27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/1

—

points out that all the countries (1) covered by the enlargement strategy have formally ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and would encourage them to meet and implement these commitments;

—

draws attention to the vital importance of the formation and development of multilevel governance, independent media and civil society in the candidate countries and urges them to support respect for civil liberties and democratic procedures in political life;

—

stresses the importance of a formal consultation procedure between competent national authorities, and local and regional authorities at every stage of the EU enlargement process, which broadens public participation and helps apply the subsidiarity principle and bring citizens closer. It also facilitates the implementation of legislation and helps to make better use of IPA if local and regional representatives are well informed about the integration process;

—

calls for the creation or reinforcement of organisations that group together local and regional authorities and the cooperation with their counterparts in other EU Member States, which can help to share experiences and support the integration process;

—

takes a positive view of the ongoing integration process in the candidate countries, which should also be taken advantage of as one element in a decentralisation process based on transparent implementation;

—

stresses the key importance of respect for the principle of good neighbourly relations among EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries and the role and importance of developing cross-border and regional cooperation between these countries.

Rapporteur

Stanisław SZWABSKI (EA/PL), Chairman of the municipality of Gdynia

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-2012

COM(2011) 666 final

1.

points out that the goal of EU enlargement is to expand the area of peaceful development and cooperation in Europe; the European Union is therefore open to any European country that wishes to join, respects and is committed to the democratic values and meets the membership criteria, points out that any enlargement is only possible when the successful integration of the accession country into the European Union is ensured;

2.

would point out that all the countries (2) covered by the enlargement strategy have formally ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and would encourage them to meet and implement these commitments;

3.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to make greater use of IPA to promote and accelerate result-oriented reform efforts. Involving local and regional authorities where relevant could promote capacity building and absorption capacity in the beneficiary countries, and thus make more effective use of IPA funds;

4.

stresses that the enlargement process is designed to ensure stability and increased prosperity for the citizens of the EU and the candidate countries and to ensure shared responsibility for the development of an ever greater area of peace, freedom, security and justice with an internal market and pursuing the goals of economic, social and territorial cohesion, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women;

5.

points out that successful and persisting reform efforts should include all levels of society. Good governance – including modernisation of the public sector coordinated at national, regional and local level – provides better conditions for broad and stronger democracy, increased transparency and systems that are less beset by corruption and nepotism. A decentralised system increases public accountability and makes it easier for citizens to get involved in decision-making processes;

6.

draws attention to the vital importance of the formation and development of multilevel governance, independent media and civil society in the candidate countries and urges them to support respect for civil liberties and democratic procedures in political life;

7.

stresses the importance of a formal consultation procedure between competent national authorities, and local and regional authorities at every stage of the EU enlargement process. This broadens public participation and helps apply the subsidiarity principle and bring citizens closer. It also facilitates the implementation of legislation and helps to make better use of IPA if local and regional representatives are well informed about the integration process;

8.

calls for the creation or reinforcement of organisations that group together local and regional authorities, and the cooperation with their counterparts in other EU Member States, which can help to share experiences and support the integration process;

9.

takes a positive view of the ongoing integration process in the candidate countries, which should also be taken advantage of as one element in a decentralisation process based on transparent implementation;

10.

highlights the fact that the progress and success of the enlargement process depends largely on the candidate countries making genuine advances in implementing reforms to meet the Copenhagen criteria;

11.

points to the need to speed up the European Council's endorsement of the Adriatic-Ionian macroregional strategy, which has the added value of smoothening and bolstering the accession process for SEE candidate and potential candidate countries, and also presents an opportunity to promote the consolidation of democratic processes in territories belonging to the greater Mediterranean area;

12.

stresses the key importance of respect for the principle of good neighbourly relations among EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries and the role and importance of developing cross-border and regional cooperation between these countries;

13.

requests that the authorities of countries applying for EU membership establish consistent regulations and national strategies in cooperation with administrative bodies at local and regional level and that the necessary means be made available to local and regional authorities to carry out strategies to integrate marginalised groups;

14.

stresses the need for comprehensive and balanced information in candidate countries about the EU, its institutions, the integration process and the changes this process entails for individual countries, as well as the challenges and opportunities for citizens. Such information, large part of which needs to be provided by the authorities of the acceding countries, is essential to allow citizens to actively participate in their country's integration into the EU and to recognise the benefits of potential membership;

15.

calls on all candidate countries to play a part in developing and strengthening the EU and Community institutions, depending on their formal possibilities;

16.

highlights the need for, and importance of, a clear and unambiguous confirmation by the EU of its commitment to the enlargement process to take in candidate countries that meet the conditions for accession;

17.

welcomes with satisfaction the signature of the Accession Treaty with Croatia, which marks an important moment in European integration; subject to successful conclusion of the ratification procedures, the Committee of the Regions looks forward to welcoming Croatia as a new member from 1 July 2013;

18.

is delighted at the progress made by Croatia in meeting the EU membership criteria, from the submission of its application in 2003 to the successful conclusion of negotiations in June 2011 and the Commission's favourable opinion on Croatian EU accession of October 2011;

19.

welcomes the fact that Slovenia and Croatia have agreed to submit the open border issue to an arbitral tribunal and looks forward to the implementation of the bilateral Border Arbitration Agreement;

20.

stresses Croatia's high level of preparedness for membership, while calling on that country to further consolidate and fully implement the EU acquis, especially as regards the judiciary, tackling corruption, implementing anti-discrimination legislation, competition policy and media freedom and pluralism;

21.

welcomes the positive outcome of the referendum on Croatia's accession to the EU in January 2012;

22.

welcomes the progress made in the accession negotiations with Iceland; underlines the very constructive cooperation between Iceland and the EU in the framework of the EEA and the Schengen area;

23.

believes that Iceland could join the EU in the near term based on the ‘own merits’ principle and encourages timely continuation of alignment in remaining policy areas;

24.

commends the fact that Iceland has, to some extent, successfully overcome its economic difficulties and has persevered with implementation of the necessary reforms;

25.

is concerned about the lack of strong public support for the integration process;

26.

takes a positive view of the efforts of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the accession process;

27.

welcomes the measures taken by the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to promote the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's membership of the EU, but is concerned at the lack of effective action to find a satisfactory solution to the formal question of the country's name; it is essential that good neighbourly relations be maintained, including negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the country's name, under the auspices of the United Nations;

28.

takes a positive view of the ongoing steps to adapt the national legal system to EU legislation; draws attention, however, to the need for continued reform in the areas of justice, fundamental rights of women and minorities and public administration;

29.

draws attention to the need for tackling high-level corruption and guaranteeing the freedom of expression in the media;

30.

acknowledges the progress made in cooperation between the institutions of government, the various levels of local government and non-governmental organisations;

31.

welcomes progress on implementing the law on languages, on decentralisation and on equitable representation and encourages the continuation of efforts to address ongoing challenges such as education and harmonious relations between all communities;

32.

with an eye to the Council's intention to launch accession negotiations in June 2012, welcomes the measures taken to change and adapt the legislation of Montenegro in connection with reform of the public administration, keeping of national statistics, free media, as well as tackling corruption and organised crime; there has also been a certain improvement in observance of human rights, gender equality and respect for minority rights;

33.

welcomes the initiatives to reduce the level of corruption and recommends more action to tackle corruption, especially in the areas of privatisation, territorial planning, education and the health service as well as in local and regional authorities;

34.

highly commends the progress made in protecting the rights of the minority population and representing it in statutory and self-governing bodies;

35.

welcomes the decision to set up a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) as a forum for dialogue between the EU's Committee of the Regions and local authorities in Montenegro;

36.

welcomes the changes leading to the democratisation of political life and society in Turkey; notes Turkey's obligation to maintain good neighbourly relations, and calls for it to avoid any action against Member States or their sovereign rights, as defined by the Copenhagen criteria and the EU-Turkey Negotiating Framework of 3 October 2005; expresses its dissatisfaction at Turkey's declarations stating its intention to freeze relations with the EU presidency during the second half of 2012, and hopes to see the development of regional cooperation;

37.

expresses disappointment at Turkey's continued failure to meet its commitments under the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and calls on Turkey to progress towards its full implementation;

38.

notes with concern Turkey's low level of enforcement of legislation, adopted in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria; finds regrettable the lack of clear progress in developing local governance and civil society but hopes nonetheless that the ongoing constitutional reform process will secure significant progress; affirms that the establishment of a joint consultative committee between the Committee of the Regions and Turkish local and regional authorities should help ensure that due account is taken of EU requirements regarding decentralisation;

39.

is concerned at the inadequate progress made in freedom of speech, media freedom, religious freedom, women's rights and respect for minority rights and in finding a fair solution to the Cyprus issue; urges the Turkish government to lend active support to the continuing negotiations and to take action aimed at the full settlement of the Cypriot question;

40.

is very much concerned about, and invites Turkey to improve, the observance of fundamental rights and freedoms in law and in practice; the restrictions in practice on the freedom of the media, the legal cases launched against writers, journalists, academics, elected politicians and human rights defenders, and frequent website bans all raise serious concerns that need to be addressed by the Turkish government;

41.

urges Turkey to step up local administrative reform, with a view to further decentralisation and making more effective use of local and regional levels of government. Key factors include greater and fairer funding for the local sector, systems for consultation between the various levels in line with the principles of multi-level governance, and greater support for the EU integration of the local level;

42.

is concerned at the sharp decline in public and media interest and credibility regarding Turkish EU membership; would therefore ask the EU to press ahead with the negotiations, not least through a ‘positive agenda’ that is to come into play as soon as Turkey meets the accession criteria;

43.

takes a positive view of the Commission's proposal to broaden cooperation between the local and regional authorities of EU Member States and their Turkish counterparts;

44.

stresses the CoR's interest in making use of existing mechanisms for cooperation between the EU and Turkey, cross-border programmes, regional cooperation and cooperation between local government institutions, with a view to developing local government and increasing the scope of application of the subsidiarity principle and democratisation;

45.

calls on the Albanian authorities to continue reforms, as the reforms carried out so far only to some extent bring that country closer to meeting the Copenhagen criteria;

46.

draws attention to the critical importance for the integration process of implementing the principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation and of developing democratic procedures, local government and civil society;

47.

encourages the Albanian government and opposition to restore and maintain constructive political dialogue in order to bolster the smooth running and independence of the basic democratic institutions; urges the Albanian authorities to step up their efforts to promote and implement the reforms necessary for the pre-accession process, especially as regards human rights, gender equality, the protection of minorities as well as of property rights, tackling corruption and organised crime and the pursuit of a constructive emigration policy;

48.

notes with concern the lack of decisive action to tackle the corruption encompassing a number of areas of public life; such corruption may in future pose a serious problem for the country's development;

49.

urges the Albanian government to work actively with relevant stakeholders to promote decentralisation and EU integration.

