30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/1

—

welcomes the Youth Employment Package, which proposes a series of practical measures to assist Member States in addressing unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment and the resulting social exclusion;

—

stresses the key role that local and regional authorities play in framing and implementing measures to combat unemployment, providing young people with opportunities and support, and exchanging good practice;

—

also stresses the importance of actively involving young people and youth organisations when drawing up strategies;

—

given the urgency of the matter, requests the European Council to agree to anticipate the implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative already in 2013;

—

calls on the European Commission to finalise the European Quality Framework for Traineeships, the European Alliance for Apprenticeships and the proposal for the new EURES regulation;

—

calls on the Commission to support and supplement the action of the Member States in the vocational training policy sector, by proposing, in the form of a recommendation, minimum quality standards for apprenticeships at European level in order to facilitate recognition of the skills acquired throughout Europe.

Rapporteur

Enrico ROSSI (IT/PES), President of the Tuscany Region

Reference documents

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Moving Youth into Employment

COM(2012) 727 final

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards a Quality Framework on Traineeships. Second-stage consultation of the social partners at European level under Article 154 TFEU

COM(2012) 728 final

1.

appreciates the efforts made by the European Commission to step up the fight against youth unemployment, since it is undoubtedly one of the most serious problems facing the EU, which urgently demands a coordinated and systematic political response (1) and a credible allocation of funds;

2.

welcomes the Youth Employment Package (2), which proposes a series of practical measures to assist Member States in addressing unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment and the resulting social exclusion;

3.

endorses the dual approach (recommendations for the Member States combined with European-level coordination, initiatives and measures), as proposed by the Commission in its communication on Moving Youth into Employment. At the same time, it would stress the need to take appropriate and proportionate action and measures at European, national and regional level, while fully upholding the principle of subsidiarity;

4.

would stress the key role that local and regional authorities play in framing and implementing measures to combat unemployment, providing young people with opportunities and support, and exchanging good practice, and would also stress the importance of actively involving young people and youth organisations when drawing up strategies;

5.

warmly welcomes the decision of the European Council of 7-8 February 2013 to earmark EUR 6 billion for the Youth Employment Initiative, open to all NUTS 2 regions with youth unemployment levels above 25 %; the Committee would nevertheless argue that although this sends an encouraging message, the resources provided will not be sufficient to address a problem of this scale;

6.

given the urgency of the matter, the Committee requests the European Council to agree to anticipate the implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative already in 2013;

7.

believes that a substantial proportion of the resources dedicated to the youth employment initiative should be allocated to local and regional authorities, to increase their ability to implement initiatives to support youth employment in the manner that is most appropriate to local conditions;

8.

calls on the European Commission to finalise the European Quality Framework for Traineeships, the European Alliance for Apprenticeships and the proposal for the new EURES regulation;

9.

would stress the importance of taking a cross-cutting, jointly agreed and sustainable approach to the implementation process so as to secure synergies between all the strategic initiatives: the agenda for new skills and jobs (3), Youth on the move (4), Innovation Union, the European Digital Agenda; and between these and cohesion policy 2014-2020;

10.

strongly supports the Europe 2020 strategy and its instruments and supports the commitment to meeting its employment targets, including reducing the number of early school-leavers, and calls upon the Member States to strengthen the pathway towards growth and innovation it defines, not least by promoting enhanced cooperation between the various tiers of government; would stress in this respect the importance of the role played by the regional and local authorities in reaching the Europe 2020 strategy objectives and the need for the national reform programmes to be implemented through cooperation between the various tiers of government;

11.

would stress the importance of acting boldly to address Europe's growing problem concerning young people not in education, employment or training, and assess its short- and long-term cost, while not overlooking the social and economic impact and the social and demographic consequences and risks (in terms of social and democratic order) associated with these young people's lack of autonomy. The Committee would also argue that young people's non-integration into the labour market also depends on such factors as the efficiency of employment services, the link between education and business, and the greater or lesser presence in this context of voluntary and third sector organisations. It is important to note that maximum impact is achieved through cooperation between regional and local authorities, employment services, advisory bodies and educational establishments;

12.

notes that the best results in terms of youth employment are seen in countries where young people have the chance to take part in high-quality traineeships and where well-established apprenticeship schemes (5) form an integral part of the training and work placement system. This is also the case when employment services are effective. In this respect, the Committee would underline the importance of highlighting the good practice of European-level public career guidance and job seeker support systems and services; at the same time, feels that as many local youth organisations as possible should be involved in employment services and the careers advice process;

13.

welcomes the so-called youth guarantee, under which, within four months of finishing school or a work contract, young people receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship; cutting youth unemployment is a key challenge for Europe's future;

14.

the CoR will pay close attention to the practical implementation of this Youth Guarantee, and points out that this is a very expensive instrument and that Member States, particularly those with serious financial problems, will therefore need wholehearted support from the EU for its implementation;

15.

would reiterate the importance of extending the benefits of the measure to cover young people up to the age of 30 (not just up to 25), including those with university degrees;

16.

will seek to ensure that in the interinstitutional negotiations on the new European Social Fund provisions for the Youth Employment Initiative agreed by the European Council on 7 and 8 February 2013, the budget allocation for this instrument offers more flexible conditions in matters such as co-financing rates and advance payments, in order to more effectively and assiduously address the difficult situation facing the regions in this field. The Committee also asks that local and regional authorities be informed in good time about the workings of this initiative and about the amounts coming from its two funding channels, so that they can take this into account when drawing up their strategies for fighting youth unemployment and their guarantee schemes;

17.

encourages the Member States and the bodies responsible to put together training programmes that support and anticipate the school-work transition so as to prevent young people from remaining too long in the education or training system without prospects. Earlier entry onto the labour market must nevertheless be backed up by opportunities to return to training to improve or convert skills, within the framework of life-long learning; at the same time, recommends drawing up and implementing regional employment and vocational training strategies in cooperation with local and regional authorities, bodies involved in education and training, as well as government job centres and the business world, so as to facilitate employment integration within a context of integrated economic systems;

18.

underlines the need to urgently address also the gender dimension of youth unemployment, since young women are more likely to be in precarious employment and suffer the consequences of the gender pay gap, even in traineeships, and of the lack of adequate work-life balance measures; calls therefore for all schemes aimed at boosting youth employment to take into consideration national, regional and local circumstances as well as the gender dimension of the problem;

19.

notes that apprenticeship programmes facilitate the school-work transition considerably, enabling young people to gain on-the-job work experience as well as off-the-job theoretical knowledge through the involvement of companies and training institutes in the training process; for this reason, the Committee would encourage the Member States to promote dual or twin-track apprenticeships, also during higher education;

