased cooperation among all cultural policy players at all levels, taking due account of civil society representatives and their networks.

As moves are made to come up with a new European cultural agenda in response to globalisation, regional and local cultural policy is becoming increasingly important. The challenge of globalisation inevitably means a reawakening of the ‘Europe of the regions’ — not least in the light of the EU's subsidiarity principle which is predicated on the idea that culture emerges from the grassroots level — i.e. from the cities and regions. Local and regional authorities play a key role in developing and fostering culture in their respective areas, not least in protecting the cultural heritage and promoting artistic innovation, as well as in supporting and assisting not only cultural institutions and initiatives but also education and training, and in staging festivals and cultural events.

In cross-border regions in particular, the quality and scale of cultural cooperation is a crucial element in the European integration process as it faces global challenges;

2.

is pleased that, in its communication, the European Commission for the first time articulates the need for a wide-ranging cultural agenda in order to develop an effective strategy that reflects the key role of culture both for relations between the Member States and their regions and relations with non-EU countries.

Intercultural exchange should become the cornerstone of dialogue with candidate countries and part of the Union's neighbourhood policy. The CoR also shares the Commission's view on the need to foster dialogue between religious communities and associations;

3.

welcomes the Commission's clear reference both to Article 151 as the EC Treaty base (Amsterdam — 1997) and to the subsidiarity principle; the communication stresses that:

4.

is pleased that the European Commission communication explicitly highlights the CoR's constructive role in encouraging the cultural agenda and in involving local and regional authorities and civil society in the process;

5.

highlights the direction of the objectives set out in the communication and endorses these objectives, prioritised as follows:

6.

welcomes the fact that the Commission highlights the key role of culture and the creative economy in generating growth and creating jobs. Culture is a European growth industry. The cultural sector thus plays an important part in attaining the objectives of the renewed Lisbon strategy. Encourages therefore the European Commission to better assess the impacts of the cultural and creative sector on regional and local economies;

7.

notes in this regard the special role played by cultural tourism. The CoR calls for a stepping-up of European-level exchanges of experience with the cultural tourism industry, cultural associations and other cultural players and regional representatives. The CoR would draw attention to the tremendous opportunities afforded by cultural tourism for the economic development of many regions, but also to the risks involved for cultural heritage, especially through inappropriate use;

8.

despite its wholehearted support for the Lisbon objectives, would nonetheless warn against placing one-sided emphasis on the purely economic importance of culture in this context. Equally important is the importance of culture in creating a good and dynamic living environment, a prerequisite for development. The CoR urges that the Community should first and foremost meet its remit under the Treaty to foster ‘non-commercial cultural exchanges’ (Art. 151(2), third indent, EC Treaty);

The Committee would like it made clear that the Lisbon objectives can only be successfully pursued if the European Union focuses its cultural efforts on the importance for society of the intangible values of culture. The CoR feels that cultural education and cultural cooperation must be fostered if society's creative resources are to be tapped and the cultural industry is to flourish. Culture exists without a cultural industry, but a cultural industry cannot exist without culture;

9.

Related to the above is the intrinsic value of culture and CoR wants to highlight the importance of promoting quality. One objective of a European agenda for culture should be to achieve a dynamic cultural development and to present cutting edge culture in Europe; and in a global context;

10.

would therefore urge that steps be taken to strengthen and foster international cultural exchanges, the acquisition of intercultural skills and multilingualism among the EU public;

11.

feels that the plan propagated by the Amsterdam-based European Cultural Foundation and currently being pursued by the European Parliament and the European Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture to establish an Erasmus for Culture pilot project is a sound and worthwhile way of fostering cultural cooperation by building on the strengths of the regions and regionally based organisations and institutions with a high cultural profile. The CoR will be a willing partner in this initiative;

12.

confirms the effectiveness of the current Culture 2007 (2007-2013) programme and other schemes, particularly those designed to promote cultural development in rural areas ‘in view of enhancing the attractiveness of regions’.