50.

welcomes the reforms being carried out by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina; draws attention, however, to the scope for increasing the degree of coordination between all levels of government, including the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska;

51.

believes that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must step up efforts to implement these reforms; draws attention to the fact that implementation of reforms in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria will be possible in the medium term only with significant involvement from the authorities, while environmental reforms will only be possible over the long term;

52.

is concerned at the political stalemate in the country and the inability to get beyond the special interests of individual political groups, which is leading to significant delay in the accession process of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If stakeholders, in particular local authorities, were more widely and closely involved, IPA funds could be utilised more effectively and thus be of more obvious benefit to citizens. This would also highlight the advantages for the public of closer ties with the EU;

53.

agrees with the Commission's analysis of the situation with regard to the conflict, deadlock and political paralysis in Bosnia and Herzegovina and would therefore like to highlight the comments it made in 2010 (3). As a divided country, Bosnia needs leadership that can reconcile conflicts and initiate collective solutions. The EU needs to make it clear that the only real option is a policy that opens the country to the four freedoms of the internal market;

54.

stresses the weakness of cooperation between the country's various administrative levels, which should be rectified with the clear support of all political forces in the country;

55.

notes that, in order to develop a climate of constructive cooperation in the country, it needs to have a functional administrative structure in which the various political levels complement each other and reconcile their divisions. The CoR reiterates that national government in Bosnia and Herzegovina must be strengthened in several spheres, and that support must be given to the driving forces for reform that are promoting both a stronger state and a decentralisation process with reinforced local authorities;

56.

is convinced of the need to step up practical cross-border cooperation as well as cooperation between central, regional and local authorities;

57.

welcomes Kosovo's commitment to its European trajectory in the context of the European integration process;

58.

hopes that the lack of broad consensus among EU Member States on the formal status of Kosovo will not obstruct the development of relations in the form of agreements between the EU and Kosovo, and believes that, for the moment, practical, ad hoc solutions could be sought and promoted on the basis of a neutral approach as regards Kosovo's status;

59.

stresses that the EU, in accordance with the principles it has adopted, is totally committed to the European perspective of the western Balkans, Kosovo included;

60.

welcomes the Commission's recommendation on awarding Serbia EU candidate status;

61.

welcomes the European Council decision to grant Serbia status of candidate to the EU and urges Serbia to continue systemic and structural reforms; stresses the need to take steps to normalise relations with Kosovo, in accordance with the terms of the stabilisation and association process, by fully observing the principles of regional cooperation, with all stakeholders taking part; simultaneously hopes, that no steps, which could jeopardise their European perspective will be taken;

62.

encourages the Serbian authorities to continue the constructive steps they have taken to promote cooperation and stability in the region;

63.

commends the progress made by Serbia in the pre-accession process, covering adjustments in a series of areas including human rights, the judicial system, media freedom and the Helsinki criteria;

64.

draws attention to the particular importance in the integration process of implementing the principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation as well as development of democratic procedures, minority and local government rights, and development of civil society;

65.

takes a positive view of the protection of the linguistic rights of the traditional minority population and the approval in September 2011 of a law on public property and the transfer of some powers to the province of Vojvodina and to local authorities.

27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/7

—

points out that the need to tackle the specific issue of family reunification coincides with the attention given to a new European agenda for integration (CdR 199/2011), and a European culture of multilevel governance (CdR 273/2011) which urges the Committee of the Regions to take action;

—

notes that the Green Paper indicates that in some cases the application of the directive is used as a deterrent and points out that the arrangements for family reunification cannot be viewed as a means to curb migration flows; the specific aims of reunification are to improve the integration of legal migrants and to comply with the right to a family;

—

stresses that people's right to live with their family, as well as the right and the duty to provide for, educate and bring up their children and thus to have their children with them, are fundamental rights and duties, independent of citizenship; points out that this is recognised in many instances of national and international case law which agree on this point;

—

points out that the States must act with due regard for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in order to give the regions and local communities a stronger role in the application of integration policy and to provide them with a stable, legally sound frame of reference;

—

the Committee calls for a stronger local-level role in multilevel governance, a crucial condition for a consistent immigration policy which complies with fundamental rights and is capable of promoting the wellbeing of host communities and immigrants.

Rapporteur

Sergio SOAVE (IT/PES), Mayor of Savigliano (CN)

Reference document

Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC)

COM(2011) 735 final

1.

welcomes the Commission's decision to open up a debate on family reunification, the subject of Directive 2003/86/EC, in order to assess various problems which have arisen in the course of the directive's application and to look into the criticisms made by various parties (NGOs, local communities, academia);

2.

endorses the decision to use the Green Paper, which examines a number of key issues in the directive and asks a series of questions, as a basis for discussion; is pleased that the Commission will only decide on any practical measures to be adopted after this consultation has taken place;

3.

points out that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in managing integration and social cohesion policies. They should therefore be fully involved in discussions on the enactment of the rules on family reunification in order to facilitate both the proper integration of immigrants in the host country and any reform of the directive;

4.

emphasises that this initiative is in line with the Stockholm Programme of December 2009 and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum of September 2008;

5.

points out that the need to tackle the specific issue of family reunification coincides with the attention given to a new European agenda for integration (CdR 199/2011), and a European culture of multilevel governance (CdR 273/2011) which urges the Committee of the Regions to take action;

6.

believes, upon careful consideration, that the economic crisis which is convulsing Europe may distort people's judgment regarding the directive. Another factor here is the concomitant influx of people arriving in Europe, some of them fleeing the effects of the undeniably major and positive political movement known as the Arab spring which has affected many Southern Mediterranean countries;

7.

notes that the Green Paper indicates that in some cases the application of the directive is used as a deterrent and in this context points out that the arrangements for family reunification cannot be viewed as a means to curb migration flows, a problem which should be tackled at source and in other ways. The specific aims of reunification are to improve the integration of legal migrants and to comply with the right to a family, a principle enshrined in every charter of rights;

8.

stresses that people's right to live with their family, as well as the right and the duty to provide for, educate and bring up their children and thus to have their children with them, are fundamental rights and duties, independent of citizenship; points out that this is recognised in many instances of national and international case law which agree on this point. Specifically, Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the ‘natural and fundamental group unit of society’ which is ‘entitled to protection by society and the State’. Article 9 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to a family among the fundamental rights of the individual;

9.

calls for immigration policies to comply fully with these fundamental rights, in line with the case law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts which have handed down clear and consistent judgments on this point;

10.

also calls for a practical evaluation of the impact of family reunification. The directive asserts that family reunification is a factor in social and cultural stability which itself promotes integration, fostering economic and social cohesion to the benefit of host local authorities. It must indeed be recognised that the application of the right to family reunification is a step forward for migration policies which demonstrate their maturity by focusing on the stabilisation of immigrants as a vital tool for effective social and economic integration in the host country. This is also a decisive and practical means to curb illegal immigration and decrease dangerous forms of social exclusion;

11.

notes that every European constitution views the family tie as a source of specific duties of economic and social solidarity. Promoting this tie among immigrant families through more robust recognition of the right to family reunification would therefore appear to be a way to encourage foreigners to realise that the many obligations (both administrative and organisational) imposed upon them are not merely the result of repressive policies or police requirements; they are part of a more general project working towards the overall development of society, to which they are actively called upon to contribute, not only by claiming rights but also by acknowledging duties which underpin the principles of public mindedness and responsibility towards others;

12.

with this goal in mind, hopes that particular attention will be given to protecting the ‘nuclear family’ (the focus of the directive) and, within this frame of reference, to the right to reunification of minor children, who merit specific and stronger protection. As regards other types of family, in relation to the rules and customs of the migrant's State of origin, believes that evaluating individual or specific cases should be left up to the Member States; if, however, as a result of the consultation, the European Commission concludes that it would be necessary to adopt a common definition of ‘family’ at the European level, this definition has to be consistent with the definitions included in other EU instruments;

13.

considering the importance of these general principles and evaluations, does not believe that there is any need to substantially curtail individual States' margin of discretion, which is recognised by the directive and confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty. Nonetheless, points out that the States must act with due regard for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in order to give the regions and local communities a stronger role in the application of integration policy and to provide them with a stable, legally sound frame of reference.

14.

considers that, without prejudice to the right of every third-country national residing legally in the EU to be reunited with their family members, it is understandable that this right should be made subject to specific conditions, always provided that it is without prejudice to the spirit of the directive which aims to facilitate their integration and stabilisation;

15.

considers that the current wording of the directive might create legal uncertainty as well as doubts as to interpretation, and calls for an evaluation of the case for establishing at European level a minimum length of residence which would reconcile the need for stability with respect for the right to a family life, using circular-migration type models when having recourse to voluntary return programmes;

16.

suggests that the minimum age laid down for reunification of the spouse should generally be aligned with the age of majority established by the national legislation of the host country, with derogations for a lower age considered on an exceptional basis. This will guarantee the greatest possible uniformity and avoid potential age-based discrimination;

17.

draws attention to the fact that the two derogations to the right to family reunification of minor children (Article 4(1), last paragraph, and Article 4(6)) have rarely been used and so could be repealed. At any rate, recommends that all decisions on this point be taken with a view to the best interests of the child and to assuring the protection of the minor child's rights. On the same grounds, also recommends that the right to reunification of minor children be guaranteed even if there is no marriage tie between the parents, in order to avoid any form of discrimination between legitimate and natural children;

18.

as regards the optional clause relating to family members other than the spouse or registered partner and children, considers that the individual Member States should retain a margin of discretion in setting criteria. Notes that the directive in force does not clearly set out (as it should do) the consequences for family members in the event of the death of the sponsor, annulment of the marriage, divorce, the sponsor leaving the Member State, or successful contestation of paternity;

19.

recommends preventive monitoring of the effectiveness of the various measures already in place (pre-departure measures and measures applied in the host country). On the basis of this initial screening, nonetheless recommends against pre-departure measures which might be impossible to implement for the sponsor's family members owing to illiteracy, material costs, distance from towns, etc. and which in practice would preclude the right to reunification; furthermore, considers that where attendance at language classes and/or classes on civic education and/or knowledge of the history and culture of the host society is required after arrival in the host country, the classes should be provided free of charge in order to avoid income-based discrimination, and draw on European Integration Modules;

20.

when evaluating other material conditions which the sponsor residing in the Member State is required to meet (accommodation, health insurance, stable and regular resources), recommends that these conditions should comply with the principle of proportionality and not result in arbitrary restrictions. In particular, hopes that when enacting the directive, the Member States will ensure that their rules regarding these conditions are rooted in objective and verifiable criteria and not in generic provisions which might be interpreted in an arbitrarily restrictive fashion;

21.

suggests that the criterion of the Member State's ‘reception capacity’ as a factor in the evaluation of whether reunification should be approved should be abolished, as it constitutes an additional tool for controlling migration flows, in contrast with the principles of EU law;

22.

considers that the length of the residence permit for the sponsor's family members should be aligned strictly with that of the sponsor, with a view to the possibility of adopting solutions in line with circular migration models when having recourse to voluntary return programmes;

23.

as regards family reunification of third-country nationals who have been granted some form of specific protection (asylum, status of refugee, subsidiary protection), considers that, in accordance with the Stockholm Programme, the various types of status should be dealt with through specific, separate rules which take account of the specific situation of people who have been granted such protection (including the practical difficulties involved in providing information and documents). The directive on the general arrangements for reunification should therefore not be applied to the family members of foreigners granted some form of protection; the family reunification of these foreigners, including in the case of family ties established subsequent to the entry into the host State, should be the subject of separate rules;

24.

considers that, unless used as a last resort, the decision taken by a number of Member States to introduce DNA testing for the identification of children could constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality in addition to violation of fundamental rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR);

25.

with regard to the fraud which it is feared might be perpetrated by means of marriages of convenience, asks the Commission and/or the Member States to provide data on the real extent of this phenomenon; in the absence of specific cases, believes it would be useful for targeted investigations to be carried out in all the Member States to get a more accurate idea of what is happening and promote good practice in addressing such problems;

26.

with regard to the costs of family reunification borne by the sponsor, flags the risk that an artificial increase in administrative costs could be used by some States to place arbitrary limits on entry, in clear contrast with the principle of proportionality whereby the means should be suited to the aim pursued: the aim is to promote, not to preclude, the exercise of the right under consideration. The Member States should therefore be asked to set the cost in such a way as to avoid undermining the application of the directive;

27.

considers that the Member States should be recommended to comply with the deadline for reaching a decision on the request for reunification laid down by the directive; any derogation procedure established by the State for the purpose of extending this deadline beyond any reasonable period is an obstacle to the proper enactment of the directive;

28.

with regard to the alleged difficulties in complying with the two mandatory horizontal clauses laid down by the directive, calls on the European Commission to adopt all the instruments and measures enshrined in the treaties and intended to ensure that the Member States comply fully with Community law.

29.

The Committee calls for a stronger local-level role in multilevel governance, a crucial condition for a consistent immigration policy which complies with fundamental rights and is capable of promoting the wellbeing of host communities and immigrants. Exemplary experiences of integration have been recorded in many European regions and communities and many ambiguous points in national legislation with regard to the practical interpretation of the directive have been resolved using the practical experience of local institutions. The Committee underlines the need to assemble as much information as possible on this subject and is willing to cooperate fully with the Member States and other European institutions in collecting and disseminating information and best practice where these data are available at local and regional level.