20.

hopes it will be possible to adopt a common framework, while remaining faithful to the division of responsibilities, to make existing dual training initiatives in the Member States compatible with each other, so as to make the most of apprenticeships and provide guidance on how best to set them up;

21.

calls on the Commission to support and supplement the action of the Member States in the vocational training policy sector, by proposing, in the form of a recommendation, minimum quality standards for apprenticeships at European level in order to facilitate recognition of the skills acquired throughout Europe;

22.

appreciates the steps taken in this direction by the European Alliance for Apprenticeships, a European tool that responds to demand for skills and helps to provide the right frame of reference for qualifications obtained;

23.

supports the Commission's proposal to promote forms of cooperation that encourage the development and dissemination of dual training systems. These must, however, bring together the authorities responsible for education, training and employment policy at national level, representatives of local and regional authorities, European Social Fund (ESF) management authorities, and representatives of companies and both sides of industry. The aim is to pinpoint useful strategies for promoting apprenticeships and effective ways of using national ESF funds to plan and implement dual training systems in each Member State's labour market and education system;

24.

notes that the best results in terms of employment and learning are obtained when all the stakeholders cooperate well together (6). The Committee would therefore propose that the Member States promote effective cooperation between schools, the colleges and bodies responsible for vocational training and teaching, the business world and employment services. This could be achieved by means of cultural and structural measures and financial or fiscal incentives, offered where appropriate by regional and local authorities;

25.

would argue that it is necessary to meet the specific needs of SMEs, as they could help to give young people the skills that the labour market demands but have limited resources and come up against ever increasing organisational, bureaucratic and cultural barriers;

26.

feels that employment agencies and bodies operated by national, regional and local authorities should promote the organisation of work placements for young people. They should be given monitoring powers and responsibility for the tasks involved in following up work placements. The institutional framework should be adapted accordingly;

27.

notes that, even if brief, traineeships can prove to be useful, enabling young people to enter the workplace as rapidly as possible and in a stable manner. For this reason, traineeships must be of a high quality, in terms both of their training content and of social welfare. The Committee therefore calls on local and regional authorities to provide as many traineeships as possible so that young people can become more familiar with a wide range of professions and trades. The Committee believes that local and regional authorities can set a good example by implementing high-quality work experience programmes, and therefore suggests they should work together with educational institutions to play a leading role in taking on and placing interns, and establishing cooperation forums with the business sector to help young people quickly find places on the labour market;

28.

notes that in many Member States traineeships are misused and can be abused as a source of cheap or even free labour, replacing normal employment contracts, often at peak work periods;

29.

the Committee would point out that any definition of a traineeship should emphasise the formative process of becoming more closely acquainted with the workplace and, to be accurate, should also refer to the broad concept of a pathway linking guidance, training and work;

30.

strongly supports the role of the EU in defining criteria for quality that are recognised throughout Europe. An EU-level approach could also offer clear benefits in terms of the mobility of trainees both within the EU and beyond and contribute to greater labour market integration;

31.

welcomes the Commission's proposals on the European Quality Framework for Traineeships, a package of measures that helps young people to enter the world of work;

32.

strongly urges that the European recommendation on traineeships be adopted as a matter of urgency and that it define minimum standards at European level that are common to all Member States. This recommendation should give proper consideration to all forms of traineeship, not just traineeships on the open market (extracurricular traineeships);

33.

hopes that the individual Member States will adopt minimum standards, for instance on the drawing up of a written contract between the trainee and the host organisation and possibly also with the training organisation or with the person promoting the traineeship, to specify aspects such as the vocational and training objectives, the duration, the traineeship timetable and, if necessary, details of social insurance and reimbursement of expenses or allowances. The training content formalised by the contract should be underpinned by the appointment of supervisors or tutors with appropriate professional skills in line with the traineeship activities, within the host organisation;

34.

recommends that trainees follow a clear course and underlines the importance of providing for the fair reimbursement of costs, or an allowance; this could be financed by the ESF contribution and could represent a genuine element of quality, enhancing the mutual benefit for the young person and the company, while also securing dignity for the trainee;

35.

would reiterate the need for the host company to meet the necessary requirements with regard, for instance, to regulations on social security, health and safety in the workplace and disability, etc.;

36.

would stress the need for the knowledge and skills acquired by the trainee during the traineeship to be formally certified;

37.

would support the Commission's proposal on modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive (7), extending its scope of application to include traineeships in other Member States; the Committee also hopes the question will be examined of whether the directive will cover not only traineeships necessary for access to regulated professions but also open-market traineeships and curricular work experience;

38.

considers the geographical mobility of young workers to be an important instrument in helping to redress local imbalances between labour supply and demand. Traineeships moulded in accordance with specific criteria within a given sector (such as traineeships in the craft industry or tourism) can be effective in promoting this kind of mobility enabling young people to return to their home region equipped with enhanced skills that will improve their employment opportunities there. This is especially important for retaining regional cohesion and helping regions faced with demographic challenges such as an ageing population or depopulation;

39.

hopes that the upcoming European programmes in support of mobility, as part of the Erasmus for All proposal, will receive the necessary and sustainable funding they need in order to enable young people to carry out part of their academic or training career abroad, and provide for the particular situation of young people from the outermost regions;

40.

supports the Commission's decision to transform the European job network into a results-oriented supply and demand matching tool, further developing the ‘Your first EURES job’ initiative to help EU citizens aged between 18 and 30 find work in other Member States;

41.

would argue that it has to be possible to earmark resources ,either through the ESF or through national and/or regional funds, in addition to EU education programmes. These funds should be used to promote specific mobility schemes to be available to all the EU's young people under equal conditions, regardless of where they live, while encouraging Member States' public employment services to develop programmes that publicise the opportunities available in the EURES system and integrate them into their regular activities;

42.

welcomes the launch of the EU Skills Panorama and the European Skills Passport for defining skills. These instruments can respond more effectively to demand for appropriate skills and help to provide the right frame of reference for qualifications, so as to include not just skills acquired by means of formal courses, but also those relating to informal and non-formal pathways;

43.

would encourage the Member States to devise and implement policies and instruments that nurture young people's business start-ups, not least through forms of guarantees on loans and leasing operations and lower interest rates on loans, and by means of micro-credit instruments;

44.

believes it is crucial to build a bridge between the academic and business worlds, making the most of instruments such as the Erasmus Programme for young entrepreneurs; the latter in particular is proving effective in stimulating entrepreneurship, as already underlined in a previous CoR opinion (8);

45.