The CoR is critical of the continued inadequacy of the resources made available by the EU and Member States for this purpose;

13.

is surprised at the European Commission's almost complete failure to take account of recent developments in the most attractive EU cultural project — the European Capital of Culture scheme — to which it would appear to attach no strategic importance. This scheme is the most popular of all the European cultural projects, and is quickly gaining importance in the cultural development of cities and regions, as witnessed by the increasing number of national competitions to secure the title (eight UK contenders for the 2008 award; eighteen German and eleven Hungarian contenders for 2010; eight Finnish contenders for 2011; and seven contenders already in the running for the Spanish title in 2016). Particular momentum is generated here by the fact that, under the Capital of Culture scheme for the years 2007 to 2011, culture is understood and treated as an engine and tool for social development, thus making a major contribution to European added value;

14.

urges therefore that the European Commission should be alert to new developments in the European Capital of Culture scheme, studying them closely and giving them its backing.

In doing so, the Commission should pay particular attention to:

15.

will, for its part, address the potential for development and integration which, as noted in the 2005 Budapest declaration of the Hungarian and German Capitals of Culture, is inherent in cultural cooperation schemes undertaken by and for the benefit of Europe's regions and cities;

16.

regrets that, in establishing a European agenda for culture in a globalising world, the European Commission makes no reference to the large number of partnerships between cities, local authorities and regions which, with their origins in Europe, have spread throughout the world since the end of the Second World War. Such structured partnerships between cities and regions have had — and continue to have — a stabilising effect on society and have made a major contribution to peaceful development and to overcoming the division of Europe. The CoR would therefore ask the European Commission, when drawing up its programmes, to take due account of the cultural potential of urban and regional partnerships — which are so important for society as a whole — and to take on board new, qualitative developments;

17.

confirms the importance of the Citizens for Europe programme and its impact on regional and local cultural development, and calls for this programme to be broadened;

18.

expects practical proposals for action under the 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue and anticipates CoR involvement in the process. Encourages therefore DG Education and Culture to maintain the focus on intercultural dialogue after 2008 by promoting specific policies and by working together with other Directorate-Generals;

19.

is critical of the European Commission's failure to provide any information in its communication on how the very ambitious objectives to be pursued under the agenda for culture are to be funded, noting that funding cannot under any circumstances be provided from the meagre resources available under the Culture 2007 programme. In this regard, the CoR would underscore the key role of the Structural Funds in promoting cultural infrastructure and preserving cultural heritage, and supports the European Commission's plan in future to incorporate cultural projects into other Community programmes. However, the CoR expects more specific information on this point;

20.

shares the European Commission's view that the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which entered into force in March 2007, is a key tool of cultural policy and international law that is of major importance for the Community and the Member States and will also have a regional impact.

Therefore calls upon the European Commission, without prejudice to the principle of subsidiarity, to take steps to introduce this global agreement;

21.

would again point out that a common external cultural policy agreed on by the Member States can only be developed and put into effect if support is given to the cooperation initiatives and activities of Member State players who cultivate relations with non-EU countries. The Committee of the Regions would therefore explicitly propose to the European Commission that initiatives such as EUNIC (European Union National Institutes for Culture) should be strengthened and supported;

22.

is pleased at that, as things stand, the Council conclusions on a reform treaty for Europe are taking on board the firm foundations in the sphere of culture agreed by the European Convention;

23.

is critical of the absence of any reference to the Berlin Declaration on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signature of the Treaties of Rome, which stresses not only the economic but also the cultural importance of integration and highlights the key role of the regions in this regard;

24.

would like to open a constructive discussion on the European Commission's plan to use the open method of coordination in the area of culture. The CoR reminds in this context that attention will have to be paid to the sub-national levels, which are to a large extent responsible for culture, and the added administrative burden will have to be kept to a minimum. The CoR recommends making also use of the multifarious opportunities afforded by setting up and fostering European platforms and networks. In particular, the Committee feels that stepping up support for joint, multinational projects and fostering exchanges between cultural professionals offers a promising way of accelerating and intensifying European integration;

25.

backs the European Commission's plan to stage a European Cultural Forum every two years involving cultural players and practitioners at every level;

26.

explicitly welcomes in this regard the European Commission's plan to submit a cultural policy progress report every two years which should, above all, provide information on the European Commission's application of the cultural compatibility clause (Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty) in other policy areas.

