19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/1

—

having regard to the CoR resolution of 19 July 2012 on its priorities in view of the Work Programme of the European Commission (1) and its Resolution relating to the conclusions of the European Spring Council 2012 (2),

—

having regard to the European Commission's Communication on its Work Programme for 2013 (3) and its Protocol of Cooperation with the European Commission signed on 16 February 2012,

—

having regard to the European Parliament legislative Resolution of 11 September 2012 on the Commission Work Programme for 2013 (4),

1.

considers the necessity to overcome the economic, social and financial crisis as the main challenge for the European Union. Therefore, strongly supports efforts to increase and maintain the EU's focus on:

2.

calls for an ambitious Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and genuine own resources for the Union;

3.

welcomes the emphasis on youth unemployment and looks forward to helping to shape the forthcoming Youth Employment Package;

4.

recalls its enhanced responsibilities conferred by the Lisbon Treaty with regard to the subsidiarity principle, and its commitment to becoming a reference point for its correct application; in this respect underlines the importance it will give to monitoring EU initiatives included in the CWP 2013, and draws attention to its dedicated work programme for subsidiarity monitoring in 2013, to be adopted in January;

5.

supports the idea of a thorough discussion on the future of Europe from the perspective of democratic legitimacy, accountability and effective integration and considers it vital to define its political position on the future role of the regional and local level, including on the possible changes in the EU institutional settings; the CoR will therefore give impetus to any debate on Treaty reform in 2013 through the organisation of political debates, and by better profiling the subsidiarity principle and the concept of multi-level-governance as important tools for attaining these objectives;

6.

supports the call made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 20 November 2012 on Member States to consider signing to a ‘Social Investment Pact’. This ‘Social Investment Pact’, conceived on the model of the ‘Euro Plus Pact’, would set investment targets for social investments to be taken by Member States in a given timeframe in order to meet the employment, social and education targets of the Europe 2020 strategy in line with the Annual Growth Survey and National Reform Programmes;

7.

will continue to scrutinise the territorial impact of the European Commission's legislative programme;

8.

requests that it be consulted on the EC Blueprint for a comprehensive and genuine European Monetary Union, given the territorial dimension of each of its four pillars;

9.

calls for better coordination of economic and social policies between the European and national levels in the context of the European Semester and demands stronger involvement of local and regional authorities in this coordination. The CoR will continue to monitor progress in this direction while seeking closer cooperation with the European Parliament;

10.

strongly supports the call made by the European Parliament on the Commission (5) to ‘fully address’, in its next Annual Growth Survey, ‘the role of the EU budget in the European Semester process by providing factual and concrete data on its triggering, catalytic, synergetic and complementary effects on overall public expenditure at local, regional and national levels’;

11.

welcomes that effective mechanisms are put in place at the EU level to ensure sustainable budgetary policies in the Member States but warns of the risks that coordination of budget policy at EU level could have for local and regional authorities and the delivery of adequate public services;

12.

regrets that its proposal for a Green Paper on the synergies between the EU, national and sub-national budgets has not been included in the Work Programme; recalls specifically its support for a European communication on the quality of public spending which should address, inter alia, the issue of separating current spending and investment in the budget deficit calculations so as to avoid investments with long-term net benefits being calculated as a negative;

13.

commits itself to thoroughly analyse the local and regional dimension of the Banking Union;

14.

requests clarification on the legal instrument envisaged for the Bank Account Initiative;

15.

strongly advocates, in view of the ongoing negotiations on the MFF, that Cohesion Policy is an investment policy which needs both an effective spending and a vigorous budget which cannot be cut down if we want to stimulate growth and jobs, increase the competitiveness and fight against territorial disparities within and amongst all EU regions, especially in times of crisis;

16.

regrets that the ‘Code of Conduct’ proposed by the European Commission has not been taken up in the Cyprus Presidency; calls on the European Commission to promote and scrutinise the involvement of local and regional authorities in the design of the partnership agreements and the relevant operational programmes, and requests a report on this matter by the end of 2013. In that regard, the Committee of the Regions will follow closely the related negotiations based on the Commission's country-specific negotiation mandates for the CSF Funds for the period 2014-2020, notably in the light of the partnership principle;

17.

requests a formal consultation by the European Commission in relation to the review on the guidelines for regional aid;

18.

calls for a European rural development strategy to re-balance resources for rural areas whose development level is still below the EU average and often well below predominantly urban areas;

19.

calls for the adoption of the revised Regulation on the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation separate from the legislative package on Structural Funds;

20.

regrets the slow pace of implementation of the Single Market Act;

21.

notes the Commission's intention to present a proposal on obligatory electronic invoices in public procurement, but points out that complete change to electronic systems will be challenging for some local and regional authorities which might require assistance or a longer transition period;

22.

calls for the creation of Small Business Act Partnerships to further implement the Small Business Act (SBA) at sub-national level; considers that the European Entrepreneurial Regions (EER) initiative, awarded by the CoR since 2010, could be a source of inspiration in further promoting entrepreneurship, especially among young people;

23.

seeks explanation from the Commission as to why the eHealth Action Plan, which the Committee of the Regions had previously called for and which was announced in the 2012 Work Programme has not been presented yet, and does not appear among the items planned for adoption until the end of the 2012 nor in the 2013 work programme;

24.

believes that greater legal certainty is required for activities in the social economy and calls in this context for a statute of a European mutual society;

25.

welcomes the European Commission's intention to modernise EU state aid rules and to reduce administrative burdens by adapting the general block exemptions, and calls in this regard for an increase of the de minimis threshold;

26.

regrets that the European Commission did not formally consult the CoR in relation to the elaboration of the new guidelines governing the application of EU state aid rules to the public funding of broadband networks;

27.

welcomes the focus in Annex II of the Work Programme on concrete initiatives on simplification and the reduction of administrative burdens, and intends to contribute to their implementation;

28.

asks the European Commission to take steps towards resolving connectivity problems between Member States and between regions; calls on the European Commission in this context to step up its efforts aimed at reducing the energy isolation of individual Member States and to put in place a fully operational internal energy market by 2014;

29.

regrets the absence of a clear commitment by the European Commission to strengthen its policies aimed at the development of a modern grid infrastructure, and specifically the roll-out of smart grids and smart metering, which are important elements for energy efficiency and security of supply; asks the European Commission to promote measures that facilitate the spread of micro-production of energy and its integration into the distribution grids;

30.

regrets that the Commission work programme does not entail further initiatives in relation to urban mobility; reiterates in that context its suggestion that electronic and smart, for example mobile, ticketing across all modes of transport is an essential prerequisite for sustainable urban mobility, and hopes that this issue could also be addressed in the planned follow-up to the Green Paper on ‘an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’;

31.

expects the European Commission to seize every opportunity to achieve consistent implementation of the goals set by the review of TEN-T;

32.

looks forward to the forthcoming proposal on the future EU ports policy and recalls the need to subject it to a Territorial Impact Assessment;

33.

considers that labour mobility within and among Member States is an important factor in the fight against unemployment and therefore supports the plans to modernise public employment services with particular attention to the reform of EURES, currently performing below its possibilities; however also reminds that public employment services are often run by local and regional authorities which must be fully consulted on the reforms;

34.

regrets that the European Commission has not taken up the CoR's repeated call for a European agenda for social housing, which would inter alia clarify the competition rules applicable to social housing and empower local and regional authorities to provide decent and affordable social housing, to promote social mix and to fight discrimination;

35.

points out the importance of retirement pensions for local and regional authorities, who are large employers and expects the Commission proposal on this matter to include proposals on better cross-border transferability of occupational pensions;

36.

considers the establishment of the platform to fight undeclared work to be a timely initiative; and considers it essential that regional enforcement bodies and labour inspectorates be included in this platform; sees, furthermore, strong possibilities for synergies between this platform and the proposals to enhance enforcement of the rules on the posting of workers;

37.

asks the European Commission to ensure that in its new guidelines on State aid for films and other audiovisual works, the principle of territorial spending obligations, as described in the 2001 Cinema Communication, be maintained, in accordance with Article 107(3)d TFEU;

38.

regrets the low level of ambition in the Work Programme in relation to culture, given its importance for a European identity and as a driver for growth;

39.

welcomes the publication of the 7th Environmental Action Framework which is a key tool to translate the EU 2020 goals into environmental action and which should focus on improving implementation of EU environmental policy in close cooperation with all levels of governance, on integration of environmental concerns into all policy areas, and on the international dimension of environmental challenges;

40.

asks that the EU Adaptation Strategy for climate change include a section on specific adaptation action at regional and municipal level as well as guidelines and support in terms of funding and governance solutions for local and regional decision makers, as proposed by the Covenant of Mayors;

41.

is committed to working with the European Commission to successfully implement the outcome of the UNCCC in Doha as well as the Roadmap for a Resource Efficient Europe;

42.

expects the review of EU air policy to reinforce the National Emissions Ceiling Directive in order to reduce background concentrations; supports the tightening of standards for vehicles and calls for the tackling of emissions from shipping, air traffic and agriculture, while simplifying the indicators and criteria for measurement. It also calls for the integration of EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular transport, housing, industry, energy and climate;

43.

renews its commitment for reinforced cooperation with the European Commission on the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020,

44.

welcomes the invitation by the European Investment Bank for the Committee of the Regions to contribute to its future policy on energy loans and calls for access to loans for investments in the areas of energy efficiency and renewables to be facilitated for small and medium-sized businesses and local and regional authorities; considers in this context that the increasing danger of energy poverty should be taken into account in EU energy policy initiatives;

45.

seeks to be involved in the design of all EU actions related to 2013 European Year of Citizens to increase citizens' awareness and understanding of their rights, in order to remove any remaining obstacles to their application and enhancing the notion of Union citizenship;

46.

welcomes the European Commission's intention to prepare an anti-corruption report and a judicial scoreboard, as mechanisms that will help to strengthen the trust of citizens in public administrations at all levels, and offers its assistance in their development;

47.

looks forward to working with the European Commission in the development of the integration network, with a view to achieving unity in diversity;

48.

recommends that the Commission go into greater detail in its enlargement strategy reports about regional and local self-government, and that it stress to enlargement countries - where appropriate - the need for decentralisation;

49.

requests that the access of local and regional actors in enlargement countries and in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries to the specific EU funds for this area be facilitated, and supports the further use of existing programmes, including Erasmus Mundus and EGTC to partners in neighbourhood countries;

50.

reaffirms its intention to continue the positive cooperation with the European Commission in the context of the Local Administration Facility programme in order to improve local capacity building and promote knowledge of the EU and its procedures in candidate and pre-candidate countries; invites the Commission to explore the possibility of expanding it to local governments in the ENP countries;

51.

welcomes the distinction made by the European Commission between the role of local and regional authorities and civil society in delivering development cooperation policy by presenting separate Communications, and calls on the European Parliament to follow the same approach;

52.

expects cities and regions to be involved in the definition of the EU position in view of the Millennium Development Goals Summit in 2015;

53.

instructs the President of the Committee of the Regions to submit the present resolution to the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Parliament, the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU and the forthcoming Irish and Lithuanian Presidencies;

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/6

—

having regard to its revised opinion on the new multiannual financial framework post-2013 adopted on 9 October 2012;

—

having regard to the draft conclusions of the European Council;

1.

regrets that the European Council on 22-23 November 2012 was not able to reach an agreement on the new multiannual financial framework post-2013;

2.

stresses the importance of reaching an agreement and warns of the consequences of the delay for preparing the programming in particular of the Common Strategic Framework for funds after 2014 which will have a serious impact on the investments to be made in EU's regions and cities;

3.

takes note of the recognition by the European Council that ‘the budget is important for the cohesion of the Union and for jobs and growth in all our countries’; this recognition is however incompatible with the proposals for cuts in cohesion policy by some Member States; underlines that in any case more time is needed to elaborate further on the concrete policy consequences of the figures and proposals under negotiation;

4.

stresses at the same time that the Committee of the Regions, as the EU body representing local and regional authorities, is fully aware of the economic problems faced by members of the EU and believes that the first priority must be the establishment of strong economies, with reduced red tape, leading to greater employment opportunities in Member States;

5.

reiterates its call for a credible multi-annual EU budget as an investment tool for the benefit of all EU Member States and regions of at least the same level in terms of commitment appropriations as a percentage of GNI as the one agreed for the current programming period 2007-2013 and supports the European Parliament's call for a budget that can relaunch growth in accordance with Europe 2020 goals and respond adequately to the needs of local and regional authorities in terms of territorial, economic and social cohesion;

6.

stresses the importance of the role of the European Parliament in the process of negotiation, not only with regard to the consent procedure applicable to the entire MFF but also considering that a significant number of issues in the European Council's draft conclusions (version of 22 November 2012), and in particular points in relation to subheading 1b (cohesion), heading 2 (CAP), to the Common Strategic Framework as well as horizontal issues, are subject to co-decision;

7.

recalls that the Treaties (Article 312 TFEU) contain specific provisions to deal with the possibility of the MFF not being adopted before the legal bases of all the EU's current multiannual expenditure programmes, apart from the first pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), expire at the end of 2013;

8.

opposes the cuts to the cohesion budget. Recalls that cohesion policy is an investment tool that stimulates competitiveness in a sustainable way and contributes to a reduction of disparities between regions;

9.

recalls that for matters in relation to cohesion policy covered by Article 177 such as the method for distributing the national allocations and the capping levels for cohesion policy and rural development, the co-decision procedure with a mandatory consultation of the CoR and its standing right before the ECJ based on Article 263 (3) TFEU applies;

10.

following the opinions which it has adopted since the beginning of 2012 on the Commission's various legislative proposals, reiterates that:

11.

welcomes that the draft European Council conclusions retain the food aid programme for the most deprived, but strongly opposes that its funding would come out of the ESF allocation;

12.

considers that the reduction by 47 % of the amounts earmarked for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund compared to its current budget is in complete contradiction with the context of the on-going crisis. Understands that the draft Council conclusions have been drafted under the assumption that the future EGAF would not apply to the agricultural sector;

13.

regrets that negotiations focused on cutting expenditures of the EU budget, without giving proper attention to the revenues and to the imperative need to reform the present system to allow the EU to dispose of own resources and with a view to abolish the current set of financial corrections and exemptions;

14.

welcomes the proposal that two thirds of the amounts collected by Member States which have committed themselves to introduce an FTT under the reinforced cooperation procedure would be levied for a new own resource in the EU budget and that the GNI-based contribution of these Member States to the EU-budget shall be reduced accordingly;

15.

instructs the President of the Committee of the Regions to submit the present resolution to the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Parliament, the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU and the forthcoming Irish and Lithuanian Presidencies.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/8

—

is convinced that consumer policy can help the EU to exit the crisis more quickly: more aware consumers are a precondition for safe, high-quality, competitive products and services, contributing to sustainable economic recovery;

and calls on the European Commission to

—

equip local and regional authorities with the right tools to defend consumer rights to the maximum of their powers;

—

cooperate closely with national, regional and local authorities. More specifically, even if the agenda's actions are of a type implying implementation mainly by EU and national bodies, local authorities have an important role to play since they speak on behalf of local communities and are in a position to make an effective contribution to putting such measures into practice;

—

remember that local authorities are themselves consumers of products and services, and that they therefore need and demand a secure framework within which to protect their interests and those of the local communities they represent and that often contribute to their budgets;

—

recognise that empowering consumers also involves educating them, and that local and regional authorities and civil society need to be involved in consumer information campaigns;

—

reinforce supervisory mechanisms in regions with permanent geographic or demographic handicaps, through the provision of resources and know-how.

Rapporteur

Mr Spyros SPYRIDON (EL/EPP), Councillor of the Region of Attica

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A European Consumer Agenda – Boosting confidence and growth

COM(2012) 225 final

1.

welcomes the detailed communication from the European Commission, which touches upon a wide range of consumer protection issues;

2.

welcomes the fact that the agenda provides a cohesive and integrated tool to press ahead with actions concerning the policy of strengthening consumers. The scale of the challenge of empowering consumers and boosting the single market must be recognised. Aware, informed consumers are key to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy;

3.

expresses its concern that while the scope of the agenda is quite encompassing it does not include health services, which are an important element of consumer policy. Health services are provided to consumers, consumers pay for them and they provide to a large extent mission of general interest. Health policy should therefore be included into the agenda as a consumer relevant policy.