agrees with the Commission on the importance of giving a strong boost to strategic sectors with high employment potential (the health and social sectors, the green economy and ICT), in terms both of business start-ups and of the promotion of employment in general. The regional level can play a key role in skills development by targeting those sectors where the region in question is strong and employment opportunities are good;

46.

considers it key to succeed in building the concepts of security and flexibility into the labour market (flexicurity), striking a balance between the need for employers to have a flexible workforce and the need for workers themselves to find security and protection in an increasingly precarious working environment;

47.

stresses the importance of cooperation with the institutions at local and regional level on designing the strategy for the overall planning and management of youth employment policies. Innovative integrated youth employment policy management systems could be developed to nurture the link between public bodies, the younger generations and the business world;

48.

would underline the need to involve local and regional authorities fully in defining and implementing new initiatives, as they are best placed to assess the needs and requirements of local areas not least with regard to employment and programmes geared towards young people;

49.

reminds the European Commission that local and regional authorities are to a large extent already responsible for implementing policies relating to employment, education and training. It is also disappointed that the Commission communication does not contain specific reference to the responsibilities of local and regional authorities (9) either for drawing up or for implementing policies in the fields mentioned above;

50.

considers that the traineeship instrument, as part of the Youth Employment Package and the broader scope of the promotion of youth guarantee schemes, must find its place and receive the support its needs from the EU, so that its youth employment policies can address the greatest challenge facing European society: how to bridge the generation gap and grant young people opportunities to become fully autonomous.

51.

considers it vital to channel significant resources into instilling entrepreneurship among young people. This should be targeted on emerging sectors identified by the various regional strategies within a wider economic framework. Acquired knowledge, and the eagerness shown by young people to learn, offer European society a source of growth. Experience should teach us to steer our young entrepreneurs away from sectors with little economic future. In an economically complex society, we should therefore ‘teach how to learn’, through training schemes that enable young people to translate an abstract business idea into a practical business project. Funding is vitally important. Member States should allocate a given percentage of their respective financial instruments, using coefficients directly tied to the youth unemployment rate, in order to offer favourable terms for the funding of projects presented by young entrepreneurs.

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/7

—

welcomes that culture is recognised as a tool for local and regional development and the importance of smart specialisation strategies and holistic approaches to creative development is highlighted;

—

suggests developing creative concepts at local and regional level and feeding these into a ‘European Creativity Forum’, which would bring together public, private and voluntary groups to analyse ways in which Europe could apply creative solutions to pressing local and European problems;

—

underlines the importance of learning creative skills from an early age, thus empowering the young generation to fully benefit from the new forms of access to culture and better prepare for future jobs, particularly helping them and the wider society to deal with the consequences of the digital shift;

—

supports Communication's focus on the need to simplify the existing rules and increase access to external financing for the cultural and creative sectors;

—

urges that culture and creativity become better integrated in the Europe 2020 strategy and that the important links with other policy areas, such as industry, tourism, education, finance are recognised.

Rapporteur

Anton ROMBOUTS (NL/EPP), Mayor of the city of ‘s Hertogenbosch

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 Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU

COM(2012) 537 final

1.

welcomes the communication on ‘Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU’ as a timely strategy that aims at fully using the potential of these sectors for socio-economic development; specifically welcomes the focus on CCS capacity for generating growth and employment, the contribution to fostering innovation, as well as possible spill-over effects in other sectors and policies. The communication demonstrates the high degree of synergy between the positions of the European Commission and the CoR in their approach to the growth potential of culture and creativity. The CoR underlines the importance of the local and regional level for the development of the CCS in Europe, as reflected in the CoR Opinion on Unlocking the potential of Cultural and Creative Industries (1) which is also reflected in the communication;

2.

recalls that at a time of financial and economic crisis, the cultural and creative sectors can also play a role in creatively meeting social and health policy objectives by fostering innovation while contributing to growth (2);

3.

reiterates that culture also has an intrinsic value, which is independent of the economic aspects of cultural goods and insists that this dual nature must be taken into account by not focussing exclusively on the economic usefulness of culture (3);

4.

welcomes that the communication recognises the important benefits that strategic investments in CCS at local and regional level can bring and the call for a comprehensive strategic response involving all actors from the local up to the EU level;

5.

welcomes that throughout the communication, culture is recognised as a tool for local and regional development and the importance of smart specialisation strategies is highlighted;

6.

recognises the need for a stronger integration between strategies at local/regional levels and those at national levels and the proposed focus on assessing the potential of the sectors in regional development strategies in the forthcoming Cohesion Policy programmes;

7.

recalls previous CoR positions on the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) as a valuable event that highlights the wealth, diversity and common aspects of European cultures (4); Together with the European Heritage Label (EHL) initiative, they could be further used as laboratories for audience development and citizen participation;

8.

welcomes Commission proposals to set up cooperation programmes in order to ensure mutual learning, to build a network of contacts in order to facilitate exchanges and to ensure diversity. The action of the EU will also be necessary with the involvement of local and regional authorities to promote the creative sector so that it can jump from the local to the world level;

9.

the proposals of the Commission, as they stand in the present COM communication, do not seem to raise any issue concerning the respect of subsidiarity principles. However, concrete measures/actions will have to be monitored in the future as they are proposed/adopted at EU level;

10.

taking into consideration the current challenges facing Europe, the CoR underlines the need for a long-term vision that can help steer a path towards prosperity and a better quality of life for all. Such a vision needs to have a strong relationship with culture and creativity. The CoR agrees that EU's international influence is based on imagination, creativity and innovation by pursuing new ideas, new concepts and new projects and it is convinced that CCS can make a major contribution in this regard;

11.

this is clearly understood by cities and regions who are striving to deliver a better quality of life for their citizens. There is a need for a vision that links the soft qualities of European cities and regions to the fight against unemployment and exclusion of vulnerable groups. This vision could be made more concrete for citizens by developing creative concepts at local and regional level and feeding these into a ‘European Creativity Forum’, which would bring together public, private and voluntary groups to analyse ways in which Europe could apply creative solutions to pressing local and European problems. In this context, the CoR would particularly highlight the importance of ensuring that creativity, problem solving and artistic and cultural knowledge and skills have a central role throughout the education system;

12.

it is therefore important, as the communication states, to utilise the power of culture and creativity in a multifunctional way. This requires not just the progressive vertical and horizontal organisational model proposed in the communication, but an approach that deals with the entire cultural ecosystem. This includes, importantly, the participative power of citizens in the process of co-creation and a recognition of the value of rooting culture and creativity in specific places;

13.

points out that in a globalising world culture becomes an essential quality of place, that determines attractiveness and thereby competitiveness for business, investors and creative and enterprising individuals. Improving quality of life therefore has become an important aspiration in local and regional development programmes. Important is the balance between diversity, creative and cultural resources as well as adequate services and infrastructure. These issues are best dealt with at local and regional level, where local and regional authorities are best placed to link diversity and identities to development programmes. Calls therefore for the development of partnerships between research centres and innovation labs to study the effects of quality of place on location decisions and economic and social development;

14.