26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/29

—

stresses that education for sustainable development cannot be effectively implemented without the involvement of local and regional authorities given that in many Member States local and regional authorities have a central role to play in educating the public about sustainable development.

—

calls for education for sustainability which must include a wider introduction of environmental protection, citizenship and health education to school curricula, with a view to raising society's awareness and level of concern.

—

recommends the creation of an attractive internet portal containing frequently updated content, publicity and educational materials to be used by teachers, associations, local government and all parties interested in the promotion of sustainable development.

—

calls on local and regional authorities to liaise with the media to play a central role in promoting the idea of sustainability by explaining its main principles and benefits to as wide an audience as possible, in language that is easy to understand, and by encouraging and reporting on the public debate on this topic.

—

encourages the media to take the initiative both in publicising the results of education on sustainable development and in scheduling presentations of the measures and activities of local and regional authorities at viewing times when the people to whom the activities are addresses are available.

Rapporteur

:

Marek OLSZEWSKI (PL/UEN-EA), Mayor of Lubicz, Chair of the Commission for Education and Culture, Joint Central Government and Local Government

1.

draws attention to the fact that local and regional authorities across the European Union are one of the main forces shaping education and information policies, including in the area of sustainable development. The role of local and regional government involves promoting, coordinating and supporting these types of activity. In this context, education for sustainable development cannot be effectively implemented without the involvement of local and regional authorities.

2.

confirms the examples of best practice in which local and regional government plays a role in the promotion, implementation and coordination of sustainable development through education and training. Examples of projects, which deserve to be more widely promoted as model projects, are: the Agenda 21 network, RES (Network of Regions on Education for Sustainability) — launched by the Umbria Region in Italy, the European Sustainable Energy Week, the British ChangeLAB project (Changing Lifestyles, Attitudes and Behaviour), compulsory sustainable development education in Bavaria (Germany) and in Finland, the vocational training system in the Netherlands, the activity of the Regional Environmental Education Centres in Poland and the activity of the open universities.

3.

calls for greater attention to be focused on the role played by the following institutions in the area of informal sustainable development education: countryside parks, national parks, regional protected sites, museums and art centres. Moreover, such institutions can substantially support the formal education of teachers and pupils in the above field.

4.

highlights that in this light, the development of a network of cooperation between regions and local communities and bodies working to promote best practices in the area of sustainable development and the exchange of experience is a matter of key importance. The European Commission, through the joint participation of the Committee of the Regions, should firmly support the registration and dissemination of best practices in the field of education for sustainable development.

5.

welcomes the recognition that investment in human capital is a sine qua non for maintaining sustainable development in the European Union.

6.

believes that education is an element which binds together the three pillars of sustainable development — economic development, environmental protection and social development — Education is a prerequisite for the development and participation of the individual in modern society, as well as being a precondition for the development of society itself.

7.

asserts that education represents the most important part of a broad process involving not only discussion of the idea itself, but also the generation of lifestyle changes out of respect for the principles of sustainable development as part of efforts to improve peoples' quality of life.

8.

confirms that appropriate education and explanation of the advantages of sustainable development can help make necessary lifestyle changes more acceptable and prevent conflicts between long-established ways of life that are perceived as ‘comfortable’ and newer, more sustainable approaches.

9.

also welcomes the fact that one of the Strategy's primary aims is to ensure social equity and cohesion, which is to be achieved through education and information activities, inter alia.

10.

highlights that in many Member States local and regional authorities have a central role to play in educating the public about sustainable development. The means at their disposal include not only pre-school, school and higher education, for which they are often formally responsible, but also adult education institutions and initiatives to preserve and promote culture. They also act as role model for local employers and investors, and are the main providers of services of general interest.