4.

supports the European Commission's choice of the four key objectives of (i) improving consumer safety; (ii) enhancing knowledge; (iii) improving implementation, stepping up enforcement and securing redress; and (iv) aligning rights and key policies to economic and societal change, as areas on which consumer protection policy should focus. It calls for greater transparency and for consumers to be provided with better and comparable information, to enable them to make more rational decisions;

5.

emphasises that future actions must be framed in such a way as to comply with the principle of proportionality and, in particular, that thorough cost-benefit analyses must be carried out;

6.

highlights the importance of ensuring that the future measures are effective and appropriate, especially in terms of health and safety. Changes must be made with a degree of flexibility in order to fit in with specific regional conditions, the needs of vulnerable groups and rapid market developments, so as to protect consumers;

7.

proposes that, when implementing the measures, a horizontal view be taken, within the scope of existing powers, over and above the sectoral actions already mentioned, so that consumers' rights are taken into account in European policies across the board;

8.

notes the lack of emphasis on the territorial cohesion objective ushered in with the Lisbon Treaty. It would point in particular to the need to protect vulnerable groups of consumers who either experience difficulty in gaining access to markets, have limited choice, or cannot readily exercise their rights. The outermost regions, those with low population density, and mountain and island regions, where the market does not function optimally, fall into this category;

9.

highlights, in this respect, the increasing importance of the internet for such consumers, in terms of opportunities to access markets, information, and the capability to compare products and services, and uphold their rights in the event of disputes;

10.

stresses the importance of providing resources and know-how to reinforce supervisory mechanisms in regions with permanent geographic or demographic handicaps;

11.

alerts the European Commission and national legislative bodies to the fact that the measures adopted must be tailored to the capabilities of producers from disadvantaged regions. For them, the cost and time taken to make the necessary adjustments may differ significantly from those in the other regions of Europe;

12.

takes this opportunity to underline the need to implement the Digital Agenda as part of the Europe 2020 strategy, and emphasises that the internet has a particularly important role to play for types of consumer. All European, national and regional authorities must contribute to this effort in order to enhance quality of life for Europe's citizens;

13.

emphasises the influence of the internet on the younger age groups, who make greater use of the new technologies but who can be assumed to be more vulnerable than adults;

14.

observes that internet use is less widespread among vulnerable population groups such as the elderly, people with special needs and socially disadvantaged. The CoR would point out in particular that regions with geographical handicaps experience the serious problems of ageing populations more intensely than other regions. These population groups generally have fewer opportunities to harness the potential offered by the single market and to exercise their rights. A special effort must be made, with the cooperation of local and regional authorities, by means of targeted measures, to promote the prosperity of this population category too;

15.

in the light of the difficulties experienced by regions and communities in improving internet access, especially in rural, mountain, island and remote areas, together with the outermost regions, supports the Commission's recent proposals for amendments to the legislation on state aids. Among other points, the Commission's proposal judges the exemption from the notification rule concerning aid for the supply of fast internet connections to be compatible with the internal market;

16.

calls upon the Commission to cooperate with the Member States in launching initiatives to improve consumers' e-skills, at the same time ensuring that all population groups have access to the single digital market and can enjoy its benefits to the full;

17.

emphasises that the rapid development of e-commerce is of vital importance to consumers as it offers them greater choice, particularly people living in inaccessible, very remote or outlying regions, as well as those with reduced mobility who would not otherwise have access to a wide range of choice;

18.

points out forcefully that internet security is a particularly significant issue that goes beyond the consumer agenda. All necessary measures must be taken to ensure that this vital tool is used in the interests of people in Europe, whether acting as consumers or carrying out business transactions, and that criminal and fraudulent practices, such as the improper collection of personal data or infringement of property rights, are prevented;

19.

welcomes the Commission's initiative to put forward legislative proposals regarding online dispute resolution (ODR) and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a major tool for territorial cohesion The CoR agrees with the Commission that it should be made easier for consumers to enforce their rights using out-of-court settlement mechanisms. However, it believes that the scope of the directives should be limited to EU competences and, in particular, to cross-border situations;

20.

considers it to be crucial that local and regional authorities be equipped with the right tools to defend consumer rights to the maximum of their powers. In this connection, and given the fortuitous timing of the current discussions on the multiannual financial framework for the 2014-2020 period, the CoR proposes that resources from the Structural Funds and also from the National Reform Programmes be used in order to implement the agenda;

21.

regarding the Structural Funds in particular, proposes that measures be taken to ensure that funding for companies is subject to criteria that derive from their obligations and their general stance towards consumers (e.g. sustainable production), rather than being restricted to data relating principally to economic sustainability;

22.

places particular emphasis on the need for close cooperation between European, national, regional and local authorities in implementing the measures. More specifically, even if the agenda's actions are of a type implying implementation mainly by EU and national bodies, local authorities have an important role to play since they speak on behalf of local communities and are in a position to make an effective contribution to putting such measures into practice;

23.

would also stress that it must not be forgotten that regional and local authorities are themselves consumers of products and services, and that they therefore need and demand a secure framework within which to protect their interests and those of the local communities they represent and that often contribute to their budgets;

24.

notes that at the current time of economic crisis, efforts to implement the agenda effectively must not be viewed as a luxury. On the contrary, the CoR is convinced that consumer policy can help the EU to exit the crisis more quickly: more aware consumers are a precondition for safe, high-quality, competitive products and services, contributing to sustainable economic recovery;

25.

notes that the current financial crisis will drastically alter consumer habits, both exacerbating social inequalities and limiting disposable income. The result of this will be a turn to new forms of consumption, where consumers will call for greater control over transactions, increased and more comprehensible information and the chance to compare and to reverse their initial decisions and claim their rights in the event of a dispute. The Commission must pay attention to the new conditions arising and make the most of the Agenda in order to form the best possible conditions for promoting public wellbeing of European citizens, as the Lisbon Treaty provides;

26.

points out that further information and guarantees on product traceability should be available, so that consumers can make an accurate assessment of the value for money of goods;

27.

notes that there is an increasing danger of consumer choice being dictated by the cost of goods to the detriment of quality. When it comes to cross-border trade, the CoR would highlight the danger of an increase in the volume of smuggling;

28.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to draft a study on the impact of household overindebtedness. It recommends that the study not limit itself to means of addressing the problem, which owing not least to the financial crisis has taken on unmanageable dimensions, but that it also analyse the causes and propose measures such as ensuring responsible use of loans and taking specific measures to mitigate the effects of overindebtedness;

29.

notes the need to regulate on issues regarding the safety of medical products and services, an area that has recently been receiving a good deal of media attention;

30.

notes with concern that, according to the communication, only 2 % of respondents answered the Empowerment Survey correctly regarding their rights. This figure seems extremely low, and the CoR would therefore call on the Commission and the Member States to step up their efforts to raise awareness of consumer rights. The proposed European-level awareness-raising campaign will be a step in the right direction. Local and regional authorities can make a contribution in cooperation with consumer support bodies;

31.

agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the bodies responsible for implementing legislation are being asked to do more with fewer resources. For this reason there is a need for careful planning and on-going examination of the effectiveness of regulations, in order to secure the best results;

32.

would underline the fact that empowering consumers also involves educating them, and in this context would stress the importance of involving local and regional authorities and civil society in consumer information campaigns. Scope must be allowed to adapt information campaigns to local conditions. Emphasis should be placed on school and university curricula, with a view to preparing the younger generations to become well-informed consumers; at the same time, the role played by adult education providers should not be forgotten;

33.

endorses the drive to resolve problems at source, with measures to encourage companies to comply. However, this approach must bear in mind the particular characteristics of producers in each country and region and around the world, wherever suppliers are based. The incentives must be sufficient to compensate for the cost of adjusting to the new regulations to be adopted and consideration must be given to companies' ability to adjust;

34.

emphasises that when implementing consumer policy, the European Commission should respect the legal systems of the Member States and the principle of subsidiarity. On the other hand, the Member States should endeavour, when transposing EU legislation into national law, not to make additional demands going beyond those necessary for this purpose. This should not preclude the Member States from seeking a higher level of consumer protection under particular circumstances;

35.

considers that, in order to benefit from improvements to legislation, consumers must be informed of the changes and therefore stresses the need to give regional local authorities the opportunity to contribute to awareness-raising activities for consumers regarding their rights and the legislative changes that will benefit them;

36.

welcomes the reference made in the Consumer Agenda to collective redress and would encourage the Commission to put forward a more definite framework for action; any Commission proposals on collective redress mechanisms should be confined to framework legislation, which should at most contain guidelines as to minimum national standards, leaving it to the Member States to decide precisely how collective redress mechanisms can be implemented in line with individual national legal traditions. To the extent that the EU requests regulatory powers for further collective legal mechanisms, these must be in line with the legal orders and legal redress systems of the individual Member States;

37.

is convinced that the promotion of a comprehensive strategy for consumers requires that they be well-represented in the decision making bodies. In this respect, the Committee would underscore the role of consumer organisations, which have the broadest overview of the themes that are of concern to consumers in their everyday lives and therefore can help to find solutions when called upon. They also provide a channel for communication between the public and management, enabling information to be disseminated from the top down. The CoR recognises that there is room for improving the relationship between local and regional authorities and first- and second-level consumer organisations, and would also call on Member States to strengthen them when necessary, and establish a framework for action if need be;

38.

takes it for granted that the public must be able to trust the authorities responsible for implementing the legislation. This can be achieved both by applying the regulations properly and by enabling members of the public to appeal to the authorities in cases of conflict;

39.

stresses that companies throughout the production chain, meanwhile, need to be convinced that it is more worthwhile to keep their commitments in respect of legislation than not. It is important to stress that keeping up to date on consumer legislation issues is something that is necessary for companies as well as consumers;

40.

agrees that the role of intermediaries is growing, particularly in the area of internet services. It is therefore of crucial importance to ensure that there is transparency and confidence and also justice and sanctions in cases of an intermediary's insolvency. This requires the establishment of monitoring and evaluation structures, at both national and EU level;

41.

would also recommend, when it comes to the Commission's proposal to work with intermediaries and traders to improve the framework governing commercial transactions, the adoption of binding rules on commercial guarantees, with the aim of filling a major gap in consumer protection;

42.

calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States incorporate legislation to deepen the single market in good time and, most importantly, that they apply it comprehensively;

43.

regrets the fact that the planned budget for the Consumers' Agenda is limited: corresponding to approximately EUR 0,05 per European citizen per year. It would therefore draw the European Commission's attention to the fact that it must take great care in the planning and implementation of these measures in order to be sure of securing the best possible results;

44.

will be monitoring the prompt and effective application of the European Consumers' Agenda closely, with a view to seeing an improvement in the European public's quality of life.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/13

—

welcomes the Commission's intention of requiring Member States to organise partnership-based cooperation between public authorities at national, regional and local level as well as economic and social partners and NGOs;

—

supports the Commission's initiative on the European Code of Conduct on Partnership (ECCP) as a supplement to the Common Provisions Regulation, and deeply regrets the Council decision to remove the Code of Conduct from the negotiation box;

—

calls on the Commission to ensure that the ECCP guarantees a real balance between the need for the Member States to comply with partnership requirements set out in the document, and their right to retain their specific provisions and existing practices, especially with reference to the subsidiarity principle;

—

stresses that partnership is an essential prerequisite for enhancing the efficiency of cohesion policy, and that only a system of multilevel governance can ensure effective linkage between the strategic guidelines set by the European Union and local and regional challenges;

—

requests that local and regional authorities be fully involved in preparing partnership contracts, and also in defining and implementing regional policy investment priorities;

—

feels it is necessary to establish an appropriate hierarchy of partners, headed by local and regional authorities, as they express common views, values and interests;

—

points to the need to adapt partners to the kind of programme, but doubts whether programmes can be grouped in accordance with the kind of fund.

Rapporteur

Mr SZWABSKI (PL/EA), Chairman of Gdynia City Council

Reference document

Commission Staff Working Document - The partnership principle in the implementation of the Common Strategic Framework Funds - elements for a European Code of Conduct on Partnership

SWD(2012) 106 final

1.

shares the Commission's view that partnership is key to delivering the Europe 2020 strategy and to the successful implementation of the funds covered by the EU's Common Strategic Framework;

2.

welcomes the Commission's intention of requiring Member States to organise partnership-based cooperation between public authorities at national, regional and local level as well as economic and social partners and NGOs, in all aspects of the implementation of EU policies;

3.

supports the Commission's initiative on the European Code of Conduct on Partnership (ECCP) as a supplement to the Common Provisions Regulation; the ECCP is a document which fleshes out and expands partnership in the process of preparing, implementing and evaluating funds and programmes covered by the Common Strategic Framework (CSF);

4.

deeply regrets the Council decision to remove the Code of Conduct from the negotiation box, in this way ignoring the positions taken by the European Parliament and CoR who will continue defending the need of such an instrument within the 2014-2020 programming period;

5.

in the light of the above, calls on the Commission to ensure that the ECCP guarantees a real balance between the need for the Member States to comply with partnership requirements set out in the document, and their right to retain their specific provisions and existing practices;

6.

in connection with this, suggests that consideration be given to the inclusion in the draft ECCP of a procedure for prior agreement on the method for individual Member States to meet partnership requirements, in line with their specific conditions. The provisions of such agreements would provide the Commission with a basis for checking the compliance of partnership contracts and programmes with the requirements of the ECCP;

7.

points out and emphasises that cohesion policy intrinsically combines a strategic dimension with devolution of responsibilities to local and regional authorities, which have the experience and expertise indispensable for effective implementation in the Member States. Once there is agreement on general strategy with the Commission, key decisions on matters such as project selection and management are often a regional responsibility;

8.

stresses that partnership is therefore an essential prerequisite for enhancing the efficiency of cohesion policy, enabling adaptation of strategic guidelines set by the European Union to local and regional challenges. In practice, only a system of multilevel governance involving all levels can effectively combine these two dimensions. Local and regional authorities are a key component of multilevel governance and cannot therefore be put in the same category as partners from the non-governmental sector;

9.

at the same time, disapproves of an approach to implementing multilevel governance which in effect gives a greater role to higher levels of government than to lower levels in partnership procedures. The ECCP should resolutely encourage Member States to take effective action to prevent such situations arising;

10.

requests that local and regional authorities be fully involved in preparing partnership contracts between the Commission and the Member States, with a requirement for such contracts to include a provision setting out the agreed rules for cooperation between national and local or regional authorities, which could be included as one of the ex ante conditions set out in the General Regulation;

11.

would also like to see local and regional authorities playing a key role in defining and implementing regional policy investment priorities; therefore calls on the Commission to confirm the leading role of local and regional authorities in relation to other partners identified in the ECCP;

12.

endorses the Commission's declared intention of setting out in the ECCP only a minimum definition of the requirements for Member States to involve partners in the various programming stages; at the same time, expresses the hope that the requirements will be sufficiently demanding and clear to ensure genuine partnership on the most important issues;

13.

particularly stresses the importance of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, which should on the one hand permit and enhance involvement in partnership of entities at a level corresponding to the territorial scope of a given programme, and on the other hand guarantee a degree of participation for partners which matches their potential and role in the implementation of the programme;

14.

draws attention to the fact that, apart from differences in institutions and political culture, Member States differ significantly in land area and in the size and spatial distribution of their populations. These differences at national, regional and local level in practice create very different situations in individual Member States which impact on the methods for implementing partnership;

15.

welcomes the fact that the Commission intends to adopt the ECCP as a delegated act immediately after the entry into force of the Common Provisions Regulation. In the event that it is decided to give the document a different legal status, the Committee would call for solutions ensuring a real, high-quality improvement in compliance with partnership principles in the 2014-2020 budget period;

16.

points out that the division in the draft ECCP of potential partners into three groups: (a) regional and local public authorities, (b) economic and social partners and (c) bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination, places on the same level bodies of very different kinds and with different opportunities for exercising a real influence on the implementation of programmes;

17.

in view of the above, feels it is necessary to establish an appropriate hierarchy of partners. This partnership hierarchy should be headed by local and regional authorities, given that they have political legitimacy and thus also political responsibility and financial liability. They are thus obliged to represent general interests. They are also responsible for implementing numerous programmes and projects. Furthermore, in some countries where power has been devolved, regional authorities have legislative powers;

18.

points out that the statement about regions as key actors in the organisation of the partnership process in ‘decentralised’ Member States should not be taken to mean that in other Member States this role must be played by national authorities;

19.

shares the Commission's view that it is particularly important to select institutions, organisations and groups which can exercise a real influence on the implementation of a given programme or which are significantly affected by its realisation;

20.

welcomes the fact that the Commission acknowledges the procedures and techniques already established in the Member States for partnership implementation (workshops, surveys, forums, consultations, meetings), while also drawing attention to the need to take account of the revolutionary changes in forms of social communication in connection with the spread of new telecommunications technologies. The ECCP should encourage Member States to be more adventurous and innovative in this connection. This is also necessary in order to involve the youngest citizens in partnership processes;

21.

shares the Commission's concern to include representatives of the most sensitive and marginalised groups. There is, however, no need to mention them by name in the general document, as, depending on local conditions and the specific programme concerned, different groups may be involved;

22.

points out, however, that in view of past experience of social conflicts arising from the implementation of certain initiatives, the ECCP should encourage Member States to involve representatives of groups and bodies which might have a critical view on the implementation of a given programme in the partnership process at an early stage;

23.

points out that partners representing regional and local communities, irrespective of their formal competences in individual Member States, express common views, values and interests. In this connection their position as partners is objectively different from that of sectoral and social partners representing sectional views, values and interests. This fact should be clearly reflected in the ECCP document;

24.

suggests that the kinds of territorial body which can be involved in the partnership process should be specifically mentioned in the ECCP. This particularly concerns bodies which are not territorial units of a given Member State: functional areas (urban, rural, infrastructure, nature, cross-border, coastal etc.), territorial inter-municipal cooperation groups and cooperation networks of towns;

25.

supports the Commission's intention of requiring, in the context of the ECCP, regional authorities managing programmes to organise, at all levels of programme implementation, partnership between representatives of local and urban authorities, economic and social partners and civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination;

26.

suggests that town authorities and representatives of functional urban areas be involved in partnership processes not only when they are implementing integrated territorial investments (ITI), but always when this is useful in the context of a given programme;

27.