Europe is not just an important economic area, but a shared culture that is based on important values of trust and inclusiveness that build social capital, therefore providing a basis for innovation and creativity. At the same time this atmosphere of unity in diversity supports a feeling of personal safety that increases the quality of life of citizens and increases the attractiveness of European cities and regions as good places to live, ultimately also increasing our competitiveness;

15.

notes that while the communication emphasises the need to link sectors, it gives less emphasis to the need to embed flows of knowledge and creative capital in a place. In relation to ‘cultural clusters’ or ‘creative districts’ the CoR stresses the need to position cities and regions at the hub of knowledge networks in order to fully benefit from the free movement of ideas, capital and people in the global network economy. Support from local and regional authorities is vital for the development of such clusters, but these also need to be linked into European and global knowledge networks to enhance their effectiveness;

16.

embedding creativity in places requires specific local and regional initiatives to be smart, sustainable and strategic. This provides local and regional authorities with a particularly important role in this respect. The development of culture at local level strengthens local identity and distinctiveness, creating cultural products that are not easily transferable and therefore creating a unique place-based value. These cultural factors are also important at European level;

17.

considers that a community investing in culture, education and sport creates also more wealth, welfare and safety. This simple fact holds true for a city or a village, its region, a country and also the entire continent. The CoR calls for an ambitious agenda at EU level to make Europe an inspiring and attractive continent — ‘the place to be’ for the young people of today and tomorrow, a continent that creates new jobs, where future generations may live in a safe climate and clean environment and with a high quality of live.

18.

believes that trust is basic to the quality of place, because it provides the basis for personal safety, allowing people to come together and share ideas, generating creative thought and innovation. Such spaces also help to anchor creative products, intangible heritage and creative people in places. This has an economic dimension, for example in terms of the role of culture in making places distinctive for tourism. But it also has an important social dimension, because a trusting culture also provides the basis for social cohesion;

19.

these complex issues make it clear that a holistic approach is needed. Creativity and innovation are based on knowledge and skills as well as social and economic networks. Creative development must therefore be strategically pursued as a collective, cooperative endeavour of cross fertilisation. It is not just the CCS, or even economic agents that are involved in these processes, but the wider population as a whole;

20.

therefore welcomes the fact that the Commission intends to support peer learning among city administrations, to allow local policymakers to share and compare experience on the impact of culture in the social and economic revitalisation of cities. But the CoR would urge a wider view of culture and creativity, involving the regional context, citizens, enterprises and non-profit organisations in such processes. One mechanism for this might be the model provided by the Comenius Regio Partnerships, an action focused on local development in education, but which could be transferred to the CCS as well;

21.

recalls that local and regional authorities play a key role in developing and fostering culture in their respective areas, not least in protecting the cultural heritage and promoting artistic innovation, as well as in supporting and assisting not only cultural institutions and initiatives but also education and training, and in staging festivals and cultural events (5). Local and regional authorities are uniquely placed to balance the different elements of the cultural and creative ecosystem and provide the matching resources required by those working in the CCS;

22.

welcomes the fact that the Commission underlines the value of the CCS in terms of growth and employment (they account for 3.3 % of GDP and employ 6.7 million people — 3 % of total employment) (6). The economic benefits can clearly be strengthened by the proposed new strategy to increase the competitiveness and export potential of these sectors, as well as to maximise their spill-over benefits for other areas such as innovation, ICT and urban regeneration. The CoR underlines the importance here of drawing on local and regional experience and exploring how the creative sector can be used to drive growth within other sectors;

23.

in order to maximise these effects, there is a need to facilitate the production and consumption of culture and the development of creativity. The CoR underlines the importance of learning creative skills from an early age, both within the education system and in leisure time, thus empowering the young generation to fully benefit from the new forms of access to culture and better prepare for future jobs, particularly helping them and the wider society to deal with the consequences of the digital shift;

24.

the communication recognises the potential for the CCS to benefit from a wide range of financial instruments, including Creative Europe, Erasmus for all, the Cohesion Policy Funds, Horizon 2020, COSME and Connecting Europe Facility. It should also be recognised that regional and local authorities intervene more directly in the field of culture. Cities and regions not only provide the bulk of funding for culture in most areas of Europe, but they also act as laboratories for cultural and creative experimentation and innovation, and play a key role in the development of cultural and creative clusters;

25.

underlines the importance of maintaining state aid granted with a view to promoting culture. Urges, therefore, the Commission to reconsider the territorial spending criterion when issuing the new State aid rules for films and other audiovisual works in order not to harm the territorial impact of such works;

26.

there is a need to promote good cultural governance, in line with the Council conclusions adopted at the 3201st Council meeting on Education, Youth, Culture and Sport (Brussels, 26 and 27 November 2012);

27.

the Commission calls for a range of actions to promote the right conditions for the cultural and creative sectors to flourish. They focus on skills development, access to finance, promotion of new business models, audience development, access to international markets, and improved links to other sectors. However, the CCS are also faced with particular challenges. The CCS are dominated by micro-enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses and enterprises of self-employed workers which require initiative and organisation at a local level. Therefore local and regional authorities can play a more effective role in informing local companies about ways and means to promote local and regional cultural activities (7);

28.

considers that partnership is vital for the CCS and welcomes measures to ensure partnerships/alliances and the right conditions for the transfer of best practices, for fostering knowledge, and setting up networks for sharing experience on the opportunities for making use of the potential of the CCS (8). Consideration should be given to establishing Thematic Networks for the CCS so that transfer of knowledge can operate more effectively at European level;

29.

notes the Commission's intention to improve the EU regulatory framework for the CCS and supports its focus on the need to simplify the existing rules and increase access to external financing for the cultural and creative sectors;

30.

considers, however, a matter of urgency for the Commission to set a clear regulatory framework for intellectual property rights and copyright within the context of the development of cloud computing;

31.

supports the emphasis in the communication on the five key policy drivers: developing skills; improving access to finance; promoting new business models and enlarging audiences; facilitating cooperation with other sectors and policies; and expanding international reach;

32.

the Commission document clearly recognises the links that the CCS have with other policy areas, including ICT, tourism, etc. Their links with education policy areas should, however, be given greater prominence. The CoR also urges a more proactive approach that supports the development of synergies between CCS sectors and also with economic and social actors in other ambits in order to support new and innovative areas of activity, such as cross media, social media, digital publishing, creative tourism (9), etc.;