27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/11

—

observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving the problems has been placed on local and regional authorities; A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) must take responsibility and adopt the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level;

—

insists that the EU's immissions and emissions policies must be linked to each other. It is therefore essential that equal levels of ambition and synchronised timeframes be developed for EU source-based and immissions policy during the policy-development phase;

—

recommends a strengthening of EU emissions policy, in particular by making the review of the NEC directive ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations; by tightening up the Euro standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter and emissions requirements for other mobile sources; by closing the gaps between EU vehicle emission standards and actual vehicle ‘real world’ emissions; by tackling emissions from shipping and air traffic, and ammonia emissions from agriculture;

—

recommends that the review of the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) in particular reduces the number of substances and the number of target and limit values by focusing on the most polluting substances and on those indicators that best reflect the health aspects; investigates whether particle concentration and EC/BC are more suitable indicators and which form they could be included in the directive; examines the use of the annual average limit value for PM10 on the basis of multi-year average concentrations; extends the possibility of additional derogations for reducing NO2 levels under specific circumstances; and imposes more specific rules on the location of measuring stations in order to ensure comparability.

Rapporteur

Cor LAMERS (NL/EPP), Mayor of the municipality of Houten (Burgemeester van Houten)

Reference document

Letter from the European Commission vice-president of 19 July 2011

1.

is aware of the Commission's intention to present a comprehensive review of the European air quality policy in 2013, with new long-term objectives for the period after 2020. This review will be very wide ranging, involving:

2.

appreciates the European Commission's request for an outlook opinion from the Committee on the future of EU air quality policy;

3.

notes that the opinion (1), as an outlook opinion issued during the expert-group stage of the EU decision-making process, sets out both administrative/policy and technical aspects (recommended legislation and suggested processes);

4.

notes that air quality affects people's daily lives and health in both urban and rural areas. Public health and the environment should be at the heart of attempts to improve air quality, but at the same time a balance must be sought between economic development and reducing air pollution. Improving the environment and public health can also stimulate the economy and reduce the economic costs of factors which threaten and damage health;

5.

welcomes the significant improvements in air quality in Europe that have resulted from a combination of EU air quality policy and policy and action in the Member States (at national, regional and local level). The situation has been improving for the last two decades, but the Committee is concerned that this positive trend has stalled recently;

6.

points out that air pollution causes the greatest problems and hotspots in conurbations. Despite all the measures taken at local and regional level, many European cities will not be able to meet the standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5) and NO2 in time, as a result of which a large proportion of Europeans are living in areas with concentrations of air pollution that are harmful to their health;

7.

notes, moreover, that rural and peri-urban areas are also affected by air pollution, with a not insignificant impact on the environment, crops and natural habitats;

8.

notes that air pollution must be reduced, but that at the same time our cities must continue to function properly from a social and economic point of view. In most Member States motorised passenger and goods road transport (which is powered primarily by diesel and petrol) is one of the most significant direct source of NO2 air pollution hotspots and there must be a more effective approach than at present, in terms of both emissions standards and containing traffic;

9.

feels that the key question in reviewing EU air quality policy must be how EU legislation can effect improvements in air quality (i.e. using what type of legislation and which measures). At least the following aspects are important: multilevel governance, an integrated approach, and the practical implementation of EU legislation in Europe's cities. Priority must be given to the workability of the EU directive and problems of implementation in cities and regions;

10.

notes that governance must be an important element in the development of new EU air quality legislation. Air pollution has transboundary and national dimensions, and therefore necessitates action at all levels of government (European, national, regional and local). The Committee recommends taking a multilevel approach, with each level of government taking its share of the responsibility and taking those actions that must or can best be taken at that level;

11.

highlights the importance of an integrated approach to developing new EU legislation. Pollution must be prevented as far as possible. It is vital to identify the causes of pollution and to tackle emissions at source in the most economically effective and environmentally friendly way possible;

12.

notes that improving public health will require an ambitious EU air quality policy, but that it is impossible to pursue an immissions policy with EU limit values for pollutants without an effective emissions policy with EU measures to tackle pollution at source. The ambitiousness of the revised directive must therefore be closely aligned with that of the national emission ceilings and EU emissions policy (source-based policy). In this connection, the Committee feels that combining the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) with the revised version of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) would help to align the different levels of ambition;

13.

feels that the thematic strategy on air pollution has contributed to reducing people's exposure to air pollution and to improving the environment;

14.

finds it regrettable that not all of the source-based measures mentioned in the thematic strategy have been implemented in practice, most notably:

15.

observes that local and regional authorities are working hard to improve air quality, for example by:

16.

points out that European policy at all levels should be further tightened, especially regarding quantitative reduction and the spatial and sectoral shift away from private and commercial transport by road. But it should be pointed out that compliance with the standards for PM10, PM2,5 and NO2 cannot be assured by such measures alone. The main reasons for this can be divided into three types of obstacle: limited influence, limited options, and limited policy freedom (see points 17, 19 and 22);

17.

is of the opinion that individual local and regional governments have only a spatially limited influence on improving local air quality (first type of obstacle). Local and regional policy focuses on reducing emissions from local sources, while a large part of local concentrations of fine PM10 and PM2,5 particulates and ozone especially is in fact caused by cross-border and/or trans-regional emissions;

18.

points out that the high background concentrations of air pollutants and the often inadequate transposition and revision of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) restrict the prospects of success of the measures taken by local and regional authorities in order to meet EU air quality standards. The accumulation of (local, regional, national and international) emissions results in ‘background concentrations’, which can be so high that even a very small amount of pollution at local level results in limit values being reached or exceeded. In these cases the local and regional authorities affected of course have very little scope for influence;

19.

concludes that local and regional authorities have limited options in what action they can take (second type of obstacle). Urban policy focuses on mobility and spatial planning, and on specific actions to deal with ‘hotspots’. Local and regional authorities can take almost no effective measures based on the nature of the sources;

20.

points out that, in drafting their air quality policies, local and regional authorities have anticipated the benefits that would come from the introduction of EU-wide source-based measures. In retrospect, it is apparent that an insufficiently ambitious policy to tackle pollution at source, as well as not always having had the desired effect on European roads (see section D), is a major factor in failures to comply with limit values at local and regional level;

21.

points out that efforts to further reduce local concentrations using only local measures can have a significant impact on everyday life and entail considerable costs. This will require financial resources that many local and regional authorities simply do not have, and powers that they do not officially have in all Member States. Moreover, international and European source-based policy is much more cost-effective;

22.

points out that local and regional authorities have limited powers (third type of obstacle). Unfortunately, no – or insufficient – complementary measures have been taken at national level in many Member States which weakens regional and local authorities even further. For example, not all Member States have developed a national air quality plan, and most have opted not to take an integrated approach to air quality that is binding on all levels of government. There are also cases where the national government has discouraged, or even prevented, local and regional authorities from taking additional or stricter measures: for example, in a number of Member States low-emission zones cannot be introduced by local authorities, but only by the national government. The EU's internal market rules also restrict local and regional policy options. The free movement of goods and persons is after all hampered by the introduction of large environmental zones (e.g. regional zones) and road or bridge closures. Equally, national bans on polluting vehicles are not feasible for the above reasons;

23.

notes that various Member States are drafting national legislation to allow fines arising from EU letters of formal notice to be charged to local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities are required to meet the limit values using the limited options and resources at their disposal, while European and national levels of government have much more extensive and effective options and resources. Therefore, where the limit values are not complied with, responsibility for paying fines should continue to lie with the Member States. The Committee considers the ‘transfer’ of fines to local and regional authorities to be unjustified, and opposes any such moves;

24.

observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving the problems has been placed on local and regional authorities;

25.

also notes there is insufficient coordination between Member States in the fight against air pollution. Thus, information and warning thresholds are not the same in neighbouring countries, real-time information exchange between Member States during episodes of pollution is not organised and action plans are not coordinated in the major pollution areas common to several Member States;

26.

stresses that air quality problems cannot be resolved – or EU policy implemented – by any one level of government. A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) must take responsibility and adopt the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level;

27.

points out that local and regional authorities are partly dependent on source-based measures at national and international level to reduce emissions and thereby help to substantially reduce background concentrations. Local and regional authorities can, in turn, develop their own policy on the basis of this, for example by tightening up the rules for access to environmental zones;

28.

believes that implementation of air quality legislation is not simply a question of legal implementation (transposition into national law). If permitted under the internal organisation of the given Member State, the Committee recommends that national and/or federal air quality plans and/or reduction programmes be developed, taking an integrated and coordinated approach and taking account of the transnational aspects of the problem. The Committee advocates a multilevel approach and points to the establishment of cross-government teams in the Member States in which experts from the various levels of government work together to draw up national plans and programmes (2). This boosts synergy and consistency between national, regional and local measures;

29.

appreciates the European Commission's efforts to draw attention to examples of best practice by local and regional authorities, and calls for this policy to be continued;

30.

notes that it is important to aim for consistency and synergy with developments at international level, and points out that the emission ceilings in the revised Gothenburg Protocol must be a vital adjunct to the review of the EU directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC);

31.

believes that it is important to achieve consistency and synergy between action to tackle the various different pollutants. To this end, it is essential to take an approach that integrates EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular climate, industry, transport, housing and energy. Improving the sustainability of transport policy and introducing sustainable forms of energy production and consumption could significantly reduce air pollution;

32.

finds it regrettable that there is often a lack of synergy between measures. Measures with a positive effect in one area can have a negative effect in another. For example, increased used of biomass – such as biodiesel in small-scale installations – may increase emissions of black carbon, which presents risks for air quality and public health. An increase in diesel-fuelled vehicles may reduce CO2 emissions, but have a negative effect on emissions of particulate matter. Technologies to reduce particulate-matter emissions can, in turn, have a negative effect on NO2 emissions from diesel-fuelled vehicles, slowing the reduction of NO2 concentrations. Greater policy integration should prevent such negative consequences as far as possible, and it would be advisable to aim for a ‘win-win’ situation for all the policy areas concerned, or at least establish criteria for when it is preferable to prioritise one or other objective;

33.

feels it would be useful to link the policy for improving air quality with the policy for promoting use of alternative energy sources. Use of alternative energy sources (e.g. installations for use of geothermal energy, solar collectors, etc.) would make a major contribution to improving air quality;

34.

points to the lack of integration between policies to tackle climate change and those regarding air quality. Air quality policy generally has a positive impact in terms of combating climate change, but climate policy has only a limited impact on air pollution, as it follows a different dynamic and a different timescale. Climate policy focuses more on the long term, in contrast to air quality policy, which focuses on the short to medium term;

35.

believes that there is considerable potential for synergies between air quality and environmental noise policy, especially if traffic levels can be reduced, and that a ‘win-win’ situation should also be sought for these two policy areas (4);

36.

calls for more recording of emissions and immissions through an ‘integrated monitoring’ scheme that includes the coordinated collection and evaluation of emissions, an extension of the range of materials, provided that it can be adequately demonstrated that they really affect human health or the environment or else, in the case of evaluation, that it is limited to monitoring through modelling, propagation modelling and the measurement of exposure and effect over space and time, on the express condition that this does not lead to an excessive increase in the administrative burden;

37.

highlights the importance of consistency and synergy between immissions policy (EU limit values) and emissions policy (EU measures to tackle pollution at source): immissions are the result of emission levels, the location of emissions and the transmission and/or dispersal conditions. Moreover, reductions in immissions (concentration levels) can most effectively be achieved by pursuing an ambitious emissions policy;

38.

concludes that the EU's ambitions immissions policy has not automatically led to an ambitious EU emissions policy, and that this has resulted in an imbalance between the two policies; consequently the implementation problems encountered in many European cities (see section B) and the slowdown in improvements to air quality can largely be blamed on the mismatches between EU immissions and emissions policies which therefore need to be addressed in any future development of policies and measures in this area with a view to bring them into a balance:

39.

points out that new ambitions in terms of air quality (stricter limit values) must be realistic and feasible, and must therefore go hand in hand with (source-based) measures to actually reduce emissions throughout Europe. The EU's immissions and emissions policies must be linked to each other. It is therefore essential that equal levels of ambition and synchronised timeframes be developed for EU source-based and immissions policy (see previous point) during the policy-development phase. The Committee also draws attention to the implementation phase, where a situation could arise whereby: certain source-based measures mentioned in the revised thematic strategy are not taken, or if they do not, in practice, result in the desired reduction in emissions (as specified in emissions policy). The committee proposes that in such a situation the European Commission adopt compensatory measures. This can prevent the current mismatch between emissions and immissions policy re-emerging, confronting regional and local authorities once again with an impossible task;

40.

in light of this desire for consistency between immissions and emissions policy, proposes the following timeframe for the development of future EU air quality policy:

41.