11.

draws attention to the different experiences of the Member States in building societies and economies in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. Instilling a sustainable development mindset requires the development of special programmes to support education in the new Member States and candidate countries. Social problems, economic and political challenges require a different approach.

12.

in accordance with the Strategy of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on Education for Sustainable Development of 23 March 2005, draws attention to the evolving nature of the concept of sustainable development, which is changing along with our understanding of its constituent processes. For this reason, the monitoring role of scientific research should be emphasised, one of the aims of which should be to monitor changes generated by sustainable development and the redefinition of sustainable growth.

13.

highlights that the education process is the most important way of introducing into civic life values which support the principle of sustainable development on an individual level.

14.

stresses that successful education for sustainability is not possible without encouraging an appropriate level of commitment, enthusiasm and skills amongst teachers and training staff. Successful education for sustainability must also include a wider introduction of environmental protection, citizenship and health education to school curricula, with a view to raising society's awareness and level of concern.

15.

calls on the Member States to increase opportunities for integrating environmental and sustainable development into the national education systems.

16.

considers that children and young people are amongst the most important beneficiaries of education for sustainability as they are the foundation of the generation for whom such principles will form the backbone of their system of values and way of life. Sustainability education should also cover the pre-school age group.

17.

calls for an education to promote sustainable development, starting at nursery school level, with knowledge being conveyed not only through concepts but above all through teaching which is based on the senses and on practical experiences.

18.

asserts that family life plays an important educational role. It serves as the basis for all formal education in the field of sustainable development. For the Committee of the Regions, advice on how families can apply the principles of sustainable development in their everyday lives therefore represents one of the most important aspects of informal education in this area.

19.

calls for the creation of an attractive internet portal containing frequently updated content, publicity and educational materials to be used by teachers, associations, local government and all parties interested in the promotion of sustainable development. The portal could be set up at the initiative of Education and Environment ministries in the Member States, designated officials could draft content for the website and publish up-to-date information about conferences, initiatives and steps to promote sustainable development. Regular cooperation with other institutions, associations and foundations dealing with sustainable development could also be helpful.

20.

believes that education for sustainable development should include action which targets more widely than ever before entrepreneurs, farmers, public administration, the media and NGOs as representing the groups that are particularly important for bringing sustainable development into the mainstream.

21.

it is also the role of education to raise the awareness of the political elite and of society of the need to hold social consultations and dialogue when implementing sustainable development strategies in order to take account of the interests of all the sectors concerned and to strike a balance between the various aspects of development.

22.

supports the idea of establishing permanent relations between the European Youth Forum and the individual presidencies in order to exchange views on the directions sought for sustainable development.

23.

draws attention to the role of international student and pupil exchange programmes, one of the principal functions of which is to raise awareness of the value of cultural diversity and tolerance and to promote a variety of solutions for sustainability. Programmes such as ERASMUS, SOCRATES, GRUNDTVIG, TEMPUS etc. have represented, and will continue to represent, a core element of education which promotes the exchange of everyday experiences in the field of sustainable lifestyles and the promotion of best practices in this area.

24.

suggests providing further support for the broadly defined processes of greening agriculture, particularly creating demand for organic produce by educating society about high-quality foodstuffs and by providing additional education for farmers in the area of environmental and integrated farming, agricultural and forestry-related environmental activity, animal welfare and biomass production.

25.

calls for increased funding for environmental education and the promotion of support for the implementation of the Rights of the Third Generation should occupy a central place within this process, through education in the fields of: rational energy usage, launching renewable sources of energy and environmentally friendly modes of transport, sustainable consumption, the use of eco and energy labels, the importance of environmental agricultural production, recycling etc.

26.

calls for greater emphasis to be placed on the issue of sustainable development in the new integrated Lifelong Learning Programme. High quality education is imperative in order to recognise the need to build sustainable development into all areas of life. To this end, calls for the promotion of the training of public officials, school, undergraduate and postgraduate teachers, of the general public, of volunteers and of economic and social players, and for the participation in working groups, seminars, work forums on the issue in a European setting.

