1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/1

85th PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 9 AND 10 JUNE 2010

Resolution of the Committee of the Regions ‘For a better tool-box to implement the EU 2020 Strategy: the integrated guidelines for the economic and employment policies of the Member States and the Union’

(2010/C 267/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. supports the proposal to reduce the overall number of the broad economic and employment guidelines and to integrate them into a coherent document aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy;

2. acknowledges that while these guidelines are addressed to Member States, the Europe 2020 Strategy should be implemented in partnership with regional and local authorities, who, considering their competences and capacities in the fields covered by these guidelines and according to the principle of subsidiarity, are needed for the elaboration of National Reform Programmes, for their implementation and the overall communication on the Strategy;

3. requests the European Commission and the European Council to respect and support the bottom up approach in the policy areas relevant for regional and local authorities and in terms of governance and ownership of the Europe 2020 Strategy, by applying a multilevel and flexible design of the 2020 flagship initiatives and the National Reform Programmes. Welcomes, in this respect, the recent reference by the European Parliament to the importance of involving the local and regional authorities in the Strategy;

4. emphasises that the Europe 2020 Strategy must be implemented with due regard to the objective of territorial cohesion recognised in the Lisbon Treaty;

5. calls for a clarification of the budgetary implications of the measures proposed in the Europe 2020 Strategy in order to ensure that the next financial framework fully reflects the priorities set out in the Europe 2020 Strategy. This clarification should also encompass an impact assessment of new EU financing instruments as well as of a new resource system for the EU;

BROAD GUIDELINES FOR MEMBER STATES AND EU ECONOMIC POLICIES

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

6. approves an adequate economic and fiscal coordination both at the EU level and between Member States to mitigate the problems already faced by public finances within the context of the current financial, economic and social crisis;

7. welcomes the EU's initiative to more closely monitor Member States’ budgetary discipline and substantially overhaul financial markets regulation;

8. supports the call on the Commission and the Council made by the European Parliament in its Resolution of 10 March 2010 to assess the potential of different financial transaction tax options to contribute to the EU budget;

9. endorses the recommendations made by Mario Monti in his 9 May 2010 report to President Barroso on ‘A New Strategy for the Single Market’ for an increased European tax co-ordination in order to eliminate tax barriers within the single market and to tackle the anti-labour bias of tax competition within the EU;

10. underlines that long-term monetary stability can only be achieved by convincing consolidation and a stricter stability package. It can be supported by strengthening long-term growth perspectives for all EU countries and territories through a mix of structural policies for sustainable growth (Europe 2020 Strategy) and cohesion policy, both of which should be granted adequate resources;

11. advocates stronger emphasis on the quality and sustainability of public finances which should be targeted at public investment in environmentally and socially innovative sectors;

12. strongly opposes the proposal made by the European Commission in its 12 May 2010 Communication on reinforced economic governance to suspend the Cohesion Fund for Member States subject to an Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP). This proposal would be discriminatory in three regards: i) it singles out cohesion policy as the only EU policy where sanctions would apply; ii) the suspension would unfairly target regions and cities and iii) it would be unfair considering the uneven allocation of Cohesion Fund resources among Member States;

13. firmly reiterates that cohesion policy has to be strengthened in its role as the only EU policy which offers an integrated place-based approach to development allowing the combination of European priorities with local and regional specificities and which addresses the reduction of disparities between and within regions;

14. considers that evaluation of growth should not only refer to GDP figures but also to the distribution of growth and to measurable targets for the depletion of natural resources;

15. welcomes the development of regional research and innovation strategies that foster cooperation of public authorities, universities and the private sector resulting in jobs and sustainable growth of regions and cities;

16. recalls that local and regional authorities have a responsibility to fight climate change and to protect the environment. They can reap important benefits from the necessary shift to a low-carbon economy if an adequate European framework is put in place, which allows for the anticipation of technological changes, as well as the adaptation of education and vocational training profiles and the encouragement of green public procurement. Supports, in this context, the Covenant of Mayors initiative and its enlargement to the regional level;

17. considers support to entrepreneurship as crucial to turn creative ideas into innovative products, services and processes that can create growth, quality jobs, territorial, economic and social cohesion; moreover encourages local and regional authorities to improve the conditions for the functioning of the SMEs in line with the Small Business Act initiative, notably by exploiting to the full the potential of e-government services; also recognises in this context the important role that can be played in helping the economy through smart growth by supporting women entrepreneurs. Calls for a European Framework for Women's Economical Development as a means to tackle disparities in member states, fight child poverty, facilitate work-life balance, enhance growth potential and the regional development of a growing SME base;

GUIDELINES FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICIES OF MEMBER STATES

18. reiterates that because the social partners, including local and regional authorities, are large employers in the EU's Member States and because of the role they often play in providing education, training and measures supporting the labour market they are key to delivering flexicurity policies. Regions and municipalities should therefore be involved at the outset of policy formation in order to contribute to dynamic labour markets and help citizens into work;

19. notes that long term integrated planning and financing of the public education systems, transport infrastructures, child care facilities and educational establishments is crucial for the development of sustainable regional labour markets;

20. recalls that the local and regional authorities are central players in the implementation process for achieving the strategic objectives concerning quality, relevance of and participation in education, as well as the prevention of early school drop out;

21. recalls that, in a period where unemployment is rising, young people face difficulties entering the labour market and need a greater understanding of the various options available to them, to secure a smooth transition from education to either the labour market or to life as a job-creating entrepreneur. Expects therefore that the European Youth Pact be included in the guidelines and that entrepreneurship will be promoted more actively at school level;

22. calls for targeted measures for older workers, who find themselves unemployed due to the economic crisis, to empower them with new, better skills for further job opportunities;

23. stresses that in order to achieve the proposed reduction by 25 % on the number of Europeans living below the national poverty lines, adequate funding should be attributed to local and regional authorities, as they hold legal responsibilities for framing, funding and carrying out active inclusion policies: and promoting the decent work agenda. The year 2010 of fighting poverty and social exclusion is the appropriate moment to highlight these facts which risk to deteriorate further due to the current financial and economic crisis;

24. underlines that the access to services of general interest, in particular social services, integration into the labour market and adaptation to structural changes as well as social, economic and cultural inclusion policies are all primarily delivered by the local and regional authorities; therefore the employment guidelines must provide an appropriate framework and financing instruments to support local and regional authorities in fulfilling these responsibilities.

Brussels, 10 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/4

Resolution of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Stronger involvement of local and regional authorities in the Europe 2020 Strategy’

(2010/C 267/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. welcomes the proposal of the Commission for a more efficient strategy for growth and jobs, which should meet the new objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth through the means of a strong ownership and partnership of various levels of governments;

2. emphasises that Cohesion policy, with its devolved approach and system of multilevel governance, is the only European Union policy to link the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and the new challenges with local and regional authorities, but it does need sufficient funding. It is therefore essential that cohesion policy continue to be geared towards the goals of sustainable economic growth, social inclusion, employment, fight against climate change and the quality and efficiency of public service provision;

3. proposes that under cohesion policy, the major share of available resources must continue to go to the neediest and most problem-ridden Member States and regions of the European Union in order to help reduce the development gaps and thus make a practical contribution both to securing fairness of opportunity for the regions and to fostering European solidarity;

4. regrets that the proposed Europe 2020 strategy, similar to the Lisbon Strategy, does not properly take into account the role and contribution of regions and cities as sub-national governments of the 27 Member States which, due to their respective national legislative competences, can bring a real added value to reach the planned objectives as regards: social and economic development, education, climate change, research an innovation, social inclusion and fight against poverty;

5. requests the European Commission and the European Council to respect subsidiarity principle in the policy areas relevant for regional and local authorities which are often responsible for substantial policy competences and are key actors in delivering both the current Lisbon Strategy and the future Europe 2020 strategy;

6. welcomes, in this respect, the recent reference by the European Parliament to the importance of involving the local and regional authorities in the Strategy and asks to follow the European Parliament’s proposal made to the European Commission and the European Council to ‘take into account the advice of the Committee of the Regions on the EU 2020 Strategy’;

PROPOSAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TERRITORIAL PACT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES ON EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

7. proposes to strongly support the proposal launched in the European Parliament to establish a ‘Territorial Pact of Regional and Local Authorities on Europe 2020 Strategy’ having as objective to ensure a multi-level ownership of the future strategy through an effective partnership between the European, national, regional and local public authorities, especially when it comes to the design and implementation of the Europe 2020 headline targets and flagship initiatives; the Territorial Pact should be facilitated by the Committee of the Regions which has already developed a Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform with about 120 regional and local authorities involved;

8. recommends that the main activities should be twofold:

Policy scrutiny and Implementation:

—	to constantly assess the capacity and the needs of regional and local authorities in order to be able to meet the Europe 2020's headline targets;

—	to encourage a full involvement of regional and local governments in reaching the Europe 2020's objectives, according to the competences of each Member State;

Governance and Communication:

—	to help contributing to the Europe 2020 inter-institutional partnership through a coordinated trialogue between the Committee of the Regions - as EU assembly of regional and local representatives - with, on one side, the European Institutions and on the other side with the Member States;

—	to help communicate the objectives of Europe 2020 strategy to regions and cities and facilitate an exchange of good practices between local and regional policy makers;

9. strongly encourages Member States to help their regions and cities to establish national territorial pacts, in order to set-up, jointly with their central governments, national objectives and commitments towards the Europe 2020 objectives, with full respect of the national legislative framework;

considers that the added-value of regional and local authorities to the Europe 2020 strategy's seven flagship initiatives could be the following:

10.1 Flagship Initiative: ‘Resource efficient Europe’: enhancing the effectiveness of the Covenant of Mayors to ensure that LRAs are fully involved in the conception, development, adoption and implementation of national climate change strategies and actions plans; developing a climate friendly infrastructure of regional and local public administrations; fostering green public procurement; encouraging green production and consumption by local companies; improve the governance and awareness raising on climate change;

10.2 Flagship Initiative: ‘An industrial policy for the globalisation era’: improving the legislative framework on public-private partnerships, simplifying public procurement legislation, including the use of e-procurement; reconciliation of work and family life through a better quality of public services; cutting red tape; support to Small and medium-sized enterprises: information, better access to credit and funding, training and advice to SMEs; further develop the CoR initiative ‘European Entrepreneurial Region’ to stimulate local and regional authorities to look at new ways of generating long-term economic growth through entrepreneurship;

10.3 Flagship Initiative: ‘An Agenda for new skills and jobs’: since local and regional authorities are large employers in the EU's Member States and because of the role they often play in providing education, training and measures supporting the labour market, they are key actors in delivering flexicurity policies; preparing people for integration into the labour market; improve the quality of education and training, including life long learning, and matching the supply of skills with labour market; develop the ‘Erasmus programme for local and regional civil servants and for elected representatives’ to contribute to a better knowledge of the management of public affairs;

10.4 Flagship Initiative: ‘European Platform against Poverty’: developing a territorialised social inclusion agenda to make local social services more effective and accessible to all and integrating people who are excluded from the labour market; better complementarity between EU funds addressing social inclusion and fight against poverty while using legal competences and tailored programmes to the local needs; creating a new dimension for combating poverty by recognizing the explicit needs of women in the workplace and as entrepreneurs through a new European Framework for Women's Economic Development and Enterprise; recognising the need for a focus on young people and children; establishment of regional observatories to monitor indicators and policies related to social inclusion;

10.5 Flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’: reform of the Research and Development and innovation systems; ensuring the regions contribute to achieving the 3 % targets, regional cross-border projects and the use of EGTC; enhancing cooperation between universities, regional research centres and the private sector, strengthening the use of EU programmes and structural funds; contribution to the Programming of European Research Area; participation to the 'European Innovation Partnerships’.

10.6 Flagship initiative: ‘Youth on the move’: modernising the agenda of higher education especially in terms of governance and financing; exchange of best-practice; contributing to the regional dimension of the National Action Plans; further developing the ‘European Youth Capital’ initiative; integrated action covering guidance, counselling and apprenticeships; promote learning mobility through projects financed by European Structural Funds;

10.7 Flagship Initiative: ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’: Interoperability between European central, regional and local administrations; increased use of e-government to improve supplying of public services such as education, health, social inclusion, territorial planning, etc.; enhancing literacy in ICT; developing ICT-assisted concepts to disseminate and implement the results of R&D to real life processes; step-up awareness-raising on stimulating the infrastructure upgrade;

11. Instructs its President to send this proposal to establish a ‘Territorial Pact of Local and Regional Authorities on Europe 2020 strategy’ to the European Institutions and to the Member States in order to properly ensure the role that regional and local authorities in the future Europe 2020 strategy.

Brussels, 10 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/6

85th PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 9 AND 10 JUNE 2010

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The future of the CAP after 2013 (own-initiative opinion)

(2010/C 267/03)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Context and challenges

Whilst there is debate in many quarters on the future place and role of agriculture in Europe,

1. considers that drawing up an own-initiative opinion on the broad principles and key aims of the Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2013 is in line with its role and its priorities;

2. considers it necessary, before even beginning the discussion on the budget for this policy, to outline the principles and direction that are desirable;

3. notes that the world currently faces a highly diverse and significant set of challenges: population growth, scarcity of water resources, gradual depletion of fossil fuel resources, soil degradation and threats to biodiversity, and climate change;

4. notes that the challenges faced by arable and livestock farming today (volatility of markets, falling agricultural incomes, globalisation of trade, demographic pressure and competition from emerging markets, the increasing number of health crises, viability and modernisation of the smallest farms, soil impoverishment, the switch from fossil fuels to other energy sources and other environmental, economic and social issues connected with continuing farming activity, particularly in upland and other less-favoured areas, to name but a few) are not the same as the challenges of the past;

5. considers that an overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy is essential to enable the European Union to adapt whilst helping to mitigate the current and future developments and their negative impact on Europe's people and on rural and peri-urban areas. There is a need to create smart, sustainable growth which ensures the production of safe food and the conservation of biodiversity and a rich landscape and cultural environment. This overhaul must be based on the following ten principles and broad aims;

A. An agricultural policy that must remain a common policy

6. notes that the primary purpose of European farming is to produce food for people in the Member States, taking account of the need for fair competition and environmental protection, and to ensure that it also meets the other required standards of food safety, quality and affordability;

7. points out that agriculture in the EU also brings European society a series of public benefits that are not rewarded by the market (land-use planning, landscape management, protection of the environment and natural resources, territorial cohesion, etc.) and that, in themselves, bring added value to the EU as a whole;

8. considers that the agri-food sector is of strategic importance for Europe and that a coordinated food and agriculture policy in the European Union is more necessary than ever;

9. considers that any temptation to renationalise the Common Agricultural Policy, even in part, must be resisted;

B. A Common Agricultural Policy that must ensure that Europeans have a secure, independent food supply

10. considers that the Union's food independence and security must continue to be fundamental aims of the Common Agricultural Policy;

11. stresses the importance of ensuring sufficient diversity, quality and security of production at EU level whilst taking care as far as possible to maintain optimal distribution amongst the Member States and the various regions, in line with their individual characteristics;

12. also considers that the aim of food self-sufficiency means having to look at the areas where there is currently a significant shortfall in agricultural production, particularly with regard to plant proteins;

13. believes that European agricultural production is unlikely to be able to compete with production from anywhere in the world if the only point of reference is the end cost, given the differences in production costs, legislation and development;

14. therefore considers it essential to maintain the Community preference;

15. furthermore strongly supports the European Parliament's Declaration (0088/2007) for an investigation of the impact of the concentration of supermarket power and for any subsequent proposals for appropriate resultant measures;

16. urges that uniform and essential phytosanitary, veterinary and environmental standards be applied to food products for consumption in the EU, whether EU-produced or from third countries;

C. A Common Agricultural Policy that must ensure income stability

17. notes that the sustainability of supply in Europe must be ensured;

18. considers it essential that producers should be able to make a proper living from their produce;

19. believes that maintaining jobs in farming and the agri-food sector must be a priority;

20. therefore considers it necessary to develop effective tools that make it possible to stabilise prices, and tools for managing production, thus ensuring the stability of farmers' incomes; however, great care should be taken when they are used;

21. considers that the purpose of tools for managing production is to limit excessive discrepancies between supply and demand, which in turn contribute to price collapses;

22. considers that the purpose of price stabilisation tools (withdrawal interventions, stockpiling, guarantees for unforeseen climate and health events …) is to limit the impact of market volatility;

23. takes the view that, on condition that there is an overall agreement in the WTO negotiations, export refunds and all other forms of trade-distorting export subsidies should be abolished;

24. considers that stability of farm prices over farming timescales is fundamental to keeping up the will to produce and maintaining production factors over the long-term;

25. therefore calls on the European Commission to make operational proposals as soon as possible with regard to tools for managing production and stabilising prices;

26. considers that competition rules should allow farmers, their producer organisations and inter-professional associations to manage the process of obtaining fair remuneration for their activities;

D. A Common Agricultural Policy that must benefit all farms, encourage changes in agricultural practices, and promote jobs and sustainable land use

27. notes, despite the progress made during the most recent reforms, that the Common Agricultural Policy is still characterised by major inequalities in support between types of productions and, ultimately, between farms and between regions;

28. considers that an overhauled agricultural policy must abandon any objectively unwarranted unfair treatment in the arrangements for supporting different types of production, different types and sizes of enterprise and different regions;

29. also notes that the Common Agricultural Policy has supported production methods that have insufficient regard for the environment and for natural resources, despite the depletion of fossil fuels and mineral resources, the accumulation of phytosanitary products, the pollution of watercourses, the risk of diminishing soil fertility, and the increase in health risks;

30. considers that the agricultural production systems of the future must be more sparing in their use of water and fossil fuels, use less fertiliser and phytosanitary products, be more diversified, and be wiser in making the most of synergies between arable and livestock farming;

31. believes that the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 should prioritise support for those making their living mainly from farming;

32. considers that the post-2013 Common Agricultural Policy must support these changes and help farmers to progress;

33. also notes that the Common Agricultural Policy has for a number of years been providing greater support for investment than for jobs;

34. considers that agriculture could continue to be a substantial source of jobs in the future;

35. finally, notes that CAP reform has had territorial effects that run counter to maintaining agriculture-related economic activities in the most vulnerable areas;

36. considers that the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 must rebalance its support in favour of employment and of maintaining an agricultural presence in vulnerable areas, including peri–urban territories;

37. proposes, in order to put these key aims into practice, that historical references be abandoned gradually right across Europe after 2013 in favour of a single payment per hectare which takes into account the regional context with regard to production and access costs, the types of farms, as well as the production of public goods;

38. proposes, inter alia, that single payments per hectare and other aid be, on the one hand, conditional on the actual performance of agricultural activity, and, on the other, more, and more effectively conditional on the implementation of production systems that respect the environment and conserve natural resources;

39. proposes that European public subsidies take into account employment on each farm and urges the Commission to reflect on the relevance of a ceiling on the amount of funding per farm;

E. A Common Agricultural Policy that must favour those production systems that best preserve the environment and natural resources

40. considers that preservation of the environment and natural resources is self-evidently one of the key aims of the overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013;

41. also considers that farmers should be encouraged and helped to acquire production systems that perform best in this area;