agrees with the Commission's view that employees' and employers' organisations should be given an equal role in partnership. Account must be taken, however, of the very different levels and methods of organisation of these bodies in different Member States. In many sectors the nature of the work in effect makes it impossible to establish employees' organisations. The ECCP should contain recommendations which, while not imposing specific solutions, require the Member States to draw up procedures for cooperation with economic and social partners, taking account of national, regional and even local characteristics;

28.

points out that, in view of the situation on many European labour markets, organisations or institutions representing job-seekers, especially those who are young and well qualified, should be included among the social partners mentioned;

29.

fully supports the Commission's suggestion that partnership with the numerous and diverse organisations representing civil society should be based on partnership with umbrella organisations, and that the development of various forms of networking and cooperation between individual organisations participating in partnership should be supported;

30.

points out that the ECCP should identify clear and transparent criteria for the selection of representative NGOs, mainly on the basis of their competences and history of activity in the area covered by the programme in question;

31.

points to the need to adapt partners to the kind of programme, but doubts whether programmes can be grouped in accordance with the kind of fund (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, European Regional Development Fund, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Social Fund), particularly as it is planned to co-finance programmes from several funds. The choice of partners should be determined by the type of programme and its area of activity;

32.

suggests that the ECCP incorporate a general principle that the recognition of a specific kind of partner as key should not automatically exclude other bodies from participation in partnership, if this is justified;

33.

points out that, in programmes financed by the European Regional Development Fund or the Cohesion Fund, it is necessary to ensure that partnership includes organisations representing groups of regional and local communities, not least cross-border groups;

34.

feels that R&D bodies should be included as partners in appropriate of programme, with the scope and form of partnership matching their specific features. This arises from the complexity of modern development processes and the need for access to detailed expert knowledge with a view to effectively influencing these processes;

35.

agrees with the Commission's suggested approach of involving partners at the earliest possible stage of programming, and with the idea of separating such partnerships from the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedure;

36.

in particular, emphasises the importance of involving local and regional authorities in the following programming stages: (1) analysing the needs and challenges addressed by the Common Strategic Framework (CSF), (2) selecting objectives and priorities, and (3) coordinating mechanisms in order to achieve development synergies; at the same time, encourages Member States to spell out how they intend to guarantee such partnerships;

37.

suggests that some general requirements be defined for Member States to develop procedures ensuring genuine partnership in the course of drawing up partnership agreements;

38.

believes that the competent local and regional authorities should be an integral part of the negotiation process for the preparation of partnership agreements at both national and regional level;

39.

appreciates the fact that the draft ECCP reflects the Committee of the Regions' initiative on Territorial Pacts for Europe 2020 as a key component of multilevel governance; at the same time, feels that this instrument has not been sufficiently used;

40.

accepts and supports the requirements set out in the draft ECCP for Member States to establish clear partnership procedures in relation to the following issues: (1) making documents accessible at an early stage, (2) ensuring sufficient time for partners to familiarise themselves with documents, as well as for consultation and feedback, (3) ensuring that information channels are in place, (4) ensuring transparent responses to suggestions and comments, and (5) disseminating the findings;

41.

accepts and supports the requirements set out in the draft ECCP for Member States to include detailed principles for partnership in the Partnership Contracts. However, such requirements should reflect the specific situation in the individual Member States. This particularly applies to the situation of public authorities at regional and local level;

42.

agrees with the Commission that monitoring committees have a key role to play in implementing all programmes under the European Union's Common Strategic Framework (CSF); accepts and supports the detailed requirements for Member States set out in the draft ECCP with regard to the involvement of partners, in particular public authorities at regional and local level, in setting up monitoring committees. These authorities should be involved in the ongoing activity of monitoring committees and the development of the official principles underlying such activity;

43.

accepts the proposal for a suggestion in the draft ECCP that managing authorities define detailed requirements, with a view to: (1) involving the relevant partners in defining principles for calls for proposals and evaluating projects, (2) effectively preventing conflicts of interest between partners, (3) ensuring there is a regular turnover of persons representing the partners involved in the calls for proposals, and (4) ensuring that the partners are fully aware of their obligations arising from involvement in project selection procedures. Local and regional authorities have a particularly key role in selecting projects expected to have a territorial impact;

44.

accepts the proposal for a suggestion in the draft ECCP that managing authorities define detailed requirements for involving partners in drawing up annual reports on programme implementation, as well as periodic reports on implementation of Partnership Contracts in the first half of 2017 and of 2019, particularly in relation to the information they include on progress and the partners' role in implementation;

45.

agrees with the Commission's insistence that an evaluation plan be drawn up by managing authorities for each programme under the Common Strategic Framework (CSF); also believes that there is a strong need to justify the adoption of differentiated rules for drawing up evaluation plans for programmes funded from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) on the one hand, and on the other from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

46.

owing to insufficient knowledge and limited resources, it may be difficult for some partners, and in particular organisations representing civil society, including environmental organisations, non-governmental organisations and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination, to become sufficiently involved in the partnership process;

47.

therefore accepts and supports the suggestion in the draft ECCP that Member States some of the funding earmarked for technical assistance to support weaker partners.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/18

—

considers that more EU funded support to local development is necessary for the next programming period to allow citizens to take greater ownership of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to facilitate and drive economic recovery and job creation;

—

considers that CLLD is one of the more ground-breaking aspects of the legislative package proposed for 2014-2020, and that its use should be strongly encouraged;

—

outlines that CLLD is the only provision of the CPR where real synergies at delivery level are specifically foreseen to jointly deliver the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund; therefore CLLD can act as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for local beneficiaries and allows for integrated and simplified delivery on the ground;

—

regards CLLD as a key tool for harmonious development of urban and rural areas, strengthening capacity to develop ties with the surrounding peri-urban and rural areas;

—

urges the Commission to draw upon the findings of the Court of Auditors and other reports and evaluations to ensure that the lessons learnt in LEADER and URBACT do indeed result in a much more robust, transparent, and accountable CLLD model;

—

calls for the Commission to prepare as soon as possible common indicative simplified guidelines to implement CLLD in crucial areas.

Rapporteur

Graham GARVIE (UK/ALDE), Member of Scottish Borders Council

1.

welcomes the Commission proposals for the next programming period that place a specific and renewed focus on Local Development across EU Regional, Rural and Maritime Policies;

2.

considers that Local Development is part of a wider EU approach to Territorial Development;

3.

believes Local Development is better defined as a holistic concept that focuses on the challenges and potential within regions of all types, be they urban, rural, rural-urban (rurban) or functional areas;

4.

considers that more EU funded support to local development is necessary for the next programming period 2014-2020, not only to allow citizens to take greater ownership of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to facilitate the achievement of those objectives but also to facilitate and drive economic recovery and job creation in the areas particularly affected by the current economic and financial crisis;

5.

argues that the Local Development approach can be implemented through different instruments, and one of the new key options proposed by the Commission is the new Community Led Local Development (CLLD) instrument, however the concept of Local Development has a broader meaning and needs to take into account the institutional framework and practice in each EU Member State;

6.

strongly welcomes that an entire chapter in the proposed Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) is specifically devoted to the CLLD instrument;

7.

outlines that CLLD is the only provision of the CPR where real synergies at delivery level are specifically foreseen to jointly deliver the European Agricultural for Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and the Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), and the Cohesion Fund. It thus has an significant role to play in boosting the credibility of cohesion policy by showing different EU funds can indeed be delivered jointly in an integrated and effective manner;

8.

believes that this instrument can be used both as a way of better ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion within the European Union and to implement locally the eleven Thematic Objectives of the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) and subsequently, through them, the Europe2020 strategy. Wishes to emphasise, however, that the deadline for drawing up the local development strategy should be extended;

9.

considers that in these difficult times of crisis and economic downturn, the elimination of artificial barriers between different EU funds is more welcome than ever so they can be locally delivered, both in urban and rural areas, paying more attention to the specific needs of each area and targeting those specific needs;

10.

highlights that capacity building is a key feature of CLLD. and that sufficient resources must made available to enable local stakeholders to prepare and implement their local strategy;

11.

enthuses that CPR provides for CLLD areas to benefit from a higher co-financing rate (notably an additional 10 % EU co-financing for ERDF and ESF if a whole axis is implemented through CLLD) and believes the same or similar incentives should apply to all funds, including in particular EMFF;

12.

stresses that the key added value of CLLD is the involvement of the local community, including the private and voluntary sector through the establishment of Local Action Groups (LAGs) that will draw up integrated Local Development Strategies;

13.

believes that this bottom-up approach contrasts strongly with the top-down approach to spending EU funds which would otherwise predominate. This makes CLLD the best practical example of what Subsidiary Principle means at local level and it will help increase public ownership and awareness of EU supported actions on the ground;

14.

recalls that Member States and regions are entirely free to decide to introduce CLLD for ERDF and ESF in their Partnership Contracts and Operational Programmes;

15.

considers that alongside the Urban agenda, Integrated Territorial Investments and Joint Action Plans, CLLD is one of the more ground-breaking aspects of the legislative package proposed for 2014-2020,and that its use should be strongly encouraged;

16.

believes that CLLD can become a crucial tool to help achieve the objectives set out in the common strategic framework, as well as the Territorial Agenda2020, at the local level by allowing joint programming of policies delivering Europe2020;

17.

considers that CLLD should build on the lessons learnt in previous sector specific instruments aimed at local development, notably LEADER in rural development and European Fisheries Fund - Axis 4 initiatives as well as the Urban Development Network Programme (URBACT), the previous URBAN initiative for sustainable development in the troubled urban district and the former EQUAL initiative for exclusion, discrimination and inequality;

18.

is concerned that the activities outlined for CLLD when preparing the CSF place too much emphasis on developing strategy and capacity building. While that process should be seen as essential, the main focus of CLLD is to deliver tangible and significant outcomes through investments that can improve the wellbeing to the local community;

19.

questions the rationale of mentioning CLLD only under the CSF Thematic Objective 9: social inclusion. CLLD is a multi-purpose instrument focused on the local community, whose diverse nature and challenges will extend well beyond social inclusion. Specifically, it could help considerably to correct substantial geographical and demographic imbalances hindering economic and social development in some regions;

20.

urges, therefore, that the CSF is amended so that CLLD is mentioned in the entire range of the eleven CSF Thematic Objectives and can therefore be used according to local circumstances and not just in relation to social inclusion activities;

21.

stresses that the CLLD Local Action Groups (LAGs) must be able to benefit from the additional 10 % co-financing rate regardless of which CSF Thematic Objectives they address. Crucially, the 10 % bonus must apply even when the earmark for Social Inclusion foreseen in the CPR is not allocated to CLLD exclusively;

22.

believes that the added value elements of CLLD are: participation, consultation and cooperation of local people and all local public and private parties; matching the local development strategy to the particular needs of the local area; a strong influence on multi-level and cross-sector collaboration; making use of sound local knowledge and expertise; the capacity of local areas to innovate; and the integrated, multi-sectoral approach, locally-defined actions and outcomes; and a flexible and strategic approach;

23.

considers that a local development approach under CLLD also responds to the need for a more results-oriented Cohesion Policy by addressing challenges at the appropriate territorial level, and will empower communities and local governments to play an active role in implementing EU policy objectives and in particular the Europe 2020 strategy;

24.

outlines that CLLD can act as a “one-stop-shop” for local beneficiaries which would allow integrated and simplified delivery of CSF funds on the ground. This could potentially be an enormous step forward in ensuring that a municipality would be able to put together integrated projects that can receive co-financing from a range of EU funds;

25.

argues that CLLD, due to its integrated nature and community involvement, is structurally more able to support diversification of activities, economic and social development, and innovation than top-down standardised application processes;

26.

believes that it would facilitate the implementation of innovative projects that otherwise would not be foreseen in Operational Programmes. The principal added value of the Local development partnerships lies in the way they make use of the diversity of expertise involved in LAGs which, by working with beneficiaries to develop their original funding application, will improve their quality and help make them more tailored to specific local needs;

27.

urges Member States and Regions to carefully assess whether including an specific CLLD axis in their Partnership Agreement or Operational Programme would give more added value to their EU funding allocations than top-down mainstream programmes;

28.

urges the Commission and Member States to ensure that there is sufficient critical mass both in terms of the size of the Local Action Groups and the average financial amount that CLLD LAGs can expect to be responsible for. Current experience in LEADER and EFF Axis 4 suggests that individual CLLD LAGs might cover a total LAG area population of 5 000 to 150 000 people and an integrated local strategy might deliver an average of EUR 2 million to EUR 10 million EU funds over the seven year period;

29.

believes, however that CLLD has the potential in some cases to deliver bigger critical mass than outlined in point 28 and justified exceptions need to be allowed for larger urban areas and geographical areas such as islands or remote areas provided that the community-led element is maintained;

30.

wishes to recall that CLLD as an optional instrument to deliver Local Development across the CPR funds, is related to other instruments such as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and contributes to the implementation of a broader development strategy that allows policies to be localised;

31.

supports that the European and national implementing rules clearly foresee that ITI and LAGs could be articulated to jointly deliver local ambitions under a shared strategy, whenever that option is felt appropriate. In particular, implementing rules should allow and facilitate that one or several LAGs are entrusted to deliver, at a smaller scale, part of the activities entrusted to a ITI at a larger geographical level;

32.

considers that in those cases it could be entirely sensible that an ITI also benefits from the additional 10 % foreseen for CLLD;

33.

wishes however to recall that the added value of CLLD is precisely the involvement of the wider local community and the explicit link between existing tools such as LEADER and EFF Axis 4 with the Structural funds;

34.

believes that the community element of CLLD is particularly suited to address geographically concentrated problems that require a community-wide response;

35.

enthuses that CLLD can also be one of several possible tools available to build up inclusive urban areas with public services accessible to all, preventing ghettoisation, responding to situations of poverty and promoting social linkages within diverse communities, including policies encouraging active ageing, social innovation and mutual support between generations and cultures;

36.

believes that, while the focus of this Opinion is to explore the use of CLLD in other fields and sectors beyond the existing and well-tested use of LEADER in rural areas, CLLD, as the natural extension of LEADER post 2014, can also be one of several possible tools available to address the challenges faced by rural areas in terms of accessibility, economic development and diversification and maintenance of essential services for the public, including policies encouraging active ageing, social innovation and mutual support between generations and cultures;

37.

considers that several CLLD LAGs at neighbourhood or community level can exist in larger urban areas to enable bottom up solutions to either place-based challenges such as multiple deprivation, environmental degradation or employability of specific groups with common disadvantages. A degree of coordination should be achieved between the LAGs when there is more than one active in the same local area;

38.

regards CLLD as a key tool for harmonious development of urban and rural areas, strengthening capacity to develop ties with the surrounding peri-urban and rural areas, a help to avoid urban sprawl, to encourage the formation of a balanced network of small and medium-sized towns and to strengthen links between producers and consumers of local agricultural products;

39.

welcomes the preparatory action called RURBAN which aims to gather up-to-date research and policy developments in the area of urban-rural linkages. CoR wishes it to develop before the start of the 2014-2020 period into a programme to encourage exchange of good practices, peer review, identifying innovative solutions and networking that can be used by the new CLLD partnerships;

40.

wishes to repeat its proposal that an operational programme entitled RURBACT be established that would encourage the exchange of good practices and networking on urban and rural issues (1);

41.

believes that various forms of urban-rural linkages exist across the EU strongly influenced by the national political and administrative systems. Therefore any form of EU intervention should be flexible enough to accommodate this wide variety of governance systems;

42.

regards as a main challenge the need to overcome the current geographical and sectoral separation of EU funds. While the Operational programmes tend to be rather sectoral, the new instruments like CLLD, ITI in particular could provide the necessary territorial approach and overcome sectoral separations;

43.

believes that CLLD addressing urban-rural relations needs to acknowledge that national contexts are very different, particularly as regards to urban-rural links across all Member States (bigger differences in wellbeing between urban and rural, less capacity) or between countries with many municipalities (where cooperation needs to be across local boundaries to gain critical mass) or those with larger municipalities (where local partnerships happen mostly within the local area);

44.

notes that CLLD can be successfully applied also in areas with specific sectoral problems. This is for instance the case of the current Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund, where a CLLD methodology is used to assist local fisheries communities as well as the fisheries sector;

45.

reports that in many places across Europe CLLD can successfully build on existing local partnerships funded from EARDF and/or EFF; moreover, in some areas there is already proven cooperation between EFF Axis 4 and LEADER partnerships as sometimes they are the same body. CLLD will also provide the scope for linking these EAFRD and EMFF interventions with ESF and ERDF when this is applicable;

46.

outlines a key concern about the fact that EMFF is expected to be managed at Member State level, whereas the Structural Funds and LEADER are often regionalised. This inconsistency will be a drawback for CLLD;

47.

wishes to recall the Committee of the Regions demands that the rule whereby public authorities cannot hold more than 49 % of voting rights be reviewed whenever institutionalised local development partnerships are already in place and advocates in those cases a ‘balanced representation’ of the different sectors on the Local Action Group;

48.

considers, inter alia, that LAG decision making processes need to be robust and clearly defined from the outset so that the local authority as the democratically accountable public institution in the Local Partnership is able to steer the broad strategy while at the same time ensuring that the LAG is not municipality-dominated;

49.

stresses that while CLLD aims to empower the local private and voluntary sector there is a need to recognise the underpinning role that local government needs to play in these arrangements. Often the local authority will have to take a leading role in order to provide comfort to Managing Authorities and the EC that the audit and compliance risks of the decisions taken will be managed appropriately, and that local capacity is available to make LAG structures and procedures effective;