33.

supports the proposal for a multi-layered strategy built on a dual approach encompassing both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of policy. In particular the vertical line of action — a holistic approach for integrated strategies — is important because this explicitly recognises the links with other policy areas, such as industry, tourism, education, finance, etc.;

34.

endorses the idea that the European Capitals of Culture and the European Heritage Label initiatives should be further used as laboratories for audience development and citizen participation. It should be recognised that such locally-based initiatives form important creative spaces and clusters within national and global networks in the CCS, and help to link global circuits of culture to local communities;

35.

underlines the need for more information and evidence on the operation and effects of the CCS, which would also help to make the case for commercial funding for creative enterprises. Eurostat should be encouraged to develop more effective and timely European cultural statistics. In addition, studies of the CCS in specific local and regional contexts could be undertaken to analyse the functioning of the cultural ecosystem of different types of places across the EU in order to update best practice and identify major trends in the CCS;

36.

urges that culture and creativity become better integrated in the Europe 2020 strategy notably, particularly through the flagship initiatives Digital Agenda, An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs and Innovation Union in recognition of the fact that not only ‘enterprises’ but a complete knowledge system and healthy cultural ecosystem are necessary to support smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

37.

notes that the Commission concludes by suggesting that the strategy should be followed up using the culture open method of coordination; the CoR would point out in particular that the national representatives should systematically consult local and regional stakeholders so that they can raise questions as reliably as possible.

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/12

—

As many phenomena of the digital society have already demonstrated, significant transformation takes place from the bottom up, and a pervasive mindset of ‘entrepreneurial discovery’ is critical.

—

Innovation communities operate as ecosystems through systemic value networking in a world without borders.

—

Regions need new arenas as hotspots for innovation co-creation. These could be described as ‘innovation gardens’ and ‘challenge platforms’, which together form prototype workspaces for inventing the future.

—

The CoR endorses new investments in open innovation and crowdsourcing. These are the key concepts associated with the smart city and citizen participation.

—

The concept of ‘connected smart cities’ needs to be further developed and extended throughout Europe.

—

The CoR encourages the Commission to set up ‘entrepreneurial discovery’ programmes to work at different levels and discover what is most effective for local needs and European scaling.

—

A circular economy for knowledge: the results of European Commission and national research and innovation funders' programmes and projects must be reused.

—

The best pioneers for developing and running Europe-wide projects should be financed through Horizon 2020 and cohesion funding — the aim being also to test effective methodologies and tools in real life collaboration and cross-border learning.

Rapporteur

Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP), Member of Espoo City Council

1.

At the request of the Irish presidency, the Committee of the Regions is drawing up informed and well-grounded proposals on how to increase innovativeness and close innovation gaps. The objective under this mandate is to submit proposals on (1) measures required of the regions and all their various players, and (2) measures required under EU Commission programmes, funding and other activities.

2.

The challenge set by the Irish presidency can only be met by enumerating and describing a range of measures to be implemented in parallel, and which are linked by the need to change the working culture in a broad sense. Action in the EU and most of its Member States, as well as the regions, in recent years has been typified by the production of a massive number of high-quality reports and plans. The EU flagship programmes and plans from various Directorates-General are unquestionably good in themselves, but they are still no more than plans, and they fail to guarantee the change in intellectual approach needed at a practical level in the regions across Europe. As many phenomena of the digital society have already demonstrated, significant transformation takes place from the bottom up, and a pervasive mindset of ‘entrepreneurial discovery’ is critical. The term ‘entrepreneur’ is inadequate here because it is often interpreted rather narrowly. Discovery also means more than innovation. It is rather a new activity — exploring, experimenting and learning what should be done in the relevant industry or subsystem in terms of research, development and innovation to improve its situation. Entrepreneurial discovery means experimentation, risk-taking, and also failing. It means individuals often working together with others in networks, assessing alternatives, setting goals and creating innovations in an open-minded way. This development also requires that citizens, communities and businesses be given the opportunity to have their say, as traditionally they have often felt that they do not have a voice.

3.

Because this opinion is about increasing innovativeness and narrowing innovation gaps, with the help of EU programmes in particular, the following policy guidelines and proposals show that the changes needed are feasible. In Europe, we need to:

However, these approaches are not enough: the essence of innovation must be explored more deeply.

4.

Measures to implement the Europe 2020 strategy have not produced enough results in the sphere of innovative activity. A lot of useful material and proposals has been generated at EU level. It is essential to move the focus of EU funding and programmes to practical action at local and regional level.

5.

Close cooperation must be achieved between R&D projects and programmes relating to the creation, performance and effectiveness of local innovation ecosystems. For this we need new types of European research partnership. Renewal and transformation are often based on concepts for orchestrated collaboration and innovative and effective use of key enabling technologies. Making these more widely accessible for European projects will refine and further develop their capacity to create actionable results and real impact. With EU funding for regional partnerships and collaboration based on smart specialisation, they can become building blocks for European cross-border innovation and regional ramps for societal innovation.

6.

A paradigm shift: digitisation has already brought about an all-pervasive change. Local and regional decision-makers should seize the opportunities available, with reform of service processes topping the agenda. At the same time, the widespread dissemination of digital services in the public sector, development of all citizens' e-skills, and start-up and high-growth entrepreneurialism that generates mobile applications should all be promoted.

7.

Digitisation drives change, and convergence towards digital services is speeding up. New business ecosystems and value creation arenas are often driven by new consumer behaviours — as a result of user-centric designs and openness. They challenge top-down construction approaches inherited from the old, analogue world. While digitisation is making service development more global than ever, Europe’s position is not optimal: we are not the ones leading the way in this global race.

8.

Cloud technologies provide access to the best service available, independently of time and place. This way of developing and producing services will in the next few years already replace a considerable number of traditional services in which ‘being on the spot’ is a defining factor of the service. It will no longer be necessary to have hardware in every corner. This will also entail managing and developing the ICT services and global networked cooperation of businesses, public administration and other communities. The Commission should encourage this development, known as e-leadership, through active partnership programmes.

9.

We cannot address societal challenges through minor adjustments and conventional management methods. Boosting renewal capital is critical to success: creativity, innovation and the confidence to innovate and reform are also the keys to success for local and regional decision-makers. At the same time, rigid government administrative systems must open up to allow more scope for promoting creativity on the part of decision-makers.

10.

Motivated people are at the centre of regional innovation policy. People create innovations and therefore innovation is above all a human and social process. The factors that affect innovation are not confined within organisations: the most significant drivers of the innovation process at different stages often emerge through human interaction at various interfaces.

11.