42. proposes, beyond the minimum requirements to obtain the first level of aid (single payment by hectare) that those production systems and practices that do most to preserve the environment and natural resources (organic farming, limiting inputs, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, protection of water resources, preservation of biodiversity, protecting the landscape, etc.) be encouraged and promoted through specific additional incentives (e.g. land-use plans);

43. also proposes that, in especially environmentally sensitive areas, the level of aid provided under the Common Agricultural Policy be adjusted and made heavily conditional on even tougher environmental requirements, while avoiding disproportionate red tape;

44. renews, in the light of the issues and impact on the regions, its request to be involved in the formulation at EU level of measures on coexistence between conventional and genetically modified crops;

F. A Common Agricultural Policy that must take into account natural and geographical handicaps (mountains, islands, sparsely-populated areas, outermost regions)

45. notes that upland, island and very sparsely populated areas, as well as other areas recognised as less favoured, face specific conditions of production due to permanent handicaps (gradient, altitude, climate, isolation, soil poverty) and their specific socio-economic circumstances;

46. notes that these make farming difficult (low economic returns) and yet indispensable to environmental balance (combating natural risks, protecting biodiversity, and providing open, diverse landscapes) and to the development of these rural areas;

47. also notes that, whilst the agricultural production of these regions with natural handicaps are focused towards quality, the low yields and the permanent costs require special attention and treatment;

48. proposes that such arrangements take the form of a specific additional payment to support the maintenance of agricultural production and the provision of public goods using an approach based on localism, high environmental quality and territorial, social and cultural cohesion;

49. notes that if there are many different tools and public policies, the large number of actors hinders truly joined-up action, which is essential to keeping farmers in mountain, island or Nordic regions;

50. considers that a more integrated strategy at an appropriate level (for example, mountain ranges and islands) for regions with permanent natural handicaps is necessary if the potential of these territories is to be fully realised and the added value of European intervention is to be developed, and accordingly, in the 2014-2020 programming period, calls for Article 174 TFEU to be made fully effective;

G. A Common Agricultural Policy that must focus on agriculture and food

51. considers that the Common Agricultural Policy must first and foremost focus on agriculture and food, and that it must strengthen agriculture in every region of the European Union;

52. notes that, within the second pillar, there can sometimes be confusion or competition between agricultural development measures and non-agricultural development measures; therefore considers it necessary to distinguish better between these two categories of measure; calls on the European Commission more generally to define rural development policy more precisely; also calls on the European Commission to define more precisely the relationship between rural development policy and regional and cohesion policy in order to ensure coherence of measures of the same nature carried out in the same area;

53. emphasises, in a general manner, the importance of supporting rural areas in order to contribute to the objective of territorial cohesion;

H. A Common Agricultural Policy that must bring about progress in certain implementing arrangements

54. considers that, if effective support is to be given to production systems that do most to preserve the environment and natural resources, and natural and geographical handicaps are to be taken into account, well as extra attention paid to the quality of life in rural areas and local initiatives, the tools and instruments need to be adapted at regional level;

55. considers it essential to take account both of regional specifics and regional policy priorities, as these can vary significantly from one region to another;

56. believes that changes are needed to the way the Common Agricultural Policy is implemented and managed. It is no longer good enough for these to involve only the European and national levels, as is still the case in most Member States;

57. considers that the involvement of the regional level is becoming essential, even though a European and national framework is still needed;

58. in addition, invites the European Commission to reflect on the relevance and appropriateness of the current delimitation under the first and second pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy;

59. considers that specific farm sector measures for the outermost regions, under the POSEI programmes, must be maintained and strengthened in order to reflect the specific nature of agriculture in these regions, which face special difficulties arising from additional production and marketing costs, and the lack of opportunities to diversify their farm products;

60. calls for multi-regional and supra-regional measures to be developed alongside regional measures, designed to complement the measures implemented by the regions;

61. reaffirms the subsidiarity principle in its practical meaning of administration which is as close as possible to the citizen;

62. believes that the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 should ensure simplicity in its operation for farms whilst ensuring it remains transparent and comprehensible to European citizens;

I. A Common Agricultural Policy that must update its governance arrangements

63. considers that regions and rural communities can no longer be content with their status as mere co-funders without being actively involved in the choice of certain guidelines and implementing and management arrangements;

64. therefore believes that a successful overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy requires across-the-board involvement of the regional level or the local level in certain cases;

65. considers that the regional, or in some cases local, level is now the only one that can:

—	put in place more effective, responsive governance;

—	target aid in accordance with the agricultural, environmental and territorial specifics of each region;

—	effectively redirect the Common Agricultural Policy towards production systems that respect the environment and conserve natural resources;

—	provide support for types of agricultural production (market gardening, arboriculture and viticulture) and production systems (organic farming) that have hitherto benefited too little from the Common Agricultural Policy;

—	adapt policies for helping new farmers set up to the regional, or in some cases local, context;

—	strengthen the link between farming and agribusiness;

—	support the development of short production-consumption loops for agricultural products;

—	improve coherence between the Common Agricultural Policy and regional and cohesion policy;

—	ensure more balanced, sustainable spatial planning in Europe;

66. considers that setting up a multi-level (European, national, regional) governance framework is an essential requirement for a successful overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013;

J. A Common Agricultural Policy that must have a budget that is up to the challenges and issues to be addressed

67. considers that an overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 is essential to enable the European Union to face up to the numerous challenges and issues in this area of activity, which has very significant human, social, economic, environmental and territorial consequences, as well as contribute more effectively to the priorities set out in the Europe 2020 strategy document (smart growth, sustainable growth, inclusive growth), in which the European agri-food sector should have a higher profile, in view of its strategic role for the EU in connection with these priorities;

68. believes that this overhaul, which must translate into such practical measures as priority public support for production systems that respect the environment and conserve natural resources, will need considerable efforts towards the adaptation or indeed redeployment of farmers and agricultural production in all of Europe's regions; in this connection, it remains extremely important to involve the universities very closely in ongoing agricultural developments and to step up the incorporation of the scientific contribution to framing and implementing the CAP and the related actions-measures-controls it entails. Knowledge institutions make it possible to translate the many plans for renewal of the agricultural sector into genuine and workable solutions. These must be properly tied into innovation programmes and funds;

69. considers that the European Union must equip itself with the means to make such an overhaul a success;

70. considers that, to achieve this, the Common Agricultural Policy must, for the period 2014-2020, be given a consolidated and reinforced budget that is up to the challenges and issues to be addressed;

Conclusion

71. wishes to remind the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union that the added value of the future Common Agricultural Policy will, like its contribution to achieving the priority objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, be judged on the basis of its ability to:

—	ensure Europe's food independence and security through healthy, diversified, high-quality farm production;

—	provide stable, sufficient incomes to farmers and farms so as to support the retention and creation of sustainable jobs;

—	contribute to the fight against climate change and to preserving biodiversity by rolling out eco-conditionality across the board and supporting production methods that do most to conserve the environment and natural resources;

—	promote territorial cohesion within the European Union by ensuring that farming activities and thriving rural communities continue in every region of Europe;

72. considers that only an overhauled Common Agricultural Policy based on clear guidelines with a long-term dimension and provided with the necessary financial resources can give the European Union a chance to address the major challenges it faces.

Brussels, 9 June 2010.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/12

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Enlargement Strategy and main challenges 2009-2010: potential candidate countries’

(2010/C 267/04)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General progress and timetable

1. welcomes the European Commission communication on Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010, with reports on the potential candidate countries and the communication regarding Iceland’s membership application;

2. welcomes the progress made by the potential candidate countries, with Albania and Serbia applying for membership in 2009, and the continued implementation of the Interim Agreements on Trade and Trade Related Issues and the Stabilisation and Association Agreements in all potential candidate countries, as well as headway made with reforms in Kosovo;

3. also notes that considerable work has been done by the EU to develop its relationship with the potential candidate countries. Recent efforts include cushioning the effects of the financial crisis and the proposed loosening of visa requirements. Both these initiatives demonstrate the benefits of the EU for ordinary people;

4. welcomes the abolition of visa regime for citizens of Montenegro and Serbia which enabled visa free travel to most of the EU member states and expresses hope that Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina will soon fulfil the criteria needed for visa abolition;

5. notes the Conclusions adopted by the Council on 26 October 2009 on the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and of the Declaration of the Adriatic Ionian Council on the support to the EU Strategy for the Adriatic Ionian Region, adopted in Ancona on 5 May 2010 (1) by the foreign ministers of the Adriatic & Ionian Initiative's eight participating countries (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia) and points with satisfaction to the importance of the European strategy for macro-regions as an instrument for stepping up integration, also by enhancing the value of regional and local authorities;

6. stresses that broad support for future membership is an important factor in the success of the integration process. Local and regional authorities can contribute to this, and to the so-called ‘absorption capacity’ of the EU acquis and financial support. It is therefore of utmost importance here that:

—	local and regional authorities are given the opportunity to be actively involved in the integration process at national level, which is consistent with the basic tenets of the Council of Europe's European Charter of Local Self-Government;

—	the IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance) should be framed in such a way as to enable local and regional authorities to make greater use of the investment and capacity-building programme than they do today;

—	local and regional levels of government should be involved in the integration process, given that the Copenhagen criteria require robust institutions and financing systems. This creates the prerequisites for transparent preparatory and decision-making systems;

—

the scope of IPA Council Regulation 1085/2006, Article 2.1 is to support ‘(a) strengthening of democratic institutions …’ and ‘(c) public administration reform, including a system enabling decentralisation of assistance management to the beneficiary country …’. Given this scope and current practices in potential candidate countries the Regulation should include a mandatory mechanism in the programming phase of IPA to consult representatives of local and regional government;

—	the duration of the programming of IPA at national level is far too long to be acceptable. The Committee recommends the Commission to urgently review the conditions for programming for the purpose of streamlining the procedures;

Information

7. observes that local and regional authorities are in an exceptional position to provide information and promote dialogue on the integration process with the general public, not least regarding the challenges that will result from alignment with the EU acquis;

8. emphasises how important it is for the EU to encourage participation and ready access to information at all levels of society. Access to information is crucial for new democracies in particular, as such countries are often particularly vulnerable to populist movements that are not always counterbalanced by a pluralist debate;

9. underlines the need for information provided by the EU, as well as analyses of potential candidates’ situations, to be concrete and transparent, so as to avoid the risk of misinterpretation. In such cases, governments responsible for the integration process can face difficulties in managing all the dimensions of the process. On the other hand, open debate and well-informed citizens can increase the likelihood that the one-size-fits-all approach to conflict resolution, which has cemented ethnic divisions over time, will be relaxed;

Capacity-building

10. considers that better use should be made of the IPA programme to give local and regional authorities, as well as civil society, the ability to use their skills to strengthen the integration process. The IPA can also foster institutional capacity-building at all levels of society;

11. shares the Commission's view that interregional relations are crucially important in the integration process. Local authorities have created an example for exchanges between countries at regional level in the form of NALAS (2);

12. notes that the Commission report would be much more valuable if the scope were widened to take greater account of the local and regional perspective. It is at these levels of government that substantial parts of the acquis will be implemented after accession;

13. regrets that the Commission does not also issue regular capacity assessments that focus on administrative levels of society below national level in the candidate countries;

Local and regional levels of government and civil society

14. considers civil society to be of crucial importance for establishing stable democracies, and believes that it should therefore also be represented in the integration process;

15. recommends that regulatory efforts to support vulnerable members of society be stepped up. A number of the candidate countries lag behind with respect to public health and social welfare, as well as questions of women's vulnerability and equality;

16. points out that the potential candidate countries’ ability to address the interests of minority groups is crucially important for the integration process. A consensus on practical issues can often be found precisely at local and regional level;

17. shares the Commission's view that institutional capacity must be strengthened in the potential candidate countries. When the Regional School of Public Administration starts to operate at full strength, it is of vital importance that local and regional representatives can take part in the training programmes;

Country-specific comments

Albania

18. welcomes the fact that the opposition is once again participating in parliament, albeit subject to certain restrictions. Albania still lacks the coordination between levels of society needed in the integration process;

19. notes that progress has been made in harmonising legislation in a number of spheres covered by the Community acquis, notably since the country submitted a formal application for EU membership. When formal negotiations begin, they will follow the process set out in the Lisbon Treaty, requiring an analysis of local and regional authorities and their involvement in proceedings;

20. emphasises the importance of involving local authorities in the process Albania is embarking on, i.e. the future negotiation process;

21. stresses the importance of using the Commission's capacity-development instruments (Twinning, TAIEX and SIGMA) in the current administrative reforms at all levels in Albania. This is crucial in building effective and open institutions and in stimulating efforts to curb the serious problem of corruption;

22. draws attention to the need for Albania to expedite efforts to develop a functioning real estate market, a process which will also provide opportunities for local authorities to eventually improve their tax base;

23. points out that the decentralisation process in Albania is still only in its early stages. Not all legislation adopted for implementation by local authorities is actually implemented. One important reason that legislation should be implemented is to protect the interests of minority groups;

24. notes also that in the section of the report dealing with economic and social rights, the Commission comments only on legislation, whereas the Committee suggests it should also include implementation and analysis of how failure to implement new legislation affects vulnerable population groups;

25. shares the Commission's view that progress has been made in relation to taxation, but nevertheless would point out that there are risks inherent in imbalances in the distribution of tasks and resources under the decentralisation process;

Bosnia and Herzegovina

26. notes that Bosnia's constitution, which is based on the Dayton Agreement, has helped to create a complex administrative structure. The design of the Dayton Agreement is one reason why Bosnia and Herzegovina lacks the type of governance needed to adapt to European rules. As a divided country, Bosnia needs leadership that can reconcile conflicts and initiate collective solutions. It is not in the interests of Bosnia's citizens to have leaders that see ethnicity as the guiding principle for decision-making;

27. regrets the collapse of the Butmir talks on constitutional reforms and urges the leaderships of all ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina to find an agreeable solution in order for the country to reach full sovereignty and ability to continue with reforms and European integration processes;

28. also notes that when the consequences of Bosnia's fractured leadership become apparent to the general public, there will be pressure on the decision-making system that will nevertheless lead to reform. To turn on this pressure, it must be made clear by the EU what the actual political alternatives are: continued focus on issues that reinforce divisions or a policy that opens the country to the four freedoms of the internal market;

29. has come to the conclusion regarding visas that the form and substance of the debate should change. The visa issue shows that if public opinion demands it, then national leaders also have the capacity to act. The EU, and in particular the Committee of the Regions, have a responsibility here. Bosnian citizens must be helped by their local leaders to understand what the requirements - and benefits - of integration are. Commitment and coherence must be improved, and attention focused on values and ideas that conform to the principle of respect for human beings and their rights;

30. shares the Commission's view that current institutional structures produce inefficiencies that have a negative impact on business;

31. sees ways of supporting the driving forces for reform in Bosnia, forces that want to promote both a stronger state and a decentralisation process with beefed-up local authorities. People who want to be able to travel, and who understand why there is a lack of investment or why the structural funds are still a far-off dream, may become the group that pushes the debate into areas other than the visa issue. The Committee of the Regions must support information campaigns and meetings in Bosnia with local representatives, who in their turn can encourage change;

32. observes that institutional complexity has been part of the reason that local authorities and their organisations have only limited information about the EU and IPA;

33. concludes that national government must be strengthened in several spheres, in particular by giving it responsibility for joint local government legislation;

34. urges that the IPA be opened up to local authority involvement;

Serbia

35. welcomes the Serbian parliament’s adoption of the new Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, which has been in force since 1 January 2010 and which strengthens the regional powers of Vojvodina, and notes that Serbia is making major leaps forward in the integration process. However, the decentralisation process is still somewhat disjointed and there are regrettable overlaps in remits between ministries. A reform effort is under way to develop a regional tier of government with responsibility for development and growth issues, but some confusion remains in relation to implementation. The Committee of the Regions regards capacity-building by Serbia's Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (3), with international support, as a key resource in the modernisation of local authorities;

36. notes that the integration process must be accompanied by internal reforms implemented at all levels of governance;

37. welcomes the fact that the National Council for Decentralisation of the Republic of Serbia set up in March 2009, along with a group of experts, has been instructed to draw up a comprehensive strategy for decentralisation in line with European standards. This should boost ongoing reform efforts;

38. welcomes the progress made to strengthen the formal powers of local authorities. Sound and thus predictable finances are key requirements which necessitate not only capacity-developing measures but also efforts to ensure that local authorities fully meet the Copenhagen criteria for stable public institutions. Restoring real estate to local authorities and making it possible for them to acquire property are important issues in the immediate future;

39. observes that although Serbia has a fiscal equalisation system in place, certain local authorities have difficulty maintaining a basic level of services. Reforms needed include measures to increase the financial autonomy of local authorities. This can be achieved with the help of a financing principle that ensures costs in new spheres of responsibility are offset by central government funding;

40. welcomes the initiative taken in Serbia to facilitate local authorities’ environmental measures through a tax-based environment fund. This is a good example of the type of measure than can facilitate local authorities’ alignment with the EU. A portion of this tax is allocated to local authorities as hypothecated revenue that can be used for purposes such as developing the skills needed to draw up environmental assessments;

41. has established that the IPA is largely seen as an instrument for reforming central government in Serbia, and for facilitating large infrastructure investments. It is regrettable that this bias means that only a very limited part is dedicated to urgently needed efforts, for example, to develop capacity at local level;

42. welcomes the resolution adopted by the Serbian Parliament of 31 March 2010 on the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995, condemning the massacre that occurred there. The adoption of the resolution is an important step towards reappraising Serbia's own past. The Serbian government is thus sending out a positive signal for reconciliation, for development within Serbia and for establishing even closer ties with the European Union;

Kosovo (4)

43. welcomes the stabilisation that has taken place in Kosovo. Efforts on the part of international organisations, including a large group of EU countries, have opened the way for sustainable rule of law and improved public safety. However, aspects of this stabilisation process call to mind the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and risk of ethnic division that may hamstring future integration. This may become a problem for the integration process Kosovo, where the level of education in society is low and public institutions underdeveloped;

44. stresses the importance of upholding the rule of law in Kosovo and recognises the decisive role played by the international presence there in measures taken to ensure peaceful co-existence of the country's ethnic groups;

45. welcomes the initiatives taken in local authority reforms and decentralisation efforts ongoing in Kosovo;

46. observes that current developments in Kosovo are producing a greater number of local authorities based on ethnicity, which increases the need for dialogue at local level. This trend means that local cooperative structures play a particularly important role in encouraging coordination at this level. Joint IPA projects could harmonise such efforts. It is crucially important for Kosovo's future development, in view not only of the limited public resources but also of the importance of the role of institutions in promoting social solidarity and universal primary public services, that institutions duplicated for ethnic reasons (e.g. schools and hospitals) can be avoided. Such things will stand out as symbols of political deficiencies and poor management of public funding and will above all merely deepen ethnic divisions;

47. recommends that attention be focused on Kosovo's education capacity since the country should be able to capitalise on its demographic mix. There is a considerable risk that many of the large younger population will emigrate after they complete their schooling;

48. emphasises the importance of institutional capacity development if Kosovo is to use its limited public resources effectively. This will also release resources for other improvements, e.g. in public healthcare;

49. endorses the Commission's view that there should be large-scale investment in education so as to improve application of the recently adopted public procurement law;

50. recommends that the IPA programme be used as a resource for wide-ranging capacity development in Kosovo. This will broaden understanding of integration requirements and the advantages of EU membership;

Montenegro

51. welcomes Montenegro's determination in relation to the integration process. This is reflected in the formal dialogue between government and local authority representatives, who meet several times a year;

52. shares the Commission's view that there is a pressing need for qualified staff at all levels in Montenegro's public administration. This has led the government to concentrate its resources on coordination efforts, where local authorities are well-represented. There have been positive results, both in terms of the pace of the reform process and in the country's ability to coordinate the efforts of external funders. All this has been due to the focus on local authorities in the IPA programme;

53. notes that although the reform process has been protracted, the ongoing reform of local authorities was preceded by a broad debate concerning both the role of mayors and voluntary local authority partnerships to improve preparedness for Structural Fund support;

54. welcomes the tougher legislation that has been introduced to limit corruption in local elections, and corruption generally, through stepping up external monitoring;

55. notes that the local authorities’ say in taxation rates is limited, which has implications for local self-government;

56. also notes that the three years it takes for the first IPA-funded projects to reach the implementation phase (planning to launch) is unacceptably long. Even if the preparatory phase is shorter for next year's IPA, the rules must be simplified in order to shorten the time to implementation;

Iceland

57. shares the European Commission's recommendation to open EU accession negotiations with Iceland and the inclusion of the country as a beneficiary of pre-accession financial support under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).