50.

wishes therefore to recall that CLLD can be organised in such a way that delegation of responsibilities to the LAG from a Managing Authority or other local and regional delivery body as appropriate can be done in a proportionate way which reflects the LAG’s real capacity and the need for its decisions to be inclusive, transparent and accountable;

51.

strongly encourages the European Commission to take into account the local initiatives that already exist in each Member State, with a view to establishing a smooth connection between those initiatives and the new CLLD instrument;

52.

urges the Commission to draw upon the findings of the Court of Auditors and other reports and evaluations to ensure that the lessons learnt in LEADER and URBACT do indeed result in a much more robust, transparent, and accountable CLLD model;

53.

urges that clear rules to avoid conflict of interest are defined from the outset and at the very least the accountability, public scrutiny, appeal against decision taken and transparency rules for LAGs should be as stringent as those already required for local councillors. Both municipalities and LAGs must be transparently responsible for the public money they spend and the decisions they make;

54.

stresses that capacity is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed through clarifying and simplifying procedural and administrative requirements and where possible establishing “one stop shop” interfaces among funds, including, where possible, through electronic means;

55.

believes that this requires bringing audit and compliance across all funds beyond what is currently proposed. Equally these requirements need to be proportionate otherwise they would discourage potential local beneficiaries from applying for EU funding;

56.

is therefore concerned that CLLD might have to face different types of financial management and audit burden per fund, often with different funds vertically managed through different Managing Authorities or ministries, which might result in integrated projects across two or more of the funds progressing at the pace of the slowest one. Furthermore, it is important that Managing Authorities refrain from imposing their own additional procedural requirements that create further difficulties;

57.

stresses that building local capacity and strategies are just a means to an end, which is to make CLLD deliver tangible investments and measurable outcomes for the benefit of the local community;

58.

believes that a much stronger focus is required in CLLD on defining and implementing local strategies that progress towards clearly defined outcomes;

59.

stresses that one of CLLD’s key assets is the ability to be innovative and this is achieved through flexibility in delivery. In that regard, EU and national rules should refrain from imposing top-down and uniform measures, eligibility rules and criteria across countries and regions to facilitate local solutions to local problems being identified from the bottom-up;

60.

believes that the linkage between defining local strategies and the exchange of good ideas and wider implementation needs to be direct and robust, particularly as regards implementing larger scale interventions under the Structural Funds;

61.

notes that Managing Authorities may be tempted not to support integrated and resource intensive operations such as CLLD if easier ways to spend the funds exist. However with more Technical Assistance than is available at the moment CLLD has a much stronger qualitative dimension and local community buy-in than a top down approach;

62.

points out the inconsistency of having a 5 % earmark of resources for LEADER but not for the other funds when using a CLLD. Calls for the Managing Authorities to consider applying this 5 % to the other three funds when the CLLD option across the CPR funds is chosen either at the Partnership Agreement or at the Operational Programme;

63.

believes that the current dispersal of local development in the programmes needs to be addressed to increase visibility, accountability as well as project demonstration, mutual learning, and knowledge transfer particularly as regards to soft outcomes;

64.

calls for the four concerned Directorates General of the Commission to prepare as soon as possible common indicative simplified guidelines to implement CLLD in crucial areas such as: an assessment on how CPR funds can realistically deliver integrated local programmes and individual projects, eligibility of expenditures, reporting, cooperation, audit and compliance applicable as well as promotion and knowledge transfer methods. In so doing the Commission should undertake a strategic dialogue with national, regional and local development practitioners that can provide some questions to address in the guidelines as well as some possible answers and examples of existing local development partnerships.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/25

—

welcomes the Commission's intention of concentrating on cases with a particularly strong impact on the internal market and thus moving towards greater prioritisation in aid procedures, which will reduce the burden on all concerned - Commission, Member States and regional and local authorities;

—

points out that a suitable starting point for focusing on aid with actual and significant internal market relevance could be to clarify the criterion of impact on cross-border trade and the notion of undertaking;

—

calls for account to be taken of the fact that, while payments in respect of activities of a purely local nature may be categorised legally as state aid, they can have a limited impact on trade between Member States;

—

calls for a higher threshold for the de minimis regulation, and an increase in the separate de minimis threshold values for services of general economic interest (SGEIs), as well as broadening of the horizontal categories in the enabling regulation and broadening and clarification in the block exemption regulation as options for achieving the Commission's target in the framework of this modernisation initiative;

Rapporteur

Mr Clemens LINDEMANN (DE/PES) Head of County Authority of Saarpfalz (Landrat des Saarpfalz-Kreises)

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – EU State Aid Modernisation (SAM)

COM(2012) 209 final

1.

welcomes the Commission's recognition that the rules on state aid have developed into a fragmented and complex legal framework, involving a significant administrative burden for all concerned, unrelated to the extent of the internal market impact;

2.

therefore calls for clear simplification of the rules on aid and for them to focus on essential cases, improvement in their practical application and acceleration/reduction of procedures;

3.

therefore welcomes the European Commission's announcement that it will streamline the rules and clarify important concepts;

4.

welcomes the Commission's intention of concentrating on cases with a particularly strong impact on the internal market and thus moving towards greater prioritisation in aid procedures, which will reduce the burden on all concerned - Commission, Member States and regional and local authorities;

5.

points out that a suitable starting point for focusing on aid with actual and significant internal market relevance could be to clarify the criterion of impact on cross-border trade and the notion of undertaking;

6.

calls on the European Commission to clarify the conditions under which an obstacle to trade between Member States is deemed to exist and when an activity is considered to have no internal market relevance;

7.

calls for account to be taken of the fact that, while payments in respect of activities of a purely local nature may be categorised legally as state aid, they can have a limited impact on trade between Member States;

8.

proposes that, if these compensatory payments do not fall under a general exemption, the alternative of a simplified procedure should at least be considered;

9.

calls for the notion of undertaking to be clarified by means of a clearer demarcation between the commercial and non-commercial areas - e.g. using criteria - and the joint drafting of national lists by the Member States and the Commission. Whilst the abstract criteria would also take account of dynamic developments, the jointly drafted lists would provide legal certainty for the established areas. This would make things easier for local and regional bodies as well as for the Commission;

10.

if this approach is rejected, suggests as an alternative that the conditions for the presumed existence of economic activity in these areas be more closely defined;

11.

believes that the social, cultural and educational sectors as well as non-economic services of general interest would typically not fall within the notion of undertaking;

12.

stresses that not every case of aid which is very limited in size and scope should be notified to the European Commission and that the Member States themselves should take on responsibility for the application of the law on aid (e.g. through exemptions or de minimis rules);

13.

calls for a higher threshold for the de minimis regulation, and an increase in the separate de minimis threshold values for services of general economic interest (SGEIs), as well as broadening of the horizontal categories in the enabling regulation and broadening and clarification in the block exemption regulation as options for achieving the Commission's target in the framework of this modernisation initiative;

14.

stresses the need for clearer demarcation between the general aid provisions subject to this modernisation on the one hand, and the aid rules for SGEIs (Almunia package) on the other, particularly with a view to borderline cases, in which categorisation as a service of this kind is not clear-cut;

15.

welcomes the greater focus on the Europe 2020 objectives. This initiative must not, however, ultimately result in more voluminous and complicated rules for public authorities rather than the intended simplification;

16.

stresses the importance of the regional aid guidelines for local and regional authorities, as they determine which sectors of enterprise may receive support and in which areas. In this connection local and regional authorities should have discretion for supporting enterprises independently of their size in eligible regions too;

17.

stresses the need for the option of flexible support geared to local conditions where there is a specific need for support measures, in the light of demographic change or permanent natural handicaps, particularly in rural areas or mountain regions;

18.

calls for more scope to develop regionally tailored development strategies and support measures and for the option of regional and local budgets to be made available;

19.

points out that the revision of regional guidelines for 2014-2020 concerning state aid must not lead to unjustified disparities between Member States regarding population ceilings and that in future account must be taken of large corporations in all areas;

20.

therefore welcomes the Integrated Territorial Investment instrument, which opens up scope for local policy-shaping and makes the deployment of cross-cutting investment possible;

21.

welcomes the fact that the European Commission is striving for a more integrated approach and improved coordination of support measures;

22.

welcomes the opportunity for combining support instruments and cross-fund financing and the related improvement in the sustainable use of regional support funds;

23.

in this context and in view of the revision of the Regional State Aid Guidelines, calls for State aid for SGEI which, in accordance with the Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, are considered compatible, in principle, with the Treaty and at the same time eligible for co-funding by the Structural Funds, not to be included or to be included at a very low rate when calculating ceilings for the intensity of regional aid. This clarification should be made either in the amended version of the Regional State Aid Guidelines or through a communication on State aid applicable to the Structural Funds co-funding SGEI;

24.

urges the Commission to recognise that irrespective of public entrustment, public financing of public infrastructure projects should not be considered State aid;

25.

highlights the importance of clarifying the applicability of the State aid regime to infrastructure, in light of the problems involved in interpreting the General Court judgment of 24 March 2011 on Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (T-443/08) and Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH (T-455/08) v the European Commission, which has resulted in considerable delays in the ex ante verification of around 200 infrastructure projects funded by the Structural Funds;

26.

supports the Commission's intention of publishing a communication providing a summary of the interpretation of the concept of state aid by decisions and case law, and of applying this concept uniformly;

27.

urges that the interpretative communications themselves create no additional need for interpretation. The use of indeterminate legal concepts should be completely avoided;

28.

supports the Commission's intention of tightening up the multiplicity of secondary law and "soft law" texts relating to aid (regulations, communications, guidelines etc.) and, where appropriate, combining these;

29.

opposes the inclusion by the European Commission of additional quality and efficiency considerations in the compatibility assessment. Quality and efficiency criteria which further restrict the discretion of local and regional aid providers in principle do not fall within the Commission's area of responsibility, as defined in the competition chapter of the TFEU. Decisions on quality and efficiency must be left to the local authorities in the interests of local scope for action;

30.

notes that the steadily increasing reporting requirements for national bodies involve an enormous amount of red tape, both for the Member States and the Commission;

31.

calls, particularly in view of the EU's aim of reducing red tape, for the introduction of a system of random sampling, enabling across-the-board reporting to be dropped completely below a certain financial threshold;

32.

Four legislative texts are being revised in the process of modernising EU aid law with a view to the setting of stronger priorities:

33.

welcomes the Commission's intention of allowing the Member States more discretion with regard to de minimis aid. This should, however, apply generally and not just to aid involving small amounts. This would on the one hand significantly facilitate the Commission's work; at the same time local bodies would benefit, as the national level is closer to local government needs than the Commission;

34.

calls for the threshold set by the general de minimis regulation to be increased from EUR 200 000 to at least EUR 500 000 over a period of three tax years in line with the Commission's justified efforts to focus more on cases of particular relevance to the internal market;

35.

points out that the separate de minimis regulation for SGEIs, with its higher threshold values, was drawn up in awareness of, and in contrast to, the lower threshold values of the general de minimis regulation;

36.

calls therefore for a clear increase in the threshold value for these services vis à vis the general de minimis threshold value, in order to take account of the special features of SGEIs and their special position in the overall structure;

37.

points out that the CoR, in the context of the Almunia package, has already called for an SGEI de minimis threshold value of EUR 800 000 per year, and it now reiterates that call;

38.

calls for the provisions of the SGEI de minimis regulation also to apply to the general de minimis regulation with respect to aid granted in a form other than that of a subsidy (e.g. guarantees);

39.

therefore calls for the specific ceiling for individual aid granted on the basis of guarantees to be increased, by analogy with the de minimis regulation for SGEIs, to EUR 3.75 m. This is particularly relevant with a view to the prohibition in the SGEI de minimis regulation on combining this kind of aid with other sources of aid in respect of the same eligible costs;

40.

welcomes the Commission's planned measures amending the Council's enabling regulation to make other/more categories of aid compatible with the internal market and thus exempted from the reporting requirement;

41.

also welcomes the Commission's announcement that the following types of aid are to be exempted from the reporting requirement:

42.

proposes that the social, educational and health areas, provided they do not involve commercial or profit-seeking activities, broadband provision and animal disease counter measures be included in the "others" category;

43.

calls for the relationship between these horizontal exemptions and the exemption decision for SGEIs to be further clarified;

44.

welcomes the measures announced for the revision and extension of the general block exemption regulation in the aid categories covered by the revised enabling regulation, with a view to a reduced administration burden for local and regional authorities;

45.

calls for the extension of block exemption to include the social, educational, health and broadband areas in line with the horizontal extension in the enabling regulation;

46.

stresses that, in the area of education, non-government school and adult education should in particular be covered by the exemption, insofar as it does not come under the aid rules for SGEIs;

47.

stresses that the same should apply to health services provided by specialised departments or clinics, and to non-commercial social services provided by charitable associations and care homes for the elderly (as distinct from residential facilities);

48.

draws attention to the Digital Agenda and the EU's objective of making basic broadband services available to all Europeans by 2013;

49.

notes that the conditions for the construction of high-performance broadband networks of this kind in rural areas will not arise without aid, and stresses that aid rules should therefore not unnecessarily impede the development of broadband networks in rural areas. Rural areas should be protected against digital exclusion;

50.

stresses that particular account should also be taken here of the advantages deriving, when establishing broadband infrastructure, from the emergence of a downstream market for broadband services;

51.

regrets that the draft revised broadband guidelines submitted by the European Commission do not take account of repeated calls for significant streamlining and simplification of the rules;

52.

calls on the European Commission to ensure that, by including the development of broadband in the block exemption regulation, across-the-board development of broadband can be made possible even in more sparsely populated regions, where revenues cannot be expected to cover the full cost of introducing the technology and operating costs;

53.

calls for the extension of block exemption to include animal disease counter measures, in line with the horizontal extension in the enabling regulation, particularly in regard to providing facilities for the case of an epidemic outbreak;

54.

welcomes the fact that extension of exemptions will give the Member States greater responsibility and welcomes the Member States' increased responsibility for monitoring aid in general;

55.

stresses that this should not reduce the burden on the Commission at the cost of a steadily increasing burden on the Member States resulting from numerous reporting and documentation requirements and precise and detailed conditions for making use of the new facilities etc.;

56.

therefore considers it essential that the Commission's ex-post control rights not be further extended and that responsibility actually be delegated to the Member State. National aid control bodies must not be misused by the DG Competition as a kind of authority responsible for preliminary checks, at least not in cases where the power of decision remains with the Commission;

57.

rejects the Commission's idea of transferring national aid controls to independent authorities (e.g. competition authorities), as the decision on how to organise aid controls at national level resides solely with the Member States and not with the Commission. For the same reason the possibility of the Commission carrying out its own investigations is rejected;

58.

welcomes the simplification of the provisions of the procedural regulation;

59.

rejects the establishment of new Commission investigative powers vis à vis companies, e.g. using market information tools, thus bypassing the Member States. This would mean the transfer of national competences to the European level.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/30

—

calls for the 7th Environment Action Programme (7EAP) to support local and regional authorities in their role in implementation, in particular by including elements such as: their greater participation throughout the process of formulating, transposing and evaluating EU legislation; effective source-based policies and expanding cost-recovery options for local and regional authorities; a focus on how to manage the urban environment sustainably; and to establish a reasonable timeframe between the adoption of laws and their subsequent revision;

—

supports the improvement of the structuring, pro-active dissemination and accessibility of information, including the development of Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks (SIIFs); financial support for this should be made possible under the technical assistance provided for by the Structural Funds 2007-2014 as well as by the future LIFE programme;

—

believes that the 7EAP should commit the EU and Member States to introduce new and enhanced instruments for improving responsiveness, such as a general EU framework on environmental inspections and surveillance; inspection powers for the European Commission; general criteria for national complaint-handling; and a Directive on Access to Justice;

—

welcomes the proposed Partnership Implementation Agreements, however they should not only be agreed between the European Commission and a Member State, but also involve one or more local and regional authorities in order to adequately reflect multilevel governance;

—

recommends to improve environmental outcomes through innovative methods of multilevel governance, including expanding the Covenant of Mayors to resource efficiency and further development of the European Green Capital Award;

—

welcomes the support that the European Commission gives in its Communication to the CoR's proposal to co-organise a regular forum to address regional and local problems and solutions in the application of EU environmental law.

Rapporteur

Councillor Nilgun CANVER (UK/PES), London Borough of Haringey

Reference document

Communication on improving the delivery of benefits from EU environment measures: building confidence through better knowledge and responsiveness

COM(2012) 95 final

1.