points out that air pollution is primarily caused by road and air transport, shipping, heating, households, industry and factory farming. An ambitious source-based policy is therefore needed (5). Consideration must be given here to the fact that motorised road transport is one of the biggest direct causes of air pollution hotspots in urban areas;

42.

welcomes, from an air-quality perspective, the ambitious nature of the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011) 144 final). In order to reach the necessary level of ambition for air quality, however, the Committee calls for a European action plan to be drawn up, including intermediate targets, specific measures (e.g. EU source-based measures) and scheduled evaluations (6);

43.

calls on the EU, in addition to reducing emissions from each mobile or stationary source, to pay attention more systematically than before to reducing the total amount from the individual sources. Such quantitative policy measures have so far been left largely to the municipalities and regions. The contribution of the EU could initially cover the following actions:

44.

takes the view that EU emissions policy must be based on standards (and target-based policy, with required targets) so as not to hold back further technological innovations;

45.

recommends the introduction of a prevention requirement similar to the waste framework law, which makes it possible to manage existing resources accordingly;

46.

points out that the widespread contraventions of limit values for NO2 can mainly be attributed to the inadequate or delayed introduction of emission limits (for motor vehicles) by the EU and therefore urgently recommends tightening up the Euro standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter. It is important to stick closely to the timetable for the introduction of Euro VI/6 standards;

47.

recommends that emissions requirements for other mobile sources such as, inter alia, off-road equipment, retrofitting filters in vehicles, or up-dating European requirements for motorcycles, should also be made stricter;

48.

highlights the gap between EU legislation and actual vehicle emissions on the road. The Euro V/5 standards were (and are) ambitious, but in spite of that this ambition has not resulted in a sharp drop in air pollution. The most important reason for this is that a gap exists between the legal reality of the EU legislation and the actual emissions of road vehicles. It became clear, when Euro-III goods vehicles were introduced, that emissions under real-world driving conditions were higher than expected and did not deliver the expected reduction in emissions. The same problem was observed with the introduction of Euro-IV and Euro-V for diesel-engined goods vehicles and passenger cars respectively and – though to a lesser extent – with regard to NOx emissions from passenger cars. In order to realise the ambition of the EU legislation, the Euro VI/6 standard for vehicle emissions in the test cycle must correspond better to the actual emissions of an average journey in the city;

49.

would also point out that, in practice, newly delivered goods vehicles are often subject to technical modification whereby, under real-world conditions, their emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter are higher than might be expected from the type approval test. This practice must be as far as possible be avoided – and made subject to a fine – when Euro VI goods vehicles are introduced. To prevent this problem arising, the Committee would ask the European Commission and the Member States to tighten up legislation, goods vehicle approvals and associated inspections. Consideration must also be given whether technical options are available to prevent such technical modifications from being made in the future;

50.

calls for special consideration to be given to heavy-duty vehicles (buses and lorries) which are generally the most polluting. Medium-duty vehicles (including vans) also generate considerably more NOx than the average car, and EU emissions policy should therefore pay special attention to tightening up the standards on emissions from such vehicles as well as emissions from diesel-engined cars, combining them with appropriate commercial logistics management measures and incentives, together with improvements to local public transport;

51.

notes that brake and tyre wear, together with wear on the road surface and the resuspension of road surface particles, contributes to the high concentrations of particulate matter, and recommends that research into ways of reducing such emissions be undertaken within the European research framework programme. The Committee also suggests that a guide to best practices be drawn up providing recommendations for the use of dust-retention solutions in order to prevent air pollutants from being dispersed again;

52.

notes that industry still makes a major contribution to total emissions in Europe, and that efforts to reduce these emissions are regulated in the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, IED). Ambitious Best Available Technique (BAT) reference documents (BREFs) and the conclusions drawn from these are decisive instruments for reducing background concentrations. In order to ensure that the BATs can still be used in the future, the BREFs and their conclusions need to be revised on a regular basis and be ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations throughout Europe, and the use of exemptions should be minimised (7);

53.

notes that agricultural holdings contribute to air pollution, with ammonia emissions playing a significant role in acidification and eutrophication. Levels of NH3 will need to be reduced further if nature-related objectives such as the protection of Natura 2000 areas are to be achieved. Efforts to reduce these emissions are regulated in the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, IED). It is also important for large-scale, industrial agricultural holdings to be able to use the best available techniques in future, and the BAT reference documents (BREFs) therefore need to be revised regularly;

54.

notes that emissions from shipping may have a significant impact on concentrations of air pollutants in port towns and cities and port areas and along heavily used inland waterways, and also in coastal towns, cities and regions. The Committee urges national authorities to apply the guidelines of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in all European coastal waters. Emission-reducing measures for particulates and NOx emissions should be required for inland waterway vessels;

55.

notes that emissions from air traffic contribute to background concentrations of polluting substances. The Committee calls on the EU and national authorities to take the necessary measures and to make the requirements for aircraft emissions stricter;

56.

points out that the directive on national emission ceilings (NECs) is by far the best instrument for reducing background concentrations. Transboundary air pollution forms a very large proportion of background concentrations in many Member States, amounting to more than 50 % (averaged across the country) for some pollutants. The Committee feels that it is very important for the review of the NEC directive to be ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations throughout Europe, as it will make local and regional air quality policy realistic and feasible;

57.

notes that the directive on national emission ceilings is a key tool in forcing Member States to take measures at source. For this to be the case, however, the revised NEC directive and EU source-based policy need to be just as ambitious as the directives on air quality (2008/50/EG and 2004/107/EG). The ambitious targets of the air quality directives can only be achieved if these particular elements show ambition. In this connection, the Committee believes that combining the NEC directive with the air quality directives would encourage the harmonisation of the various levels of ambition;

58.

is concerned by the Member States' lack of ambition with regard to the pending revision of the Gothenburg Protocol (which lays down the international agreements for emission ceilings). This revision affects the revision of the NEC directive, and thus also influences the level of ambition shown in new EU air quality legislation. The Committee urges the Member States to be more ambitious in the pending revision of the Gothenburg Protocol;

59.

asks at the very least for a list of elemental or black carbon emissions to be drawn up and for a monitoring process to be set up with a view to identifying new atmospheric pollutants that could in future be included in this protocol;

60.

notes that the air quality directives (2008/50/EG and 2004/107/EG) are very important instruments in reducing the exposure of people and the environment to air pollution. The establishment of minimum protection levels has led to action in all EU countries to reduce emissions and to reduce concentrations at hotspots. A reduction in emissions in one country at the same time results in a reduction in transboundary air pollution, which means that neighbouring countries are helping each other to meet the limit values;

61.

believes that public health and environmental protection must be the starting point for revising the air quality directives. Improving public health will require a higher level of ambition. However, the Committee insists in this regard that the ambitiousness of the revised directive must be carefully aligned with that of the national emission ceilings and EU emissions policy (source-based policy) as previously mentioned (point 57);

62.

observes that the air quality directives currently contain 27 limit and target values; it also notes that some of the limit values overlap (for example the daily and annual limits for PM10 and the annual limits for PM10 and PM2,5), and that a number of the limit values have not been exceeded for many years in large parts of the EU. The Committee therefore suggests looking into whether the concept of target values does in fact have any added value for substances for which the directives already provide limit values;

63.

notes that the requirements in the directive to report on the concentrations detected and on the establishment and status of air quality plans take a great deal of time and impose additional administrative burdens on local and regional authorities;

64.

feels that, from the perspective of public health and scientific research as well as of better regulation, reducing red tape and facilitating communication with the public, the number of substances and the number of target and limit values could be possibly reduced. This could be achieved by focusing on the most polluting substances and on those indicators that best reflect the health aspects;

65.

recommends that the indicators used for traffic-related pollution should be those that best reflect the health aspects. The current directive provides standards for PM10, PM2,5 and NO2, but some studies indicate that elemental carbon (EC/black carbon) and particle concentration (combustion related aerosol) seem to be better indicators for the components of air pollution linked to motor-vehicle traffic that impact public health. EC/BC is the soot fraction released from the combustion of all carbon-based fuels (including diesel and petrol), for example in vehicle and boat engines. The Committee therefore recommends investigating whether a standard for particle concentration and EC/BC could be introduced;

66.

points out that a greater focus on EC/BC would be in line with the recommendations of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP);

67.

proposes that the directive include the possibility of mid-term amendment (using the recast procedure). If research (see point 65) and positive practical experience show that the EC/BC standard is more suitable for use as an indicator its inclusion, and the form in which it would be included, in the directive could be considered;

68.

points out that the current directive has three limit values and one reduction target for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5), as well as various values, annual averages and 24 hour values. This makes it complicated to implement in practice, and imposes unnecessary administrative burdens. The Committee is aware of the discussions concerning simplifying this situation by deleting one of the standards for particulate matter (either PM10 or PM2,5) provided this is duly justified by studies of the effects on health and the environment; it does not wish to take a position on that;

69.

points out that the limit values for PM10 are very difficult to comply with in some places. This may be due to local circumstances, local sources, certain specific meteorological conditions and/or periods of large-scale air pollution. Long-distance goods transport can also contribute significantly to the overall load. With a view to the desired flexibility, the Committee suggests examining whether the annual average limit value could be used for checks on the basis of multi-year average concentrations;

70.

observes that the introduction of PM2,5 was received favourably, as this component probably has a closer correlation than PM10 with health effects. There are, however, a number of different values for PM2,5, including for general exposure and a reduction percentage, which makes it difficult for authorities to comply with all aspects of these values. It is as yet unclear whether local and regional authorities will be able to meet the PM2,5 limit value and the reduction percentage, as there is not enough information available and the impact of measures cannot yet be quantified. The Committee recommends that this lack of data be taken into account when evaluating the PM2,5 standards, and that consideration be given to allowing more time to meet the standards in certain cases;

71.

proposes that, pending research into another method of formulating this standard, the European Commission should reconsider whether the average hourly concentration for NO2 is really necessary, as the annual limit value appears to be stricter and it is impossible to take measures at local level to reduce average hourly concentrations of NO2;

72.

proposes that the directive should define citizens' right to see an action plan drawn up when pollutant limit values are exceeded;

73.

believes that, in view of the specific issues with reducing NO2 levels in the air, the possibility of extensions (additional derogation) must be extended, provided the Member State in question can show that all reasonable measures have been taken, also in order to limit the distances travelled by motor vehicles, but, despite this, the EU limit value has not been achieved because the engines of vehicles on the road do not meet the emission levels established in the Euro standards (in other words because of inadequate EU source-based policy);

74.

notes that ozone (O3) is formed in the air by the reaction of precursor substances – nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, methane and other volatile organic compounds – in the presence of sunlight. A number of cities, particularly in southern Europe, still have high concentrations of ozone. Local authorities have very little ability to affect ozone concentrations in their own cities, but can help to reduce levels elsewhere by cutting emissions from transport. The Committee suggests that reducing high ozone concentrations in urban areas is primarily a challenge for national and European air quality policy, and that emissions policy on volatile organic compounds is the most effective measure;

75.

draws attention to an analysis by the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (8) showing that Member States have little influence on annual average ozone concentrations and almost no influence on peak O3 concentrations within their territory. At the same time broader background concentrations of ozone appear to be rising. In the Committee's view, this needs to be taken into account when evaluating the target values for ozone (long-term objectives) and in the associated impact on developments in policy and reporting. Meeting the long-term target values for ozone levels is particularly difficult for the southern countries which are exposed to more hours of sunshine – greater solar radiation – and higher average temperatures, factors that encourage the formation of tropospheric ozone. The CoR recommends that research be undertaken to establish whether this phenomenon can be classified as ‘natural’ air pollution, so that it can be treated in the same way as sea salt or Sahara sand;

76.

recommends that efforts to reduce ozone concentrations should focus in particular on reducing emissions of ozone precursor gases, by revising the Directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) and by tightening up sectoral legislation for key sources;

77.

highlights the fact that weather conditions may have a significant adverse effect on levels of air pollution. For example, the extremely dry start to 2011 in large parts of western Europe resulted in high PM10 concentrations. It was not possible to counteract this effect with local or regional measures, and European legislation needs to take account of this by making provision for years with extreme meteorological conditions, for example by introducing a multiannual average;

78.

points in this connection to the relationship between economic trends and air pollution which should be taken into account in the development of future policies. The current economic crisis is resulting in less economic activity (mobility, industry and shipping), and thus in lower emissions. At the same time, there are also considerably fewer financial resources available for innovation both at the private level (such as renewal of heating systems or vehicles), and at industrial level. Once the economy picks up these trends may well be reversed again.