Brussels, 9 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) www.aii-ps.org

(2) Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe.

(3) SCTM.

(4) As defined by UNSCR 1244/99.

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/17

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Spring Package: EU action plan for achieving the Millennium Development Goals’

(2010/C 267/05)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A. General observations

1. shares the Commission's political will to maintain the EU's lead role in the fight against global poverty which it took on in 2000 with the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs (1)) by the United Nations;

2. welcomes the fact that the Commission has drawn up a Twelve-point EU action plan based on the numerous documents which make up the Spring Package, details of which are given in the appendix. The EU's aim is to establish a common position for the UN summit to be held in New York from 20 to 22 September. Despite a backdrop of severe economic, social and financial crisis, the ultimate goal is to step up the war against the misery which afflicts hundreds of millions of men, women and children and to determine practical ways of meeting the commitments of the MDGs by 2015;

3. believes that these documents, which provide a wealth of analyses and proposals, make it possible to take stock of the global situation: they contain clear and detailed information on the (fairly mixed) progress made towards achieving each of the MDGs and on the financial efforts undertaken by Member States in the form of public development aid (PDA); they attest, without concealing the delays and shortcomings, to the complexity of the initiatives taken by the EU both internally and in various international forums to put the various parties on a battle footing; they also identify new ways of speeding up the necessary progress;

4. finds it all the more regrettable that local and regional authorities (LRAs), both in the EU and recipient countries, are not mentioned explicitly (2) in the first Commission communication as being among the partners involved in the achievement of the MDGs. This omission runs counter to the 2005 Consensus for Development, which lays down the basic planks of EU development policy, the 2008 Commission communication, which explicitly recognises LRAs as development partners, and the Council conclusions on this communication adopted on 10 November 2008. It also goes against the dialogue undertaken between the Commission and the Committee of the Regions, which, since the unanimous adoption of opinion 312/2008 final by the CoR on 22 April 2009, has been the institutional representative of the LRAs;

5. believes that it is essential to remedy this shortcoming in the common EU position to be drawn up after consideration by the Council and the Parliament, and to recognise that European LRAs and their counterparts in other countries play a key role in combating poverty;

B. Remarks on different issues

6. does not wish to return in detail to the contribution which European LRAs and local governments in aid recipient countries make to achieving the MDGs in accordance with the principles of democratic governance (3). It has already drawn attention to this and put forward proposals in the opinions on the development cooperation of local authorities it has issued since 2005 (4); hence this matter can be regarded as being settled;

7. recalls that the Accra Action Plan of 2008 recognises the role of local and regional government in the new blueprint for aid;

8. it nevertheless seems appropriate, at a time when the EU is preparing to present its position on the international stage, to emphasise certain points which directly concern LRAs;

Achievement of MDGs and thematic communications

9. recalls that, of the eight MDGs (1), seven concern very specific aspects of poverty. The situation in 2010 – two-thirds of the way to the deadline – reveals a mixed picture. The results are fairly positive insofar as concerns the slight decrease in extreme poverty, mortality of children under five years of age, epidemics and access to drinking water. They are poor, even very poor, with regard to hunger and malnutrition, inequalities in education, maternal mortality, AIDs and waste water treatment. In examining the overall picture, which is also the result of crises – first the food crisis and then the economic and financial crisis – it is necessary to bear in mind the disparities which exist within individual countries and, above all, between different regions in the world: whilst, for example, the rise of China inflates some indicators, sub-Saharan Africa lags furthest behind when it comes to children's access to primary education, the fight against AIDs and access to clean water; also notes that achievement of these 7 MDGs is dependent on Goal 8 – Participate in a Global Partnership for Development – which, despite the current economic crisis, is based on a commitment of solidarity by all stakeholders to overcoming global poverty;

10. agrees with the Commission that the MDGs are interdependent. To complement and illustrate the examples provided by the Spring Package documents, mention can also be made of access to water, an area where the EU plays an active role through the Water Facility programme but which is also very prominent in cooperation measures conducted by European LRAs. If water is drinkable, this has an impact on the health of everyone, but the fact that it is accessible makes it possible to improve agriculture – and thus in principle nutrition – and to change the lives of women by lightening their workload, especially that of young girls by freeing them for education;

11. stresses that progress in achieving the MDGs requires the establishment of national systems which, in terms of planning and allocation of resources, do not overlook the provision of ‘basic’ services, i.e. services capable of effectively meeting people's fundamental needs;

12. thinks that it is important in this context to reiterate the crucial role which local and regional authorities play in the organisation and provision of such services in accordance with democratic and effective governance aimed at improving people's well-being;

13. believes, furthermore, that the local approach is essential in addressing one of the major challenges to the achievement of the MDGs, namely demographic change: without taking into account development needs at local level, for example by supporting small rural farms, emigration from the countryside will only exacerbate the misery in mega-cities that have become unmanageable or strengthen migration flows to other countries;

14. consequently, calls on the European Commission to integrate this local approach to development when finalising regional (i.e. concerning several countries) and national strategy documents with partner countries; notes, in this regard, the need to involve LRAs in the drawing up and implementation of development programmes. Responding to the challenges of globalisation presupposes taking on board LRAs, who are responsible on the ground for democratic governance and local development;

15. in addition, by taking appropriate action, LRAs can raise public awareness of the reality of global poverty in a crisis context and of the urgency of responding to development needs. By displaying solidarity and the desire to share, such action can also offer an opportunity for people of immigrant origin to rediscover their native cultures and to promote the emergence of citizens’ rights and development in their country of origin;

Financing development

Public development aid (PDA),

16. is pleased to note that the EU (Commission and Member States) is the world’s largest donor of public development aid (5): even if the PDA figure for 2010 (estimated at around 0,45 % of GDP) is below the intermediate targets set by the EU, the EU gives more than the rich countries on average (0,31 % of GDP in 2010);

17. would point out that some Member States already include, in their national PDA figures, the amounts spent by LRAs on their activities in the context of decentralised cooperation, whereas other Member States, for various reasons, do not;

18. believes therefore that there is a need to clearly identify the share of LRAs in public development aid, both at national and global level;

19. further believes that quantitative clarity would strengthen the financial involvement of LRAs in combating global poverty. Although the overall contribution of LRAs is far greater than their financial contribution, some of them have already set themselves the target of devoting 0,7 % of their resources to cooperation efforts with developing countries. Some of them have also set up funding mechanisms to respond to specific needs (for example, France in the field of access to water);

20. proposes that the possibility be considered that each of Europe's 100 000 local authorities might decide, in accordance with their national legislation, to voluntarily allocate at least one euro per inhabitant to development aid. LRAs which are not directly involved in decentralised cooperation could pay their contributions into a local authority development aid fund, as is currently done in Spain. Initiatives which contribute indirectly to development (for example, measures to raise public awareness of global poverty) could also be promoted in this context;

Tax systems in developing countries

21. shares the view of European authorities that they should work with developing countries to adopt tax bases and practices in the latter which conform with democratic governance by cracking down on tax paradises and corruption and supports the measures which developing countries plan to take to this end;

22. would draw attention to three considerations in this regard:

—	LRAs in aid recipient countries need resources in order to be able to meet the responsibilities devolved to them, without having to depend exclusively on the random PDA funding they receive through, in particular, budgetary aid;

—	local authority officials also need technical assistance of the kind which the EU is prepared to extend to national level officials;

—	LRAs have already focused attention on this key issue by including aid for the organisation and administration of local taxation as part of their decentralised cooperation in the field of institutional matters;

—	the necessity nevertheless that European financial support, when available, could be more directly oriented to the support of LRAs;

23. highlights the role played by LRAs, in tandem with civil society, in providing development education and raising public awareness of the problem of global poverty: without initiatives close to grass roots and confidence in how funds are used it would be even more difficult, at a time of crisis, to make EU citizens understand the need for financial solidarity with other continents;

Institutional mechanisms

Consistency of EU policies

24. welcomes the initiatives taken by the EU to put into practice the European Consensus on Development, according to which EU policies which do not concern development must not conflict with the efforts needed to achieve the MDGs, and recalls that the Council decided in November 2009 that efforts must focus primarily on five of the twelve policies in question, namely: trade and finance, climate change, global food security, migration and security;

25. consequently notes, among other things, that the post-2013 CAP reform will have to take into account global food security and the fact that the migration of highly qualified professionals from developing countries will be encouraged in the form of circular migration so as not to deprive these countries of the skills which are essential for their development and for the achievement of the MDGs, especially in the health field. In addition, environmental concerns will have to be taken into consideration in local and regional development;

Aid effectiveness

26. in its opinion 312/2008 final adopted in April 2009, the CoR welcomed the ‘significant progress’ in terms of aid harmonisation brought about by the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and expressed the hope that the various levels of cooperation might be coordinated through consultation in an open and transparent manner. As harmonisation presupposes data on the various activities involved, the Committee, in close cooperation with the European Commission, has set about compiling an ‘Internet atlas on decentralised cooperation’ so as to obtain a more comprehensive picture than to date of who does what, where and how among European LRAs;

27. would stress that the relations established between LRAs in Europe and their counterparts in partner countries can help put into practical effect the principles of democratic ownership and alignment with the priorities and characteristics of partner countries, which are at the heart of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Action Plan; implementation of these principles must not remain simply the preserve of relations between states;

28. notes that the measures taken by LRAs were recognised in a report on achieving the MDGs by 2015 published by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in February 2010 as part of the preparations for the September summit (6). The report stresses the importance of these measures in that they are based on synergies with each other and the involvement of the relevant stakeholders;

29. hopes fervently that, in the common EU position to be adopted by the European Council in June, political leaders do not lose sight of the fact that the aim of achieving the MDGs is to improve the everyday life of hundreds of millions of people and that ultimately it is at local level where the effectiveness of large-scale international aid mechanisms is measured;

30. therefore requests that the sub-national level be explicitly taken into account in the analyses and proposals to be presented by the EU in June and the international community in September. Europe's 100 000 local authorities can feed the streams that become great life-giving rivers. This alliance between states and local authorities offers an opportunity to bring democracy closer to the people and to promote a fair distribution of wealth with a view to defusing the powder-keg of extreme poverty and achieving the millennium goals in accordance with the political and humanist commitments made in 2010.

Brussels, 9 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) Goal 1: reduce global poverty and hunger; Goal 2: achieve universal primary education; Goal 3: promote gender equality; Goal 4: reduce child mortality; Goal 5: improve maternal health; Goal 6: combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases; Goal 7: ensure environmental sustainability; Goal 8: participate in a Global Partnership for Development.

(2) Except in the document on tax, which, paradoxically, is not addressed to the CoR.

(3) The United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) document UCLG Position Paper on Aid Effectiveness and Local Government of December 2009 presents numerous examples.

(4) Opinion CdR 224/2005 fin, opinion CdR 383/2006 fin, opinion CdR 144/2008 fin, and opinion CdR 312/2008 adopted in April 2009.

(5) The annex to document SEC(2010) 420 final shows the public development aid of each of the 27 Member States together with projections to 2015.

(6) UN document A/64/665.

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/22

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The interconnection of business registers’

(2010/C 267/06)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Background

1. welcomes the European Commission's initiative on the Green Paper on The interconnection of business registers;

2. is pleased that the European Commission has called on all parties with an interest in the Green Paper to state their views on the subject;

3. draws attention to the decisive role of the Committee of the Regions, which as representative of the interests of the local and regional authorities has put forward options and alternative proposals in its previous opinions with a view to promoting the smooth operation of the internal market, increasing transparency, facilitating the exchange of information and lightening the burden of administration at both local and regional level;

4. shares the European Commission's view that business registers (1) play an essential role in this regard; they register, examine and store company information, such as information on a company's legal form, its seat, capital and legal representatives, and they make this information available to the public;

5. agrees with the European Commission that cross-border cooperation of business registers is required explicitly by the Directive on cross-border mergers (2) and by the Statutes for a European Company (SE) (3) and a European Cooperative Society (SCE) (4);

6. considers that, although minimum standards for the main services are laid down by European legislation, business registers may offer additional services which differ from country to country. At the same time companies are increasingly active across national borders and thus have the opportunity to register in one Member State and pursue their business activities wholly or partly in another Member State. All of this has led to increased demand for public, cross-border access to company information;

7. points out that information about a company is available in the country in which it is registered, but that access to this information in another Member State can often be difficult as a result of technical, legal, linguistic and other barriers;

8. believes that the existing voluntary cooperation between business registers is nonetheless not sufficient in itself and that more effective cross-border cooperation between these registers needs to be ensured. In the context of this cooperation it is particularly important to ensure transnational access to information stored in the business registers, as well as the transparency, legal certainty and reliability of this information;

9. points out that the current financial crisis has again made clear how important transparent financial markets are. In the context of the financial reconstruction measures, improved access to up-to-date, official and reliable information on companies can be seen as a way of restoring confidence in the markets throughout Europe;

Key messages

10. recognises the vital significance of business registers to ensure the efficient functioning of the single market by providing reliable and up-to-date information for commercial purposes or to facilitate access to justice for all parties in all Member States;

11. acknowledges that increased company mobility is vital for economic growth and therefore recommends the implementation of a fully integrated system, providing equal access to information throughout the European Union;

12. notes that access to information on cross-border mergers, seat transfers or establishment of branches in other Member States is a day-to-day necessity for the smooth functioning of the single market;

13. appreciates the efforts of the Member States involved in the voluntary scheme to create an efficient platform for exchange, but nevertheless calls on the European Commission to propose a legal framework for European cooperation between business registers in order to replace the existing voluntary system with a fully integrated ICT-based register;

14. recalls the important role played by SMEs in the European economy and urges the Member States to adopt the Statute for a European Private Company (SPE), which, combined with an efficient system for interconnecting business registers, would facilitate the expansion of small and medium-sized enterprises in the single market;

15. calls for the setting-up of a virtual network of European business registers based on ambitious IT solutions;

16. advocates a review of relevant company-related directives in order to adapt their provisions to currently available technology, in particular the use of IT systems;

17. shares the view that it would at all events be helpful, when interconnecting business registers, to make extensive use of the work already done in connection with the European Business Register (EBR) and the BRITE project. With regard to the part which regulates the procedural cooperation between the network's business registers (mergers, transfer of the registered office, branches etc), shares the European Commission's view that the system can most easily be established on the basis of the current BRITE project;

Proposals

18. points out that over the last 10 years ECJ case law (especially Centros (C-212/97), Überseering (C-208/00) and Inspire Art (C-167/01)) has made it possible for companies to operate across borders and to move their registered offices;

19. stresses that in practice this right often cannot be invoked. The reason for this lies less in the lack of interconnection between business registers, however, and more in the fact that company law and rules on business registers in the Member States do not promote the transfer of a company's registered office abroad or other cross-border activities, and that European legislation does not specifically call for such provisions;

20. considers that this problem will not be solved simply by interconnecting business registers. A solution would require provisions of substantive and procedural law on the transfer of the registered office of companies, which would need to regulate, among other things, cooperation between business registers;

21. is convinced that one of the major barriers to the development of true competition between states and regions is the fact that moving a company's registered office in the EU is effectively impossible. Competition would mean that entrepreneurs would be attracted by the best business environment - and yet the transfer of the registered office is at present extremely complicated;

22. acknowledges that interconnecting business registers would make it easier for companies to obtain information on their partners in connection with their business activities, and this is certainly welcome. A system of interconnected business registers would give rise to a common database with standardised entries, which would make it possible to achieve this objective if the accuracy of the register information can be guaranteed. Furthermore, efforts should be made to standardise the content of the register;

23. considers that the regulatory agreement proposed in the Green Paper is not a suitable tool for networking. If it is to be possible to consult standardised data in a standardised form in each national business register, the future system will, for example, have to be regulated by revising the company law publicity directive or in some other way;

24. adds that efforts should, rather, be focused on making both the cross-border information which the new system would provide and information on domestic business registers available to everyone on the Internet, if possible free of charge or for a modest fee. The costs associated with this are already covered by fees levied by states for the collection of the relevant information - governments should not be in the business of trading in public information. Otherwise, under the cover of the future directive, competition would be initiated with existing companies offering consultancy services;

25. shares the view that it would make sense to interconnect the data obtained by implementation of the transparency directive with the new network of company registers. Thought should therefore be given to establishing an appropriate body of rules, either by means of a directive or possibly even a regulation;

26. points out that the lack of an interconnected business register has not hitherto constituted a major obstacle to cross-border company law processes. Intelligent electronic solutions (such as those used between Estonia, Portugal and Finland) even today permit very comprehensive cooperation, so that company registers abroad can be consulted electronically without the need to travel abroad;

27. stresses that obstacles to cross-border company law processes can, rather, be attributed to the lack of a pan-European system of electronic identification, for example a European electronic identity card, which would make it possible to allow the use of a legally binding digital signature and for this to be mutually recognised. This would be one of the main areas which would need to be rapidly tackled as part of the process of interconnecting business registers;

28. in conclusion, points out that all initiatives must comply with the subsidiarity principle and the principles of proportionality and better lawmaking.

Brussels, 9 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) The term ‘business register’ used in the Green Paper comprises all the central, commercial and companies registers within the meaning of Article 3 of the First Company Law Directive (68/151/EEC).

(2) Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ L 310, 25.11.2005, p. 1).

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

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statue for a European Cooperative Society (SCE) (OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 1).