Recalls that the purpose of this Opinion is threefold:

2.

acknowledges that whereas the 2008 Communication on implementing EU environment law (1) focused on the European Commission's enforcement powers to tackle breaches of EU environment law, the current 2012 Communication is about how to improve implementation through good national, regional and local governance. This reflects previous criticism and recommendations of the CoR (2);

3.

notes that the Communication is intended to intensify the dialogue with all stakeholders, including local and regional governments, on how they can work better together to enhance implementation of EU law through improving the collection and sharing of knowledge and by having greater ownership and responsiveness by all for effectively dealing with problems on the ground. The CoR endorses the view that knowledge and responsiveness are complementary facets of implementation;

4.

believes that local and regional authorities can potentially achieve greater coherence in implementation and enforcement by various means, in particular by setting up long-term environmental goals and strategies; through mobilisation of their citizens; by establishing well-functioning departments and services; by using EU funds for investing in environmental infrastructure and ecosystem services; by adaptation to climate change and disaster risk reduction; by applying the SEA and EIA Directives; and by promoting transparency and access to justice (3);

5.

recognises however, that new tasks and regulations applied by the EU to local and regional government in this field can pose questions of cost and administrative burden. The CoR feels that new initiatives should be implemented in a way that does not increase the cost and administrative burden on local and regional government. The CoR would ask the European Commission to conduct impact assessments as well as studies on this matter. Recalling its well-established positions on administrative burdens and given the provisions of the Treaty (4), requests that the European Commission conducts a thorough impact assessment of the administrative and regulatory burden arising from any new EU initiatives consequent from this Communication;

6.

reiterates its view that a 7th Environment Action Programme is needed, considering that the current EAP expired on 22 July 2012 and there is a need to ensure continuity. The 7EAP should ensure that the EU's environmental choices stay sufficiently clear and predictable for local and regional administrations (5);

7.

recalls its earlier recommendations concerning the overall character and priorities of the 7EAP (6), which stressed in particular the need for the 7EAP to contribute towards achieving a resource-efficient Europe within the framework of the Europe 2020 Strategy and a vision of where EU environmental policy should be directed for the longer term. It should also set clear targets, timetables and actions for 2020. There is a need to reflect the Rio+20 Declaration as adopted by the UNCSD on 22 June 2012 and its emphasis on an inclusive green economy and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the CoR contribution to the Rio Summit (7);

8.

notes with concern that implementation of the EU environmental acquis is still insufficient and that full implementation and enforcement at all levels are crucial in order to improve the state of the environment and public health, to ensure a level playing field and create regulatory certainty for industry, and to avoid market distortions (8). By the end of 2009, 18.8 % (544) of all infringement procedures against EU Member States of EU legislation were related to the environment, indicating continuing damage to the environment and distortion of competition (9);

9.

notes, for example, that the costs of not implementing current EU environmental legislation are broadly estimated at around EUR 50 billion a year in health costs and direct costs to the environment (10). Further costs of non-implementation include missed opportunities for businesses, different compliance costs, distorting competition among EU industries, as well as increased costs related to infringement cases. It is estimated that full implementation of all waste legislation would lead to an additional waste (and recycling) industry turnover of EUR 42 billion and an additional job creation of about 400 000 jobs (11). The EU environment industry is estimated to have an annual turnover in excess of EUR 300 billion, so that uncertainty about implementation pathways and time-frames may carry significant costs in terms of missed opportunities (12). If, due to an infringement case, investments have to be made over a very short time span they are likely to be more expensive than if the implementation had been better planned;

10.

requests that good implementation should become a priority objective of the 7th EAP in order to secure commitment to deliver better environmental outcomes, in particular those set out in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, the Low-carbon Roadmap and the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020;

11.

calls for the 7EAP to support local and regional authorities in their role in implementation, in particular by including elements such as:

12.

believes that the 7EAP should commit the EU and Member States to introduce new and enhanced instruments for implementation, building also on the initiatives set out in the Communication and detailed in sections C and D, such as (13):

13.

shares the European Commission's concerns about the uneven monitoring efforts across Europe, with the information generated being often incomplete, incompatible or out-of-date. Not enough useful information is placed online, and it is often not published systematically. The CoR recognises that better and more accessible information at national, regional and local levels would allow major environmental problems to be identified earlier, thereby saving costs in the longer term;

14.

highlights the pivotal role regional and local authorities have in collecting knowledge on implementation. The aim must be to ensure consistency and compatibility of the information also at national and EU level, and to make it effective and reliable;

15.

believes that transparency plays an important role in stimulating better implementation and enforcement. There is a need to promote investments in online information systems that make information on the environment and on implementation available to the general public and to public institutions, with increased efforts at all governance levels to proactively disseminate and provide access to environmental information;

16.

insists that whilst strengthening the Access to Information Directive, as envisaged by the Communication, the European Commission should ensure that Member States and their local and regional authorities properly implement the existing minimum requirements of the Directive, in particular those on more pro-active, up-to-date and systematic dissemination of information to citizens, in line with the Aarhus Convention (14);

17.

supports the development of Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks (SIIFs) for all key EU environment laws, as proposed by the European Commission. However, the development of such information systems needs to be effective and efficient, making better use of Member States' systems in a practical and flexible manner. It calls upon Member States to cooperate with the European Commission with the aim to put such SIFFs in place with the involvement of local and regional government. The CoR could believe that SIIFs, together with the range of SEIS initiatives, should lead to transparent information systems at national, regional and local level that make information accessible online and would allow implementation to be tracked in the most efficient and timely way possible, by local and regional authorities, citizens, experts and businesses (15);

18.

sees scope for further coordination and streamlining of data demands to national, regional and local authorities in line with the principle ‘produce once, use many times’. Data generated as part of reporting obligations under one piece of legislation is often relevant also to other pieces of legislation;

19.

stresses however that there is a need to improve definitions in EU Directives to enable a level playing field in monitoring and reporting, public information and enforcement, e.g. concerning the different waste management options und waste flows under the Waste Framework Directive;

20.

attaches great importance to the commitment of the European Commission to explore how EU funding could be used for the development, upgrading and deployment within Member States, regions and municipalities of SIIFs and relevant interoperable information systems, related training and the increase of administrative capacity where needed. In particular, such support should be made possible under the technical assistance provided for by the Structural Funds 2007-2014 as well as by the future LIFE programme;

21.

calls upon the EEA to explore within pilot projects how monitoring and reporting pressures on local and regional authorities can be reduced by ICT and e-government without affecting the impact of legislation;

22.

supports initiatives by the European Commission and Member States to exploit the opportunities, including in terms of reduced monitoring costs, of earth-observation techniques, such as GMES, for improving the effectiveness of implementation monitoring on the ground (16). This could include the promotion of pilot projects with local and regional authorities;

23.

underlines the importance of the SEA and EIA Directives as instruments for local and regional public participation on environmental policy, and reiterates its call for the upcoming revision of the EIA to strengthen provisions that public consultation for EIAs should begin as early as possible, for instance at the preliminary scoping and screening stage in order to further expedite the implementation of the subsequent stages and the decision-making of the relevant authorities, and to include minimum requirements on how to make the EIA documentation available to the public concerned (17);

24.

supports the need for better EU-wide, systematically and pro-actively disseminated, online geo-referenced data and maps on the environment in order to create a level playing field and to complement improved information systems within Member States, and regional and local authorities;

25.

welcomes the intention of the European Commission to extend the approach used in the Bathing Water Directive across all relevant EU environment laws, building also upon pilot exercises under development by the EEA on air quality and waste;

26.

recognises the role of the EEA in processing monitoring data reported by Member States to the Commission, as well as supports its growing role in supporting the European Commission's analysis of Member State implementation reports, and calls for a greater coordination role of the EEA in ensuring consistency and compatibility in the collection and collation of these different data at EU level, as done under various tools, e.g. INSPIRE, SEIS, GMES, GEOSS, and EyeonEarth;

27.

expects the European Commission to move forward with SEIS (Shared Environmental Information System) and present its SEIS Implementation Plan soon in 2012, explaining the state-of-play and setting out how improvements can be made;

28.

calls for the European Commission to publish the conformity-checking studies that it regularly commissions on the implementation of EU environmental legislation by the 27 Member States, in order to allow full, democratic discussions on the state of environmental law;

29.

reiterates its call for the European Commission to come forward with a general EU framework on environmental inspections and surveillance (18). Such a framework should allow Member States to apply guidelines in a flexible way whilst achieving a high level of consistency in application;

30.

in the interests of better regulation, the European framework for inspections should become the core framework under EU environmental law. To the greatest extent possible, specific provisions in sectoral EU environmental directives should be avoided. If separate provisions in sectoral directives are essential, they must be in line with the framework;

31.

believes that an EU-wide framework for national inspections can reduce unfair competition between EU regions and municipalities due to different or lacking inspection regimes, ensure a level playing field in legal action, and improve trans-frontier cooperation and consistency across the EU. The form and content of inspections should be regulated nationally and developed at local and regional level but on the basis of general principles set by the EU framework, including a streamlined and risk-based, approach (19) and the European Environment Agency, in cooperation with national environmental protection agencies could play an important role in identifying and promoting them;

32.

believes that the European Commission should have the possibility to investigate cases where there is a suspicion that EU environmental law has not been complied with. Such investigation possibilities exist at present in the areas of the customs union, agriculture, fisheries, regional policy, competition, veterinary and financial policy (20). Such inspection powers for the European Commission may conflict with relationships between the authorities within Member States. The investigations referred to above must therefore take into account the rules in force in the Member State concerned regarding oversight arrangements between different levels of government. So far as possible, European Commission investigations should also take place in accordance with the normal EU infringement procedure;

33.

considers it essential, as a complementary action, that the European Commission reports on possible ways to strengthen the EU Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL), including in particular ensuring adequate long-term financial support for IMPEL, increasing IMPEL's systematic use for peer-review inspections, and its work on identifying and sharing good practice, as well as further extending it to the regional and local levels (21);

34.

expresses concern about the deficits and lack of remedies in many complaint-handling systems, which compels citizens to address to the European Commission, the European Parliament's Petitions Committee or EU Ombudsman, which are overloaded with complaints;

35.

supports proposals for general criteria for national complaint-handling, including for dispute resolution such as mediation, based on recent specific provision for national grievance and dispute-settlement mechanisms in consumer legislation (22). The criteria could include for example general safeguards on confidentiality and timeliness, and on the need to provide information online for citizens on how a problem has been resolved, and to provide citizens and NGOs with independent local complaint institutions, whilst taking into account obligations on access to justice resulting from the Aarhus Convention, and whilst not affecting the general right to complain to the EU institutions;

36.

notes that whereas the 2003 proposal for a Directive on Access to Justice on environmental matters has not yet been adopted as a legal instrument, the European Court of Justice has confirmed that national courts must interpret access to justice rules in a way which is compliant with the Aarhus Convention (23). Due to case-law which foresees greater access to courts for citizens and NGOs, national courts, local and regional authorities and economic as well as environmental interests now face uncertainty in addressing this challenge;

37.

reiterates therefore, that there is a need to revive the stalled Access to Justice Directive (24). This would close existing gaps in many Member States in complying with the requirements of Article 9(3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention. It would also enhance the role of the public as a catalyst for better enforcement of environmental law at all levels. The current Communication is not explicit on how the European Commission intends to resolve this;

38.

welcomes the support that the European Commission gives in its Communication to the CoR's proposal to co-organise a regular forum to address regional and local problems and solutions in the application of EU environmental law (25). Such a forum would allow for a continuous dialogue and the exchange of experience between environment practitioners from local and regional authorities and their associations, and from the CoR's consultative platforms and networks, together with the European Commission;

39.

welcomes that the European Commission, by offering the new instrument of ‘Partnership Implementation Agreements’, reflects to a large extent a previous call of the CoR (26) on the EU to extend the pilot work carried out by the European Commission already in 2002 on tripartite agreements and contracts (27). The CoR calls upon the European Commission to provide more information and guidance on how it envisages designing and applying the instrument;

40.

believes that Partnership Implementation Agreements should not only be agreed between the European Commission and a Member State, but also involve one or more local and regional authorities in order to adequately reflect multilevel governance, thereby becoming a Tripartite Implementation Agreement;

41.

believes that Tripartite Implementation Agreements could assist in achieving the implementation of certain EU environmental policies, when traditional instruments do not achieve the necessary commitment towards solving emerging or ongoing environmental and non-compliance problems. The agreements should result in clear commitments from Member States and local and regional authorities to put in place the necessary measures, as well as from the EU to provide support. These commitments need to be formalised with deliverable objectives and timelines, and publicly available so that they can be subject to scrutiny;

42.

regrets that the Communication does not reflect the CoR proposal to jointly consider specific ways of extending the Covenant of Mayors to cover key areas of the Roadmap to a Resource-efficient Europe, such as biodiversity and land use, waste and water management or air pollution (28). The CoR believes that this would facilitate implementation of EU environmental policy by an innovative method of multilevel governance, which promotes the pro-active commitment of local and regional authorities in achieving implementation instead of relying on simple enforcement of EU law;

43.

regrets that the Communication does not make reference to the European Commission's European Green Capital Award, which the CoR strongly supports as an important means of showcasing cities that are exemplars and innovators in implementation of EU environmental law, and for sharing their experiences with other cities. To this end, the CoR reiterates its recommendations of 2010 on the further development of the Award (29);

44.

stresses that environmental problems and climate change 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. The CoR advocates 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 implementation plans (30);

45.

recalls that environmental policy is an area where competences are shared between the EU and the Member States, therefore the subsidiarity principle applies;

46.

notes that the European Commission makes no assessment of the various options set out in the Communication terms of their compatibility with the principle of subsidiarity. Considers that the options presented in the Communication are for debate and reflection at this stage, and are therefore insufficiently well-developed for the CoR to form a definitive view, with much depending on whether (and how) the European Commission decides to take some of these forward;

47.

with this reservation, notes the contributions from its Subsidiarity Monitoring Network (SMN), which generally indicate that the options in the Communication, when fully formulated, are unlikely to constitute a significant breach of subsidiarity (31);

48.

notes however, that whereas there is support for an upgrade of the existing framework for inspections, there may be some resistance in the SMN to this being made binding and to the creation of an EU inspection body. Similarly, whereas there is support for criteria for handling of complaints by Member States, some SMN members may prefer for these to be non-binding recommendations. There appears to be an acceptance that the EU should define the conditions for efficient and effective access to national courts on EU environmental law.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/37

—

considers that soil type, land management and climate differ widely across the regions of Europe and this means specific management guidance and protection strategies are required to ensure soil protection is carried out in a proportionate way, based on regional priorities, but under an overarching framework to ensure EU policies are also met;

—

notes that tackling soil risks and threats is urgent, particularly with regard to climate change;

—

stresses that climate change can have a range of impacts on soil, mainly as a result of changes in soil wetness, soil temperature and also rainfall patterns, which can result in soil degradation, including loss of organic matter and an increase in erosion, compaction and run-off;

—

stresses that local and regional authorities can play an important role in monitoring soil degradation and in contributing to an inventory of contaminated sites;

—

believes that soil policy needs to strike the right balance between European-level action balanced with the principles of subsidiarity and better regulation in order to avoid unnecessary additional administrative burdens and disproportionate costs. EU regulations on soil should therefore be designed to intervene only where action is required;

—

believes that gaps in soil protection measures are best dealt with on a common basis across the EU through a general framework and common principles that all countries need to adhere to. A Soil Framework Directive would therefore be supported although it is essential that the policy is not unnecessarily prescriptive, such as with quantitative provisions and limits.

Rapporteur

Corrie McCHORD (UK/PES), Member of Stirling Council

Reference document

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities

COM(2012) 46 final

1.

The Commission's report provides an overview of the implementation of the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection since its adoption in September 2006 and also considers current soil degradation trends, as well as future challenges to ensure protection.

2.

The strategy identified four key pillars for implementation: awareness raising, research, integration, and legislation. An integral part of the strategy was a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232 final) which was structured along three themes: Preventative measures, Identification of the problem and Operational measures.

3.

The CoR has previously published Opinions in relation to soil protection as follows:

4.

Soil is an integral part of our environmental, social and economic systems, underpinning food production, controlling the quality and quantity of water flow, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity, amongst other environmental services. Ensuring that soils are in a good state to deliver its essential functions is vital for the sustainability of Europe's environment and economy.

5.

A key report issued by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the EC's Joint Research Centre (JRC) in 2012 on the State of Soil in Europe (1) highlighted the importance of ten major threats to soils in Europe: organic matter decline, erosion, compaction, sealing, salinisation, acidification, biodiversity, desertification (for southern Europe), landslides and soil contamination. An outlook on soil carbon and global climate, erosion, water retention, acidification and biofuels was also discussed. The report stated that soil degradation in the EU is continuing to occur and is worsening in some parts of Europe. The report demonstrates that existing policies and legislation, at EU, national or regional level, have not been sufficient to fully protect soils.

6.

Mineral and organic soil type, land management and climate differ widely across the regions of Europe and this means specific management guidance and protection strategies are required to ensure soil protection is carried out in a proportionate way, based on regional priorities, but under an overarching framework to ensure EU policies are also met.

7.

Local and Regional authorities have a crucial role to play in the protection of European soils. This includes responsibility for ensuring that land use legislation, where it exists, achieves the objective of protecting soils and is implemented properly, in their capacity as land planners and as the bodies in charge of granting construction and land use permits. Such authorities may have powers to prevent urban sprawl and soil sealing, incentivise brownfield and urban residential site rehabilitation and protect and promote greenfield sites.

8.

The CoR supports that any future European provisions on soils follow approaches with adequate flexibility for differences in national and regional circumstance. A common EU-wide soil framework will contribute to ensuring that soil protection obligations of land managers (in the widest sense) across Member States are similar, thus reducing the potential for a distortion of competition in the internal market.

9.

The Commission's report (Section 4) provides an assessment of current and upcoming challenges. The CoR agrees with the Commission's analysis that soil degradation has increased in the past decade in the EU and also worldwide, and that this trend is likely to continue unless land use and management, organic matter and carbon, and resource efficiency are effectively addressed.