27.

draws attention to the need to make vocational training systems more flexible, for example through the more thorough application of procedures for validating informally acquired skills so as to provide broader access to vocational training for those excluded from the system Good examples include the Finnish or Dutch models for certifying and validating informally acquired vocational skills.

28.

recommends that a Community-wide model of education for sustainable development, to be jointly devised between the Member States, should embody the following bases:

29.

believes that distance learning is one of the most important means of reaching those groups traditionally excluded from education: residents of rural areas, the disabled, housewives, etc. These groups represent a source of untapped and hidden potential for the development of the EU's communities. We suggest increasing spending on the expansion of free distance learning platforms and allocating greater resources to the development of distance learning programmes, including citizenship education programmes.

30.

emphasises the pressing need to place statutory education in a local and regional context. To help achieve this, it suggests systematically expanding the R3L network (Regional Statutory Education Networks) to encompass all regions of the European Union, including EEA/EFTA and candidate countries.

31.

welcomes the provisions of the Renewed Strategy which stress the need to reduce the proportion of early school leavers to 10 %.

32.

believes that sustainable development is not possible without a knowledge-based society. For EU countries to develop economically and face up to global competition, it is vital to continuously raise public awareness of the value of education, scientific research, the prestige of the scientific world and to consolidate the position of the natural sciences. The lion's share of this responsibility will fall on local and regional stakeholders, who have a direct impact on formal primary and secondary education.

33.

in view of the progressive fall in the number of students studying exact sciences, draws attention to the fact that children's and young people's interest in the natural sciences must be supported (e.g. by popularising inquiry-based pedagogy) if the principles of sustainable development are to be implemented. In addition, there is a need to step up gender mainstreaming which will help increase the number of young people studying exact sciences.

34.

believes that action to establish closer ties between the scientific research sector, education and regional administration should continue. To this end, there should be dissemination of best practices applied within the EU's Framework Programmes in particular to make regions aware of the advantages to be gained from such cooperation. The Committee of the Regions values the role of Framework Programmes in monitoring changes brought about by sustainable development.

35.

considering the ageing of European society, calls for efforts to be made to redefine education systems to allow the elderly to become more fully integrated into society.

36.

in the face of current and impending demographic, migratory and cultural trends in Europe, tolerance of diversity in society is a key condition for lasting development. Calls on Member States to promote education models in which tolerance towards other beliefs, culture, gender and lifestyles is a key element of their citizens' education.

37.

calls for greater attention to be drawn to the issue of supporting local and regional authorities in taking account of sustainable development in processes encouraging healthy living and pro-health policies.

38.

in the light of the above, calls on local and regional authorities to liaise with the media to play a central role in promoting the principle of sustainability by explaining its main principles and benefits to as wide an audience as possible, in language that is easy to understand, and by encouraging and reporting on the public debate on this topic.

39.

calls on local and regional authorities to work closely with the media to showcase good practices in the area of sustainable development.

40.

considering the above comments on the role of regions and local communities in education for sustainable development, calls on local and regional authorities to develop their own communication strategies on how to promote sustainable development.

41.

calls for a strengthening in the regions' existing initiatives such as promotional campaigns for sustainable development and for the provision of greater support, and urges training and advice in these fields.

42.

calls on public institutions to draw up cooperative agreements with public and private media organisations, so that environmental issues are present in documentary, educational and entertainment programmes and the sector's personnel are trained to deal with such issues in a strictly scientific manner. Furthermore, there is a need to plan contextualised communication strategies covering both the issue or topic in question, and the population sector to which it is to be addressed, thereby bringing about behaviour and attitudes in keeping with sustainable development.

43.

encourages the media to take the initiative both in publicising the results of education on sustainable development and in scheduling presentations of the measures and activities of local and regional authorities at viewing times when the people to whom the activities are addresses are available.