79.

notes that there are variations between Member States in how measuring stations are sited. As the geographical conditions at the various locations vary, which can influence the air quality values, the Committee recommends that monitoring (measuring) should remain obligatory, but should be improved by imposing more specific rules regarding the location of measuring stations in order to ensure the comparability of measured values;

80.

suggests in this connection the establishment of a real-time air pollution exchange and information platform and harmonisation of the information and warning thresholds to make it possible to coordinate the measures adopted by the Member States in acute situations of high air pollution more effectively.

27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/20

—

supports the measures of the European Commission, which seek to limit the ongoing reduction of many stocks and guarantee the exploitation of marine biological resources at levels which make it possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, insofar as possible;

—

considers that where possible a ban on discards should be gradually introduced, primarily concerning industrial species yet permitting the dumping overboard of marine organisms which can survive once they have been thrown back into the sea;

—

draws attention to the potential risks and negative effects of a compulsory introduction of a system of transferable fishing concessions and recommends such systems should be voluntary and for each Member State's competence;

—

recognises that the economic and strategic importance of aquaculture justifies measures to promote it through an independent regulation;

—

calls for increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy; fully supports introducing a process which takes into account the specificities and needs of the regions including cooperation with regional advisory councils (RACs), in order to adopt conservation measures and technical measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy to allow for the policy to better address the realities and specificities of individual fisheries, including trans-border problems;

—

welcomes that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be part of the new Common Strategic Framework and aligned with the other Regional and Rural funds; nevertheless calls for guarantees in relation to funding for fisheries and aquaculture, and for the regions to be involved in the strategic implementation of funds.

Rapporteur

Mr Mieczysław STRUK (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship

Reference documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products

COM(2011) 416 final

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 417 final

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 418 final

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 424 final

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 425 final

1.

believes that the Common Fisheries Policy should contribute to long-term sustainable environmental, economic, and social conditions. It should also contribute to a higher standard of living for the fisheries sector, a stable market, and ensure the availability of resources and that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;

2.

supports the measures of the European Commission stemming from the declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, which seek to limit the ongoing reduction of many stocks and guarantee the exploitation of marine biological resources at levels which make it possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, insofar as possible;

3.

draws attention to the fact that efforts to reach the goal relating to certain stocks are urgently needed, but that this urgency could have adverse social and economic effects. It is imperative that restrictive and containing measures be accompanied by active restructuring efforts in spheres such as business development, training and secure pension conditions. Financing for these efforts should be sought both at national and regional level, in line with the regions' capacities and powers, and at EU level;

4.

agrees that the sustainable exploitation of biological resources must be based on the precautionary and eco-system approach with a view to limiting the impact of fishing activities on the environment and reducing and progressively eliminating unwanted catches;

5.

urges that the objective of sustainable exploitation of biological resources be achieved through a multi-annual approach to fisheries management, establishing as a priority multi-annual plans reflecting the specificities of different fisheries and containing mechanisms ensuring the possibility that necessary decisions can be taken in case of unforeseen events;

6.

believes as a part of the ecosystem approach that the multi-annual plans should where possible cover multiple stocks where those stocks are jointly exploited. For stocks for which no multi-annual plan has been established, exploitation indicators determining maximum sustainable yield should be established by setting catch and/or fishing effort limits.

7.

recognises that fisheries management based on the best available scientific advice taking into consideration traditional ecological knowledge acquired by fishermen over generations, requires harmonised, reliable and accurate data sets and draws attention to the need for cooperation on data collection with the fisheries sector. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to allocate resources to carrying out research and expert appraisals; emphasises the role of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as a scientific body which can support the European Commission's action to promote sustainable fisheries management;

8.

considering that data collection is necessary for the economic and socio-economic assessment of stakeholders in the fisheries sector, in aquaculture and in the processing of fisheries and aquaculture products and of employment trends in these industries, the EU should allocate appropriate resources to national and regional bodies to collect such data;

9.

welcomes the European Commission's view that rules in place restricting access to resources within the 12 nautical mile zones of Member States have operated satisfactorily benefiting conservation by restricting fishing effort in the most sensitive part of Union waters. The Committee of the Regions therefore believes that these rules should remain applicable;

10.

urges that marine biological resources around the outermost regions should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of their local economy, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands;

11.

draws attention to the state of origin principle in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and urges the Member States to comply with its terms in their own exclusive economic zones in order to preserve the viability of endangered river-spawned (anadromous) wild fish stocks;

12.

believes also that in their 12 nautical mile zone, and taking account of the environmental and socio-economic implications within a GSA or at a lower level, Member States should be allowed to adopt conservation and management measures applicable to all Union fishing vessels, provided that, where such measures apply to Union fishing vessels from other Member States, the measures adopted are non-discriminatory, prior consultation and appropriate briefing of other interested Member States has taken place and that the Union has not adopted measures specifically addressing conservation and management within that 12 nautical mile zone;

13.

agrees that resources are required to reduce and if possible eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards, which constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. In light of the above, believes that greater selectivity of fishing gear and improved fishing techniques should be encouraged to reduce discards as much as possible. Where possible a ban on discards should be gradually introduced, primarily concerning industrial species yet permitting the dumping overboard of marine organisms which can survive once they have been thrown back into the sea;

14.

considers that landings of unwanted catches should not result in full economic advantages for the operator and that their processing into fish meal is the wrong response to the Commission's environmental objectives;

15.

also points out that the Basic Regulation does not seem to be the right context for a detailed list of species covered by the landing obligation. It might be better to specify this obligation in the management plans for specific species (single or multi-stock);

16.

believes that the current rules already permit Member States wishing to do so to introduce systems of transferable individual quotas for their fleets, with known consequences in terms of speculative trading and concentration. In the light of this, it is not appropriate to impose a requirement on each Member State to establish fishing rights that are transferable or leasable;

17.

further believes that the duration of any system of transferable fishing concessions must be up to the Member States;

18.

draws attention to the potential risks and negative effects of a compulsory introduction of a system of transferable fishing concessions and recommends such systems should be voluntary and for each Member State's competence;

19.

urges that Member States, prior to the introduction of a voluntary system of transferable fishing concessions, adjust their own rules to ensure appropriate protection of the interests of inshore fishing and to protect against the negative effects of introducing the system, such as excessive concentration or speculation;

20.

recalls, with regard to eliminating excess capacity, positive experiences with aid for scrapping;

21.

considers that specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of the sector in many Member States and the differing socio-economic policy priorities between Member States in relation to fisheries means that a mandatory system of transferable fishing concessions is inappropriate and that the method for the allocation of fishing opportunities and any rules for their transfer should continue to be decided at Member State level;

22.

also urges that the specific conditions of the outermost regions be taken into account when setting the fishing capacity ceilings for small-scale fleets, by maintaining the current reference levels;

23.

calls on the European Union to promote the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy internationally. To this end, the Union should strive to improve the performance of regional and international organisations in conservation and management of international fish stocks, by promoting decision-making based on science and improved compliance, increased transparency and stakeholder participation, especially fishermen and by combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities;

24.

concurs that agreements with third countries on sustainable fisheries management should provide for access rights in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union and should contribute to the establishment of a high quality governance framework in those countries to ensure efficient monitoring, control and surveillance measures for sustainable exploitation of fishing resources; also believes that agreements with third countries should provide the EU fishing fleet, which depends on these agreements, with stability, viability and profitability in order to guarantee its future;

25.

urges that fisheries partnership agreements with third countries should establish a legal, economic and environmental framework for fishing activities carried out by EU vessels or for investments made by EU operators in the field of fisheries in line with the relevant measures adopted by international organisations including RFOs. Fisheries agreements are intended inter alia to ensure that fishing activities in third countries take place on the basis of sustainable and mutually satisfactory arrangements;

26.

recognises that the economic and strategic importance of aquaculture justifies measures to promote it through an independent regulation dealing with EU guidelines for national strategic plans to improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry, by supporting ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development and innovation across the whole production and marketing chain, encouraging local processing and diversification and thus also improving the quality of life in coastal and rural areas, as well as mechanisms to exchange among Member States information and best practices through an open method of coordination of national measures concerning business security, access to Union waters and space, with a particular focus on the compatibility of preserving the environment and developing activity in areas classified under the Natura 2000 network, and administrative simplification of licensing and authorisations;

27.

recognises the need to establish a consultative committee on aquaculture which can genuinely speak for the sector and which includes the necessary representatives from the production sector (professional organisations, producer organisations or chambers of commerce);

28.

agrees that the unpredictability of fishing activities makes it appropriate to set up a mechanism of storing fishery products for human consumption with a view to fostering greater market stability and to increasing the return on products, in particular by creating added value. This mechanism should also be extended to aquaculture products;

29.

recognises that the application of common marketing standards should permit the market to be supplied with sustainable products, to realise the full potential of the internal market in fishery and aquaculture products, and to facilitate commerce based on fair competition, thus helping to improve the profitability of production;

30.

believes that the widening variety of fishery and aquaculture products makes it essential to provide consumers, clearly, intelligibly and understandably, with a minimum amount of mandatory information on the main characteristics of products;

31.

urges that the Common Market Organisation be implemented in compliance with international commitments of the Union, in particular with regard to the provisions of the World Trade Organization, without prejudice to the standardisation and approval of health and hygiene measures for products from third countries and the development of a maritime-fisheries commercial practice that encourages the eradication of IUU fishing;

32.

calls for the creation, where possible, of a public certification scheme for EU fisheries products to ensure that they come from appropriately managed fisheries;

33.

calls for increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy, so that the knowledge and experience of all stakeholders, particularly local and regional authorities, can be used in the Common Fisheries Policy and stresses the importance of macro-economic strategies;

34.

highlights the growing interactions between recreational fishing, professional fishermen and fishing communities;

35.

fully supports introducing a process which takes into account the specificities and needs of the regions including cooperation with regional advisory councils (RACs), in order to adopt conservation measures and technical measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy to allow for the policy to better address the realities and specificities of individual fisheries, including trans-border problems;

36.

furthermore believes that RACs or other similar partnership structures should be strengthened to ensure that local communities are not just consulted but actually participate in the management of their local fishing resources;

37.

urges that implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy should take into account interactions with other maritime affairs, recognising that all matters related to Europe's oceans and seas are interlinked, including maritime spatial planning, which strengthens the Integrated Maritime Policy;

38.

stresses that the CFP cannot disregard the protection of aquatic ecosystems and their complexities and interactions given the fragility of transitional waters or river and lake eco-corridors, and their wild fish stocks, paying particular attention to maintaining and replenishing high-value endangered fish stocks, and anadromous and catadromous species in particular;

39.

is aware that, without appropriate financial support, the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States given the problems encountered in the development of the fishing industry and its management, and the limits on the financial resources of the Member States;

40.

for the above reasons, calls for the creation of appropriate, multiannual EU financial support geared towards the priorities of the Common Fisheries Policy with a view to contributing to the fulfilment of these goals, in particular improving the economic effectiveness of the sector, in particular of the fishing fleet, creating new jobs and introducing modernisation and innovation, including the development of safe and sustainable vessels;

41.

calls for financial support for the renewal and modernisation of the outermost regions' fishing fleets to be reintroduced for the 2014-2020 period;

42.

believes that Union financial assistance should be made conditional upon compliance by Member States and operators with the Common Fisheries Policy. Thus such financial assistance should be interrupted, suspended or corrected in cases of non-compliance with the rules of Common Fisheries Policy by Member States and repeated serious infringements of those rules by operators;

43.

welcomes that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be part of the new Common Strategic Framework and aligned with the other Regional and Rural funds to enable Integrated Local Development Frameworks and improve simplification of access to funds at the local and regional level; nevertheless calls for guarantees in relation to funding for fisheries and aquaculture, and for the regions to be involved in the strategic implementation of funds;

44.

acknowledges the biological, productive and historical value of fish stocks and of lake and river habitats and, therefore, considers the need to provide financial assistance to this sector by the European Union, including with a view to reducing marine catches, decreasing imports and boosting regional competitiveness;

45.

recognises that in order to achieve the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission for the purpose of supplementing or amending non-essential elements of basic legislation; recommends, nevertheless, that such extensive recourse by the Commission to delegated acts should be very carefully evaluated and studied from a legal and political perspective and that care should be taken to ensure that this power is clearly defined as to the purpose, content, scope and duration of the delegated power;

46.

urges the Commission to carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work for the adoption of delegated acts, including at expert level and the level of the regional authorities;

47.

believes that the Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council;

48.

strongly supports and encourages the use of ‘Community Led Local Development’ as laid out in the Commission's General Regulation on the Common Strategic Framework to allow the local and regional level to be able to draw resources from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) - alongside the Structural and Rural Development funds; these funds should be coordinated in a flexible framework that strengthens opportunities for their use; local authorities should be involved in the development of the strategic framework and the operational programmes;

49.

stresses that the success of the Common Fisheries Policy requires an effective system of control, inspection and enforcement, including the fight against IUU fishing activities. The use of modern technologies should be promoted in the framework of the Union system for control, inspection, and enforcement. Member States or the Commission should have the possibility to conduct pilot projects on new control technologies and data management systems;

50.

feels that a review of compliance with the EU Regulation should be undertaken every five years.