10.

It is clear that the predicted growth in world population, the rising consumption of meat and dairy products, the increased use of biomass for energy, in conjunction with climate change mitigation and adaptation, desertification risks and land take will all lead to increased competition for land and water resources and the risks of degradation.

11.

Tackling soil risks and threats is urgent, particularly with regard to climate change. Agriculture has a particularly strong impact on carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from soil. EU soils contain more than 70 billion tonnes of organic carbon, which is equivalent to almost 50 times our annual greenhouse gas emissions. Organic matter loss from soils and therefore increased CO2 emissions is an especially serious issue, due to the fact that it contributes to climate change. There is evidence (2) suggesting that organic matter is in decline in UK, France, Belgium and Austria. As well as negatively impacting upon soil quality, the loss of soil organic matter can result in carbon emissions to the atmosphere and so have a negative impact on EU targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

12.

Climate change can have a range of impacts on soil, mainly as a result of changes in soil wetness, soil temperature and also rainfall patterns, which can result in soil degradation, including loss of organic matter and an increase in erosion, compaction and run-off. Land management policies do not currently afford protection of soil carbon in all European countries.

13.

There are calls for urgent action to restore damaged peatlands to stop carbon loss, and to revitalise the multiple ecosystem services of a healthy peatland. While peatlands represent only 2% of cultivated land in the EU, they are responsible for more than 50% of the CO2 emissions of this sector. In recent years, concern has also grown with regard to the impact of exploiting peatlands to supply commercial peat for horticultural purposes.

14.

Maintaining soil carbon stocks (and minimising nitrous oxide emissions) will make an important contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate climate change. The Commission project (3) called "Sustainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation" (SoCo) produced a useful set of case studies and recommendations.

15.

Efficient use of resources is crucial. Agriculture is highly dependent on soil fertility, especially nutrient availability. The majority of phosphorus fertilisers used in the EU are imported. The EU also produces large amounts of manure, bio-waste and sewage sludge every year. A way forward to address security of supply of nutrients and to improve soil conditions and limit pollution from potentially toxic elements is to ensure a proper collection, treatment and use of these materials. The CoR recommends that the Sludge Directive is revised to control the use of other organic materials used on land which are not currently controlled under this Directive.

16.

Current land take trends (soil sealing) are highly unsustainable throughout the EU and this is an important cause of soil degradation in the EU. Soil sealing often affects fertile agricultural land, puts biodiversity at risk, increases the risk of flooding and water scarcity and contributes to global warming. Guidelines (4) on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing were published by the Commission in April 2012. The CoR strongly recommends use of these Guidelines.

17.

Atmospheric deposition of acidifying substances to soils can cause negative effects due to acidification and nitrification. Nitrogen oxides and ammonia are now identified as the main acidifying agents, while sulphur dioxide emissions have generally decreased in recent years as a result of regulation. It will be essential to ensure that emissions of acidifying species across Europe continue to decrease, to reduce the land area exceeding critical loads of acidity.

18.

The Commission's report (section 5) identifies five ongoing activities and the CoR would make the following comment on each of these as follows:

19.

There is considerable importance in raising awareness with regard to the Soil Thematic Strategy and the need to protect soil in the EU. Land managers need to be fully aware of the sustainable soil management practices that maintain the ecosystem services delivered by soil. The CoR therefore strongly commends the work of the Commission since 2006 in raising soil awareness. This includes the Commission's publication of Atlases on European soils (5) and soil biodiversity (6), as well as major soil conferences. The CoR also commends the Commission's work in establishing a working group on Awareness Raising and Education in the context of the European Soil Bureau Network.

20.

Awareness raising amongst land managers and other stakeholders, as well as education and awareness of the public on the importance of soils will play a key role in promoting sustainable use of soil. However awareness raising on its own will not achieve the required level of soil protection, rather a combination of measures is required, in which education and economic incentives should be as important as regulatory measures. Using awareness to improve the implementation of sustainable soil management practices will continue to have an important role to play in minimising soil degradation. The CoR therefore encourages local and regional authorities to act as ambassadors in this field and one possible example to follow is the European Land and Soil Alliance (ELSA e.V.).

21.

Research is crucial to ensure better understanding of soil protection priorities and to ensure that policy development continues to be based on sound science. The CoR therefore strongly welcomes the work of the Commission since 2006 in funding around 25 research projects (7) such as ENVASSO, RAMSOIL and SOILSERVICE to address soil issues. It will be important to ensure that knowledge gained from these research projects continues to be adequately disseminated to end users of this research, including ultimately land managers. Additional soil research and soil monitoring data are required to fill the current knowledge gap, but this must always be carried out while bearing in mind proportionality of costs and reciprocal exchange between all the bodies involved. The identification of assessment methodologies, mitigation measures and minimum requirements for the harmonisation of soil monitoring activities are critical.

22.

The CoR notes that the Commission is continuing with funding research, particularly on landslides, soil sealing, soil functions, the soil carbon and nitrogen cycles (with a focus on peatland restoration), soil fertility and nutrients recycling in agriculture. The CoR supports the need for all this research, which will also require adequate knowledge exchange to stakeholders.

23.

The CoR calls for an updated overview of the extent of soil contamination in the EU and what Member States are doing to tackle it. This exercise should in particular focus on the link between soil contamination and groundwater contamination, as groundwater is a key source of drinking water in many countries.

24.

Environmental standards for protecting key soil processes and functions do not currently exist and Europe does not have an overarching soil monitoring scheme. Tackling the lack of systematic EU-wide soil data, understanding what information is already available, identifying gaps and making recommendations for future soil monitoring is required. The CoR agrees there is a need for more soil monitoring, e.g. to support appropriate regional soil protection approaches. There is a need to improve the access of European, national and regional policymakers and decision makers to relevant soil data and information at appropriate scales. In addition across Europe as a whole, there is inadequate long term monitoring of soils at a network of sites to address issues, particularly including the interactions between soils and climate change. The CoR therefore welcomes the continuation of the European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC).

25.

Even though the strategy is in the sixth year, the EU is still devoid of any form of systematic or harmonised soil monitoring systems across Europe and research methodologies vary. There is large disparity in forms of soil protection and soil quality throughout the EU and the proposed Soil Framework Directive sought to tackle this. In this context, the CoR welcomes research projects such as LUCAS, aimed at providing data for ESDC. The CoR supports the Commission proposals to consolidate harmonised soil monitoring by repeating its soil investigations and also by testing new remote-sensing techniques.

26.

Local and regional authorities can play an important role in monitoring soil degradation and in contributing to an inventory of contaminated sites. A targeted and efficient soil protection policy should be based on the knowledge of where degradation is likely to be occurring.

27.

Monitoring of soil quality is done in many different ways across Member States. The Commission proposed a harmonisation of monitoring activities in order to obtain a clearer picture of the state of European soils. The JRC has already collected a considerable amount of data but more could be done with clear and comparable reports from Member States. Harmonised monitoring should be implemented in synergy with the Monitoring Mechanism Decision, which is currently undergoing revision.

28.

The CoR welcomes the active engagement of the Commission with Member States in developing the soil-related measures, including in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and in Regional Policy. The cross-cutting nature of soils means that the EC proposals for soil protection will need to be integrated across a number of policy initiatives and delivery mechanisms (e.g. Water Framework, Nitrates, Floods, Sludge, the Habitats and Birds Directives for biodiversity protection, Directives on the Environmental Impact of projects, plans and programmes, Rural Development Regulation and CAP).

29.

The CoR calls on the European Commission to entrench the soil thematic strategy as a joint action plan so as to put Member States and local and regional authorities in a better position to apply soil policy and implement European rules. At the moment, soil proposals and measures are spread out across many EU proposals. The soil thematic strategy could provide an overall view of existing and new measures. It could detail:

30.

The proposed "Greening" of CAP is to be welcomed. Reform is needed to provide measures to make CAP more attractive for regional solutions in issues such as soil protection. This includes considering the use of EU Rural Development funds to set up Rural Development Contracts to finance land managers to protect soil, restore peatlands, create wetlands, convert arable land into grassland, prevent soil erosion and protect organic matter. The CoR therefore strongly supports the Commission's comments on increasing the uptake of measures through Rural Development funds to improve soil quality and extend the surface area covered by such measures.

31.

The EEA/ JRC 2012 report indicates that existing CAP Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have not been fully adequate for soil protection purposes. The current proposals for "greening of CAP" therefore need to be better geared towards improved soil protection outcomes, without increasing the administrative burdens on Member State authorities. This includes an assessment of whether there is scope to further develop GAEC measures to improve soil protection.

32.

It should also be recognised that, CAP measures only cover agricultural soils which receive farm payments. The CoR supports the Commission's proposals to further clarify and specify soil-related standards in the context of the overall CAP reform. In particular, the CoR welcomes the current proposal for a new GAEC on organic matter protection, including a ban on arable stubble burning and a ban on the first ploughing of wetlands and carbon-rich soils.

33.

The CoR supports the on-going work of the Commission to better integrate soil protection across other relevant policy areas. This includes developing a European Innovation Partnership on Agriculture Productivity and Sustainability with a particular focus on land and soil management, Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water and the implementation of Cohesion Policy.

34.

There are clear links between soil management and diffuse pollution and this is an important and urgent issue in relation to water quality across Europe. There are risks to water quality from soil erosion, loss of pesticides and nutrients from farmland. The Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC, Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC and the Water Framework Directive have no direct requirement for legislation specifically on soil despite the importance of diffuse pollution. Once contaminated, groundwater can take many hundreds of years to be decontaminated and therefore the CoR calls for the introduction of adequate measures to combat soil degradation and diffuse pollution risks to groundwater, as well as other watercourses.

35.

While prevention of soil degradation should remain the priority, the current state of some European soils will require soil remediation measures to be taken. The CoR welcomes the Commission's proposal for continued support from Cohesion Funds and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the regeneration of brownfield sites in the next programming period 2014-2020. Local and Regional authorities should continue to be aware that considerable Cohesion fund resources remain available for eligible regions that wish to tackle soil degradation.

36.

The CoR calls on the European Commission to provide extra possibilities for soil projects under the LIFE+ support programme. In the upcoming period, financing arrangements can be placed on a broader basis. Under current requirements, projects which come under "Environment Policy and Governance" should set an example and/or be innovative. However, for tackling soil problems there is no specific need for innovation in many cases, but more a need for repeating activities or for continuing ones already started.

37.

The CoR welcomes that the Commission proposes to review the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which will provide an opportunity for better integrating soil concerns at an early stage of project planning. It will be important for the Commission to consider how to devise incentives to reduce carbon emissions and maintain soil organic matter by accounting for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector as part of the EU's climate change commitment for 2020.

38.

Soil damage can have transboundary effects (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions diffuse pollutants, eroded sediments, loss of soil carbon, spreading of contamination across borders). Europe's soils are a major sink and also a potential source of greenhouse gases (GHG), including N2O emissions.

39.

The CoR welcomes the Commission's constructive efforts at the Rio+20 conference and the inclusion of land degradation concerns in the final text (8), and would encourage the Commission to maintain soil policy amongst its priorities at international conferences such as the UNFCCC meetings and other relevant Forums including the Convention on Biological Diversity. The CoR also commends that the Commission and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), is actively supporting an initiative on the economics of land degradation to set out incentives for investment in sustainable land management policies. The CoR is also pleased that the Commission will work at the international level to promote the establishment of an inter-governmental panel on soils.

40.

The Commission's report does not raise any subsidiarity or proportionality issues in itself, it being a report on the implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy. It does indirectly refer to possible EU legislation on soil protection which, however, would raise such issues.

41.

Those Member States that object to the 2006 proposal for a Framework Directive and have blocked the passage of legislation in the Council in 2010, invoke the argument of subsidiarity. The problem is that while certain Member States have already advanced legislation on soil protection, other Member States have no legal framework or a far less developed one. The CoR urges Member States to take measures at national level and immediately calls for:

The CoR supports Commission measures that enable Member States to formulate and implement soil provisions within their own remit.

42.

Soil degradation including greenhouse gas losses, contamination, compaction, diffuse pollution and sealing all have transboundary effects and therefore warrant (at least) coordination of policy at European level. Examples include compacted or deteriorated soil which is unable to store rainwater can increase flooding in neighbouring countries. Water pollution and eutrophication also happen as a consequence of soil pollution and are not limited by country borders. Sediments washed away by soil erosion in one country can block dams or damage infrastructure such as harbours in other countries; contaminated soil can pollute the groundwater in a neighbouring country. European legislation is thus seen as a way to protect land users in a given country from the harmful consequences of practices in another country for which they are not responsible (9). Where transboundary effects occur, cooperative initiatives between regional and local authorities are essential to tackle this issue.

43.

In view of the fact that Europe is still seeing detrimental soil effects six years after publication of the Soil Thematic Strategy, it is difficult to see how even a revised Thematic Strategy without a Soil Framework Directive will be sufficient to achieve a high level of soil protection across all EU Member States and to overcome the above-mentioned problems. Greater efforts are needed on the part of the Commission and the Member States to ensure soil protection.

44.

To ensure proportionality, future EU legislation on soil protection must leave enough room for Member States to identify the most appropriate measures at the most appropriate geographical and administrative level. This would be crucial to ensure that the regional and local specificities as regards soil variability, land uses, local climate conditions and socio-economic aspects can be properly taken into account.

45.

The CoR commends the Commission's work in the implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy. The soils of Europe are fundamental to our livelihoods and need protection. The importance of soil as a non-renewable resource essential to a sustainable environment should be recognised by overarching soil protection policy and measures.

46.

Soil needs to be protected to:

47.

In all European countries, a range of soil problems can occur, sometimes with severe, irreversible and costly consequences. This is mainly caused by soil contamination, landslides, loss of organic matter, erosion, salinisation, desertification and sealing. Further soil protection policies and regulations are required at EU level, and at Member State level measures and – if not yet in place – regulations, because of the crucial functions and ecosystem goods that soils provide for the European economy, society and environment. The cost of regulatory action should be compared to the costs of inaction in terms of indirect costs arising from climate change, water pollution, flood management, public health etc. The Commission estimated in 2006 that total costs of soil degradation in the EU-25 could be EUR 38 billion/ year.

48.

Soil quality is strongly related to other environmental aspects of EU relevance (e.g. air, water quality, flooding risk, biodiversity, climate change, renewables etc.). Future soil policy must recognise its links to other EU environmental goals (e.g. the Water Framework Directive). There are many existing EU provisions which have some elements of soil protection although no overarching soil specific legislation is in place. Existing provisions are generally restricted to specific land uses or management and do not cover the whole land and soil cover.

49.

Local and Regional authorities need to assess land take in their areas and consider what can be done if trends are unsustainable. This work can be supported by using the Commission's Guidance on Sealing and also by ongoing implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy's four pillars. Local and Regional authorities should also continue to pro-actively contribute to this strategy by for example supporting the development of local Codes of Practice on soil protection.

50.

Gaps in soil protection measures are best dealt with on a common basis across the EU through a general framework and common principles that all countries need to adhere to. A Soil Framework Directive would therefore be supported although it is essential that the policy is not unnecessarily prescriptive, such as with quantitative provisions and limits. The principle of subsidiarity is particularly important because soils differ widely across the regions of Europe. Soil protection strategies should therefore be risk based and depend on the situation, be proportionate and take regional circumstances into account. Tailor-made measures are necessary to ensure protection of soil. Implementation of soil policy is primarily carried out at local and regional level, which is why regulation in this area needs to be introduced at this level. We need better soil monitoring to help develop, support and assess regional approaches on soil protection.

51.

Soil policy needs to strike the right balance between European-level action balanced with the principles of subsidiarity and better regulation in order to avoid unnecessary additional administrative burdens and disproportionate costs. EU regulations on soil should therefore be designed to intervene only where action is required.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/45

—

life sciences and biotechnology contribute substantially to core EU policy goals in terms of health, sustainable and economic development and job creation

—

the transition towards a bioeconomy is a prerequisite to making Europe a global leader in the bioeconomy especially regarding innovation and competitiveness

—

the bioeconomy is listed, together with food security and sustainable agriculture, as a "societal challenge" in Horizon 2020, with a budget proposed by the Commission of EUR 4,5 billion; this is welcomed by the CoR

—

it will be at least 25 years before the bioeconomy can compete with the fossil-based economy and that this requires long term investment (in R&D), strategies (beyond 2020) and cooperation among all stakeholders along the value chain aiming to achieve cooperative knowledge transfer

—

the bio-economy will provide new business and innovation opportunities for Europe’s value chain including the agricultural sector

—

spatial planning policy instruments are important in maintaining areas used for agriculture and forestry

—

the Commission's proposed action plan does not include any measures to increase natural resource efficiency.