26.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/40

—

urges local and regional authorities in Europe to make extensive use of ICT opportunities to meet the challenges of an ageing population and thus improve the quality of life of older people, keep them integrated with local communities and promote local and regional competitiveness through the provision of personalised services;

—

calls for local and regional authorities to be given a major role in designing national and EU research programmes and activities geared to ICT solutions for ageing in recognition of the fact that the effects of population ageing are most evident at local level and that local and regional authorities are major users of these solutions;

—

urges local and regional authorities to disseminate information on the subject, draw up strategies on organising service provision under the new circumstances and increase the local partnership between the various stakeholders;

—

believes that promoting independent living and remote health monitoring by ICT should improve the productivity of social and healthcare services and give professionals more time to perform the tasks for which they are trained. Technology should be adapted to the needs of the elderly and not vice versa. It must not lead to increased loneliness and respect privacy and dignity of older people;

—

notes the narrow focus of the Action Plan in examining eLearning; there is a need to take on board the fact that technology-assisted learning has made an important contribution to helping older people remain creative and socially active;

—

agrees that differences in the way Member States apply the provisions related to disability in electronic communications impede access to communication services and fragment the European technology market.

Rapporteur

:

Risto KOIVISTO (FI/PES), President of Tampere Regional Council

1.

considers the Action Plan on ageing well in the information society to be a very important step in the development of the European information society. Investment in ICT provides a key tool for regions and cities in their efforts to tackle the challenge of population ageing. Such investment can enhance older people's quality of life, support their social inclusion, enable them to contribute their accumulated experience and skills to the development of society and stimulate competitiveness and growth at local and regional level through new products and services. In an earlier opinion on the i2010 strategy for a European information society, the Committee welcomed the identification of the needs of the ageing society as one of the three key priorities of the strategy (1);

2.

notes that the communication and the Action Plan also support the proposals put forward in the Committee's opinions on, inter alia, the demographic future of Europe (2), practical measures relating to an equitable information society (3), ICT research (4), employment of older workers (5) and the position of people with disabilities (6);

3.

stresses that local and regional authorities have a major interest and role in all the areas covered by the Commission's Action Plan:

4.

emphasises the major disparities which exist between regions in Europe and draws attention to the problems faced by local and regional authorities, particularly in areas where the out-migration of young people is causing the average age to rise faster than elsewhere;

5.

points out that variation in Internet use in Europe is due, in very large part, to differences relating to wealth, skills and place of residence, which are not directly the result of ageing but which are more pronounced among the elderly. Increasing opportunities at local level to implement training, broadband and other general projects promoting an equitable information society can also help to improve the situation of the elderly;

6.

agrees with the Commission that the ICT market for ageing-related products and services is still in its infancy. It is important for the competitiveness of the EU that European companies quickly gain a leading position in this rapidly growing market;

7.

supports the exchange of policies and practical experiences, dissemination of best practice, benchmarking across the Member States' regions and cities and, in particular, the creation of a Europe-wide regional network which could be used to increase and improve regions' opportunities to take part in cooperation projects. Regions and cities already have their own experience to offer to networks, especially in the areas of telemedicine and services and technologies supporting independent living;

8.

recalls that those responsible for developing and managing public services also need new skills development programmes, incorporating the different viewpoints, so that the measures presented in the Action Plan can be implemented;

9.

notes that to increase the employment rate of older workers it is essential to promote more flexible working arrangements, good work-life balance, appropriate health and safety conditions at work and lifelong learning. Thus the Committee of the Regions endorses the Commission's view that innovative ICT solutions supporting, for example, teleworking and training, are key ways of achieving the goals of these new working life patterns;

10.

supports the Commission's plan to review policies to promote digital competencies in 2007-2008. One priority should be to help local and regional authorities in their efforts to make optimal use of the Structural Funds and, inter alia, the Lifelong Learning Programme to develop the competencies of elderly people and benefit from the good experience gained with peer training among older people;

11.