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/25

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The role of urban regeneration in the future of urban development in Europe’

(2010/C 267/07)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Contribution of cities to development and transition from urban renovation to urban regeneration

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. believes that cities and city regions (as the conurbations of cities and their neighbouring municipalities) are crucibles of imagination and creativity and have within them both the opportunities for addressing the economic and financial problems facing the European Union and also the means to combat social exclusion, crime and poverty. However, the CoR believes that these must be recognised within Structural programmes to enable change and regeneration to take place;

2. recognises that the contribution of cities and urban centres (1) to sustainable development of and between all levels of governance is becoming increasingly important. Cities are centres for culture, business, education, research and development, knowledge-intensive services and the financial sector, they are crossing points for the regional and international movement of goods and people and make a substantial contribution to integrating groups of people of different origins;

3. notes that some urban areas have been blighted by of environmental, economic and social problems, but also notes many examples of successful urban regeneration in Europe, funded with assistance of the EU;

4. underlines the fact that in many cases the concentration of the population in cities, which is to be attributed to illegal building and internal migration, happened so quickly that local authorities were unable to plan and cope. Social problems intensified and population groups were marginalised, so that their considerable employment and social skills were underutilised. In the developed world, run-down neighbourhoods have become an integral part of the urban fabric and are factors in social exclusion and increasing insecurity;

5. notes that, changes in economic structures, relocation of production activities and the introduction of new technologies, particularly in the goods transport sector (e.g. unitisation), have rapidly degraded infrastructure and land, (ports, railway stations), with far-reaching effects on the way neighbourhoods and whole cities are able to function socially and economically, confronting them with entirely new challenges;

6. stresses that urban renewal policies should form the basis for an appropriate model, with a broad base of activities covering forms of intervention ranging from regeneration of urban spaces to rehabilitation of existing housing stock. The new model of the sustainable city should rely on an innovative integrated approach to urban renewal that, in line with the Leipzig Charter, addresses environmental, social and economic issues, a model that does not advocate unlimited growth or building on greenfield sites, but focuses instead on controlling growth, preventing urban sprawl, revitalising the existing urban housing stock and social fabric, improving urban eco-efficiency, upgrading industrial zones and promoting more sustainable forms of transport, land-use planning at various levels (regional, county, local) and mixed use development as key points of reference;

7. notes that at the end of the 20th century there was an urgent need for measures to improve cities on a more targeted, cross-sectoral basis. The complexity of the issues called for a multi-faceted approach, which in turn created the need to frame urban regeneration programmes, whose goals, methods and tools were to a large extent integrated within a context of the wider geographical realities and economies of scale. The Committee believes that distressed urban areas must not and cannot be abandoned, as they are a source of untapped talent and represent a waste of resources in terms of human and physical capital that lies idle when it could be put to productive use and contribute to overall economic growth;

Role of local and regional authorities in urban development and relevance of the CoR

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

8. stresses that local and regional authorities should play a decisive and primary role in designing, implementing, monitoring, supporting and evaluating integrated urban regeneration strategies and in improving the urban environment in general. The diversity of European towns and cities calls for locally developed solutions and essentially for action at local level. Through numerous EU programmes and initiatives a great wealth of knowledge on urban development has been built up at European level and in individual cities. The Committee believes that local authorities should be encouraged to make use of all the knowledge accumulated at European level and in particular the ‘urban acquis’;

9. sees abundant opportunities for urban regeneration and believes that urban regeneration strategies must address the multiplicity of factors that are at the origin of the challenges faced by some urban areas. The Economic downturn in recent years may have had a proportionally greater impact on certain urban areas that due to their socioeconomic structure are slower to adapt than other areas of cities. Urban regeneration programmes should seek innovative ways of turning the agglomeration effects of central urban areas to the advantage of local populations;

10. believes that cities, working closely with their surrounding areas, bring major benefits to both people and businesses, not only as economic powerhouses and centres of trade and commerce, but in promoting individual freedoms, and as centres of creativity, research and excellence. On the other hand, cities face problems due to factors such as lifestyle and demographic changes, and even more commonly inappropriate urban development models. Urban regeneration and sustainability are currently at the forefront of the agenda for numerous local and regional authorities in the EU that are seeking to achieve sustainable growth as well as a modern infrastructure (with an emphasis on technological infrastructure), high levels of business attractiveness and a clean and healthy environment;

11. believes that many models of best practice already exist but are not sufficiently disseminated or implemented. The CoR therefore reiterates its call for a virtual network to disseminate good practice among Europe's cities and regions. The CoR has been closely associated with initiatives like the Covenant of Mayors and the European Green Capital Award, and has participated in the follow-up activities relating to the EU Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities in the framework of the Urban Development Group (UDG) of EU Member States. The Committee of the Regions has also recently adopted opinions on related issues, such as how cities and regions can contribute to achieving the European climate change and energy goals, the actions needed to promote energy efficiency and the EU Action Plan on Urban Mobility;

EU action in developing Europe's cities

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

12. believes that although there is no explicit provision for urban policy in the EU treaties, there has been considerable progress since 1990 in the area of urban development, in terms both of programmes and of know-how regarding action in cities. Throughout this period, cities have operated as open laboratories, with remarkable results, despite the limited funding available;

13. stresses that the EU can play a crucial role in supporting urban regeneration strategies. Drawing on the ‘urban acquis’, the Commission should be encouraged to increase its efforts to make all existing knowledge and supporting actions on urban development available at local level in a coherent and structured way. This should include all EU policies that have a direct impact on urban development, in particular cohesion, employment, environment, broadband, transport and social policy;

14. welcomes the recently updated guide to the urban dimension in European Union policies for the period 2007-2013, published by the Interservice Group on Urban Development of the European Commission, and invites the Commission to explore the idea of updating and formalising a European Urban Agenda attached to a new framework for action or action plan for urban development that includes integrated urban regeneration among its top priorities whilst at the same time respecting the diverse contexts in which they would need to be applied;

15. supports all existing initiatives contributing to sustainable urban development, and in particular to integrated urban regeneration, in the context of cohesion policy, namely the urban strand of the Structural Funds, the Urban Audit, the Urban Atlas, the URBACT programme and the JESSICA initiative. Nevertheless, the Committee invites the Commission to closely analyse the mainstreaming of the URBAN Community Initiative in the ERDF Operational Programmes and to produce a specific mid-term evaluation of the results. In the light of this evaluation, it could be deemed necessary to reinforce the specific character of urban regeneration initiatives within the Structural Funds during the next programming period and also to improve its coordination with other policies within a European Urban Agenda;

16. welcomes the new approach to financing urban regeneration initiatives represented by JESSICA, especially since it establishes a clear link between funding and the need to develop integrated urban development plans, but would emphasise that grants are also a useful and necessary instrument for addressing market failures in the context of urban development. The Committee also expresses its concern regarding the visibility of JESSICA, the level of awareness among local and regional authorities, and perceived problems of implementation at Member State level;

17. believes that changes introduced to the Structural Funds regulation regarding the eligibility of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in housing should be strongly supported. Nevertheless, support for housing, as established in the latest amendment to the ERDF regulation relating to the eligibility of housing initiatives in marginalised communities, should be more widely publicised, and must be placed firmly within the framework of an integrated urban development programme. The Committee therefore suggests that support for housing in seriously deprived areas should also be given via the Structural Funds. Good-quality housing is an essential precondition for the success of urban regeneration programmes. Financial support should only be provided in the framework of integrated programmes and under strict conditions to ensure that it benefits the local population in need and does not contribute to gentrification;

Sustainable urban regeneration

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

18. observes that the EU's cities are invited to work with the Union in efforts to overcome the economic and financial crisis, while also contributing towards deeper European integration. The three dimensions identified by the Spanish presidency as the basis for developing the debate on the role of urban regeneration in urban development are the pillars of sustainable development. The implementation of urban regeneration programmes should be fleshed out with thematic priorities where necessary, in order to set the issue in the current socio-economic context. More specifically, the Committee considers that the main items on the agenda should be issues such as urban governance and the role of local and regional authorities, funding of urban regeneration, the contribution of ICT to urban regeneration, the importance of local authority systems and procedures in the planning and implementation of urban regeneration programmes, the role of innovation in urban regeneration, and the contribution of urban regeneration to the development of external links and the internationalisation of cities. Therefore, it is clear that local and regional authorities have a vital role to play when it comes to working on urban regeneration, from land-use to urban planning and implementation, stressing the importance of regeneration over new urban development and the improvement of existing areas of cities over urban expansion;

The economic dimension of urban regeneration – contribution to smart growth

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

19. stresses that economic change in recent years, especially with the internationalisation of the economy, can affect proportionally more old or inner-city urban areas, which are slower to adapt than other areas of cities owing to their socio-economic structure. In this regard, cohesion policy measures are based on the idea that spatially unbalanced growth not only damages social cohesion but also constrains economic growth. This is even truer at local level and has recently been highlighted again, for instance in the Barca report;

20. underlines the need to stimulate innovative economic activities by providing appropriate environments and incentives, state-of-the-art infrastructure and fully-trained human capital;

21. considers that preserving both the material and immaterial cultural heritage by regenerating city centres with maximum respect for the historical and architectural heritage, adds value to the image, prestige and attractiveness of cities and promotes cultural diversity, which plays a major economic role in the development of a knowledge-based economy and industrial growth, while promoting local development by supporting specialised, often highly skilled local employment;

22. points out that urban regeneration projects themselves, in terms of procedures and also results, should produce, incorporate and disseminate knowledge and innovation;

23. underlines that urban regeneration strategies must address the multiplicity of factors that are at the origin of the economic decay of some urban areas. The functional obsolescence of buildings, outdated infrastructure and accessibility problems are some of the most relevant. Many firms leave the city in search of lower operating costs and additional space, and many employees have followed their firms in search of a better quality of life (social services and transport) or a lower cost of living (lower rents and more favourable property prices). In order to meet the demands of firms willing to establish themselves in regenerated areas, urban regeneration programmes should seek innovative ways of using the available space and improve the delivery of services by cities, turning the agglomeration effects of central urban areas to their advantage;

24. notes that urban mobility problems, mainly congestion, plague many urban areas in Europe and that the solution cannot be reached just by building better infrastructure or pouring more money into public transport companies. Urban mobility increases the possibilities on offer to residents and businesses, and as such is both a factor promoting economic competitiveness and a driver of social cohesion. Efficient and affordable public transport should be available to all citizens, as it plays a key role in breaking the isolation of deprived areas. Given the grave environmental strain placed on urban areas, measures to promote environmentally friendly urban transport (research and demonstration projects for low- and zero-emission vehicles and moves to foster modal shift, including, for instance, car-sharing and the encouragement of inner-city bicycle use) are increasingly important. The Committee also re-states its support for development of sustainable urban mobility plans for, at least, the larger cities; it advocates the introduction of incentive measures at an EU level whereby European funding of urban transport projects would be contingent upon the existence of such plans and the adoption of public-private partnership mobility agreements;

25. stresses the need to take action to strengthen local entrepreneurship, by offering incentives to specific population groups, setting up business support agencies and organising appropriate events, recognises in this context the important role that can be played in helping the economy through smart growth by supporting women entrepreneurs;

The environmental dimension of urban regeneration – contribution to sustainable growth

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

26. notes that within the environmental dimension of urban regeneration high priority must be given to three major issues: climate change, combating the pollution of natural resources caused by human activities and generally using those resources more efficiently, and protection of habitats;

27. is convinced that even though Europe is already highly urbanised, the trend towards the expansion of urban areas is expected to continue in some zones, particularly in the most dynamic large and medium-sized agglomerations. As cities expand they could potentially destroy some resources and cause soil and water quality to deteriorate. Integrated urban regeneration programmes have the potential to stop or even reverse this trend by containing urban growth and regenerating the urban environment;

28. stresses that on the other hand, climate change and sea level rise due to human emissions of greenhouse gases are expected to accelerate during this century, posing a growing challenge for coastal urban areas, in particular, which will bear heavy costs, since massive resources are needed, inter alia, for coastal and flood defence measures. This also highlights the importance of the work of the Urban Development Group on a reference framework for sustainable European cities, which as well as more traditional environmental concerns in urban areas intends to address the climate change dimension and the problems posed by mitigation of and adaptation to its effects;

29. gives high priority to combating the pollution of natural resources caused by human activities, which is a key concern in urban regeneration, placing particular emphasis on actions that support pollution prevention. The Committee equally stresses the importance of taking care to gauge and limit the use of materials that harm the natural environment, by looking at their entire life-cycle (production, use, disposal);

30. underlines that retrofitting existing buildings with a view to improving energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways of meeting the Kyoto commitments on climate change; it is estimated that CO2 emissions from buildings and energy-related costs can be cut back by 42 %;

31. notes that cities are responsible for 70 % of greenhouse gas emissions and that the Leipzig Charter calls for cities to reduce their carbon footprints, conserve their resources and biodiversity, economise on energy and promote access to key public services. There is therefore a need for immediate measures to limit cities’ energy consumption, firstly by managing energy properly, and secondly by using renewable energy sources. Complementary measures should be taken to boost energy performance in the construction sector;

32. welcomes the Covenant of Mayors, involving almost 3 000 European cities pledging to exceed the three ‘20 % targets’, an EU minimum legal requirement to be met by 2020. This initiative, as well as the European Green Capital award, was launched by the European Commission and has been endorsed and supported by the Committee of the Regions, which is also seeking to expand the Covenant to include the regional level;

33. acknowledges the important role of green areas and water bodies in urban regeneration programmes. Green areas and water bodies make an essential contribution to improving the climate of towns as they have a ‘cooling’ effect on the city, provide fresh air, filter pollution and reduce noise. Green recreation areas also contribute to urban liveability, thereby enhancing social cohesion. Greener cities are a target that everybody should focus on;

34. notes the increased scarcity of water resources globally and calls for urban regeneration programmes to address water conservation, particularly conservation of drinking water, effective management of water resources and alternative methods of capturing water. The water footprint of cities must be reduced;

35. considers the aesthetic quality of the built environment to be a crucial factor in cities’ ability to compete internationally, their attractiveness and the quality of life of their inhabitants, and recommends that measures taken should include architectural and artistic activities;

36. recognises the value of the habitats surrounding or close to cities and sets great store by their protection and management, as an important gauge of urban regeneration, in connection with measures to raise environmental awareness and provide information to the general public;

37. notes the strong links between cities and their surrounding regions, especially dynamic peri-urban areas, and the need for those links to be managed;

Social aspects of urban regeneration – contribution to inclusive growth

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

38. believes that in many cities socio-demographic change has provoked a movement of people from their dwellings in older urban areas to new and more peripheral housing estates, urban areas on the fringes of cities or simply new towns close to big agglomerations. The reasons include the availability of cheaper and more attractive housing, better quality of life and a wider range of services. In recent decades, people with above-average incomes have deserted the city and they are only slowly coming back thanks to the success of some urban regeneration programmes. The Committee therefore stresses that in those areas affected by urban decay, the city should once more be made an attractive place to live, capable of fulfilling everybody's aspirations irrespective of their income levels;

39. stresses that housing has traditionally been, and remains today, a key concern for urban regeneration, one of the main objectives of which is to secure better living conditions for the most disadvantaged;

40. considers aggravation of social inequality to be a major challenge in most urban areas. Inequalities between neighbourhoods are the outcome of socio-spatial ghettoisation, which is sometimes due to inappropriate housing policies, and of service provision that is restricted to wealthy areas and does not reach deprived suburbs. In this regard, the new territorial cohesion objective added in the Lisbon Treaty should spur all levels of government to take these disparities into account in all urban sectoral policies, within the framework of integrated urban regeneration strategies. The Committee therefore stresses that a sustainable city must be based on urban solidarity, where exclusion and discrimination are actively combated by strengthening social cohesion between neighbourhoods, socio-occupational categories genders and people of different backgrounds. Urban solidarity must be a reflection of our ambition to build an inclusive and more cohesive European society;

41. believes that a special effort should be made to integrate migrants effectively into city life, this being the way to resolve related problems;

Partnership for urban regeneration

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

42. underlines that urban regeneration programmes must always involve the public, private and non-profit sectors and put local communities at the heart of those partnerships. Although urban regeneration is always an ongoing and never-ending process, it is impossible to apply ‘one size fits all’ solutions; the broad involvement of stakeholders will help with learning from others’ successes and avoiding repeated mistakes. Local and regional authorities play a key role here in bringing together different economic and social actors and in developing targeted actions. Land-use and urban planning documents can serve as platforms via which all administrations can bring together and concert policies;

Thematic priorities

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

43. considers that the transition from urban renovation, where the focus is on the physical and human environment, to urban regeneration programmes should take place during the next planning period by broadening the scope of intervention to include a series of thematic priorities, with a view to ensuring that the European cities of the future can meet their citizens’ expectations, providing infrastructure and environments that utilise workers’ skills and employment opportunities, that they are viable and attractive environments for living, working and leisure, and that they offer optimum opportunities for all without exception, using natural resources as sparingly as possible, since they will be operating in a competitive low-carbon economy;

Governance of urban regeneration strategies

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

44. emphasises that urban regeneration must be seen as a continuous and integrated process based on a long-term vision for sustainable urban development. Good governance of urban regeneration programmes must start from the analysis phase. Robust data on the economy, social features and environment of the affected areas must be gathered from reliable sources using well-designed and comparable indicators. In this context, the work of the European Commission's Urban Audit and the ongoing work on the reference framework for sustainable European cities are especially relevant;

45. points out that new ways of organising urban policy are needed whereby urban regeneration policies are designed at local and regional level with support from the national and the European level, and believes that local authorities must take the lead in developing policies on cohesion, integration and cooperation and thus safeguarding natural resources and eco-efficient development of their areas, as well as fostering and enhancing dialogue among many forms of cultural diversity. In order to maximise the efficiency of public policy, many local and regional authorities have already developed new forms of urban governance that bring urban regeneration programmes closer to the ground. Integrated urban policies involve partners other than public authorities and often involve the population of the affected areas through various participatory systems that in some countries have taken the form of contracts or covenants. The Committee believes that the purpose of greater public involvement and the role given to urban communities is to allow the emergence of the social capital needed for the success of urban development policies;

46. believes that urban regeneration programmes should ensure optimum use of all media (print and electronic) that help to raise awareness, and provide information and publicity, as well as mechanisms for involving the general public (local referenda, public meetings, on-line democracy, etc.). Urban regeneration programmes should become part of the learning process of EU urban development and contribute to raising public awareness of urban issues and the opportunities that are arising;

47. recognises that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, urban regeneration and development issues are more efficiently dealt with at local level; believes, however, that EU support can provide a clear benefit in the field of urban development, where a need is demonstrated for the EU to facilitate solutions to urban problems affecting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU. The Committee therefore considers that urban regeneration and development policies should build upon the ‘European urban acquis’ which consists of existing legal instruments, policy initiatives, as well as mechanisms for the exchange of experience and best practice between cities. It notes that policies developed in this area should also respect the proportionality principle and be cognisant of the wider territorial framework;

48. points out that EU funding can be especially useful when encouraging local authorities to cooperate across a functional urban region. It means that joint financial responsibility can be assumed across the whole region for population groups and city districts threatened by exclusion. EU funding instruments should be made available to functional urban regions on condition that local authorities are required to cooperate effectively in allocating their own resources;

Funding urban regeneration

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

49. points out that the purpose of planning development is to meet certain needs rather than to shape the future. The financial resources for funding urban regeneration programmes must be central to the discussion, as a factor that will contribute to the viability of programmes and their effectiveness. Issues to be addressed include the mix of central and local funding, whether programmes should be funded on a systematic or case-by-case basis, the mix of public funding and private capital, local taxation, loans, evaluation of the benefits of renovation and sharing of costs between users and beneficiaries, sources of funding, and the strategic value and significance of public subsidies. Particular attention will have to be paid to the mechanisms used to fund and implement urban regeneration programmes. While instruments such as the Urban Development Funds (UDFs) or the three Js (JESSICA, JEREMIE and JASPERS) are expected to help here, it is too early to draw conclusions about their specificity and effectiveness;