27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/46

—

calls on the European Commission to launch a European Covenant of Mayors on Demographic Change as a legacy to the European Year 2012 to gather LRAs interested to promote innovation, smart health and better lives solutions in support of active and healthy ageing and to provide administrative and financial support to the Covenant;

—

shares the vision of the EY2012 stakeholders’ coalition of a society for all ages where everyone is empowered to play an active part in society and enjoy equal rights and opportunities in all stages of their life regardless of age, sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, physical or mental condition, or need for care;

—

stresses the importance of consulting and involving older people and their carers actively in the mapping of their needs, the development of solutions and evaluation of their performance. Such participatory approach supports social inclusion and ensures that the services delivered match as closely as possible the actual needs of the recipients;

—

recommends that the European Commission involve LRAs more actively in the EU social impact assessment process of the various initiatives implemented to support active and healthy ageing to ensure that the impact on grass root older women and men is adequately assessed.

Rapporteur-general

Mr Arnoldas ABRAMAVICIUS (LT/EPP), Mayor of Zarasai District Municipality and Member of the Municipal Council

Reference document

/

1.

welcomes the initiative of the Danish Presidency to integrate sub-national authorities in the EU-level dialogue on how to face the demographic challenge and maximise the opportunities of an ageing population. As stated in the CoR Opinion on dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU  (1) and in the European Parliament Report on the European Year 2012 (2), local and regional authorities (LRAs) in many Member States have key competences in the three areas on which the European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations is based: employment, participation in society and independent living;

2.

stresses that addressing the challenges of population ageing is one of the objectives of Europe 2020 strategy. Since LRAs are at the forefront of citizens’ needs and are responsible for the provision of most services that older people require to live a dignified old age, their direct involvement in all EU debates on ageing is therefore crucial to achieve the objectives of Europe 2020 and would help increase social, economic and territorial cohesion;

3.

welcomes the European Innovation Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing which seeks to mobilise a wide range of stakeholders at all levels to improve by two the number of years one can expect to live in good health (Healthy Life Year Indicator) and recalls that LRAs have key competences in the three pillars of the EIP-AHA: prevention, screening and early diagnosis; care and cure; and active ageing and independent living;

4.

shares the vision of the EY2012 stakeholders’ coalition of a society for all ages where everyone is empowered to play an active part in society and enjoy equal rights and opportunities in all stages of their life regardless of age, sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, physical or mental condition, or need for care;

5.

recommends a positive approach to ageing and shares the vision that innovation can help deliver better services for our ageing population. However, it must be stressed that innovation should not be pursued for the sake of change, but rather as a valuable driver to improve the quality and cost efficiency of the response to increasing and evolving needs in times of financial constraint;

6.

is of the opinion that the economic and financial crisis makes it more urgent than ever to fundamentally review the way our society functions and to do our utmost to empower everyone, young and old, to contribute actively in the labour market and in their communities and to live independently for as long as possible. The best approach to demographic ageing is the promotion of age-friendly communities where the public space, transport, housing, and local services are conceived with the needs of all generations in mind and where solidarity and cooperation between generations is fostered. Such communities also tend to be more environmentally friendly and conducive to greater social cohesion and better social participation of other vulnerable groups;

7.

stresses the importance of consulting and involving older people and their carers actively in the mapping of their needs, the development of solutions and evaluation of their performance. Such participatory approach supports social inclusion and ensures that the services delivered match as closely as possible the actual needs of the recipients;

8.

notes that in the last decade, the concept of silver economy has emerged in various parts of Europe and seeks to develop a wide range of products and services for the growing numbers of older people with health and care needs, reduced mobility and limitations in their daily life activities. The silver economy has extended to other market segments such as wellness, fitness, leisure, travel, culture, communication, entertainment, and access to new technologies. Many SMEs and business clusters in several Member States also specialise in innovative technology for the elderly, such as in the area of home-automation, which presents wonderful growth opportunities. However, it should also be noted that while acknowledging the need for specialised products and services for persons with specific needs, most older people prefer to be able to use ordinary goods and services. Therefore a broader approach based on the concept of Design-for-All - where the needs and expectations of older people and persons with disabilities are mainstreamed - should be promoted together with the development of specialised niche products for very specific needs;

9.

points to the trend that more and more regional and local authorities are looking to social innovation and ICT-based solutions to improve the quality and cost efficiency of their health and long-term care services both in urban and rural areas where such solutions can help bring crucial services to older people at a cost that is more sustainable for the public and private purse. However, such initiatives require a certain amount of investment and actions that have to be implemented by other levels of governance to move from pilot projects to large scale models which can be deployed at national level or elsewhere in the EU. This is an area in which LRAs need as much support as they can get from both their national government and the EU level;

10.

stresses that, while many examples of innovative measures that support active and healthy ageing can be found at the local level and social incubators are often local initiatives, close to the needs they try to address, a project-based approach is not always effective to achieve a critical mass and long-term sustainability. There is a need for a global strategic vision that encompasses issues from across the board in order to achieve inclusive and supportive environments. A clear example is the social innovation launched by the Municipality of Fredericia (DK) which seeks, through prevention, rehabilitation, technology and social networking, to maintain or restore self-help among older people calling for assistance for their daily life activities. Their approach is based on a change of paradigm in the way they perceive senior citizens from „helpless” patients to „citizens with resources”. This initiative was supported as a pilot project by the Danish Ministry of Finances and will now become a model for other Danish municipalities;

11.

emphasises that the challenges of population ageing have a strong gender dimension which calls for specific attention to be paid to the impact of the current social protection reforms and cuts in social services (in particular child and eldercare) on women’s employability, gender pay gaps and gender pension gaps, as the burden of care for dependent relatives will increase on informal carers - most of whom are women - and they will face a higher risk of poverty and social exclusion in the future if nothing is done to address these inequalities. Problems related to stress and overwork in the female-dominated health and care sector may also create new problems for older women in the future.

12.

feels that a better coordination between the different levels involved in developing solutions for active and healthy ageing is necessary and highlights the need for more multi-level governance in this area. LRAs should not be seen merely as implementing agents but be involved in the whole decision-making and evaluation process;

13.

advocates that there would be a genuine added value if the EU was to create a framework that would enable public authorities and actors at all levels to benefit from each other’s experience, to build evidence on successful initiatives and learn from failures as this would enable them to avoid repeating mistakes, and help them invest their limited resources on innovative solutions that have proved effective;

14.

recommends that the Committee of the Regions is invited to join to the Steering Group of the European Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) to ensure an adequate representation of LRAs in the EIP-AHA decision making process and enable the CoR to act as a multiplier to mobilise a wide range of LRAs to get involved in the implementation of the EIP-AHA as they have competencies in all of its six key action areas;

15.

supports the proposal made under the European Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) to set up a European Network on Age-Friendly Environments and welcomes AGE Platform Europe and World Health Organisation efforts to initiate such network. The CoR recommends that EU funds should be allocated for an adequate development of such EU network in close cooperation with WHO;

16.

recommends that the Commission should make research into the very old a priority. This group is partly still new, and different stakeholders require more information about it. Research is needed to assess the efficacy and cost-efficiency of measures to promote health and prevent illness over the entire life cycle, and in particular during the final stage of life. There also a need for closer study of how older people who are more difficult to reach can be encouraged to change their habits and lifestyle. The very old need to be included in statistics and research, and people who work with the very old need to be made aware of the results of such research;

17.

calls on the European Commission to launch a European Covenant of Mayors on Demographic Change as a legacy to the European Year 2012 to gather LRAs interested to promote innovation, smart health and better lives solutions in support of active and healthy ageing and to provide administrative and financial support to the Covenant;

18.

notes that while primary competences in the field of active ageing lay with the Member States and their local and regional authorities, the European Union can legislate on matters that affect the functioning of the internal market to remove barriers to the free movement of persons, promote the freedom to provide services and ensure an adequate protection of consumers. The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the EU creates new legal obligations for the EU to ensure that persons with disabilities and older people with impairments will be able to enjoy their right to freedom of movement and to participate fully in the economic and social life of their communities like any other citizens. This calls for EU action to ensure a coordinated response at EU, national and local/regional level. Moreover, the EU can facilitate transnational exchange of experience and promote soft measures such as codes of good practices to support an optimal implementation of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EU Treaties;

19.

notes that the European Commission is planning to table a proposal for an Accessibility Act and stresses that an EU legal framework is needed to enforce accessibility across the EU for all essential goods and services and to create a level playing field for all industry, including SMEs. This proposal should be proportionate and must not create additional red tape for SMEs. The adoption of EU wide standards would also be useful to support the industry and create an efficient single market of goods and services designed-for-all. A surveillance system should be set up to ensure the enforcement of legislation and accompanied by plans of action for national, regional and local authorities, as well as support to local actors and SMEs;

20.

reminds that an adequate public procurement legal framework is key at EU, national and local levels to ensure that public investment promotes accessibility for all. Accessibility should also become an essential pre-requirement to receive EU funding (structural, project or research funding), and support is needed to help less advanced regions comply with EU legislation and standards. Financial incentives should be considered to enhance accessibility, notably for public authorities to upgrade existing building and housing as well as to support investment in innovative solutions;

21.

stresses that awareness-raising is needed to accompany key legal measures and make them work as a wake-up to reality. This should be targeted at local and regional authorities, manufacturers, suppliers and services providers, and citizens in general. Education and training policies are important to reinforce and support accessibility: ensuring that engineers, architects, web-designers, builders, town planners (etc.) are properly trained to mainstream the issues of accessibility and apply universal design, is a key requirement;

22.

recalls that life-long-learning and volunteering are key drivers of active and healthy ageing. Adult education and older volunteering should be supported at EU, national and local level to help extend working lives, promote active retirement and support independent living;

23.

recommends therefore that the objectives of the EY2012 on Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations and of the EIP-AHA are mainstreamed in all relevant future EU funding instruments, including the Structural Funds, and procedures to apply are simplified for local and regional actors; welcomes the European Day of Intergenerational Solidarity, which is particularly significant in the European Year 2012 and promotes intergenerational projects between schoolchildren and senior citizens and thus delivers a major contribution to intergenerational dialogue;

24.

welcomes the launch of a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) on innovation for healthy living and active ageing in 2014 and recommends to the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) do their utmost to involve LRAs and local/regional actors in the implementation of this KIC;

25.

recommends that the European Commission involve LRAs more actively in the EU social impact assessment process of the various initiatives implemented to support active and healthy ageing to ensure that the impact on grass root older women and men is adequately assessed;

26.

recalls that active and healthy ageing is a key objective of Europe 2020 and is supported by various flagship initiatives (New skills for new Jobs, Platform against Poverty, Digital Agenda) and a wide range of EU funding instruments available to LRAs as outlined in the brochure co-produced by the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission and AGE Platform Europe on „How to promote active ageing in Europe - EU support to local and regional actors” published in September 2011 as a contribution to the EY2012  (3)”;

27.

concludes therefore that there seems to be no issue regarding the compliance of the proposed initiatives with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality as defined in the EU Treaties.