Rapporteur

Rogier VAN DER SANDE (NL/ALDE), Member of the Executive Council of the Province of Zuid-Holland

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe

COM(2012) 60 final

1.

welcomes the present Communication from the European Commission (hereafter "Commission") proposing to shift towards greater and more sustainable use of renewable resources and calling for a transition from a fossil-based to a bio-based society with support from research and innovation;

2.

agrees with the Commission's view that the bioeconomy is a key element for smart and green growth and that it contributes to the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy and the flagship initiatives on the innovation union and a resource-efficient Europe; reiterates that life sciences and biotechnology contribute substantially to core EU policy goals in terms of health, sustainable and economic development and job creation (1);

3.

recognises that the transition towards a bioeconomy is a prerequisite to making Europe a global leader in the bioeconomy especially regarding innovation and competitiveness; emphasises that the bioeconomy offers great potential for job creation, and not only in the agricultural sectors; observes that the world's natural resources are diminishing and that Europe will need to move faster in order to remain competitive in the bioeconomy, as other countries around the world are putting similar strategies in place and actively stimulating market initiatives (e.g. China, the USA); believes Europe is in need of a strong European response based on innovation in support of the bioeconomy;

4.

believes that the action plan set out in the Communication lacks practical measures and instruments to tackle the potential barriers or risks when shifting towards a bioeconomy; specific attention should be paid to overlapping or conflicting regulations and the availability of venture capital;

5.

welcomes the fact that the bioeconomy is listed, together with food security and sustainable agriculture, as a "societal challenge" in Horizon 2020 (2), with a budget proposed by the Commission of EUR 4,5 billion; this provides scope for innovative measures aimed at addressing food security, natural resource scarcity, sustainable agriculture, fossil resource dependency, soil fertility and climate change, while achieving sustainable economic growth; notes, however, that this funding will focus on "food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research and the bio-economy", which is much more restricted than the sectors included in the bioeconomy in the Commission communication; stresses that it will be at least 25 years before the bioeconomy can compete with the fossil-based economy and that this requires long term investment (in R&D), strategies (beyond 2020) and cooperation among all stakeholders along the value chain aiming to achieve cooperative knowledge transfer;

6.

believes that, due to the transition from a fossil-based to a biobased economy, the agricultural sector, providing food security and without undermining its primary role as food supplier, could become at the same time a supplier of a variety of (non-food) bio-based products, which could lead to a more sustainable agricultural sector. The bio-economy will provide new business and innovation opportunities for Europe’s value chain including the agricultural sector; believes that in order to make optimal use of natural resources, close interaction between the agricultural, bioeconomy and science sectors are needed (3) to create a sustainable and more efficient agricultural sector; believes that any intensification of primary production must not run counter to the sustainability principle, and therefore highlights the importance of spatial planning policy instruments in maintaining areas used for agriculture and forestry;

7.

agrees that in order to accelerate the transition to a sustainable European bioeconomy, a secure and sufficient supply of sustainable and high-quality bio-based products as well as resource-efficient primary production systems are prerequisites; points out, however, that the Commission's proposed action plan does not include any measures to increase natural resource efficiency;

8.

emphasises that more focus is needed, in terms of strategy and policy, regulation and incentives in the bioeconomy field; stresses that continuous coordination, clear political commitment and further integration between European policies (H2020, Cohesion Policy, CAP, Renewable Energy Directive, Waste Framework Directive) and sectors are needed to avoid contradictions in policy objectives and ensure a level playing field for all actors;

9.

welcomes the efforts and ambition of the Commission towards an integrated and cross-sectoral, inter-disciplinary policy approach to the bioeconomy; notes that strong policy coordination by the Commission is needed and that the ambitions do not yet take account of the level of practical implementation that is needed at the regional and local levels;

10.

supports the attempt by the Commission to establish a common and broad definition of the bioeconomy; believes that due to the cross-sectoral nature of the bioeconomy, its meaning might differ among the various European, national and regional stakeholders active in the bioeconomy sector; suggests that the biomass pyramid (figure 1) (4) could offer a framework for discussing values and preferred usage of biomass in a more structured manner;

11.

believes that Europe should develop and implement its own clear and long term bioeconomy vision based on the different segments of the biomass pyramid (see figure 1), in which higher segments represent higher values; believes that Europe should follow a "value-strategy" focusing on the higher segments of the biomass pyramid and giving preference to the use of 2nd and eventually, 3rd generation biomass (5); acknowledges that investment in first-generation biomass is a necessary step in the transition towards 2nd and eventually, 3rd generation biomass; believes that these European objectives should be embedded in all cross-sectoral policies linked to the bioeconomy;

12.

believes that Europe should take and maintain the lead in developing sustainability criteria for optimising the supply of and demand for biomass (or "renewable biological resources"), in promoting sustainable land use, considering increased agricultural production capacities and the accelerated use of second- and eventually, third-generation biomass, minimising the potential negative effects of the non-sustainable usage of first-generation biomass and addressing the food versus fuel debate;

13.

advises the Commission to develop a common bioeconomy roadmap, providing an analysis of the next steps required in the development of a European bioeconomy, taking into account a value chain approach, and considering existing work (by European Technology Platforms, the OECD and others); calls for practical measures and instruments to be included, while taking into account the various profiles that regions have; underlines the potential of interregional cooperation for the value chain;

14.

points out that the bioeconomy encompasses a range of policy fields within the Commission. Therefore, in order to better facilitate access to bioeconomy-related EU initiatives and programmes, suggests a "one-stop shop" approach where enquiries are processed through a single entry point in the Commission;

15.

welcomes the fact that the Commission communication takes account of the regional dimension of the bioeconomy and considers that the communication and all of the proposals in the Bioeconomy Action Plan are compliant with the principle of subsidiarity;

16.

notices that in Europe few Member States have been conducting activities to support the development of the bioeconomy, and that strategies here are mainly developed by national governments; a good example is the common regional bioeconomy strategy of the Biobased Delta Europe (south-west Netherlands and Flanders); believes an integrated framework and a more cooperative European approach is needed; believes that we need to strengthen local and regional initiatives through the implementation of bioeconomy strategies at all levels of cooperation (EU, national, regional, local) and the coordination of cross-sectoral activities. Mechanisms for coordinating all relevant (cross-sectoral) policy fields related to the bioeconomy at the EU, national and regional levels should be established;

17.

endorses the Commission's proposal to set up a Bioeconomy Panel, helping to enhance synergies and coherence between policies, and discuss and evaluate the practical impact of policy actions related to the bioeconomy; considers that the precise purpose of the Panel is still unclear, as is how it will work in practice and how regions will be involved; stresses that it should be a multi-stakeholder forum where representatives come together in a Triple-Helix setting (businesses, research institutes and LRAs) to share knowledge, ideas and discuss solutions for the bio-based society as well as practical efforts to move from a fossil-based economy to a bioeconomy; believes that there should be good representation of a broad range of sectors on the platform, providing a good basis for facilitating a cross-sectoral approach to the bioeconomy;

18.

believes that the functioning and role of national, regional and local bioeconomy platforms might differ; calls on the Commission to establish specific guidelines describing the competences of national, regional and local bioeconomy panels; stresses that the bioeconomy panels should carry out tasks of coordination between the political, scientific and business communities with a view to agreeing on measures to be taken in the pre-competition stage; calls for a place-based approach taking into account their respective geographical, developmental, environmental and regional circumstances and priorities and existing regional initiatives; believes that each region should tell "its own story" and develop its own regional bioeconomy strategy;

19.

stresses that LRAs play a crucial role in the implementation and development of the bioeconomy; recognises that LRAs are vital for defining risks and possible barriers to implementation on the ground, therefore strongly encourages their active involvement and participation in the setting-up, organisation and implementation of the Bioeconomy Panel; asks the Commission to provide enough flexibility and to clarify the function and role of regional and/or national panels, the way they interact and how regional and/or local experiences will be reflected in the EU's Bioeconomy Panel;

20.

believes that the success of the transition towards the bioeconomy will depend on the active engagement of civil society in the planning and implementation processes; emphasises the importance of public awareness; encourages the Commission to stress the relationship between science, society and policy-making, and the important role for LRAs in this transition;

21.

believes that the transition towards a bioeconomy will only be successful in a "bio-based society"; therefore suggests that NGOs and civil society organisations should play a major role in the early stages of the transition and should be represented on the panels;

22.

emphasises the potential of the bioeconomy for growth and job creation in Europe; believes that this requires highly skilled workers to develop the innovations and knowledge basis building the bioeconomy; emphasises that it is important to make developments related to the bioeconomy part of the regular curriculum at primary level and in vocational and higher education, through studies and courses that deal with agriculture, chemistry and food. Nevertheless education lies within the competence of the member states in line with Art. 165 TFEU and therefore no requirements can be established in this area at an EU level;

23.

believes that cooperation based on the Triple Helix concept is essential for achieving innovation and knowledge valorisation in the bioeconomy. The Triple Helix concept, too, is in need of modernisation and development aimed at ensuring that regional innovation ecosystems function effectively. The field naturally profits from broad-based, positive participation by citizens and is therefore very well placed to be a frontrunner in Europe in terms of research-intensive yet user-driven innovation activity;

24.

emphasises the important role of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in accelerating the transition towards a bioeconomy; believes that SMEs play a crucial role in the translation of scientific research into applications and market introduction in the form of new products or techniques; the role of regional SMEs in innovation cannot be sufficiently emphasised and strong, structured support is needed to stimulate their activities;

25.

believes that it is necessary to facilitate better access to finance for SMEs through investment in start-ups, venture capital and support for technology transfer, and less complex regulations and knowledge valorisation in the field of the bioeconomy; suggests that an SME panel should be set up to advise the Bioeconomy Panel and secure a business-driven approach;

26.

is concerned that the current political and economic framework in the EU does not support the industrial use of biomass as a (raw) material;

27.

stresses that the transition towards a bio-based economy must be consistent with the implementation of the internal market and trade policy;

28.

welcomes the emergence of leading European networks of regions and clusters on the bioeconomy; examples include the cooperation between Flanders (Belgium) and the south-west of the Netherlands, north-west France, North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), the Helsinki region (Finland), Styria (Austria) and the initiatives in Sweden, Estonia and Hungary; calls on the Commission to support such networks and clusters with a view to promoting the exchange of experiences and joint processing of project applications with other European regions and involving them in the Bioeconomy Panel; believes that mutual learning about the set-up of investment funds and technology transfer is important;

29.

believes that bottom-up initiatives are important in creating a bio-based society, and that a business- and demand-driven approach, combined with a government-driven approach, is crucial;

30.

notes that biomass-producing regions should be able to benefit from technological innovation and not only be considered as suppliers of biomass; thus specific attention is needed for technology transfer and knowledge valorisation; believes that close relations between urban and agricultural regions are important for establishing technology transfer and knowledge valorisation;

31.

believes that part of the CAP funds should support – in conjunction with Horizon 2020 – the European Innovation partnership on agricultural productivity and sustainability to bridge the gap between R&D and farming practice in order to increase the knowledge base and knowledge valorisation (6);

32.

suggests that the Commission should facilitate the outlining and mapping of best practices, existing activities and available bio-based products of regional clusters and regions, building on the work and results of existing programmes such as ABC-Europe, Cluster-IP financed by DG-ENTR (7) and the Interreg and Regions of Knowledge programmes financed under regional policy and FP7 (8) respectively, and promote multi-fund programming;

33.

welcomes the proposal by the European Commission to earmark a part of the European Regional Development Fund for "low carbon economy" projects for less developed regions, developed "transition" and richer regions; believes that this will have a positive impact on the transition towards a European bio-based society; underlines the potential of Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) for enabling regions to deliver a more strategic and integrated approach to the bioeconomy;

34.

suggests that advanced regions in the bioeconomy field should be supported in taking the steps required by bioeconomy value chains and in connecting to other less advanced regions; believes that advanced and less advanced regions should together instigate pilot plants in which (start-up) companies can test new products in a protected environment; believes that this "stairway to excellence" approach would lead to an effective use of resources, while fostering cohesion; supports initiatives such as Regions of Knowledge which provide a helpful tool for knowledge exchange, strongly promote effective regional uptake and application of research results, and generate additional research cooperation;

35.

is convinced that both the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) and Regional Implementation and Innovation Communities (RICs) address long-term societal challenges and identify and tackle new opportunities for innovation in Europe; therefore calls on the Commission to launch a KIC focusing on the bioeconomy in the new wave of KICs in the period 2014-2020 (9);

36.

having said the above, believes that there is a palpable sense of urgency among all European, national, regional and local stakeholders as regards developing a low-carbon economy/bioeconomy; divining the pathway to that objective and bringing it into practice requires a revolution in our ways of thinking and doing; as regions are key in the practical execution, the CoR offers its expertise and states it willingness to closely cooperate with the Commission in bringing the bioeconomy strategy in Europe to the next phase;

37.

we would ask the Commission to take the following steps at EU level:

and to further develop a European strategy focusing on:

38.

we believe the regions have the following to offer:

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/51

—

to acknowledge the key position of local and regional authorities and stakeholders in making the EIP for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability a success;

—

to fully involve local and regional authorities in governance structures set up to stimulate and monitor this initiative;

—

to define "raising productivity" as "producing more and better with less";

—

given that the EIP should address the following themes, to allow a broad range of topics regarding primary production, resource management, bio-economy, the supply chain, quality, food safety and consumers;

—

to prioritise innovation programmes ensuring the maintenance of agricultural activities throughout Europe, ensuring that research efforts will be included that benefit livestock farming regions, peri-urban regions, areas subject to natural constraints, and local farming areas;

—

to favour bottom-up SME innovation initiatives over industry initiatives, in order to counter the existing imbalance in involvement, resulting from different levels of organisation and capacity;

—

to continue to put effort into improving the position of primary producers in the food production, processing and distribution chain;

—

to allow operational groups to also use EARFD support for initial costs, such as for developing an approach for tackling a technical and scientific issue.

Rapporteur

Henk BRINK (NL/ALDE), Member of the Executive Council of the Province of Drenthe

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the European Innovation Partnership "Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability"

COM(2012) 79 final

1.

to survive competition in the global playing field, Europe needs to increase its efforts to maintain and improve its position on trade, industrial leadership and excellence in the science base;

2.

European knowledge on sustainable food production, including knowledge on farm management, ICT solutions, food safety, agro-biotechnology, growth technology, crop protection, water, residues, energy and waste management and agrosociology, is welcomed worldwide and has huge marketing potential in rapidly emerging and developing markets within and outside Europe;

3.

to succeed in generating value from this knowledge, Europe needs 1) more innovative SMEs to create growth and jobs, 2) more private investment, 3) innovation achieved across existing and emerging sectors, 4) multi-disciplinary collaborations to create breakthrough solutions, and 5) stakeholders who are keen to get promising solutions tested, demonstrated and scaled up;

4.

the world is currently facing a diverse and significant set of challenges: continued population growth and growth in spending capacity, triggering changes in diet and increased demand for primary products, combined with threats to global agricultural production capacity as a result of climate change;

5.

these challenges are accompanied by the threat of scarcity of food, feed, fossil fuels, commodities, fibres and fresh water, by increasing soil degradation and biodiversity loss and by an increasing risk of financial market failure, of political imbalance and of armed conflicts;

6.

agriculture and food supply must in future be more sparing in their use of water and fossil fuels, use less fertiliser and phytosanitary products, be more diversified and be smarter in making the most of synergies between arable farming, livestock farming, organic waste management, residue streams and renewable energy production;

7.