Research should meet both short- and long-term needs. Only a small proportion of cities, businesses and other communities make optimum use of research output. It should also be pointed out that only a small number of researchers know how to make their knowledge and research findings interesting and useful for public authorities, industry and others in addressing their challenges. Europe must therefore make major cultural changes and re-focus funding to ensure active application of the latest research knowledge at local and regional level. The CoR believes SMEs are an important catalyst for realising the market introduction of research output by translating it into concrete applications. The CoR believes it is necessary to facilitate better access to finance for SMEs through investments in start-ups, venture capital and less complex regulation.

12.

The focused translation of research into practice requires a good understanding on both sides of what research there is, what issues are being discussed, and how relevant research can impact on local and regional issues. A new kind of knowledge triangle is needed for this, linking the world of research and science with the world of business and government through a kind of two-way mediating service. This requires further development and active implementation of the EU Knowledge Triangle concept in strengthening the societal role of universities.

13.

Scientific and technological research, and the active application of ideas based on that research, make it possible to be pioneering. At the same time, the innovation vision should be broadened to include not just technological innovations but also process, business, service and design innovations, and both public sector and social innovations to remodel community cultures, as well as societal innovations to modernise broader activities and structures. It is essential that a broader vision of innovation be internalised not just in business activity but also in the public sector.

14.

Given that in some regions, and particularly in rural regions, the public sector is a driver for change and a key player in raising local awareness, there should be a focus on innovation in the public sector itself, as well as on rethinking management processes in public institutions. This will enable these regions to catch up.

15.

A circular economy for knowledge: the results of European Commission and national research and innovation funders' programmes and projects must be reused.

16.

A circular economy is an economy in which things are not thrown away or lost, but allowed to circulate and be reused so that their value is not lost, but enhanced. The term derives from new thinking about next-generation concepts for sustainable development. In a circular economy for knowledge, the results of research programmes and completed projects — ideas, insights, recommendations, materials, methodologies, practical proposals, prototypes and inventions — can be rediscovered, accessed, and applied in current programmes and projects in related and relevant areas. The Committee points again to the economic and innovation opportunities for regions and cities in the bioeconomy and ICT, which are key elements of smart, sustainable and green growth (1).

17.

In moving towards a circular economy for knowledge, national funding bodies could revisit and explore the results of projects completed during the last 5-10 years, and unlock their treasures for reuse in new regional and national contexts. Directorates-General in the Commission could do the same, making results accessible more broadly across different domains, in order to address societal challenges. University research could be made more directly relevant to policy-makers and project teams. Results from all these domains could be reviewed to match needs at regional and local levels and make new ideas, materials and methods ready for application in developing regional innovation ecosystems across Europe.

18.

An active and stimulating environment is created through the combined effect of many different factors. Innovative people are eager to be involved in events, projects and operations in general when these are supported by good concepts, methods and effective and novel applications from RDI.

19.

Uncertainty factors, doubts and tensions are present in all interpersonal activities. The point is to modify tensions in particular so that they serve as a source of creativity and innovation, and so that the principles of the learning organisation are fulfilled. The creative process itself becomes a clear creative tension that can be used to change activities in systems and to change systems as a whole. It is important to have methods and concepts that increase the amount of learning, raise its quality and enhance sustainable social development. Knowledge exploitation and capacity-building processes, and knowledge exploitation in organisational learning, are concepts that are becoming important, as well as exploration and knowledge co-creation.

20.

Regions need new arenas as hotspots for innovation co-creation. These could be described as ‘innovation gardens’ and ‘challenge platforms’, which together form prototype workspaces for inventing the future. These are needed to address challenges — from small local challenges to major societal challenges at global level. RDI activity is therefore required that will pilot and create prototypes of (1) spatial configurations with physical, intellectual and virtual dimensions, and (2) orchestration and knowledge management toolkits needed to address challenges.

21.

The once-lauded Triple Helix approach is not dynamic enough to meet new challenges: a Quadruple Helix at least is required, where community is the fourth strand. The approach needs to be modernised, and intensive engagement with the activities of regional innovation ecosystems is needed in order to bring this operational concept and culture up to date.

22.

It is particularly important from Europe's perspective to explore regional innovation ecosystems and the role, importance, activity, spatial solutions and success enablers of communities and institutions that spur new and dynamic innovation activity in such ecosystems. The new innovation institutes focus on the new mind-set and environment required for user-centric design, co-creation and rapid piloting.

23.

These new institutes, most of which have only been set up in the past few years, are flexible entities with a collaborative approach. Examples include: Incubators and Accelerators, Living Labs, Entrepreneurial Hubs, Development Labs, Social Innovation Labs, Fab Labs, Societal Innovation Learning Camps and Future Centers. They usually operate as associated entities of universities, municipalities and businesses. They combine new, open operating practices, use of social media, new intellectual property rights and funding practices, a broad stakeholder network and entrepreneurship.

24.

It is essential to simplify procedures for innovative public procurement in order to enhance its active use. There are relevant examples of successful simplification throughout Europe and other parts of the world. These should be studied, adapted, prototyped and applied.

25.

Discussions about the major societal challenges often seem too abstract and far removed from the practical concerns of key stakeholders across Europe — LRAs, SMEs and ordinary citizens. Yet this is where the innovative power of Europe lies. Big challenges must be explicitly linked to challenging issues at local and regional level and dealt with there. This will enhance local innovativeness and bring huge amounts of unused potential and collective intelligence into play. Citizens are not simply the beneficiaries of innovation, but actors at the heart of the innovation process. We need to focus more on why this need for change is real and how it will motivate and incentivise those who go on this innovation journey. Social programmes need to be created in the regions that exploit the dialogue and cooperation made possible by digitisation, and which are aimed at achieving the social change needed. Everyone should be encouraged to tackle major social shortcomings and to work towards achieving pioneering change.

26.

The CoR urges the Commission to set up programmes for implementing what it calls ‘grand societal challenges’ at national, regional, local levels: how does a ‘grand societal challenge’ translate into national needs? Into regional priorities? Into local issues? These programmes, in the framework of Horizon 2020 and other EU programmes, should allow citizens and small business to tell the Commission what challenges they face and to provide facilities (methodologies, innovation-enhancing environments, facilitators) for translating these local challenges into innovative programmes at the appropriate level. Rapid prototyping is an essential methodology here.

27.