50. considers that the contribution of voluntary work to urban regeneration programmes has yet to be properly assessed. Finally, with a view to future action, developing and reinforcing the concept of entrepreneurship, both at local authority level and within urban regeneration programmes, should be a discrete area for research;

Contribution of ICT to urban regeneration

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

51. believes there is a shared view that the communications and information revolution has had major implications for the organisation, functioning and form of European cities. It is particularly important to ensure that urban regeneration programmes include measures designed to develop technical information and communications infrastructure to high specifications and to develop applications and content that improve people's lives and the functioning of public services, enhance public sector service provision and encourage use of these applications;

52. believes that the burgeoning opportunities are inevitably matched by dangers: the protection and security of applications and transactions, the protection of personal data, and respect for citizens’ privacy and personal integrity are critical issues that require more work. At the same time, use of ICT in the sphere of urban safety raises major issues about the way democracy functions. The urban regeneration agenda must include this emerging debate and find solutions for the problems it raises;

53. notes that by means of wired and wireless infrastructure the more advanced ICT applications even create virtual environments (ambient city, digital city, ubiquitous city), places where citizens interact and do business. The digital city is a parallel world to which the urban regeneration agenda should give consideration;

Innovation and learning in urban regeneration

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

54. believes that support for innovation will bring improved results and contribute to the economic sustainability of cities, and that urban regeneration programmes should therefore provide environments, infrastructure and incentives that encourage innovation;

55. similarly, the Committee considers that setting up training facilities among a city's economic actors should be a strategic priority of urban regeneration;

56. also believes that urban regeneration should strengthen the links between education, business and research and innovation, and promote new innovative businesses;

Importance of local authority systems and procedures in the planning and implementation of urban regeneration programmes

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

57. considers that identifying the need to implement an urban regeneration programme, its planning, monitoring of its implementation, any revisions and the final evaluation presuppose the existence of an authority with minimum management and administrative capacity. That capacity is not provided by all local and regional authorities. Where this is the case, it is absolutely essential for urban regeneration programmes to include capacity-building measures for local authorities. Examples include the development of management information systems (MIS) and geographical information systems (GIS) that facilitate operations and improve decision-making procedures, as well as the introduction of certification procedures (ISO, EMAS, etc.), which improve public service provision. Measures that ensure a citizen-centred approach to planning local authority operations should be at the heart of urban regeneration planning. Improving local and regional authority procedures not only presents a challenge but is also a precondition for the implementation of urban regeneration programmes, and must therefore be addressed in the context of urban regeneration;

Contribution of urban regeneration to the development of external relations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

58. notes that promotion of cities (city marketing) and highlighting their identity (city branding) are part and parcel of the work of local and regional authorities. In an increasingly globalised world, competition between cities for capital, investment and skilled labour is intensifying. Cities set out their development plans so as to be able to claim funding and resources with which to secure prosperity for their citizens. Competition for the organisation of major sporting, commercial and cultural events (‘big events’) is only one, though the most obvious, example of rivalry between cities;

59. on the other hand, observes that cooperation between cities is developing in parallel with competition. Networking, whether thematic or geographical, has expanded hugely, particularly in the EU thanks to targeted Community measures (URBACT, INTERACT, town twinning, etc.). Exchange of best practice has proved an especially useful tool. Actions that contribute to the internationalisation of European cities should be another discrete sphere for initiatives relating to urban regeneration;

II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

60. considers that when making strategic choices for the forthcoming programming period (2014-2020) the EU should recognise the strategic importance of urban regeneration and ensure that the urban dimension is given more priority in all its policies, with a view to making cities laboratories again, this time with a much fuller agenda, to help the EU out of the economic and financial crisis;

61. proposes that an initiative be launched called ‘Urban regeneration for smart, sustainable and inclusive EU cities’. The EU's cities can become the location of choice for implementing the seven flagship initiatives set out in the European Commission's communication ‘A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (2);

62. considers that now is the time to take such a decision. The debate on the budget for the next programming period, and adjustment of the budget of the current programming period, must explicitly include the issue of funding for urban regeneration.

Brussels, 9 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) City regions (as the conurbations of cities and their neighbouring municipalities) need to be considered throughout this opinion.

(2) COM(2010) 2020 final.

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/33

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘EU and international biodiversity policy beyond 2010’

(2010/C 267/08)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A. General observations

1. believes that protection of biodiversity is essential to human health and wellbeing, both directly and indirectly through the services provided by the ecosystem. Everyone has the right to a healthy and sustainable environment, which requires the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, respecting the central role of biodiversity in the global fight against hunger and for food security. The Committee expresses its concern about the serious consequences for current and future generations due to the increasing loss of biodiversity within its ecosystems, both for ethical reasons and in recognition of the intrinsic value of biodiversity, as well as with a view to ensuring economic and social stability, mitigating climate change and achieving the Millennium Development Goals;

2. supports, in addition to highlighting the intrinsic value of nature as the heritage of mankind, to advance work on the economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services and incorporating it into policy making. It welcomes that thanks to the international study on ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB), the economic value of biodiversity and the fact that inaction represents an unbearable financial cost, are becoming increasingly better understood. The CoR welcomes that the local and regional dimension will be specifically addressed in the TEEB ‘D 2 Report for Administrators’;

3. points out the 2010 EU and international targets have been essential in generating useful actions in favour of biodiversity at local and regional levels, worldwide. There are many examples of good practice across the European Union. However the Committee is seriously concerned that neither the EU nor global biodiversity targets for 2010 have been achieved due to a clear gap between the promises made and the action actually taken;

4. considers that in order to meet the biodiversity protection targets, it is essential for public powers including local and regional authorities to strike a good balance between development policies and biodiversity objectives and to encourage the use of incentives to promote biodiversity conservation;

Involving local and regional authorities in better governance and communication

5. highlights the role of local and regional authorities in halting the loss of biodiversity and putting into place strategies to safeguard biodiversity in their respective regional and local authorities. This has to be considered against the background of recent findings from a Eurobarometer survey released in March 2010 on the attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity according to which only 38 % of Europeans are aware of the significance of the term and only 17 % feel directly affected by biodiversity loss. To this end the CoR reaffirms its willingness to promote biodiversity conservation projects and to contribute towards generating the interest of citizens at local and regional level and creating synergies between stake holders and public authorities and in this respect, would organise events during the OPEN DAYS 2010;

6. stresses that, if biodiversity is to be preserved worldwide, regional and local authorities should be equipped with adequate human, financial and technical means, commensurate to their responsibility and to the task of helping to stem biodiversity loss. Regional and local authorities are best placed to support local communities in the conservation of their local environment and support voluntary bodies involved in inspiring and engaging the public in conserving the natural environment. Other relevant responsibilities include education, health and wellbeing, land-use planning, and land ownership. The CoR encourages local and regional authorities to lead by example;

7. believes the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity 2010 will reinforce the political commitment at EU and international level to address the global biodiversity crisis whilst encouraging active participation of local and regional authorities;

8. welcomes the projects that many regional and local authorities have initiated to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, for example projects aimed at the establishment of protected natural areas and at the restoration of degraded habitats, and conservation of wetlands and other ecosystems, the establishment of green belts and urban planning using biodiversity conservation criteria, and to raise awareness of their citizens on biodiversity such as competitions for the best gardens and green spaces in urban areas. Residential gardens provide a vital refuge for birds and animals and are essential for cooling and filtering air and for storing carbon;

B. Towards an EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy

9. welcomes the 2050 vision and new and ambitious target for 2020 of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’ as it has been agreed by the Environment Council on 15 March 2010 and endorsed by the European Council on 25/26 March 2010. This bears witness to the EU renewed commitment to deliver tangible results;

10. expresses however concern that within the EU 2020 Strategy's objective of sustainable growth biodiversity remains subordinate to economic growth patterns and the pursuit of a low carbon economy instead of being considered on its own merit;

11. welcomes the fact that, in line with what the CoR has previously recommended, ecosystems services have been incorporated in the target for 2020, with a view to restoring them and thereby reversing the current trend. Nevertheless calls on the European Commission and the Member States to clarify how the limitation of the objective to ‘restore them insofar as possible’ is to be interpreted at local and regional level;

12. agrees with the Council that urgent and effective action is needed now to avoid serious ecological, economic and social consequences;

13. recognises that this is an important step in demonstrating the EU's commitment to taking action and ‘leading by example’ at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2010 in Nagoya;

14. supports the call of the Council upon the European Commission to submit an EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, taking account of the results of the COP 10 to the Convention on Biological Diversity;

15. insists that this EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy will only be able to deliver the post-2010 EU and global targets on biodiversity on the ground if it firmly supports local and regional authorities and other land users or owners. The strategy needs to address the current underspend of structural funds on environment and biodiversity-related issues and promote the exchange of best practice to empower regional and local authorities for action on the ground. Promotion of good practice among authorities and providing a forum to identify common problems and share solutions to biodiversity will help build capacity within regional and local authorities;

16. welcomes the fact that its call for the establishment of an ‘environmental infrastructure’ (1) has been taken up by the Council (2) and opens the way for the European Commission to draw up an EU Strategy on the environmental infrastructure for the post-2010 period. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, such a Strategy should include a territorial dimension and allow existing initiatives, at local and regional level in particular, to be integrated into a coherent framework;

Role of local and regional authorities in promoting a EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy

17. stresses that the new EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy would be successful if all actors and local stakeholders participate to the policy development and implementation according to a real model of multilevel governance. It is important to bring together all stakeholders involved in protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, including scientific experts, owners of biodiversity action plans, NGOs and education authorities;

18. stresses the need to implement fully the directives on birds and habitats at regional and local level too, accelerate the establishment and full development of the Natura 2000 network and to put appropriate financing in place, also bearing in mind that biodiversity is unevenly distributed in the EU, and taking account of certain effective management and restoration measures;

19. welcomes, in this regard, the call made by the Environment Council of 15 March for participatory approaches which will ‘generate necessary and complementary bottom-up initiatives from those who directly participate in land and sea use management, and in particular local communities’;

20. underlines the crucial role of local and regional authorities in raising citizens’ awareness on importance of biodiversity and calls for greater support from the Member States in the implementation of European and national legislation;

21. urges local and regional authorities to draw up biodiversity programmes, and to include biodiversity objectives in their land use planning and authorisation, to promote extension of green areas, to avoid soil degradation, damage to ecosystems and the fragmentation of landscapes and habitats, to minimise the negative impacts of climate change and to seek opportunities for combining restoration or building of natural habitats with spatial and land-use initiatives; On the other hand, points out that in the case of sparsely populated areas and areas with good access to green spaces, with large zones set aside for nature conservation, the quality of environmental protection should be defined more precisely and improved, and coordination with other types of land use improved;

22. considers that the corollary of the Council’s recognition of the need to develop exchanges of good practice to ensure the most effective use of resources in combating biodiversity loss, is that the European Union and the Member States should increase their support for such exchanges between local and regional authorities;

23. lends its support to the initiatives and networks – such as the LIFE + and European Capitals of Biodiversity projects – that are helping to achieve the commitments which local and regional authorities have undertaken on a voluntary basis and to disseminate best practice at European level;

Integrating biodiversity protection into key sectors

24. notes protection of biodiversity and ecosystems services is a cross cutting theme requiring a systemic approach whereby all different actors at all levels have to work together;

25. reiterates the sector-specific recommendations included in its opinion ‘New impetus for halting biodiversity loss’ (1) and points out that effective and robust protection of biodiversity is only possible if it is incorporated into broader strategy and policies addressing those key sectors which are responsible for habitat destruction, fragmentation and degradation caused by land use change, pollution, etc. These include agriculture/forestry, energy, transport, climate change, regional development/spatial planning; equally, any international trade deals involving the EU must consider and mitigate against biodiversity loss;

26. draws attention to its call for Member States to review their taxation systems to make them more supportive of biodiversity, for example, by lowering the VAT rates on organic farm produce or produce sourced from Natura 2000 sites and abolishing certain taxes and subsidies which encourage action that has an adverse effect on biodiversity;

27. stresses that protecting and restoring biodiversity provides some cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation or adaptation, e.g. in the creation of green corridors aimed at developing and restoring of wetlands, renaturalising of rivers and in promoting green roofs or in interlinking important biotopes;

Setting sound sub-targets, indicators and cost-effective measures to achieve them

28. encourages the European Commission to focus on a limited set of sub-targets which deliver the strategy in clear and simple language and allow regional and local authorities to measure their own contribution and put in place corrective measures in a timely manner. These targets need to move from status related targets which are difficult to measure to ‘pressure-related’ targets. The number of sub-targets should be limited to 5 or 6 and include agriculture, fisheries and marine environments, land use and habitat destruction and fragmentation;

29. recommends that a sub target on land use and spatial planning should be carefully defined in view of concerns of subsidiarity, to address the pressures of habitat destruction and fragmentation. Regional and local authorities play a vital role in implementing the concept of ecological networks and are best placed to take into account the differing needs of concentrated areas of dense population or wide areas which are sparsely populated. Local and regional authorities would be key contributors to such a target;

30. underlines the importance of a clear baseline, to be established by the European Environmental Agency by June this year, ensuring constant monitoring and reporting on the sub targets and indicators for halting biodiversity loss and on restoring ecosystems. Delivery of positive action requires good quality baseline data and on-going monitoring, and to achieve this will require significant increased funding. This may in part be achieved through obligations on developers, but unless the EU and the Member States agree on significantly increasing funding for this purpose, the financial means available for local and regional authorities to do this will be insufficient;

31. calls on the EU and the Members States to introduce the concept of ecosystems into their baseline and indicators. An example is the European Environment Agency first set of biophysical maps of ecosystem services;

Financing to achieve the new target

32. points out that current budget allocation for protecting biodiversity is not sufficient to meet the targets, including the Natura 2000 objectives, and calls on a significant increase of the financial means within post 2013 EU budgets; care must be taken when planning new directives and programmes that no funding is given to measures which might impair biodiversity;

33. urges the European Commission to maximise the benefits of EU funding, particularly by tackling the current under spending of structural funds in the fields of biodiversity and environment and looking at ways to improve the effectiveness of the integrated model to fund biodiversity and Natura 2000;

34. reiterates its calls (3) for the appliance of a system of eco-conditionality to regulate public aid access, in particular for the Common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy; also calls on the Member States to work to ensure that individual sectors of the economy make a fair contribution to the cost of re-establishing ecosystem services;

35. in the light of the recent conclusions of the European Environment Agency (4), recommends a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy so that it provides better support for high nature value (HNV) farming;

36. calls upon the European Commission to set up appropriate financing mechanisms to allow regional and local authorities to gain ‘capacity building’ for halting and safeguarding the biodiversity of their areas and promote exchange of best practise between regions;

Invasive species

37. points out that invasive non-native species are recognised as a threat to biodiversity on a global scale with decisions concerning this issue arising from the last five conferences of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);

38. notes the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species developed in 2003 under the Bern Convention. Objective 5 of the ‘EU Action Plan to 2010 and Beyond’ (5) calls on Member States to develop national strategies on invasive alien species. In this regard, the CoR reiterates its call (1) upon the European Commission to develop a EU Strategy on invasive species;

39. underscores climate change response is one factor driving range extensions of species and this will continue over coming decades, providing the potential for additional species to become invasive;

40. regrets the limited understanding by the general public of the threats posed by invasive non-native species. Improved awareness and understanding of the issues is key to wider involvement, and the public could modify behaviours to help reduce the likelihood of introducing invasive species and the risk of facilitating their spread, as well as assisting with their detection and monitoring. Regional and local authorities are best placed to engage with the general public at the local level, and thereby improve public understanding and involvement;

41. points out regional and local authorities also have a role to play through education and as landowners. In addition, their specialist staff can help national government organisations tackle invasive species in partnership with key interest groups outside government, making optimum use of available capacity and resources to improve detection and monitoring capabilities;

C. CoR contribution to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10)

42. recognises that biodiversity issues do not stop at national borders and therefore urges that coherent action is not only taken at EU level but also in an international context;

43. stresses the importance of preserving and re-establishing biodiversity, including ecosystem services, at a global level in order to help with poverty eradication, food security and local development all over the world; believes, for this reason, that implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity is an essential contribution to achieving the Millennium Goals – especially Goal 7 (environmental sustainability);

44. calls upon the EU and the European Commission to explore the CoR becoming observer to the EU delegation to COP 10 in order to assure that the voice of local and regional authorities is represented in an appropriate manner not only in national delegations, but also in the EU delegation (6);

45. offers to contribute to the CBD process and its COP 10 by promoting decentralised development cooperation between European local and regional authorities and those of developing countries in sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems;

46. urges the COP 10 to adopt the revised and updated Strategic Plan for the Convention for the 2011 – 2020 period in order to ensure a continuum in CBD strategic planning after 2010;

47. welcomes the reference made in the draft Strategic Plan that maintenance and restoration of ecosystems generally provide cost-effective ways to address climate change and that addressing climate change therefore opens up a number of opportunities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

48. agrees that greater convergence at international and national levels is needed in efforts to address climate change and biodiversity loss in a mutually reinforcing manner, optimising opportunities in ongoing global processes within the Rio Conventions;

49. recognises that actions taken so far to implement the CBD have not been sufficient to achieve the 2010 international target;

50. supports strategic and secondary goals and 2020 headline targets that are both achievable and more measurable and provide a more effective framework through national and in particular sub-national targets. It suggests reducing the number of targets in order to make the strategy more understandable and focused;

51. advocates a new headline target which explicitly states that by 2020, all CBD Parties will have engaged regional and local authorities, in the implementation of the Convention. This involvement must focus in particular on the revision and implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and support for capacity-building at regional and local level;

52. urges the COP 10 to adopt a specific decision dedicated to sub-national authorities and takes note of the ‘Draft CBD Decision for COP 10 on Cities, Local Authorities and Biodiversity’, with its ‘Draft Plan of action on cities, local authorities and biodiversity 2011-2020’ (7) in this regard. Such a coherent plan of action is needed to further enhance and leverage the significant contribution of sub-national authorities to play on the implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020. The CoR acknowledges the ‘Global Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity’ and ICLEI's ‘Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB)’ programme in this regard;

53. takes note of the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (CBI), to be presented at the COP 10. This index should be further developed so that it can be voluntarily applied to other authorities.

Brussels, 10 June 2010.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) CdR 22/2009 fin.

(2) Conclusions of the Environment Council of 15 March 2010.

(3) CdR 22/2009 fin, CdR 218/2009 fin.

(4) EEA Technical report No 12/2009 ‘Distribution and targeting of the CAP budget from a biodiversity perspective’.

(5) Document SEC(2006) 621, annexed to the European Commission Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 - and beyond’’, COM(2006) 216 final.

(6) The Executive Secretary of the CDB Secretariat has sent a notification on 4 February 2010 to all parties to the CBD, inviting them to nominate mayors and local authorities as part of their COP 10 delegation.

(7) Document of 27 January 2010, http://www.cbd.int/authorities/doc/CBD%20Plan%20of%20Action_2010_01_draft.doc.