draws attention to how the information society (particularly mobile phones and the Internet) has changed language, culture, the media and society as a whole. Thus the problem of the digital divide is far more than just about opportunities to use a computer. Joint projects involving the elderly and young people might be one way to help bridge the divide;

12.

stresses that, despite the interoperability problems and differences in the provision of healthcare and home care services mentioned in the communication, the potential for the development and take-up of European products, for example in smart homes applications, is already good;

13.

considers it important that the various stakeholders (including the elderly themselves and social and healthcare service providers) can establish a common position and thus remove legal, technical, accessibility and other barriers hampering the development of ICT solutions for ageing well;

14.

shares the Commission's concern that currently not enough is being done to ensure that technological innovations are transformed into practical and affordable products. Regions and cities can help remedy this situation, not only by procuring and developing these products but also by fostering an economic environment which gives businesses better opportunities to access bigger markets;

15.

particularly welcomes the specific mention in the Action Plan to the effect that pilot projects should also be led by local and regional authorities;

16.

supports the Commission's plans to encourage government, at local, regional and national level, to exploit the potential of innovative public procurement, but would point out that local and regional authorities need to be provided with clear procedures on how innovative procurement is to be conducted within the framework of general public procurement rules;

17.

notes that it wholeheartedly supports the significant boost given to multidisciplinary research on ageing in the 7th Research Framework Programme;

18.

believes that the focus of the Action Plan on shared research, pooling of resources and common agendas well reflects the Committee's previous calls for enhancing the coordination of national research programmes on ageing at European level through interregional cooperation under a reinforced ERA-NET scheme;

19.

stresses that close cooperation between researchers, companies of different size, the third sector, local and regional authorities and, in particular, older people is a prerequisite for the success of research and development in the area of ICT solutions for ageing;

20.

recalls that local and regional authorities can create an innovative research environment and explore new avenues for institutional cooperation between the public and private sectors and cross-border regional cooperation. In addition to investment by local and regional authorities, this also requires financial support from Member States and the EU;

21.

believes that more information is needed on the large disparities that exist between regions so as to be able to draw the right conclusions and ensure that sufficiently effective measures are taken;

22.

notes the narrow focus of the communication in examining ICT-enhanced learning (eLearning), which it approaches largely from the viewpoint of the developing the world of work. In preparing for the implementation of the Action Plan, there is a need to take on board the fact that in many countries retired people are already a large client group for adult education provided by local and regional authorities and that technology-assisted learning has made an important contribution to helping older people remain creative and socially active;

23.

recommends that ICT services for older people be given a more prominent role in the Regions for Economic Change initiative;

24.

calls for local and regional authorities to be given a major role in designing national and EU research programmes and activities geared to ICT solutions for ageing in recognition of the fact that the effects of population ageing are most evident at local level and that local and regional authorities are major users of these solutions;

25.

believes it is vital in selecting the projects mentioned in the Action Plan for promoting independent living and remote health monitoring that the following criteria are also taken into account:

26.

agrees with the Commission's assertion that differences in the way Member States apply the provisions related to disability in the regulatory framework for electronic communications impede access to communication services and fragment the European technology market, but at the same time stresses that people with disabilities must not be left to rely solely on electronic services; rather, the focus must be on harnessing technology to support access to services through many different channels;

27.

recalls that ICT development offers a chance to reconcile the needs of older people to have access to information and communication services, and of young people to seek job opportunities that contribute to dialogue between the generations;

28.

would moreover recall that, irrespective of or in addition to, EU financial or other programmes, local and regional authorities should:

29.

urges local and regional authorities to disseminate information on the subject, draw up strategies on the effects of ageing and on organising service provision under the new circumstances and, as mentioned in the Action Plan, increase the local partnership between the various stakeholders;

30.

urges local and regional authorities in Europe to make extensive use of ICT opportunities to meet the challenges of an ageing population and thus improve the quality of life of older people, keep them integrated with local communities and promote local and regional competitiveness through the provision of personalised services.