Member States and stakeholders have repeatedly expressed a strong interest in promoting innovation in agriculture through a Union-wide approach and that the European Council of 20 June 2008 already pointed to the "need to pursue innovation, research and development of agricultural production, notably to enhance its energy efficiency, productivity growth and ability to adapt to climate change";

8.

similar conclusions have been drawn by farming organisations and chambers of agriculture and that the G20 communiqué from Cannes underlines the vital need to invest in agricultural research and innovation;

9.

welcomes the Commission's initiative to promote innovation in the agricultural sector by establishing a specific European Innovation Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability and its two major objectives of 1) helping the agricultural sector to become more productive and efficient (with a reversal of the recent slowdown in productivity gains by 2020) and 2) promoting the sustainable development of agriculture (ensuring appropriate land use by 2020);

10.

particularly welcomes the fact that local agricultural and food systems are reflected in the themes mentioned as being eligible for cooperation, i.e. horizontal and vertical cooperation among supply chain actors for the establishment of logistics platforms to promote short supply chains and local markets, and promotion activities in a local context relating to the development of short supply chains and local markets;

11.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to allocate EUR 4.5 billion to research and innovation on food security, the bioeconomy and sustainable agriculture (under Horizon 2020);

12.

agrees that funds from the CAP should, in conjunction with funds from the research framework programme, support the EIP on agricultural productivity and sustainability to bridge the gap between the research world and farming practice;

13.

believes that a shift required from the agricultural sector, needed because of increasing urgency for resource efficiency, will result in primarily producing more food in a more sustainable way, but also in supplying a variety of different societal services and bio-based products, related to health, leisure, land management, waste management, feed, fibres and renewable energy. This broader scope will benefit both the sector and society; provided that a good balance between food and non-food production is secured, that the focus of the agriculture sector is on the re-defined CAP priorities and that authorities are consistent in steering towards these priorities;

14.

believes that this redefined agricultural sector provides new business and innovation opportunities for Europe’s value chain;

15.

believes that, in order to make optimal use of natural resources, strong interactions are needed between the agriculture, bioeconomy and science sectors (1) in order to create a sustainable and more efficient agricultural sector. In view of agriculture's role as producer of biomass as a source of energy, care should be taken to achieve a balance between production of food products and biomass;

16.

the effort to bridge the gap between practice and science is crucial, but the simple existence of the EIP does not address the cultural and professional gap between two equally important angles: 1) the angle of the science community, which tends to focus on excellence in the science base, on frontier research, future and emerging technologies, skills and career development, and research infrastructure; and 2) the angle of entrepreneurs and policy makers, who look for ways to generate value from knowledge and for solutions that help address societal needs and business opportunities. Communication and incentives will be needed on both sides;

17.

the proposed EAFRD offers a number of incentives, as laid down in Articles 15, 16, 18, 20, 33, 36, 46, 53, 61, 62 and 63, but these will not be embraced unless an EIP knowledge broker communicates the possibilities at Member State level before the Partnership Contracts are finalised and during the process of drafting the national and/or regional operational Rural Development Programmes;

18.

the EIP will not be incorporated in the Rural Development Programmes, unless national co-financing is programmed to fund the different stages of the innovation process: 1) cooperation (to establish the operational groups) for business development (to start an innovation project); 2) knowledge transfer and advisory services (to acquire expertise and to make use of existing research results); 3) entering quality schemes (to encourage societal benefits and business results); and 4) investment (financial support for achieving the objectives; productivity and sustainability);

19.

so far, five European Innovation Partnerships have been set up, on the following subjects:

and all are 1) important to regional and local authorities but also, 2) dependent on regional stewardship, support and funding to be a success; however, up to now regional authorities have not been invited to be involved in the process;

20.

regions and rural communities can play a decisive role in steering and co-financing the actions undertaken via the EAFRD and other means to stimulate innovation, and are now indispensable in tailoring support to the specific agricultural, environmental and territorial characteristics of a given region, thus enabling more efficient use of European funding;

21.

regions and rural communities would welcome having a say on priorities or implementation and management arrangements;

22.

setting up a multi-level (European, national, regional) governance framework is an essential requirement for a successful overhaul of the Common Agricultural Policy post-2013, including the EIP;

23.

stakeholders will be expected to form a basic operational group that would continue to explore knowledge gaps regarding e.g. technology, business models, organisational systems, marketing strategies, consumer needs and education, and will need EAFRD funding for this; their next step could be to look for partners and create a multidisciplinary team, to explore the use of cross-border cooperation and/or to explore the existing knowledge base before contacting the EIP Network for further support, but that this next step should not be obligatory;

24.

certain bottom-up innovation initiatives on sustainability or productivity might be welcomed at a regional or national level, but would still risk not matching the priority theme selection as set out in the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) and multi-annual roadmap (published by the High Level Steering Group (HLSG) after consulting the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research and the Rural Development Committee); however, this should not form an obstacle to receiving support, since it would have a strong discouraging effect on participants and create a breach in the innovation spiral at its most vulnerable point;

25.

innovation and knowledge brokerage is indispensable in launching an innovation process and in pushing for progress;

26.

to acknowledge the key position of local and regional authorities and stakeholders in making the EIP for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability a success;

27.

to fully involve local and regional authorities in governance structures set up to stimulate and monitor this initiative;

28.

to invite a Committee of the Regions representative to be involved in the work of the high-level steering group which will be defining strategy for the EIP and the coordination committee of the European network for rural development, in order to ensure that the initiative is implemented in line with the real needs of local and regional authorities;

29.

to oblige Member States to integrate the EIP cross-sectoral objectives in the Partnership Contract;

30.

to define "raising productivity" as "producing more and better with less";

31.

given that the EIP should address the following themes, to allow a broad range of topics regarding primary production, resource management, bio-economy, the supply chain, quality, food safety and consumers;

32.

to prioritise innovation programmes ensuring the maintenance of agricultural activities throughout Europe, ensuring that research efforts will be included that benefit livestock farming regions, peri-urban regions, areas subject to natural constraints, and local farming areas;

33.

to favour bottom-up SME innovation initiatives over industry initiatives, in order to counter the existing imbalance in involvement, resulting from different levels of organisation and capacity;

34.

to focus on sustainable farming, on productive farming as a result of the availability of up-to-date technology, on preventing food waste and post-harvest losses and on responsible consumer behaviour in addition to intensifying production volumes;

35.

to focus on EU export and marketing of knowledge and (bio)technology and on fair involvement in remote local (metropolitan or small-scale) production in third countries;

36.

to continue to put effort into improving the position of primary producers in the food production, processing and distribution chain;

37.

as an incentive for scientists to close the innovation gap, to push for "degree of practical use of research results" to be added to rankings for knowledge institutions;

38.

to welcome leading European networks of regions, research institutes and clusters on high productivity and sustainable agriculture; calls on the Commission to acknowledge the role of such networks and clusters and facilitate knowledge transfer between entrepreneurs at both local and interregional level;

39.

to allow Member States to support early-stage and regional activities by operational groups – that work on EIP objectives and targets – with EAFRD funds and regional co-financing, regardless of their success in also obtaining support from the EIP Network after responding to calls;

40.

to agree that operational groups may either operate within the borders of a Member State or have members in several Member States and in third countries;

41.

to refer to "farmers and producer organisations", where "farmers" are mentioned as eligible, in order to make it easier to establish a group;

42.

to allow operational groups to also use EARFD support for initial costs, such as for developing an approach for tackling a technical and scientific issue or to make use of an innovation and knowledge broker;

43.

prior to establishing the High Level Steering Board, SHERPA support group/taskforce, support desk for Operational Groups and secretariat writing the Strategic Implementation Plan, to appoint a communication team that would promote the use of 1) the EIP in the National Rural Development Programmes; 2) the Horizon 2020 options for supporting research projects, multi-actor projects, clusters of innovation actions, innovation brokers and innovation centres; 3) the facilities and contacts of the EIP Network; and 4) a handbook/guidelines for local groups;

44.

to support involvement with and programming of the EIP in the EAFRD Operational Programmes and to prepare for establishing operational groups;

45.

to give advice to the Member States to seriously consider the urgency for addressing productivity, resource efficiency and sustainability and there for to spend at least 10% of the total contribution from the EAFRD on fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas;

46.

to strengthen their current involvement in the National and European Rural Development Network.

19.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/56

—

reiterates its conviction that there is a need for a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for the years 2014–2020 in order to establish coordination and synergy between the activities of the five CSF funds and to outline a clear strategic direction for partnership contracts and operational programme;

—

expresses doubts about the proposed division of the CSF between an annex to the general regulation and a delegated act with indicative actions of high European added value and priorities for cooperation. Supports the adoption of the CSF as an annex to the general regulation only;

—

considers that the indicative actions of high European added value should be adopted by the European Commission in the form of a non-binding communication, as was done with the Community Strategic Guidelines 2007–2013;

—

stresses that the aim of the CSF must be to create the conditions for a fluid transition between the legislative package and the partnership contract and the operational programmes, and points to the need to spell out the details of the implementation mechanisms;

—

regrets that the 11 thematic objectives listed in the proposal for the general regulation are different from the six priorities of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the six separate priorities of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which makes coordination unusually difficult;

—

is convinced of the need to decentralise operational management at local and regional level in order to increase coordination and complementarity between funds, which will ensure an effective integrated approach, i.e. a multi-thematic, bottom-up method, tailored to the specific features of each region;

—

strongly recommends the implementation of operational programmes based on many funds;

—

calls for a stable programming framework to ensure coherence with the multiannual perspective of cohesion policy;

—

questions the possibility of amending the CSF by way of a delegated act.

Rapporteur-general

Marek WOŹNIAK (PL/EPP), Marshal of Wielkopolska region

Reference document

Amended 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

COM(2012) 496 final, Annex I

1.

reiterates its conviction that there is a need for a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for the years 2014–2020 for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) in order to establish coordination and synergy between the activities of the CSF funds and to outline a clear strategic direction for partnership contracts and operational programmes;

2.

recalls the political recommendations the CoR has elaborated in its opinion on the general regulation and underlines that, considering that the CSF is to be adopted as an annex to the general regulation, it is the latter which provides strategic vision and targets whilst the CSF should be considered as the main implementation tool;

3.

expresses doubts about the proposed division of the CSF between an annex to the general regulation (1) and a delegated act with indicative actions of high European added value and priorities for cooperation. Supports the adoption of the CSF as an annex to the general regulation only. Points out that delegated acts should be limited to non-essential elements of basic legal acts, whereas all issues relating to the CSF are of fundamental importance for local and regional authorities and are strategic in nature. The Committee of the Regions' opinion does not cover delegated acts and yet the CSF is a mandatory area of consultation for the CoR, in accordance with Article 177 TFEU;

4.

considers that the CSF should be adopted by the Council and the European Parliament and that it should only be revised in the event of any fundamental changes in the EU's socio-economic situation. In this connection, questions the possibility of amending Annex I by way of a delegated act;

5.

considers that the indicative actions of high European added value should be adopted by the European Commission in the form of a non-binding communication, as was done with the Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013 (COM(2005) 299 final);

6.

points out that the CSF funds have a pivotal role to play in supporting instruments for implementing the Europe 2020 strategy and investments to reduce differences in development between Member States and regions, and within individual regions. At the same time, calls for the Treaty obligations to be used as a guiding principle;

7.

welcomes the fact that the CSF proposals will implement the underlying principles of Article 11 of the proposal for a general regulation, in accordance with which the CSF is intended to respond to the key territorial challenges. Also points out that the CSF must contain clear references to the outermost regions and areas with particular territorial features, such as upland areas, peripheral areas, industrial areas in transition, islands, areas with a widely dispersed population and sparsely populated areas, which require special forms of intervention;

8.

welcomes the reference to the need to involve regional and local partners as a condition for the achievement of political objectives. Believes that this will facilitate the application of the bottom-up territorial approach;

9.

calls for the CSF, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, to effectively play its role of clarifying and refining the logic of fund intervention in the future programming period, while leaving room for adapting programme intervention to the specific situation, needs and potential of individual Member States and regions. The CSF should provide indicative frameworks for partnership contracts and operational programmes prepared in individual Member States, thus giving the Member States and the competent regional and local authorities the opportunity to respond independently to development challenges, particularly having regard to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Stresses that the aim of the CSF must be to create the conditions for a fluid transition between the legislative package and the partnership contract and the operational programmes;

10.

points to the need to spell out the details of the implementation mechanisms;

11.

regrets that the 11 thematic objectives listed in the proposal for the general regulation are different from the six priorities of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the six separate priorities of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which makes coordination unusually difficult;

12.

regrets that the CSF lacks elements on the key principles to be implemented;

13.

calls for a stable programming framework to ensure coherence with the multiannual perspective of cohesion policy;

14.

considers that, from the start, the main activity should be to identify appropriate programme priorities for the whole period 2014-2020, e.g. when preparing partnership contracts and operational programmes. In this context, has some concerns that taking into account the country-specific recommendations and national reform programmes could run counter to concerted multiannual programming at the regional level;

15.

refers to the CoR opinion on the general regulation, which rejects the proposals aiming to establish a link between cohesion policy and compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact (2), but proposes the option of amending partnership contracts and operational programmes on the basis of recommendations arising from the European semester;

16.

nonetheless draws attention to the fact that frequent re-programming will make fund management less predictable, and should therefore be done only when strictly necessary;

17.

stresses the need for improved coordination among the CSF funds, which will improve the effectiveness of their intervention and create the necessary synergies in the context of a difficult budgetary situation and limited financial resources. This will make it possible to ensure a higher level of synergy and complementarity in EU investment;

18.

calls for complementarity to be a central focus of the CSF. It is therefore necessary to strive to establish an integrated multi-thematic approach, linking mutually complementary indicative actions from different funds aimed at achieving the same objective. Regrets, however, that the Commission has not gone further in spelling out the potential complementarity between various thematic priorities, the investment priorities of several CSF funds as well as between indicative actions and investment priorities. In this connection, stresses that the draft CSF document must ensure complementarity between the fields of activity of the individual funds and eliminate the danger of duplication;

19.

is convinced of the need to decentralise operational management at local and regional level in order to increase coordination and complementarity between funds, which will ensure an effective integrated approach, i.e. a multi-thematic, bottom-up method, tailored to the specific features of each region;

20.

strongly recommends the implementation of operational programmes based on many funds, maximising the positive impact of EU intervention in the regions through the integrated use of the opportunities created by various regional development instruments and the genuine realisation by local and regional authorities of their socio-economic development strategies;

21.

welcomes the fact that the European Commission places heavy emphasis on the need for the programming of integrated territorial development. Welcomes the references to ‘Integrated Territorial Investments’ (ITI), ‘Integrated Operations’ (IO) and ‘Joint Action Plans’ (JAP); regrets, however, that neither these instruments nor the concept of ‘Integrated Operations’ are defined in the general regulation or the CSF annex. Stresses the need for a precise definition of IOs as an instrument to be used for integrated financing with other EU policy areas and instruments;

22.

in particular, in relation to the urban development strategy in accordance with Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation, notes the importance and innovative nature of allocating resources to integrated actions for the sustainable urban development of towns, to be implemented in the form of ‘integrated territorial investments’ (ITI), and regrets that the regulatory framework does not state with sufficient clarity that, in this case, responsibility for the management and implementation of ‘integrated territorial investments’ (ITI) falls directly to local authorities;

23.

considers that the local nature of community-led local development should be retained;

24.

in line with the CoR opinion on community-led local development, draws attention to the holistic nature of local development, which focuses on the challenges and potential of all types of region, including urban, rural and peri-urban regions as well as functional areas. Therefore, calls for action to enable community-led local development to be used for the implementation of all 11 thematic objectives under the strategic framework, according to local needs;

25.

supports the reference to the need for coordination with other EU policies and instruments outside the scope of the CSF. This will enable a closer link between the Europe 2020 strategy and EU cohesion and sectoral policies at European, national and local levels. Considers in particular that this will make it possible to streamline the management and increase the effectiveness of the programmes implemented;

26.

calls for a more precise definition of the coordination mechanisms and the drawing-up of guidelines for EU policy areas and instruments connected with the CSF, especially at EU level. Notes that, as most of these instruments are centrally managed, the joint responsibility of the European Commission should be highlighted alongside the role of the Member States;

27.

welcomes the introduction of a list of EU policy areas and instruments/programmes included in the draft appendix (which includes Horizon 2020, NER, COSME, LIFE, Erasmus for All, the Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI), the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) and the European Development Fund (EDF));

28.

welcomes the emphasis placed on the link between the CSF funds and the Horizon 2020 programme. Considers that the European Commission has expanded the guidelines, proposing that the CSF funds support smart specialisation strategies in relation to Horizon 2020 based on two very different kinds of activity - capacity building and exploitation and immediate dissemination of the results of research and innovation;

29.

welcomes the recommendation that the CSF funds be able to co-finance partnerships between the education, business and research sectors, and that these activities be coordinated with international partnerships between businesses and educational institutions in the form of knowledge alliances or sectoral skills alliances, which may be supported by the Erasmus for All programme;

30.

supports the introduction of a new possibility for using CSF funds to complement the Connecting Europe Facility, e.g. via second or third-level links with the EU's infrastructure priorities;

31.

refers to the CoR opinion on the LIFE programme and shares the European Commission's view that the programme plays a decisive role in mobilising significantly more ERDF, ESF and CF resources for environmental purposes. The Committee of the Regions supports the LIFE integrated projects which are presented as projects of a new, higher category;

32.

stresses the need to increase coordination among the ENI, IPA and EDF external instruments, especially in the case of regions which share borders with countries of the Eastern Partnership and the Union for the Mediterranean and in the case of the outermost regions of the EU which share borders with ACP countries;

33.

notes that, as explained by the Committee of the Region's opinion on the draft general regulation, there is no reason for the provisions of partnership contracts to include European Territorial Cooperation. Therefore rejects the inclusion of the ‘Priorities for Cooperation’ section in the delegated act;

34.

welcomes, however, the shortened ‘Coordination with Cooperation Activities’ section of the CSF annex;

35.

points out that it would be worthwhile broadening transnational territorial cooperation under the ESF to include interregional and cross-border cooperation;

36.

welcomes the fact that the macroregional dimension has been taken into account and underlines the importance given within the territorial cooperation instrument to achieving the objectives of macroregional strategies;

37.

welcomes the fact that the Common Strategic Framework includes the principles of multilevel governance and partnership under its horizontal principles, in accordance with Article 5 of the proposal for a general regulation;

38.

calls for the practical application of the principle of multilevel governance by stressing the importance of adopting a bottom-up approach in the decision-making process and in the preparation of partnership contracts and operational programmes;

39.

strongly supports activities to promote equality between men and women. Believes, however, that identifying new bodies exclusively devoted to this purpose within the system of fund implementation is not effective. It would be more appropriate to apply procedural solutions enabling this principle to be achieved effectively within the framework of existing institutional structures;

40.

refers to the CoR's earlier opinions on the ERDF and the ESF, which highlight the lack of interest in the question of demographic change. Accordingly, especially welcomes the inclusion of the issue of demographic change as one of the proposed cross-cutting policy objectives;

41.

welcomes the fact that the CSF highlights the need for the forms of intervention to be adapted to local challenges and opportunities, but expects to see more detailed analysis and further work in this area, the results of which can serve as indicators for local and regional authorities;

42.

welcomes the proposal for partnership contracts to translate the elements set out in the CSF into their national context. Stresses the need to take account of downstream local government units, which requires the involvement of relevant local and regional authorities;

43.

notes the difficulty in elaborating a harmonised definition of territories in the CSF funds and offers its support in advancing on that issue. Stresses that the definition changes in line with sectoral legislation, which makes it more difficult to identify the main territorial challenges.