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/39

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Towards an integrated maritime policy for better governance in the Mediterranean’

(2010/C 267/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

1. shares the view that the Mediterranean region presents unique opportunities as well as challenges, particularly in relation to governance issues;

2. is saddened to note that the Mediterranean area is still an area in which very disparate socio-economic conditions exist;

3. observes further that the Mediterranean Sea is a closed and fragile environment which is subjected to intense, and often dangerous, maritime activity;

4. emphasises the importance of promoting a sustainable approach to the use of the marine resources available, in the interests of both present and future generations;

5. notes with regret that prolonged human intervention and the over-exploitation of the natural resources in the Mediterranean Sea are leaving a heavy toll on the state of the marine environment;

6. supports the view that increased economic maritime activity and environmental protection can go hand in hand subject that there is a proper governance mechanism in place, seeking to arrive at a happy balance between the economic aspects on the one hand and the social and environmental dimension on the other;

7. notes that the overall objective of the Commission is to achieve greater economic returns from the sea while reducing the impact on the ecosystem in the Mediterranean;

8. supports the view that whilst primarily intended for Member States, in order that an Integrated Maritime Policy be successful - particularly within an area such as the Mediterranean where only a third of the states are EU Member States – it is essential that a stronger level of mutual understanding and cooperation with the non-EU Mediterranean partners, is achieved;

9. welcomes the Declaration of the Adriatic Ionian Council on the support to the EU Strategy for the Adriatic Ionian Region, adopted in Ancona on 5 May 2010 by the eight foreign ministers of the Adriatic & Ionian Initiative's participating countries (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia), which seeks, inter alia, to promote fundamentally joint development policies by the EU Member States and other countries participating in the AII, particularly through the encouragement for the establishment of joint development strategies involving local players and particularly local and regional authorities,

10. underlines the fact that the marine environment and the governance thereof has a significant impact on, and is in turn directly impacted by, the local and regional dimension;

Key Challenges

11. recognises the complexity of the issues and of the pressures exerted on policy-makers when dealing with such an important link in the European and global economic fibre as is the Mediterranean;

12. notes that the present levels of economic activities, particularly in such areas as maritime traffic and the trans-shipment of goods, fishing, and tourism, are bearing a marked imprint on the Mediterranean eco-system leaving an increased level of environmental degradation in its wake;

13. shares the concern that the combination of pollution from land sources and ships, litter, impacts on biodiversity, overfishing and coastal degradation in the Mediterranean needs to be adequately addressed with urgency;

14. is conscious of the fact that the unique cultural and natural heritage present in the Mediterranean area is increasingly under threat;

15. is equally aware that the Mediterranean regions is a high risk area in terms of the potential effects of climate change;

16. welcomes the acknowledgement that seaborne irregular immigration is a cause of major concern in the region, and is supportive of the call for cooperation with Mediterranean partners in countering this phenomenon and the correlated loss of human lives;

Towards Improved Maritime Governance

17. shares the concern that in most Mediterranean states, each sectoral policy is pursued by its own administration, thus rendering an overview of the cumulative impact of maritime activities a difficult objective to attain;

18. is equally concerned with the fact that the large proportion of marine space demarcated as high seas makes it difficult for coastal states to plan, organise and regulate activities that directly affect their territorial seas and coasts;

19. observes that the development of policies and activities in isolation from each other, and without proper co-ordination among all areas of activity impacting on the sea, as well as all local, national, regional, and international actors, render aspirations for better governance in the Mediterranean more difficult to attain;

20. at the same time agrees that it is essential that stakeholder participation, transparency of decision-making, and implementation of agreed rules, are ensured for good governance to be attained;

21. agrees that there is a need to generate an environmental culture for the Mediterranean Sea, as a key element in raising awareness and participation in marine sustainability processes at all levels;

22. reiterates the view that local and regional authorities are best placed to identify what is required to implement the policy locally and at the regional sea basin level, and can thus play a significant role towards the attainment of an Integrated Maritime Policy within the Mediterranean area;

23. in this perspective, notes that local and regional governments are already actively involved in the development and successful implementation of regional initiatives in the pursuit of this goal (1);

The Role of Mediterranean Coastal States

24. supports the call for Mediterranean Member States to pursue their own efforts in drawing up their integrated maritime policies;

25. welcomes the setting up of a system enabling the sharing of information and best practices;

26. welcomes the Commission's proposal that High Level Focal Points of Member States regularly address the Mediterranean Sea in order to discuss progress made in integrated maritime policy making;

27. is supportive of the Commission's efforts to encourage Member States to exchange best practices with respect to issues of integrated maritime governance, particularly through the European Territorial Cooperation Objective programmes for the Mediterranean;

28. shares the view that the particular semi-enclosed characteristics of the Mediterranean Sea and the trans-boundary impacts of maritime activities call for an increased level of cooperation with non-EU Mediterranean Partners;

29. welcomes the Commission's proposal to stimulate an exchange of best practices between EU and non-EU Mediterranean states interested in an integrated approach to maritime affairs by setting up a working group dedicated to Integrated Maritime Policy;

30. encourages the process of sharing of information and development of support programmes to be extended to the non-EU member states in the Mediterranean area, in such a way that they can be encouraged to move away from a compartmentalised and sectorial view and adopt a holistic and integrated approach to maritime issues;

31. underscores the fact that the provision of technical assistance and the development of specific joint cooperation programmes in terms of existing policy initiatives (such as the European Neighbourhood Policy and Partnership Instrument) is a step in the right direction;

32. expresses the view that the involvement of academic, professional and non-governmental bodies will serve to strengthen this process;

33. calls upon the Commission to recognise that local and regional authorities are in a position to provide a significant contribution in this regard, and should thus be given every opportunity and all the necessary tools to become actively involved in all programmes and initiatives taken;

Governance of the Marine Space

34. notes with concern that a significant proportion of the Mediterranean waters lies outside the jurisdictional authority or sovereign right of any coastal state, and that thus the coastal states ability to prescribe and enforce laws within such areas remains limited at best;

35. is conscious of the fact that there exist complex and politically sensitive issues concerning the delimitation of boundaries between adjacent and opposite states within the Mediterranean, which issues may hinder the emergence of a truly Integrated Maritime Policy within the Mediterranean area;

36. considers that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) can serve as a basis for addressing such delimitation issues, and expresses the belief that the EU should strive to encourage those non-EU Mediterranean states which have not yet ratified the Convention to do so;

37. supports the Commission's efforts to identifying the main bottlenecks hampering ratification, implementation and compliance with decisions reached in terms of existing agreements, and possibilities for improved multilateral cooperation and assistance;

38. shares the view that the work of organisations dealing with maritime affairs within the Mediterranean area needs to be more transparent and that the provisions adopted or promoted by these bodies are systematically monitored and implemented;

39. endorses the Commission's call for greater clarity as to the roles and responsibilities of coastal States, particularly with regard to the management of maritime zones in a sustainable development perspective;

40. supports the proposal for a specific study identifying the costs and benefits related to the establishment of maritime zones;

41. invites the Commission to be bolder in its stance in recognising that improvement of the governance of the marine space at sub-regional levels needs to be encouraged and further strengthened;

Improved Stakeholder Involvement

42. shares the view that stakeholder involvement should be a key priority in Integrated Maritime Policy implementation within the Mediterranean;

43. notes the Commission's commitment to encourage stakeholders platforms to regularly address issues that are directly related to the Mediterranean Sea;

44. supports the Commission's recommendation to explore options for better associating stakeholders from all coastal states within the Mediterranean area;

Cross-Cutting Tools for Integrated Maritime Governance

45. agrees that improved maritime governance needs to be matched by effective instruments, geared at generating economic growth and securing environmental protection and a better future for coastal populations;

Maritime Spatial Planning and Marine Strategies

46. welcomes the Commission's positive outlook that maritime activity in the Mediterranean is likely to grow in spite of the current global economic crisis;

47. at the same time however, is concerned that such increased maritime activity, unless adequately regulated and enforced, could potentially lead to a worsening of the already fragile social and environmental fabric existent within the Mediterranean area;

48. shares the view that, whilst respecting national planning systems which may already be in existence, Maritime Spatial Planning within the Mediterranean area can serve as an effective governance tool for the application of eco-system based management, and the addressing of inter-related impacts of maritime activities and any ensuing conflicts between uses of space and the need to preserve marine habitats;

49. endorses the application of the common principles identified in the Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning to the specific context of the Mediterranean;

50. considers that the achievement of the set objectives for achieving good environmental status in marine waters by 2020 through the development of integrative Marine Strategies based on an eco-system approach to human activities impacting on the sea should remain a priority. In this perspective, it is important that attention is devoted not only to such issues as the pollution of the sea caused by harbours and coastal resorts, but also to the water quality of the rivers flowing into the Mediterranean as well as to the need to guarantee a high quality system of waste water purification for the cities and localities lying along both such rivers and coastal areas;

51. is of the view that local and regional authorities have a significant contribution to make in this respect, and thus welcomes the Commission's suggestion to launch a project to test the application of Maritime Spatial Planning at the sub-regional level with a view to encourage concrete cross-border practices;

52. welcomes the development of a Common Implementation Strategy so as to assist Member States deliver on their obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, although has its reservations as to whether the target for the comprehensive assessment of marine waters and related uses can realistically be achieved by the end of the present year;

Integrated Management in Coastal Areas and Islands

53. supports the impetus given to the issue of climate change as an area of priority concern;

54. welcomes the focus devoted to port development, coastal tourism, and the protection of maritime heritage and the marine environment, including NATURA 2000 sites;

55. agrees that aquaculture should be seen as an element to be taken into account in Integrated Coastal Zone Management and as part of the coastal production system and culture of the Mediterranean Sea;

56. agrees that there exists a vast potential for further development in the whole of the Mediterranean basin, which is inherently rich in culture;

57. satisfactorily notes the impetus given to the particular issue of island states and regions, and in particular to the difficulties associated with physical connectivity;

58. endorses the call for an integrated approach to the management of Mediterranean coastal areas;

59. agrees that cross-cutting governance tools can help Mediterranean coastal regions to better address social, environmental and economic sustainability in an integrated manner;

60. reiterates its support for the Commission's initiative to adopt basin-wide legal instruments in furtherance of the goal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management of the Mediterranean (2);

61. agrees that the exchange of best practices is an important tool to ensure that improvement in practice is registered, and is consequently supportive of the Commission's initiative to provide a web-based inventory of Integrated Coastal Zone Management tools, best practices and case studies;

62. supports the intention to take initiatives for the development of the knowledge-base on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean and the particular focus on international cooperation;

63. considers it positive to adopt measures for strengthening the land-sea interface, and in particular the linking up of terrestrial and maritime planning;

64. at the same time, however, encourages the European Commission to be bolder in its approach and to propose new and more efficient tools for effective implementation of the set objectives, taking into account the potential added value of involving local and regional authorities in this process;

65. would support the creation of maritime action groups integrating different sectoral aspects which are currently managed independently, in an attempt to improve dovetailing and synergy of the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF) and other Funds (EFF) which may be employed in the maritime field;

Facilitating knowledge-based action

66. agrees that the development of sustainable maritime economies and effective coastal management requires policies that are built on best available scientific knowledge;

67. invites the European Commission to promote initiatives for sustainable management of port areas;

68. shares the concern that more needs to be done for the collection and dissemination of basic data needed to assess the environmental status of the Mediterranean Sea and of the possible yields of natural resources;

69. supports the Commission's intention to promote the importance of scientific advice and data collection with regards to the Common Fisheries Policy and the adoption and implementation of environmental legislation in the Mediterranean;

70. agrees that strengthened marine research infrastructure, integrated Research and Technology Development efforts through maritime clusters and Technology Platforms, and synergies between Member States and regions, are necessary to find coherent solutions for the realisation of the full economic potential of the Mediterranean Sea within an ecosystem based approach, and consequently considers that the development of multidisciplinary marine ecosystem – including the seabed observations to be a step in the right direction;

71. acknowledges the important work being done with respect to the development of a European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODNET) aimed at improving knowledge infrastructure and to overcome barriers to discovery, access, and use of data;

72. welcomes the Commission's intention of setting up an integrated marine European Research Network aimed at strengthening coordination in marine research between Member States, including within the Mediterranean;

73. agrees that it would be useful to develop a major cross-thematic research initiative with a view of integrating knowledge on the Mediterranean Sea across all relevant disciplines;

74. welcomes the development of a European Atlas of the Seas intended to raise awareness and to develop a shared maritime identity in sea-basins, including the Mediterranean;

75. notes that with respect to the particular geo-political realities existent within the Mediterranean area the ultimate success of any initiative or measure is largely dependent on the full participation of all Mediterranean states and on the existence of adequate joint programmes and capacity-building initiatives;

76. in this context, supports the initiative to define a long-term strategic framework for basin-wide scientific cooperation in the Mediterranean, thereby enabling marine research cooperation to develop within a structured agenda and with a view to respond to common challenges;

Integrated surveillance for a safer and secure maritime space

77. agrees that the surveillance of maritime activities and operations, particularly with a view of ensuring safety and security concerns and preserving human lives and the marine ecosystem, is a necessary requirement in order to successfully manage sea-borne activities;

78. believes that maritime surveillance should incorporate fishing activities and transhipments, which take place both on Member States' coasts and in the international waters of the Mediterranean;

79. endorses the view that strict implementation of EU legislation on maritime safety is essential;

80. believes that more needs to be done to ensure the capacity-building of maritime administrations and port authorities in non-EU Mediterranean partners to enable them to address the challenge of ensuring a safe and secure maritime space within the Mediterranean;

81. shares the view that the time is ripe to build upon the achievements of the SAFEMED project in closing the regulatory and structural gaps between the EU Member States and our Mediterranean partner countries, and supports the Commission's proposal the European Maritime Safety Agency begins technical cooperation programs with our Mediterranean partners;

82. with regards to surveillance of ship movements, encourages the Commission to widen the scope of the Automatic Identification System regional server by encouraging non-EU member states to integrate within its ambit;

83. acknowledges Frontex's contribution towards a better patrolling of the Mediterranean area, in particular with regards to the overwhelming irregular migratory pressures being exerted on the European Member States;

84. recognises that through an effective process of dialogue and financial assistance to Mediterranean partner countries, these can also be encouraged to involve themselves directly in Frontex activities in the Mediterranean;

85. is, however, concerned that Frontex is still very much ill equipped to effectively carry out the tasks assigned unto it, and supports the Commission in its efforts to ensure that this agency is provided with the necessary tools and resources to fulfil its mandate;

86. at the same time, expresses its concern that the recently approved new guidelines for EU border patrols have created a situation where States unable to carry the added burden of illegal migration might be discouraged from actively participating as host countries to Frontex missions, thereby seriously diminishing the potential success of such missions;

87. advocates that more direct measures, both within the EU territory and abroad, are taken to bring to justice those facilitating illegal migration through their criminal activities;

88. at the same time, solicits the Commission to spare no effort to ensure that in all instances, both within the EU territory and abroad, the maximum respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the migrants concerned are respected;

89. supports every initiative designed to bolster the positive work carried out in the field of maritime drug enforcement;

90. regrets to note that the Communication makes no reference to the ever-growing risk of terrorism, including maritime piracy, that is unfortunately raising its ugly-head in areas not too distant from the region;

91. endorses every effort for the integration of maritime surveillance within the Mediterranean through the promotion of information exchanges and the enhancement of cooperation between national authorities responsible for the monitoring and surveillance at sea;

92. is, however, of the view that the inclusion of Mediterranean partner countries in the integration of maritime surveillance is not an issue for further consideration, but rather, should be a priority concern for the Commission;

93. at the same time underscores the fact that the successful surveillance of maritime activities and operations and the alleviation of security concerns cannot be achieved without the active involvement of local and regional authorities;

Conclusion

94. agrees that the challenges affecting the Mediterranean Sea call for shared and integrated responses, rooted in improved maritime governance, and supports the Commission's initiative to assume a role of coordination and facilitation of national actions within the Mediterranean maritime sphere of policy;

95. notes, in this respect, that the Communication is generally respectful of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, even though it is disappointed to note that the Communication does not always seem to give due recognition to the local and regional dimension, particularly in the context of the proposed programmes and initiatives and thus, calls upon the Commission to adopt measures to ensure that local and regional governments are given the opportunity to participate directly in these programmes and initiatives and give joint response to the crucial challenges facing the Mediterranean region. The Commission should recognise that there are differences in the structure of local government between the Member States and that their varying remits mean they have different possibilities as regards the desired level of involvement;

96. shares the view that an integrated approach to maritime affairs should not undermine the tools and objectives that have been set for moving forward in specific areas of maritime relevance;

97. agrees that a successful integrated maritime policy in the Mediterranean has the potential to facilitate the optimisation of efficiency and output in the various spheres of activity affecting the region;

98. at the same time, however, cannot but note with regret that the Communication fails to provide details about the financing of the envisaged actions;

99. consequently, whilst endorsing the objectives and actions set in the Communication, calls upon the Commission to take note of its Opinion and to take those actions necessary to further strengthen the Communication.

Recommendations

The Committee of the Regions, in particular, recommends that:

100. a deeper and more constructive dialogue between all the relevant actors in the region, including at the local and regional level, is fostered, in a way of cementing mutual trust and understanding;

101. effective mechanisms are established through which all the Mediterranean states are encouraged and enabled to contribute, in equal measure, towards the effective governance of this unique area, paying particular attention to the protection of the marine environment and the biodiversity;

102. the Commission considers the recommendation and adoption of measures to coordinate specific direct actions between and among the European Union Member States and the Mediterranean non-EU partners, with a view of combating the increased cross-national organised criminal activity within the Mediterranean region, not least with regard to the phenomenon of human trafficking and drug and arms trafficking;

103. greater attention and recognition is given to the potential role of the local and regional dimension, both within the EU and in the non-EU Mediterranean states, and in this perspective that greater attention, coordination, and support is given to the workings of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM);

104. the Committee of the Regions, and the local and regional levels of government it represents, must be given full opportunity to actively participate in the workings of the group of High Level Focal Points of Member States being proposed to regularly discuss integrated maritime policy making;

105. concurrently, the Committee of the Regions, and the local and regional levels of government it represents, are given full opportunity to actively participate in the deliberations of the Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy in the Mediterranean;

106. an in depth study of the products and materials currently being shipped across the Mediterranean Sea is carried out with a view of identifying the real risk levels associated therewith;

107. more joint public–private initiatives, actively supported by European financial instruments, with a view to clean and halt the loss of biodiversity in the Mediterranean, as well as encouraging research in the devising of more efficient, and less hazardous, modes of linking raw materials with industry;

108. calls on the Commission to support in-depth research into the phenomena associated with climate change and coastal pollution, which have a serious economic impact on coastal fisheries. Would stress, meanwhile, the need for the Commission to support the efforts of Member States in taking direct action to ease the burden on fisheries sector professionals and workers;

109. adequate policy tools and mechanisms, designed to effectively bring about further maritime policy integration, leading to increase in the level of harmonisation and simplification of maritime policies, are developed and sustained in the short-to-medium term;

110. measures are set up to encourage all Mediterranean states to ratify and fully implement the conventions and protocols on the protection of the marine environment, biodiversity, shipping and fishing activities in the Mediterranean. including through joint and shared management of fish stocks and harmonisation of constraints pertaining to the various fishing systems in all Mediterranean States;

111. in particular, due consideration is given to its repeated calls for the setting up of a single simplified financial mechanism intended to bring together all maritime issues with a European Coastal and Island Fund framework;

112. the Commission amplifies its suggestion to launch a project to test the application of Maritime Spatial Planning at the sub-regional level with a view to encourage concrete cross-border practices by providing a detailed proposal within a reasonably short time, and in this context the Committee of the Regions recalls its call for innovative multi-level governance to which social and environmental aspects and existing regional conventions should be taken into account.