The CoR recommends experiments and specific initiatives to achieve rapid prototyping for each of the ‘grand societal challenges’, to be carried out in several European regions within a linked co-learning programme. Networking of connected smart cities should also be stepped up to encourage experimental innovation and learning. Europe needs pioneer cities as well as effective partnership programmes to promote innovativeness, which will guarantee the development of all regions regardless of their current situation. This means making issues relevant at regional and local level, so that they can be addressed as innovative change processes at local level. Learning and experience would be exchanged across the different participating regions, and codified through rapid reporting with clear visuals and accessible language, also for active use by others. Solutions arrived at in one region could then be tested and validated in the other participating region and effective solutions could be scaled to other regions in Europe. These measures would be characterised by flexibility and sound local application in a way that minimises the administrative burden on businesses, educational institutions, public authorities and other stakeholders.

28.

The CoR points out to the regional decision-makers that this approach, combined with using cohesion and local funding in synergy with EU programmes, will generate practical innovations for use throughout Europe. It will also enhance local innovativeness and help to create a culture of innovation across Europe.

29.

Universities play a crucial role in this development. Unfortunately, with diminishing resources, universities are ‘tightening their belts’ and retreating into their traditional modes of teaching and research. External engagement seems to be taking a back seat. The Committee of the Regions would like to see activities to encourage universities to play a strong societal role and prepare coaching and learning approaches for the necessary social and societal change processes.

30.

The embedded role of smart specialisation in the Europe 2020 policy framework has been highlighted by the Council of the EU, especially in its conclusions on the Innovation Union. The EU Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) defines these strategies as integrated, place-based economic transformation agendas.

31.

The CoR stresses that smart specialisation is a regional policy framework for innovation-driven growth. What distinguishes smart specialisation from traditional industrial and innovation policies is mainly the process defined as ‘entrepreneurial discovery’ — an interactive process in which market forces and the private sector discover and produce information about new activities and government assesses the outcomes and empowers those players most capable of realising the potential. Smart specialisation strategies are much more bottom-up than traditional industrial policies.

32.

The Smart Specialisation platform (S3Platform) needs to give more support for local and regional level activities, with particular emphasis on the less-developed regions. This means above all supporting the processes that help to identify high-value added activities in each region. It also means providing the best opportunities to strengthen region’s competitiveness and the policy portfolio that should be put in place to draft their smart specialisation strategies.

33.

The CoR highlights that the RIS3 approach is consistent with the aims and tools of EU cohesion policy, promoting growth and jobs across EU countries and regions. It suggests a strategy and a global role for every national and regional economy, including both leader and less advanced regions. It embraces a broader concept of innovation, to include not just investment in research or the manufacturing sector, but also building competitiveness through design and creative industries, improved innovation capacity in public sector activities, social and service innovation, new business models and practice-based innovation.

34.

The CoR strongly supports the following proposal of the European Parliament’s ITRE Committee for inclusion in the Horizon 2020 rules: ‘Instruments for the connection between Research, Innovation and the Smart Specialisation Strategies shall be implemented both in Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds in order to create objective indicators for the stairway of excellence and building the ERA’.

35.

Regions and cities should include research, development and innovation (RDI) as part of their core policy agenda. Horizon 2020 and cohesion funding should be used to create the concepts, tools and other pre-conditions through which local and regional authorities can actively promote innovation, take risks and invest in the practical application of RDI, so as to provide a tailored regional dimension.

36.

In order to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, it is important that EU cohesion policy should contribute to enhancing the skills base and innovation capacity at local level, as well as to developing instruments and cooperation that promote intra-European cooperation between regions. Such instruments and cooperation are needed to implement the results of Horizon 2020 at regional and local level. To meet this objective, the CoR recommends that the potential of the EU's INTERREG initiative be fully exploited and that it be given sufficient resources by establishing platforms for mutual learning and also by fostering the international exchange on innovation strategies.

37.

The ‘smart city’ concept has been one of the EU focus areas in driving sustainable growth and improving quality of life. The enablers are investments in modern ICT infrastructure and e-services, as well as in human and social capital. The drivers of change are above all regional renewal capital and the effectiveness of innovation ecosystems — targeted especially at modernising the Triple Helix collaboration culture and increasing regional responsiveness through citizen participation. The CoR notes the crucial importance of smart applications operating through open and interoperable digital service interfaces as a way of connecting people in their own region and globally, and in connecting cities for European partnerships. The concept of ‘connected smart cities’ needs to be further developed and extended throughout Europe.

38.

The development and production of smart services that are adapted to both local cultures and local businesses and public services should be initiated in the EU's regions as an aspect of implementing the smart specialisation strategy. The Committee of the Regions proposes that development activities at local and regional level should be firmly backed by EU-funded research projects designed to secure the best research findings for regional use, to distil those findings and to support their application in different regions.

39.

Programmes should be launched in the regions to create innovation poles with international pull. The programmes should be used to encourage urban areas to make strategic priority choices based on their own identity, demand and multidisciplinary knowledge and to initiate knowledge-based business activities. The Committee of the Regions recommends that programmes be funded with both regional resources and EU structural funding; their activities should be supported by a range of EU measures, programmes and funding instruments.

40.

The CoR stresses that the key success factor in regional innovation strategies is effectiveness in bridging the gap between existing global research knowledge and actual regional practice. Structures and processes in cities and regions must be developed, even radically changed, in accordance with the latest research results. To tackle these issues, the CoR believes that:

41.

The CoR is aware that societal innovativeness can be substantially increased by mobilising citizen participation. In particular this means harnessing digital technology in a human-centred way: crowdsensing and crowdsourcing. In smart cities, development is strongly based on bottom-up participatory processes, sensing the dynamics of all forms of societal activities, and on individual and shared responsibility — much more than in traditional top-down city-operated services. The essential change is that citizens are directly involved in societal processes through data generation and content-sharing platforms. Citizens can be said to play the role of change agents by sensing, reporting and also taking care of different activities.

42.

The CoR endorses new investments in open innovation and crowdsourcing. These are the key concepts associated with the smart city and citizen participation. Crowdsourcing is the method of involvement whereby companies, cities and other organisations seek input from communities of people, and it is essential here. Another factor is insufficient knowledge — and understanding — of each other’s good practices, how they work, and why.

43.

The CoR recognises the need for close cooperation between different tiers of government and civil society, and notes that this is already emerging in various cities and regions across Europe. But cities and regions are not good at employing good practices: promising pilot projects tend to remain local without delivering full benefits to users and without providing business opportunities for supplier companies. This insufficient scaling-up is due to the complex nature of many urban innovations and the context in which they are adopted.

44.

The CoR recommends that the Commission issue calls for tender for city innovations. The focus should be on creating new collaborative models for finding new solutions to tackle urban development and service needs, and to scale up and share these innovative solutions with other cities and regions. These should include new kinds of collaboration between citizens, businesses, educational and research institutes, and governments. This involves both opportunities and challenges. Citizens across Europe are already taking initiatives to change their own environment and experiment with new forms of collaboration. The opportunities include leveraging a rich and active local community life, mobilising large numbers of volunteers, and the wide range of resulting initiatives. These activities should be aimed at discovering new forms of collaboration and should strengthen the connection between existing partnerships, in such a way that they become more open to innovative discovery, and are more clearly based on using the global knowledge resources and on learning from each other. Showcasing is needed to bring successful examples to the attention of similar regions throughout Europe.