28.

recalls that by 2060, it is believed that the population of young people throughout the EU-27 will decrease by 9 % (4) and the working-age population (15-64) by 15 %. Furthermore, the number of elderly people is expected to increase by a huge 79 %. These demographic changes are the result of a variety of phenomena such as the lower levels of fertility, the increase in life expectancy, total net migration, and the ageing of those being born during the „baby boom” after World War II. It is obvious that these demographic trends will have significant economic, social and budgetary impact at national and regional/local levels. The CoR study on Active Ageing: local and regional solutions  (5) explains the repercussions quite well when it states that „labour supply and employment will shrink, challenging economic growth, while the demand for services by the ageing population will rise”. Moreover, public expenditures are expected to increase in order to deliver quality service to their ageing population whilst also having to finance health care and pensions for an increasing number of older people. However, most LRAs have suffered drastic budgetary restrictions that are already making it extremely difficult for them to provide dynamic and modern social services of an adequate standard;

29.

stresses that there are huge disparities between countries and regions in terms of life expectancy of men and women, healthy life year indicators, median ages and dependency ratios. Population ageing is forecasted in almost all 281 regions of the EU27 with only seven regions expected not to see their median age increase by 2030: Wien in Austria, Hamburg and Trier in Germany, Sterea Ellada and Peloponnisos in Greece and West Midlands and North Eastern Scotland in the UK (6). In 2008 dependency ratios varied almost threefold between regions (9.1 % to 26.8 %). In 2030, the variation will be almost fourfold (10.4 % to 37.3 %) (7). This means that regions are not all equal in terms of demographic ageing and this, combined with the current economic crisis, affects some LRAs more than others;

30.

stresses also that there are huge disparities between countries and regions in terms of sovereign debt and some are facing very severe cuts in their budgets that may hamper their ability to benefit from EU funding through Structural Funds or ageing related Joint Programmes;

31.

reminds, as stated in its Opinion on a strategy towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems  (8), that LRAs will remain the largest public sector employer and as a consequence public pensions will continue to be fundamental in ensuring pension systems. These pensions, however, will be increasingly affected by budgetary measures and reforms. Therefore, the ability of LRAs to compensate for this effect should be taken into account to be able to provide all older women and men, with an adequate income including through help and care services provided in-kind. The Committee of the Regions proposed a social dimension to macro economic surveillance as a way to deal with these effects;

32.

stated in its Opinion on ageing well in the information society  (9) that ICT solutions can improve the productivity of social and health care services if adapted rightly to the needs of the elderly and reminds that LRAs should be involved in national and EU research on ICT solutions for ageing because they will often be the primary users of the outcomes;

33.

recalls, however, that LRAs cannot support active and healthy ageing on their own. To be successful they need a supportive legal, financial and structural environment which requires action to be taken at national and EU level. For example, to deploy ICT initiatives in support to innovation, smart health and better lives across all EU regions, structural investment is needed at EU and national level to extend broadband access and EU legislation is needed to harmonise accessibility criteria and interoperability standards;

34.

highlights that the increasing number of pre-conditions, accounting, financial and audit procedures required to access structural funds subsidies, has led to an increased number of projects focusing on measurable results, rather than more innovative and risk-oriented projects which, de facto, take more time to deliver a positive outcome and are harder to measure. In practice, social innovation is currently confronted with barriers that are more often than not linked to incompatible audit or regulatory cultures. Indeed, this issue is not only linked to the use of structural funds, but is problematic in many other EU and national funding instruments;

35.

acknowledges, however, that modifications are needed to the way structural funds are implemented to include evidence based conditions in order not to undermine the efforts made to increase the added value and efficiency of EU funds in this area. Denmark and Sweden have such evidence based procedures in place to monitor performance against a set of agreed indicators and feed the information back into the monitoring system to keep improving the quality and cost efficiency of the services they provide and fund. The UK government has recently put in place the social-impact bond, which aims to attract „new investment around such outcomes-based contracts that benefit individuals and communities. Through a Social Impact Bond, private investment is used to pay for interventions, which are delivered by service providers with a proven track record. Financial returns to investors are made by the public sector on the basis of improved social outcomes. If outcomes do not improve, then investors do not recover their investment” (10).

36.

notes that countries with high accessibility standards in the build environment, transport and ICT are the countries where the highest levels of employment of both older women and men are found and those which perform best in terms of Healthy Life Year indicators. It is also in these countries that the employment rates of women and persons with disabilities are the highest and where gender equality indicators show the best outcomes (gender income gap, gender pension gap, etc.). This shows that promoting age-friendly local environments in a pro-active way does not hamper the economy, but on the contrary benefits society and the economy in general. Such environments make life easier for everyone and support labour market participation of women, older workers and persons with disabilities and an active and productive participation of retired persons in their communities. They also support informal carers and enable them to reconcile more easily work and care duties;

37.

welcomes the fact that there are already hundreds of LRAs involved in the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Cities programme across the EU and a few Member States have launched national programmes to support LRAs wishing to join the WHO AFC network;

38.

given the increase number of older people suffering of Alzheimer and other forms of dementia, welcomes the initiative taken by some LRAs to create Alzheimer-friendly environments to promote a better inclusion of older persons with dementia and their informal carers in the community;

39.

stresses that creating environments that are designed-for-all and support independent living of older people with disabilities or activity limitations have proved cost efficient. The Swedish experience shows that the decreasing demand for help in Sweden over the past 15 years cannot be explained by improvements in health as there is no evidence of such improvements among the elderly over that period in Sweden. The most likely explanation for the reduced need for elderly care is related to better accessibility standards in housing and transport, and better access to assistive technology, making it easier for older people to manage without help. It is worth noting that Sweden has the best employment rates for older workers and older women of all EU Member States;

40.

highlights however that while LRAs have an important role to play as purchasers of goods and services, notably through public procurement and can thus act as political drivers to promote a positive approach to ageing, the fragmentation of existing and emerging markets for innovative solutions supporting active and healthy ageing needs to be addressed to create a real single market for the silver economy and allow economies of scale for public tenderers and consumers. The upcoming Accessibility Act will seek to address the barriers that prevent the creation of an EU market where local/regional innovative solutions could be more easily modelled and deployed at a larger scale to other EU regions. SMEs are often the forefront of innovation and are closer to the local markets. They often deliver a personalised service and adapt to their consumers’ needs. SMEs would benefit from having clear rules and standards that will ensure them access to an EU wide market and will facilitate interoperability with other goods and services for an optimum outcome.

41.

concludes that ensuring the development of accessible and supportive local environments based on the concept of design-for-all will help older workers and women remain in employment for longer and reduce the demand on care and assistance for the rapidly growing number of older people. The CoR is confident that EU action to support active and healthy ageing and solidarity between generations will boost innovation and growth potential across the EU and will bring economic benefits both for public and private actors at local, national and EU levels;

42.

agrees with the Danish Presidency approach to ageing and stresses that for social innovation to be used to respond to our ageing society, it is of utmost importance that the EU creates a common framework allowing the potential of social innovation to be fully exploited in the future. An EU common framework in support of social innovation would indeed make it easier for social innovators throughout Europe to act, get funding, network and scale up their ventures.

27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/52

—

demands that energy efficiency must be a central and integral element of energy policies and must be given sufficient priority in the energy policy hierarchy;

—

supports a better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and energy conservation in future EU funding programmes;

—

calls for stronger measures to influence human behaviour and energy consumption patterns and suggests that this requires a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ measures, demonstrating the economic case but also greater emphasis on mandatory requirements, when necessary;

—

acknowledges that the current policy focus is on cities to realise current policy objectives, but underlines the need to also address in a more comprehensive and coordinated way the challenges and opportunities that rural areas face when it comes to energy use and production.

—

calls on Local and Regional Authorities to share energy efficiency and conservation best practice and to enhance energy resilience by planning for and piloting the delivery of their services with minimal energy input levels.

Rapporteur

Brian MEANEY (IE/EA), State Assembly Clare County Council and Mid-West Regional Authority

Reference document

Referral by the Danish Presidency of 12 January 2012

—

EU rural areas use more polluting energy sources than urban areas, consequently substitution of heavy polluting fossil fuels by less polluting fossil fuels as a transitional solution and then above all by renewable energy should be particularly supported;

—

despite the catching-up of rural areas, their level of economic development still remains lower than the EU average, particularly in comparison to urban areas. This gap between rural and urban areas is extremely marked in Eastern and Central Europe and is even more worrying, as it rose between 2000 and 2007 due to the quick expansion of the big cities and capitals;

—

financial mechanisms (ELENA, etc.) and funds dedicated to energy efficiency (EEEF etc.);

—

the experience of the current funding period shows that for a number of different reasons the funds set aside for energy efficiency from the Structural Funds cannot be fully exploited. Therefore, in the financial framework 2014-2020, which even makes provision for a higher percentage of funds than before to be dedicated to energy efficiency, care must be taken to facilitate access by local and regional authorities to these funds;

a)

demands that energy efficiency must be a central and integral element of energy policies and must be given sufficient priority in the energy policy hierarchy;

(b)

supports a better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and energy conservation in future EU funding programmes;

(c)

calls for stronger measures to influence human behaviour and energy consumption patterns and suggests that this requires a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ measures, demonstrating the economic case but also greater emphasis on mandatory requirements, when necessary;

(d)

acknowledges that the current policy focus is on cities to realise current policy objectives, but underlines the need to also address in a more comprehensive and coordinated way the challenges and opportunities that rural areas face when it comes to energy use and production;

(e)

calls on Local and Regional Authorities to share energy efficiency and conservation best practice and to enhance energy resilience by planning for and piloting the delivery of their services with minimal energy input levels.

27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

—

calls for an ambitious budget for the future cohesion policy (2014-2020) in order to fulfil the ambitions of the Treaty and of the Europe 2020 Strategy; also calls for criteria other than GDP to be taken into account in the evaluation of levels of development and the distribution of resources;

—

supports the structure proposed by the Commission, i.e. the identification of two major goals (‘investment in growth and jobs’ and ‘territorial cooperation’), keeping the ESF within the sphere of cohesion policy, and the creation of a new category of ‘transition regions’ providing the safety net for regions no longer eligible for full convergence support;

—

calls for greater flexibility in the distribution of the Structural Funds, adapting more realistically to territories' needs, through the direct involvement of local and regional authorities; this flexibility should apply to the distribution between the ERDF and the ESF and the thematic concentration of the Funds on certain Europe 2020 goals; in this regard, calls for the minimum thresholds laid down in the specific regulations be significantly lowered or made more flexible;

—

supports the strategic approach of the Common Strategic Framework, integrating all funds intended for regional purposes, which will mean better coordination with the EAFRD and the EMFF; also wishes greater account to be taken of the principle of territorial cohesion, through urban actions, local development actions, ITIs and Joint Action Plans, but would like more attention to be paid to regions undergoing industrial conversion or with demographic handicaps;

—

calls for the possibility of multi-fund programmes (ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF) to be encouraged and that the European Commission adopts any measure for the setting-up and implementation of these programmes with due respect of the proportionality principle;

—

rejects macroeconomic conditionality, as well as the performance reserve, considering them to be contrary to the primary objective of cohesion policy; conversely, supports the creation of a flexibility reserve, made up of automatic decommitment resources and funding experimental initiatives; also backs the principle of ex ante conditionality, which is streamlined and preventive rather than repressive;

—

insists on genuine simplification of the management rules, particularly with regard to control and audit authorities, revenue-generating activities and flat-rate costs.