Brussels, 10 June 2010.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) COM(2009) 540 final.

(2) On the lines of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean of the 21 January 2008.

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/46

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Local and regional cooperation to protect the rights of the child in the European Union’

(2010/C 267/10)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. notes that children represent one fifth of the European Union's population, therefore the creation of favourable conditions for their growth and development, including the protection and promotion of their rights, should be among the main priorities of the EU, its institutions and the Member States;

2. notes that Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union explicitly recognises the rights of the child; moreover, the fundamental Rights of the Child represent a horizontal, cross-cutting issue, touching upon multiple dimensions, and must therefore be mainstreamed as a cross-cutting horizontal priority into all relevant European and national policies. Believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child could be used as a framework that would not just come into play where rights are being violated, but also be broadly applied to promote the development and opportunities of all children and young people;

3. notes that the institutional and legal framework for the respect of the Rights of the Child, including the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as other key international agreements in this area by all Member States, is sufficiently well developed within the European Union. However, this does not prevent new challenges and threats manifesting themselves in this area, which thus requires new policy measures, well-coordinated actions and the constant monitoring of all these;

4. notes that the objective to effectively respect the Rights of the Child cannot be achieved without a comprehensive partnership which includes all the actors concerned, in particular the EU institutions, the Member States, NGOs and other players active in this field, including the children themselves, but first and foremost the Local and Regional Authorities (LRA). LRAs are in the frontline of ensuring children rights’ on a daily basis and have key competences in this field;

5. notes that implementation of the Rights of the Child falls predominantly under policy areas where both the EU and the Member States enjoy competences (e.g. social policy, education and youth, health, the area of freedom security and justice etc.); therefore stresses the importance that action taken at the EU level respect the subsidiarity and proportionality principles and be implemented in the spirit of multilevel governance; EU action should take such a form as to foster debate, the exchanges of best practice, as well as comparative research, monitoring and evaluation;

6. supports the intention of the European Commission to focus as a matter of priority on the fight against violence, the protection of vulnerable groups of children such as unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking, and those faced with the risk of poverty and social exclusion. However, the CoR notes that in all these areas, it will not be possible to achieve the set goals if there is no partnership with all the relevant actors, especially LRAs;

7. notes that there is also a need for early health promotion efforts to pre-empt some of the problems which can arise when children and young people live in risk environments;

8. welcomes the Commission's aim to prepare a Communication on the Rights of the Child as well as the methodology chosen for this goal – the organisation of a public consultation on this issue. Moreover, the CoR looks forward to cooperating with the Commission in the framework of the Steering Group of the EU Forum on the Rights of the Child and within the Forum itself;

9. welcomes the provisions of the Stockholm Programme (Multi-annual Programme for an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and Protecting the Citizen), adopted by the European Council in 2010, which have included the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights of children as a priority issue;

10. while regretting that LRAs and their role has not been explicitly mentioned in the Stockholm Programme, stresses the importance of taking the needs and knowledge of LRAs into account when formulating the Action Plan on the implementation of the Stockholm Programme;

11. actively supports the Annual Dialogue on Multi-level Protection and Promotion of Fundamental Rights, co-organised by the European Commission, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the Committee of the Regions, as a tool for overcoming the shortcomings in the implementation of a European strategy on the rights of the child and to ensure the effective involvement of LRAs in European cooperation on the issue of children's rights;

12. welcomes the Rights of the Child (hereinafter RoC) indicators, developed by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as an important step towards implementing more informed and evidence-based policies. However, draws attention to the remaining shortcomings of these indicators; they only briefly touch on the LRAs’ area of competence, and are therefore of limited use for LRAs;

13. regrets that although all EU Member States are parties to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, it is unclear how many children are victims of trafficking and labour exploitation. Therefore, as part of the 2010 European year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, the CoR emphasises the need to ensure better coordination between relevant bodies and specialised agencies at all levels so that they can more effectively manage child exploitation;

14. notes the need to further stress the key role played by LRAs in the area of child rights protection, in particular regarding access to education, health care, social protection and young people's access to the job market;

15. notes that LRAs shall be considered to be essential partners under the EU's consultation procedures, especially as they are well-placed to inform public opinion and encourage dialogue with local communities, in order to strengthen the level of protection of child rights and organise information campaigns on the rights of the child launched at regional and local level with financial support from the EU, with a view to raising children's awareness about their rights;

16. notes the valuable role played by European and national level NGOs active in the field of the Rights of the Child;

17. welcomes policy labelling initiatives, such as the UNICEF concept of the Child Friendly City, which provides for the implementation of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child in action at local level and includes both measures to assure the rights of the child and their integration in relevant decision making processes;

18. recommends that LRAs fully exploit existing structures facilitating cooperation and the exchange of best practice, such as organised civil society, academia and policy makers active in the field of the rights of the child. In this respect, innovative measures to promote cooperation and more effective partnerships between LRAs across different EU Member States should be supported at European level and the exchange of good practices promoted therein;

19. calls on the Commission to include examples of best practices across the Member States in European Union documents in the area of the protection of children's rights. Accordingly, the provisions of the European Charter of Child-Friendly Cities and those of the CoE Policy Guidelines on the National Integrated Strategies for the Protection of Children against Violence should be reflected in the EU strategy of the Rights of the Child, while highlighting the need to place more emphasis on the best way of translating policy commitments into practice;

20. notes the important role played by the Council of Europe in the field of the Rights of the Child and urges the EU institutions to strengthen cooperation with the CoE;

Legal and administrative framework

21. taking into account the complexity and multidimensional nature of the concept of children's rights, the CoR stresses the need to tackle this issue first and foremost as a tool for ensuring a safe, comprehensive and beneficial environment for child development to help them become full-fledged, conscious and socially responsible members of their respective local communities, Member States as well as the entire multicultural European society;

22. calls on the Member States to pay more attention to ensuring the Rights of the Child, including respecting the basic conditions required for the development of children. In this regard, the LRAs have a unique opportunity to develop their own policies, and serve as examples both for their own countries and the EU itself;

23. notes that some of the most vulnerable groups of children are exempt from the measures used to ensure the rights of the child. This is particularly important in the case of the so-called ‘invisible children’ – the children from families without legal residence status as well as street children;

24. notes that it is of crucial importance to ensure that the Member States’ police authorities work together effectively and to fully exploit the potential of softer society-based measures, such as the Missing children hotline 116000. The CoR calls on the Member States to make free ‘116 numbers’ publicly available, and promote them among citizens;

25. calls on all relevant stakeholders to gather more complete sources of information and further improve the data collection and analysis techniques of the Rights of the Child indicators. LRAs should be consulted at all stages of this process, both as providers of quantitative and qualitative input as well as in their capacity as key final users of this tool;

26. taking into account the lack of comprehensive information on the protection of the Rights of the Child in the Member States, calls on the Commission to develop, publish and regularly update a ‘Rights of the Child Scoreboard’, as a tool covering the improved Rights of the Child indicators and providing reliable, comparable and up-to-date information on the level of RoC in the Member States. The Scoreboard could be based on the methodology of the already-existing Internal Market Scoreboard, indicating the transposition of Internal market directives. This tool would not only serve as a reference point for research, but also - by highlighting best practice - could become an important impetus for policy change in the Member States, overcoming the lack of mandatory acquis, acting via the Open Method of Coordination, as promoted in the White Paper on European Governance;

27. calls on the Commission to promote the concept of the Rights of the Child as well as the cooperation of EU and non-EU local authorities in this field within the framework of the EU's external policies. To this end, cooperation should be encouraged with the Council of Europe as well as with other EU external cooperation frameworks, including but not limited to the European Neighbourhood Policy, Union for the Mediterranean, EU-Africa dialogue and cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, thus contributing to an improvement in the quality of life in EU partner countries, first and foremost focusing on the countries along the EU's external borders;

Ensuring basic rights and coping with the key challenges

28. notes the positive role played by National Children's Ombudsmen and other similar bodies in the area of child rights protection, as well as the possible benefits which the LRAs and other relevant stakeholders can gain from two-way communication and close cooperation with these officials;. At the same time, it calls on the Member States to strengthen the institution of the Children's Ombudsman in line with the recommendations made by the European Parliament and international organisations;

29. notes that poverty can represent a decisive impediment to universal access to equal opportunities that must be tackled in order to ensure the effective protection of children's rights. Child poverty can deprive children and their families of their rights and limit future opportunities. Action must therefore first and foremost focus on children from the most vulnerable social groups and ensure the right to quality education for all, so that every child is given the proper opportunity to develop;

30. notes that LRAs could help tackle this issue effectively by promoting child-sensitive and multi-dimensional social protection systems, as children can be better protected if they and their parents also have access to decent living conditions and healthcare. The most cost effective approach involves both prevention and social protection. In particular, measures such as fee-waivers for orphans and vulnerable children has enabled increased access to educational and health services. The CoR therefore recommends that European institutions, international organizations, specialised associations and national public authorities are strongly encouraged to support the capacity of LRAs to carry out these crucial activities;

31. urges the Commission to prepare and adopt recommendations on tackling child poverty. This could be developed on the basis of wide public consultations in order to ensure the widest possible coverage, the maximum involvement of relevant stakeholders and to reflect the variety of possible approaches;

32. in the context of the increasing mobility of the EU workforce and intra-EU labour migration, the CoR notes the need to ensure the rights of migrant children, especially as regards the competences of LRAs. This includes but is not limited to assistance in the process of migrant family reunification, family counselling, social, education and healthcare services for migrant children, assisting them in the process of adaptation with life in their destination country and integration within local and schooling communities;

33. notes the potential benefits arising from the successful integration of intra-EU migrant children into the relevant social strata of the destination countries. Successful action in this field can result in increased knowledge of both native and migrant children about other EU Member States, augmented social capital, increased tolerance both in migration origin and destination countries. The CoR therefore calls on LRAs and the Member States to pay more attention to this issue and to convert the challenges posed by intra-EU migration into opportunities;

34. notes the threats posed by the sadly still existing phenomena of human trafficking, particularly where this concerns children. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to devote all possible effort – including the enactment of pertinent EU level legislation - to combat this type of crime and to ensure the maximum possible protection to its victims in close cooperation with LRAs, as they are primarily responsible for the provision of important assistance such as education, social care and psychological therapies as well as strengthening cooperation with law enforcement and judicial bodies;

35. notes the need to provide adequate protection for unaccompanied minors;

36. notes the need to improve juvenile justice, to develop age-appropriate methods for juvenile crime prevention, intervention and reintegration, and to separate juvenile offenders both physically and in organisational terms from the adult offenders;

Information and education measures

37. stresses the importance of providing comprehensive education for all, including both adults and children, on the issues of the Rights of the Child, thus contributing to a better understanding of the very nature of children's rights, and the process of raising the awareness and consciousness of young citizens;

38. taking into account the indivisibility of social rights and responsibilities, the CoR recommends paying more attention to the wider context in which the Rights of the Child exist – namely the concept of human rights and social responsibilities. Furthermore, it recommends promoting the concept of the responsibilities that children have towards their family, community, country, parents, elders, younger children, less advantaged people, the environment as well as other key structures within contemporary society;

39. underlines with regard to RoC policies that children shall be treated as partners, capable of providing valuable feedback. This feedback should be used for national and European policy updates. LRAs can play a key role in this respect, as intermediaries and facilitators, using already existing good practices such as local children's councils, enabling them to have an appropriate institution for making their views heard;

40. welcomes the Commission's initiative to develop six platforms for communication, enabling children and young people to state their views and stresses the need to develop this initiative and to include LRAs as the actors who have the best local expertise and capacity to maintain this structured communication;

41. notes the need to ensure the right of the child to access quality education, live in a safe and comfortable environment and to enjoy protection from all forms of physical and psychological violence, and notes the key role of LRAs in assuring these rights;

42. notes the need to ensure the right to quality education for both physically and mentally disabled children as well and restates the importance of initiatives aimed at promoting their independence and ensuring their full integration into the social environment, as set out in Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Two diverging concepts exist in the field of education: one, which proposes the development of special teaching and training programmes, and another which proposes the maximum possible integration of disabled children into general mainstream schooling. The CoR calls on the LRAs, national authorities, pedagogical academia, NGOs as well as on all relevant stakeholders to engage in a Europe-wide debate on possible solutions and best practices in this field, and to make its results available to all those who wish to improve their expertise in this field. To this end, attention is drawn to experiments with integrating disabled children that offer real opportunities to all and do not generate any form of marginalisation or exclusion, and which should be encouraged;

43. notes the importance of quality education and continuous training for social and other specialists who work with children;

44. notes the concerns relating to violation of the Rights of the Child, reflected in a number of ways, ranging from bullying that tends to generate a copycat effect reproducing inappropriate behaviour, to other forms of psychological and physical violence exerted by children towards other children, and all types of abuse, especially at school;

45. considers that children's proper development is at risk if they spend too much time on virtual social networks and immersed in computer games and virtual worlds. Such virtual activities often reduce children's opportunities for developing social skills and acquiring the knowledge they need. All the institutions concerned should therefore take due steps to ensure that children develop an understanding that information technologies and virtual worlds are primarily tools for achieving real-world goals;

46. draws attention to the benefits that ‘street life’ can have on the comprehensive development of children, such as learning to use public space, and to grow, socialise and interact with each other and their communities, and points to the reverse dangers of such street life, which in some areas and cities of Europe can degenerate into youth gangs;

47. in the context of the above two points, the CoR calls on the LRAs of the Member States to engage more actively in the exchange of best practice on the organisation of extracurricular activities for children, as a means of developing their social and professional skills. Examples of best practice shall be further promoted at national and European level, fostering respective orientation of national and European instruments;

48. calls on the Commission to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the process of developing the Rights of the Child Scoreboard, including the relevant European Union agencies, non-governmental organisations, LRAs and the Committee of the Regions;

49. considers that in view of the rapid development of Information Technologies (IT) and the technological possibilities for using such technology to perpetrate various forms of child abuse, the promotion of a safer internet should be considered to be a key task for the EU;

50. stresses the fact that the concept of a safer internet should include the fight against child abuse and child-pornography on the internet, as well as other, widespread forms of violence which occur in the virtual world, such as cyber bullying;

51. considers that the education of children and adults who interact with and influence children can significantly help prevent and tackle internet-related child abuse. Key attention must be paid to training children and adults, especially those who work with children - such as professionals in the area of healthcare, education and social work - on the safe use of the internet, recognizing cyber crimes and other internet-based malevolent activities, and on how to report to the relevant authorities;

52. draws attention to the need to protect children from negative social environments, and in particular from environments that promote the consumption of psychotropic substances (alcohol, tobacco, drugs and other substances that are harmful to mental and physical health). Local and regional authorities have a key role here: they are the first link in the social security chain, working to ensure the peaceful and safe development of children. The local and regional authorities have a responsibility to observe, identify and assess potential risks and to use all available resources to avert them. National and European institutions, for their part, including the Children's Ombudsmen, non-governmental organisations and other social and economic partners, need to support local and regional authorities in this field in various ways and to promote negative social attitudes towards the consumption of psychotropic substances.

Financial and support measures

53. Stresses that LRAs shall be regarded as essential partners in the development and implementation of the European Strategy on the Rights of the Child, as well as in the other European initiatives in the field of children rights;

54. considers that all programmes and tools developed within this Strategy must be available to regional and local administrations;

55. welcomes the positive effect of European funding and support instruments, such as the Daphne programme towards the protection of the Rights of the Child, yet regrets the scarcity of resources, inadequacy of information on financing and support possibilities provided. The results of this programme shall be strategically linked to the implementation of the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and used to shape future policies;

56. draws attention to the fact that local and regional authorities across Europe have already accumulated significant experience in using EU assistance for the protection of the Rights of the Child, in partnership with other actors. The results of such activities shall be strategically linked to the implementation of the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, regularly published, discussed and used as valuable input for relevant policy updates;

57. calls on the Commission to improve the communication and information on existing support and funding schemes available for LRAs, foreseeing the support possibilities for initiatives related to the Rights of the Child, both explicitly oriented, such as the Daphne III Programme, as well as those where it can be identified among other priorities, such as the cross-border cooperation programmes, urban development programmes, (e.g. URBACT II), etc. All financial resources, available under different EU budget headings and in different fields, should be made clearer and be communicated more effectively, avoiding duplication, thus increasing the efficiency of the activities carried out.

Brussels, 10 June 2010.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/52

85th PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 9 AND 10 JUNE 2010

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Heritage Label’

(2010/C 267/11)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Principles and general remarks

1. warmly welcomes the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council by which the European Union would establish a European Heritage Label distinct from the UNESCO World Heritage List and the Council of Europe's European Cultural Routes;

2. finds that the European Commission's proposal respects the subsidiarity principle. Stresses, however, the importance of respecting the competences of regional and local authorities when countries are choosing their candidates and when the final selection is being made at European level. The success of the initiative requires the willingness of Europe as a whole and therefore local and regional authorities must be involved in the choice of sites and the implementation, monitoring and assessment of events;

3. stresses that the purpose of the label is to highlight the shared cultural heritage of the Member States while respecting national and regional diversity, to recognise the cultural diversity of regions in order to bring Europe closer to its people, and to make the most of local and regional sites and know-how to strengthen a sense of belonging to the European Union;

4. stresses that this initiative is important both for bolstering local and regional identity and for fostering European integration;

5. regrets that the initiative is only open to the Union's Member States, whereas the original government initiative behind the label included Switzerland and the European Capitals of Culture scheme was open to accession candidates. Moreover, the process of creating a united Europe is not confined to the borders of the European Union, but involves third countries on the continent;

6. notes that the label must make a connection between the sites and the history of European unification while respecting the values enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights;

7. is pleased that the label has the potential to make Europe's towns and regions more attractive and so encourage growth and employment at local and regional level;

8. insists on the need for good practices to be passed on by networking the sites that are awarded the label and calls on the European Union to make the human and financial investment that will attract local and regional interest;

9. points out that the label is particularly well suited to crossborder sites that loom large in Europe's memory. The management of this kind of site could be included in the remit of existing bodies such the European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC).

Relevance at local and regional level

10. notes that in most of the Member States it is local and regional authorities that are responsible for the kind of sites that could be awarded the label;

11. regrets that local and regional authorities are not more involved in the selection process in the context of multi-level governance;

12. thinks that local and regional authorities should be involved in designating crossborder sites;

13. notes that local and regional authorities will often be the main operators and funders of potential label sites and will therefore have to bear the extra costs involved in obtaining the label and operating the sites;

14. notes that European identity – based on the universal values of the inviolable rights of the individual, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law – must be built on the diversity of the constituent elements of the European Union and the European label should make this diversity more visible and tangible to all citizens.

Improving the document

15. believes that once an initial appraisal of the scheme has been performed, it should then be opened up to third countries in Europe – for example, as part of enlargement and neighbourhood policies – in order to lay the foundation of values, beyond economic and geostrategic interests, needed for uniting Europe;

16. calls for the Committee of the Regions – given the deep involvement of local and regional authorities in the management and enhancement of heritage – to be involved in the final selection process at Union level through the appointment of a European panel member, as in the case of the European Capitals of Culture;

17. recommends that monuments, archaeological, crossborder and intangible sites be classified for the purposes of the new label to establish the diverse kinds of sites eligible to receive it;

18. would like the European Commission to inform the Committee of the Regions from this point on about progress in implementing the labelling process and monitoring sites, including the guidelines for selection procedures. Also wishes to be kept informed about the external and independent assessment of the European Heritage Label initiative, which the European Commission will arrange;

19. suggests a maximum of three candidate sites per Member State in order to leave the European panel enough discretion and to encourage countries to compete with one another;

20. welcomes the fact that the European panel is made up of independent experts, appointed and periodically replaced by the European institutions, to help with technical specifications and the final selection of sites and winners;

21. underscores the importance of promoting the general idea of sustainable development through conservation, management of cultural assets and making the access to sites by all a natural part of the life of society.

II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 4

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The action shall be open to the participation of the Member States of the European Union. This participation shall be on a voluntary basis.	The action shall be open to the participation of the Member States of the European Union. This participation shall be on a voluntary basis. .

Reason

Extending participation to third countries in Europe – candidate countries, potential candidate countries and EU neighbours – would strengthen the general aims of this cultural initiative and the preservation of heritage in particular at European level.

Amendment 2

Article 5

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The Commission and the Member States shall ensure the complementarity of the European Heritage Label with other initiatives in the field of cultural heritage such as the UNESCO World Heritage List and the Council of Europe's ‘European Cultural Routes’.	The Commission and the Member States shall ensure the complementarity of the European Heritage Label with other initiatives in the field of cultural heritage such as the UNESCO World Heritage List and the Council of Europe's ‘European Cultural Routes’. .

Reason

The Commission and the Member States should discourage overlapping that detracts from the initiative's added value.

Amendment 3

Article 7(1), 1st sentence

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
Candidates for the label shall have a symbolic European value and shall have played a key role in the history and the building of the European Union.	Candidates for the label shall have a symbolic European value and shall have played a key role in the history the building of .

Reason

This amendment is in the same spirit as the previous one and shifts the focus away from the European Union and more towards the values of building Europe as such.

Amendment 4

Article 8(2)

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The European panel shall consist of 12 members. Four of the members shall be nominated by the European Parliament, four by the Council and four by the Commission. The panel shall designate its chairman.	The European panel shall consist of members. Four of the members shall be nominated by the European Parliament, four by the Council, and four by the Commission . The panel shall designate its chairman.

Reason

As with the jury for the European Capital of Culture, the makeup of the panel should reflect the acknowledgement in the treaties of the local and regional dimension of cultural policy in general and the preservation of heritage in particular. Another benefit of including the CoR in the panel would be that it would result in an uneven number of members.

Amendment 5

Article 8(4)

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The European panel members shall be nominated for three years. By way of derogation, in the first year during which this Decision is in force, four experts shall be nominated by the Commission for one year, four by the European Parliament for two years and four by the Council for three years.	The European panel members shall be nominated for three years. By way of derogation, in the first year during which this Decision is in force, four experts shall be nominated by the Commission for one year, four by the European Parliament for two years and four by the Council for three years.

Reason

Follows from Amendment 4.

Amendment 6

Article 10(2)

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
Each Member State shall have the possibility to pre-select up to a maximum of two sites per annum in accordance with the calendar in the Annex. No selection procedure shall take place in the years reserved for the monitoring procedure.	Each Member State shall have the possibility to pre-select sites per annum in accordance with the calendar in the Annex. No selection procedure shall take place in the years reserved for the monitoring procedure.

Reason

Increasing the number of sites that a Member State can pre-select fits perfectly with the spirit of ‘competition’ which the European Commission seeks to foster between sites at Union level, but which the envisaged selection arrangements contradict.

Amendment 7

Article 11(2)

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The European panel shall evaluate the applications of the pre-selected sites and shall select a maximum of one site per Member State. If necessary, further information may be requested and visits to the sites may be organised.	The European panel shall evaluate the applications of the pre-selected sites and shall select a maximum of site per Member State. If necessary, further information may be requested and visits to the sites may be organised.

Reason

Follows from Amendment 6.

Amendment 8

Article 13(1)

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The Commission shall officially designate the sites to be awarded the European Heritage Label during the year following the selection procedure, in the light of the recommendation of the European panel. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament and the Council.	The Commission shall officially designate the sites to be awarded the European Heritage Label during the year following the selection procedure, in the light of the recommendation of the European panel. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament, and the Council .

Reason

The requirement to inform the CoR has a clear added value for the label’s promotion and for the Union's regional and local authorities.

Amendment 9

Article 17(2)

Text proposed by the Commission	CoR amendment
The Commission shall present a report on these evaluations to the European Parliament and the Council within six months of the finalisation of the evaluations.	The Commission shall present a report on these evaluations to the European Parliament, the Council within six months of the finalisation of the evaluations.

Reason

As for the previous amendment.

Brussels, 9 June 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

1.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/57

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Citizens' Initiative’

(2010/C 267/12)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. notes that Article 11(4) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, states that: ‘Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’;

2. also notes that the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, further specifies that it is the responsibility of the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, to adopt provisions relating to the procedures and practicalities of the citizens’ initiative;

3. points out that, with its Green Paper on a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’ of 11 November 2009 (1), the Commission launched a broad public consultation aimed at gathering the opinions of all interested parties on the main themes to be addressed in the regulation on the citizens’ initiative and highlights the major contribution made to the debate by local and regional authorities;

4. welcomes the presentation by the Commission of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative (2);

5. underlines the fact that the adoption of this regulation, activating the right of citizens to participate directly in the democratic life of the Union, represents a milestone in the consolidation of the principles of democracy in the EU;

6. hopes that the Parliament and the Council will waste no time in adopting the regulation on the citizens’ initiative in order for the mechanism to be operational at the beginning of 2011, as foreseen by the 2009 Green Paper;

7. recalls having already emphasised the importance of providing for the right of legislative initiative, in line with the Lisbon Treaty, with a view to strengthening citizenship rights (3);

8. reiterates the fact that the consolidation of its own institutional role depends on the rapid implementation of those provisions of the Lisbon Treaty that are of significance to regional and local authorities, such as the citizens’ initiative (4);

9. would stress the interest local and regional authorities are showing in the establishment of the citizens’ initiative, as they could decide to organise and/or promote initiatives themselves, not least given their closeness to the EU public;

10. agrees with the Commission on the need to offer the public an instrument that is easy to use, has simple procedures and can be applied with immediate effect, and to provide clear and unambiguous instructions, while also taking care to prevent possible abuses of the system;

11. considers that it is necessary to promote wide-ranging initiatives in the area of institutional communication in order to raise maximum awareness among the EU's public of their new right and, more generally, to involve them directly in the political debate on issues of general European interest that are the subject of current initiatives;

12. underlines on this note the key role that can be played by the Committee of the Regions, thanks in part to the instruments it has developed in the area of decentralised communication, and by regional and local authorities, which are able to communicate directly at a grassroots level;

13. offers its own assistance in establishing an inter institutional information point, of which the Committee should be an integral part;

14. underlines that as a partner of the other European Union institutions as well as local and regional authorities, it should be fully informed and, where appropriate, consulted at the same time as the European Parliament about the decisions by the European Commission regarding the admissibility or the follow-up of European Citizens’ Initiatives, as well as any proposed changes to the conditions and rules governing this instrument;

15. reiterates its willingness to explore the possibility to support those ECIs which are most relevant to the CoR and the local and regional authorities represented in it by, for example,

—	organising hearings for ongoing or successful citizens’ initiatives with the participation of the EU institutions, local and regional authorities and their associations as well as representatives of civil society,

—	producing opinions on successful citizens’ initiatives that are particularly important to the CoR and local and regional authorities in view of its political priorities, or on Commission decisions regarding the outcome of such ECIs;

16. points out that in the context of the regulation and its implementation, special care must be taken to uphold the principles of equality, transparency, sound administration and access to justice;

17. broadly endorses the proposal made by the Commission, while believing that improvements are possible on certain points;

18. Without prejudice to the European citizens’ initiative, the CoR highlights the need to promote at local and regional level initiatives which foster transparency, collaboration and the involvement of Europeans in public policies, in line with the principle of participatory democracy;

On the minimum number of Member States

19. notes that, according to the Treaties, the initiative must come from ‘a significant number of Member States’ (Article 11(4) TEU) and that this provision is based on the need to ensure that the initiative is the expression of a common European interest;

20. believes that the provision of a minimum threshold equal to a third of the Member States is too high, given the need to encourage citizens to exercise their right to participate directly in the democratic life of the Union;

21. considers that it would be more appropriate that the minimum threshold be equal to a quarter of Member States, which would moreover be in line with the Treaty's other provisions, such as Article 76 TFEU;

On the minimum age of signatories

22. agrees that the minimum age for signatories to an initiative should correspond to the minimum age required in order to have the right to vote in European elections;

On the registration of proposed initiatives and the collection of statements of support

23. agrees with the provision for a mandatory system of registration of proposed initiatives on an online register;

24. also agrees with the European Parliament that no decision on the admissibility of a citizens’ initiative should include considerations of political expediency (5);

25. would therefore argue that the Commission should refuse to register proposals only in cases where they are ‘manifestly abusive’ or ‘manifestly counter to the values of the Union’, as the reference in the draft regulation to the concept of ‘improperness’ may seem inappropriate;

26. welcomes the provision of a common set of procedural requirements for the collection and verification of statements of support;

27. welcomes the arrangements for an on-line system for the collection of statements of support for an initiative;

On the principle of transparency and administrative cooperation

28. agrees with the Commission on the need to ensure transparency as to the sources of financing and support available to organisers of initiatives;

29. stresses that the presentation of initiatives should be open to all citizens and organisations and not limited in practice to large organisations;

30. hopes therefore that arrangements will be made to offer practical and technical assistance to those wishing to organise an initiative;

31. would argue in particular that it would be appropriate to establish an information point for citizens’ initiatives, in which the Committee should be fully involved;

32. also calls upon the institutions to consider the possibility of providing some assistance in translating the principal elements of an initiative that has been declared admissible into all the official languages of the European Union, so that all the citizens of the Union can be made aware of it;

On the admissibility of proposals

33. proposes that the Commission should be responsible for verifying the admissibility of a proposal for a citizens’ initiative when it is first registered, in order to avoid organisers putting a significant amount of time and money into citizens’ initiatives that then prove to be inadmissible;

34. would underscore the requirement that admissibility criteria be established in general terms and in a clear and transparent way and that they be adequately publicised, so as to limit the number of inadmissible proposals presented;

35. welcomes the requirements whereby the proposal a) must relate to a subject on which EU legislation could be adopted in line with the Treaties and b) must fall within the scope of the Commission's remit to make a proposal;

36. would stress however that the adoption by the Union of a legislative act in sectors that do not fall within its exclusive remit must also comply with the principle of subsidiarity, as provided under Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union;

37. would also stress that every EU act must uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the general principles of the Union;

38. argues therefore that it would be appropriate to make specific mention of two further conditions of admissibility, namely, that the proposal should c) uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and d) comply with the principle of subsidiarity;

39. would refer to its own experience in evaluating subsidiarity and offers the Commission its assistance in assessing whether proposals comply with that principle;

40. would stress the need to notify the organiser of the initiative of the decision on admissibility and to publish it in the Official Journal of the European Union;

41. points out that decisions on the admissibility of proposals for an initiative are subject to judicial review by the Court of Justice, under Articles 263 and 265 TFEU, and would like specific mention of this right to judicial review to be made in the regulation;

42. shares the Commission's concern that the administrative and financial cost of checking and certifying statements of support for initiatives declared admissible be kept to a minimum, and notes on this point that in many Member States this procedure will involve local and regional authorities;

On the examination of an initiative by the Commission

43. agrees with the proposal that the Commission should examine any initiative presented officially within the terms of the regulation and adopt a communication containing its conclusions on the initiative, the action it intends to take and its reasons, within four months;

44. points out in this respect that should the Commission fail to respond within the deadline set, it would be possible to bring an action before the Court of Justice under Article 265 TFEU, and hopes that this right to judicial review will be given specific mention in the regulation;

45. underlines the requirement that every initiative signed by at least one million citizens must be given serious consideration by the Commission;

46. believes that the communication on the initiative adopted by the Commission, as well as being sent to the organisers, the European Parliament and the Council, should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and sent to the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and national parliaments.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 4(3)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative

Prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories for a proposed citizens’ initiative, the organiser shall be required to register it with the Commission, providing the information set out in Annex II, in particular on the subject-matter and objectives as well as on the sources of funding and support for the proposed citizens’ initiative.

This information shall be provided in one of the official languages of the Union, in an online register made available for that purpose by the Commission (hereafter ‘the register’).

2.	Except in the cases foreseen in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Commission shall register without delay the proposed initiative under a unique registration number and send a confirmation to the organiser.

3.	Proposed citizens’ initiatives which can be reasonably regarded as improper because they are abusive or devoid of seriousness will not be registered.

4.	The Commission shall reject the registration of proposed citizens’ initiatives which are manifestly against the values of the Union.

5.	A proposed citizens’ initiative that has been registered shall be made public in the register.

Registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative

This information shall be provided in one of the official languages of the Union, in an online register made available for that purpose by the Commission (hereafter ‘the register’).

3.	Proposed citizens’ initiatives are abusive or devoid of seriousness, , .

5.	A proposed citizens’ initiative that has been shall be made public in the register.

Reason

The admissibility of an initiative can just as well be verified when it is registered in accordance with Article 4. It does not seem reasonable to register an initiative and collect 300 000 signatures – from at least three Member States – and only then to reject it having realised, for example, that the EU does not actually have legislative competence in that policy area. This amendment therefore combines Articles 4 and 8 of the proposed Regulation.

Amendment 2

Article 7(1)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Minimum number of signatories per Member State

1.	The signatories of a citizens’ initiative shall come from at least one third of Member States.

Minimum number of signatories per Member State

1.	The signatories of a citizens’ initiative shall come from at least of Member States.

Reason

The ECI should be an instrument which is accessible to citizens and therefore the threshold should not be set too high. One quarter of Member States as a requirement (i.e. seven in the current EU of 27 Member States) is in line with the proposal by the European Parliament.

Amendment 3

Article 7(2)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In one third of Member States, signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens set out in Annex I.	In one of Member States, signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens set out in Annex I.

Reason

As the European Citizens’ Initiative should be an instrument which is accessible to Europeans, the threshold should not be so high. The requirement that signatories should come from a quarter of Member States (in other words, currently seven out of the 27 EU Member States) is in line with the European Parliament’s proposal. Logically therefore, the same should apply to Article 7(2).

Amendment 4

Article 8

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Decision on the admissibility of a proposed citizens’ initiative

After having collected 300 000 statements of support in accordance with Article 5 from signatories coming from at least three Member States, the organiser shall submit to the Commission a request for a decision on the admissibility of the proposed citizens’ initiative. For this purpose the organiser shall use the form set out in Annex V.

The Commission shall, within a period of two months from the receipt of the request referred to in paragraph 1, take a decision on admissibility. The proposed citizens’ initiative shall be considered admissible if it satisfies the following conditions:

a.	it concerns a matter where a legal act of the Union can be adopted for the purpose of implementing the Treaties; and

b.	it falls within the framework of the powers of the Commission to make a proposal.

3.	The decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be notified to the organiser of the proposed citizens’ initiative and shall be made public.

Reason

Consequence of the amendment to recommendation 1.

Amendment 5

Article 9

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Provisions for the verification and certification of statements of support by the Member States

After having collected the necessary statements of support from signatories in accordance with Articles 5 and 7, and provided that the Commission has decided that a proposed citizens’ initiative is admissible in accordance with Article 8, the organiser shall submit the statements of support, in paper or in electronic form, to the relevant competent authorities provided for in Article 14 for verification and certification. For this purpose the organiser shall use the form set out in Annex VI.

The organiser shall submit statements of support to the Member State that issued the identification document indicated therein.

The competent authorities shall, within a period that shall not exceed three months, verify the statements of support provided on the basis of appropriate checks, and deliver to the organiser a certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex VII, certifying the number of valid statements of support for that Member State.

3.	The certificate provided for in paragraph 2 shall be issued free of charge.

Provisions for the verification and certification of statements of support by the Member States

The organiser shall submit statements of support to the Member State that issued the identification document indicated therein.

3.	The certificate provided for in paragraph 2 shall be issued free of charge.

Reason

According to Article 4, the organiser is required to state in advance the sources of funding which will cover the expense of the initiative. It could well be the case however that not all eventual sources of funding are known at this stage of the process. A report should therefore be submitted at the end of the process, detailing the final expenditure and sources of funding to ensure that principles of information and transparency are complied with. A simple form should be drawn up and included as an Annex to the Regulation to ensure that this requirement can be complied with easily.

Brussels, 10 June 2010.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

(1) COM(2009) 622 final.

(2) COM(2010) 119 final.

(3) Own-initiative opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Citizens’ rights: promotion of fundamental rights and rights derived from European citizenship’; 9.10.2008, point 58.

(4) R/CdR 79/2010, Appendix I.

(5) Resolution of the European Parliament of 7 May 2009 requesting the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the citizens’ initiative (A6-0043/2009), recital Y.

		ISSN 1725-2423 doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.267.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 267

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 53 1 October 2010

Notice No	Contents	page
	I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions
	RESOLUTIONS
	Committee of the Regions
	85th plenary session held on 9 and 10 June 2010
2010/C 267/01	Resolution of the Committee of the Regions For a better tool-box to implement the EU 2020 Strategy: the integrated guidelines for the economic and employment policies of the Member States and the Union	1

2010/C 267/02	Resolution of the Committee of the Regions on the Stronger involvement of local and regional authorities in the Europe 2020 Strategy	4

	OPINIONS
	Committee of the Regions
	85th plenary session held on 9 and 10 June 2010
2010/C 267/03	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The future of the CAP after 2013 (own-initiative opinion)	6

2010/C 267/04	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enlargement Strategy and main challenges 2009-2010: potential candidate countries	12

2010/C 267/05	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Spring Package: EU action plan for achieving the Millennium Development Goals	17

2010/C 267/06	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The interconnection of business registers	22

2010/C 267/07	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The role of urban regeneration in the future of urban development in Europe	25

2010/C 267/08	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on EU and international biodiversity policy beyond 2010	33

2010/C 267/09	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Towards an integrated maritime policy for better governance in the Mediterranean	39

2010/C 267/10	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Local and regional cooperation to protect the rights of the child in the European Union	46

	III Preparatory acts
	Committee of the Regions
	85th plenary session held on 9 and 10 June 2010
2010/C 267/11	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Heritage Label	52

2010/C 267/12	Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Citizens' Initiative	57