Rapporteur

Ms MARINI (IT/PES), President of the Region of Umbria

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006

COM(2011) 615 final

1.

points out that the European Union needs a budget capable of guaranteeing an effective cohesion policy and fulfilling the ambitions of the Europe 2020 strategy;

2.

calls for the EU contribution to remain at least at the same level for each category of regions as under the current planning period;

3.

emphasises that the current situation of serious economic, financial and social crisis is establishing a settled balance of underemployment across the EU, with a strong, albeit uneven, impact on all regions of the EU. In this context, the Structural Funds are a crucial source of funding for combating the crisis and supporting the development of European regions;

4.

calls on the Commission to undertake suitable initiatives in order to mitigate the problems of absorption encountered by some Member States, namely by improving the management of the EU funds (particularly in terms of simplified and innovative management and control systems) and encouraging a results-oriented approach;

5.

believes that the economic and financial crisis underscores the need for timely, comparable GDP figures and other complementary indicators, in order to establish more accurately the real level of development of European regions (1), without prejudice to the appropriate concentration of resources in regions that are lagging behind in their development;

6.

considers that, with a view to the distribution of resources, proper attention must be paid to the specific features of Member States with significant internal economic disparities; is concerned, in particular, about the criteria for distributing resources allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy – with reference to the multiannual financial framework – as social, economic and structural differences are not taken into account;

7.

supports the identification of two major goals (investment for growth and jobs, and territorial cooperation), which simplify the structure of cohesion policy;

8.

endorses the creation of a category of transition regions, to be funded principally by resources released by regions and Member States which are no longer covered by the convergence objective and the Cohesion Fund, without reducing the level of support provided for the other two categories of region, and also welcomes the proposed safety net for regions no longer eligible for full convergence support. The new region will make it possible to provide better support both for regions moving out of the convergence objective and for other regions whose per capita GDP is between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average. This new category will allow EU support to be adjusted in line with the different levels of development and mitigate the threshold effects observed during the current programming period. These arrangements should apply to all CSF funds;

9.

considers that the arrangements relating to the regional aid guidelines for 2014-2020 should also be compatible with the structure of future cohesion policy and that there must be no conflict between cohesion policy and competition law when it comes to the designation of assisted areas;

10.

is pleased that the ESF will remain in the sphere of cohesion policy as a key instrument for jobs, for improving people's skills and for social inclusion;

11.

insists however that in accordance with the subsidiarity principle regional and competent local authorities should be responsible for choosing investment priorities and distributing the Structural Funds between the ERDF and the ESF;

12.

insists that, in accordance with the principle of multilevel governance and with the division of competences within each country, the local and regional authorities in every Member State should be fully involved in preparing, negotiating and implementing the various strategy documents, i.e. the Common Strategic Framework and in particular the Partnership Contract; Territorial Pacts between local, regional, and national authorities, should also be an option available to formalise partnership arrangements in conjunction with national governments;

13.

considers it unfair that local and regional authorities should be placed on the same footing as the economic and social partners with regard to partnership, when as representatives of the general interests of the municipalities which they administer, the authorities co-manage – taking into consideration the institutional framework of the Member States – and co-fund the Cohesion policy projects;

14.

reiterates its support for the principle of European co-financing, which guarantees that local and regional actors are aware of their responsibilities;

15.

believes that VAT should be eligible, if this is not recoverable;

16.

believes that there should be a distinction between stakeholders from the civil society and the public sector partners. The competent local and regional authorities, or their representatives, should be an integral part of the negotiation process for the preparation of the Partnership Contract or Agreement at Member State level and not just at regional level;

17.

takes note of the principle of thematic concentration on key Europe 2020 goals and the objectives stated in Article 174 TFEU as set out in a table of EU areas of interest, but expresses concern regarding the lack of flexibility in the choice of thematic objectives, which should be determined on the basis of territorial analysis;

18.

therefore calls for real flexibility for all funds under the Common Strategic Framework, so that each managing authority has the widest margin possible to identify the thematic objectives on which its funds will be concentrated; more generally, calls for the minimum thresholds laid down in the specific regulations to be significantly lowered or made more flexible;

19.

supports improved integration of the funds, and is pleased that the EAFRD and the EMFF are being included in the Common Strategic Framework, with the specific nature of each fund being preserved;

20.

agrees that the Common Strategic Framework should be approved by the Parliament and the European Council, and argues that it should be approved by the broadest possible range of EU institutions; accordingly is in favour of appending the Common Strategic Framework to the General Regulation;

21.

highlights the need for the mechanisms set out in the Common Strategic Framework to be sufficiently flexible to allow real integration with regional policies and local development policies;

22.

considers that the CSF should facilitate primarily a bottom-up territorial approach and integration of funding. CSF recommendations shall not be over prescriptive, in order to allow enough flexibility in choosing the means by which one can achieve thematic objectives and investment priorities as defined in the structural and cohesion funds regulations;

23.

stresses that the Common Strategic Framework should properly link the thematic objectives of Article 9 of the General Regulation with the investment priorities listed in the ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF regulations, providing legal certainty on whether priorities can match and while avoiding gaps and overlaps between them so that multi-fund, but also multi-thematic, priority projects will be deliverable in an integrated and seamless fashion;

24.

calls for regional and competent local authorities, as the bodies responsible for funding and implementing cohesion policy, and in line with their respective institutional systems, to be fully involved in preparing, negotiating, implementing and amending partnership contracts (Article 13(2));

25.

insists specifically that in the context of the contract, and in line with their respective institutional systems, the regional authorities should be directly involved in setting the internal conditionalities and the resulting penalties (Article 14);

26.

expresses concern regarding the potential delays triggered by the obligation to submit the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes at the same time, and so again asks that the programmes be submitted within six months of the submission of the contract;

27.

recommends that regional and local authorities, in accordance with their respective institutional systems should be closely involved in managing the European funds and is strongly in favour of multi-fund programmes;

28.

points out that improved harmonisation of common provisions for the implementation of the funds would promote integration and boost their effectiveness and impact, as well as reduce the administrative burden to the final recipient;

29.

calls on the Commission to issue an evaluation of the functioning, impact and added value of current macroregional strategies;

30.

firmly rejects the proposals aiming to establish a link between cohesion policy and compliance with the stability pact (macroeconomic conditionality); the Committee of the Regions believes that macroeconomic conditionality and cohesion policy pursue different goals;

31.

therefore considers that regional authorities must not be penalised as a result of certain Member States' failure to comply with their obligations, particularly as regards the national deficit (Article 21);

32.

backs the principle of ex ante conditionality, in order to ensure that the fundamental prerequisites are in place for making effective investments, based on the evaluation of previous experience. It is important to avoid burdening cohesion policy with responsibilities that do not belong to it and increasing red tape;

33.

nonetheless, is concerned that conditionality relating to a third party (such as the failure to transpose EU directives) might prejudice the preparation and implementation of programmes and projects at regional and local level. The CoR therefore considers that ex-ante conditionalities should be restricted to areas that are directly related to the implementation of cohesion policy;

34.

calls on the Commission to ensure that this ex ante conditionality does not lead to the suspension of payments or to financial corrections, with the exception of conditionalities with which the Member State has undertaken to comply;

35.

is concerned about the creation of a performance reserve since this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, which could encourage the development of unambitious projects and discourage innovation; draws attention to the Court of Auditor's opinion 7/2011 which noted that a ‘performance reserve existed in the 2000-2006 period but had limited success due to the very limited amount of expenditure that had been completed in time for the mid-term review and the lack of an appropriate methodology for assessing progress achieved by programmes’;

36.

conversely, supports the creation of a flexibility reserve made up of automatic decommitment resources and used to fund experimental initiatives in the area of smart, sustainable or inclusive growth or to intervene during a crisis;

37.

points out that the framework for performance review establishes interim objectives for each priority for the years 2016 and 2018. In the Committee's view, this mechanism must steer and monitor the objectives pursued throughout the planning period and not trigger the application of financial corrections to the priority axes concerned in the event of failure to achieve the objectives set on the basis of the final progress report, as this failure may be due to socio-economic circumstances and the resultant necessary policy changes made by national and regional authorities;

38.

considers that no purpose is served by adding this new provision to the (macroeconomic, ex ante and ex post) conditionalities proposed by the Commission, to the ex ante, in itinere and ex post review system, and to the specific targets and performance indicators. The Committee calls for a stronger link with the evaluation measures set out in Articles 48, 49 and 50;

39.

welcomes the proposal requiring managing authorities to disburse money to beneficiaries before applying to the Commission for reimbursement, and calls for a more flexible and generous advance payment system with a view to boosting managing authorities' liquidity levels;

40.

asks that, if a Member State in the grip of deep financial crisis receives EU aid, the Commission should be able to amend the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes in the course of constructive dialogue with the Member State and the local authorities concerned. The Committee hopes that the Commission's experts will assist national and regional authorities and boost their capacity to manage the European funds effectively;

41.

strongly agrees with the focus on integrated urban development and, more particularly, welcomes the Commission's proposals on local development and integrated territorial investments which should be key delivery instruments of the next programming period; requests further information on the implementation of these new provisions;

42.

hopes that these provisions will be applied particularly carefully to guarantee that integrated local development is carried out efficiently, such as coordinating the contribution of the various funds – specifically, the ERDF and EAFRD in peri-urban and functional areas – integrating them, identifying project areas and drawing up a coherent strategy;

43.

strongly welcomes the fact that Community Led Local Development incentives are provided with an additional co-financing rate of 10 % and requests that this also be extended to the Integrated Territorial Investments, and considers that the organisation and functioning of the Local Action Groups must be agreed between the Managing Authorities and the local partners at the national level;

44.

demands that the rule whereby public authorities cannot hold more than 49 % of voting rights be reviewed in those cases where institutionalised local development partnerships are already in place;

45.

stresses the need for Local Development to be seen as a holistic concept whereby Integrated Territorial Investments, urban actions, Joint Action Plans, can be delivered;

46.

urges that particular attention be paid to regions undergoing industrial conversion and regions with serious permanent natural or demographic handicaps that make them comparatively lag behind in economic and territorial cohesion terms, as well as outermost regions (Articles 174 and 349 TFEU);

47.

is concerned that no provision has been made for financing infrastructure, particularly high-speed ICT networks, in developed regions;

48.

insists on genuine simplification of the provisions for implementing the funds, which will help managing, control and audit authorities and facilitate access to financing for beneficiaries;

49.

is concerned about the fact that the support for administrative capacity is limited for the ESF to Member States with less developed regions or eligible to the Cohesion Fund while this is not the case for ERDF although national systems for the two Funds are subject to similar requirements;

50.

hopes that a more results-oriented approach will lead to stronger emphasis on delivery, quality and efficiency in the use of the funds, rather than focusing on rules and total expenditure;

51.

believes that the Commission's excessive use of delegated acts (there are some fifty references to this instrument in the regulation) may lead to delays in the use of the funds and therefore proposes that a Commission implementing regulation be used initially to establish all the implementing rules;

52.

expresses doubts concerning the designation of an accrediting body at ministerial level which is an additional unnecessary layer of control that would be responsible for accrediting managing authorities and for certification based on a preliminary control, believing that accreditation should focus on the systems rather than on the managing authorities;

53.

highlights the risk that improper application of the proportionality principle may result in unequal treatment of the Member States. Checks and audits are liable to present much more of a burden for those Member States which receive the most funding; furthermore, a level of control proportionate to the programmes' financial dimension might steer authorities away from adopting multi-fund programmes;

54.

believes that the proposed annual clearance of accounts should be optional to enable only those managing authorities who so wish to simplify the closure procedure at the end of the period and reduce the duration for conserving accounting documents (Articles 67, 76, 77, 131);

55.

wishes to avoid the proliferation of controls by national or regional audit authorities, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the operators themselves, and proposes that joint local audit missions be organised in order to avoid overlaps and promote a common analysis (Article 65(2));

56.

considers that further clarification is needed in relation to the use of financial instruments with regard to their accounting in the use of EU funds, their supervision and their ownership. Supports however the use of financial engineering instruments to enhance the funds' impact provided that it is an addition to and not at the expense of the grant element of Cohesion policy and that support is limited to conventional forms of financial instruments (equity participations, loans, guarantees), and not to opaque financial instruments such as derivatives or structured financial instruments;

57.

considers too restrictive the requirement that financial instruments – in accordance with the aims of the programme – be used within two years of their activation and for a period of at least ten years after the closure of the programme;

58.

welcomes the Commission's proposal that joint action plans be drawn up, including a group of projects carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary in the context of one or more operational programmes, in exchange for a substantial reduction in the rules on management and control; regrets, however, that infrastructure projects are excluded;

59.

calls for the Commission, the Member State and the local authorities associated with the programme to be party to drawing up the joint action plan, in view of the scale of the resources involved, and calls for the threshold to be lowered to EUR 5 million;

60.

calls for the reinstatement of the 2000-2006 rules setting a single specific (reduced) intervention rate for revenue-generating operations;

61.

welcomes the Commission's proposal regarding the various types of simplified grants and urges managing authorities and beneficiaries to make extensive use of standard scales of unit costs, flat-rate amounts and flat-rate financing;

62.

calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt as swiftly as possible a fair, equitable and verifiable calculation method and methods and scales of unit costs to enable project operators to use them when planning begins, taking due account of previous experience in the current planning period.