45.

A major challenge to crossing the innovation divide is breaking through the structural silos in which issues and challenges are addressed. Societal problems are not confined to administrative silos, nor can they be addressed through individual projects or national and regional ministries. Traditional projects — even large ones — are not a solution. Europe needs to break out of silo thinking and silo operations: new growth and jobs come from open innovation and value networks. Europe needs to create a transdisciplinary mindset geared to entrepreneurial discovery aimed at dealing with challenges in a systemic way. Interlinked problems need systemic solutions.

46.

The CoR notes that there are exciting developments emerging in university laboratories around Europe, and even globally, which tackle major societal and industrial challenges. However, the best laboratories for breakthrough innovations today are no longer traditional university facilities, but regional innovation ecosystems operating as testbeds for rapid prototyping of many types of user-driven innovations, based on transformative and scalable systems. To transform science and technology research results into strong flows of new products, services, and processes, Europe needs to stimulate innovation in systems of production different from old-style manufacturing. This also necessitates mutual understanding of requirements, questions, and opportunities across the domains of business, science and government.

47.

The CoR calls for more research and development activities on ways of stimulating innovation and business development beyond the outmoded structures of sectors and clusters, and thinking in terms of ecosystems, which can be orchestrated to enhance the innovative potential of regions and foster their entrepreneurial spirit.

48.

The CoR stresses the importance of EU- and regional-level funding of innovation and production ecosystems with strong local, regional, or trans-regional characteristics. Broad-based innovation policy creates the preconditions for systemic operating models that combine in a co-creation dialogue the needs of users, consumers and citizens, alongside knowledge, creativity and competence.

49.

There are many research and innovation focus areas to support the drivers of change urgently needed during the 2014-2020 programming period. The CoR highlights the following ones as the success factors in inventing the future:

50.

EU experience with joint programming and cross-national partnerships needs to be further developed in order to enhance regional processes combining a bottom-up approach to the EU 2020 strategic priorities and European high-level research knowledge. The Committee of the Regions stresses the importance of increasing funding for running more European partnerships and regional bench-learning through INTERREG and other similar programmes.

51.

The CoR encourages the Commission to set up “entrepreneurial discovery” programmes to work at different levels and discover what is most effective for local needs and European scaling. The funding for these should come from different sources: Horizon 2020, COSME, cohesion funds and other sources. Pilot projects in which several regions participate can enhance the potential for cross-regional learning. Regions where there is cultural resonance — for example the Baltic Sea region, the Danube region, or the outermost regions — should work together on tackling specific societal challenges which they share. Successful innovations in one region can be tested and validated in others; city innovations can be scaled for regional application, and later scaled to other regions across Europe. These projects should involve key stakeholders at all levels, including local and regional authorities, SMEs, NGOs and especially all educational institutions.

52.

Design in its diverse forms has been associated with entrepreneurship for a long time. Strategic design means applying familiar principles when developing responses to major societal challenges such as population ageing and climate change. Design means more than just giving form to something. Design can be used to find new perspectives for problem-solving, to identify possible measures and to create effective comprehensive responses without the silo formation that is typical of the public sector.

53.

Innovative design offers important opportunities to produce economic and cultural benefits in society. Design-focused ecosystems should be promoted in the regions. Experienced researchers, business representatives and various design professionals, as well as their companies, universities and other communities, work effectively together in these ecosystems producing new initiatives. In this way they are all brought on board to be pro-actively involved in raising the level of activity and in taking forward innovation policy as a whole.

54.

The CoR challenges regions and cities to use innovative public procurement in creating new innovations. Public-private collaboration in experimenting and prototyping should be encouraged, and daring to take risks and to fail should be seen as the entrepreneurial option, not a social humiliation. Public representatives of cities and regions should develop methods and exchange experiences in relation to managing the risks of this type of project. By fostering an entrepreneurial spirit of experimentation, piloting and prototypes, these projects will also increase the self-organising power of European citizens.

55.

The key reforms of the next programming period include focusing projects on the strategic priorities of smart specialisation, simplifying project management and switching to much larger-scale initiatives by closely coordinating a number of projects. Another important principle is close coordination between the Horizon 2020 programme and cohesion policy, and synergistic pooling of funding under these policies and local/regional funding.

56.

The CoR notes that consistent application of these principles to implement the proposals contained this opinion will inevitably mean targeting Horizon 2020 funding at the research needs fixed in the EU regions' RIS3 strategies so that the Horizon programme works as a catalyst, produces knowledge from research and develops methodological concepts for regional RDI. Key research areas to be funded under Horizon 2020 should thus be identified from the RIS3 strategies.

57.

The Committee of the Regions stresses the importance of listening to the regional level when planning coordination of the various programmes. A crucial factor in getting action and encouraging innovative activity at regional level is namely that the Commission DGs should listen to those that speak for the regions, such as the CoR, when deciding on research areas. In addition, material and methodological support for projects carried out in the regions with cohesion funding, in addition to the usual obligation to share findings, should inform Horizon project implementation rules and the way funding is used. This cooperation would take place as follows:

58.

The CoR notes that the global science and business communities have entered an era of open innovation and co-creation in which cross-border collaboration is the new competitive edge. To address difficult and complex issues successfully, the CoR recommends that the Commission set up challenge platforms for European solution-seeking through transdisciplinary networks. These platforms would address specific challenges relevant across participating regions, and use structured methodologies to take good ideas from the prototype stage to realisation in pilot projects. This would mobilise the transformational power of regions.

59.

The CoR stresses that these platforms should be based on both bench-learning (validating ideas that work in one region by testing them in other regions) and bench-doing (giving added value to new ideas by turning them into practical innovations in several regions at the same time). In the pilot phase, several regions would take part in order to address real challenges they face, e.g. healthcare, opportunities in an ageing society, energy, a zero-carbon footprint, agriculture and food, etc.

60.

The CoR emphasises the importance of top-level methodological development and effective dissemination of results. Challenges and outcomes should be published on cloud platforms and addressed both locally and across regions. The best pioneers for developing and running Europe-wide projects should be financed through Horizon 2020 and cohesion funding — the aim being also to test effective methodologies and tools in real life collaboration and cross-border learning.

61.

The CoR recognises the need for active coaching to foster a spirit of multigenerational engagement, which can be a key factor in bridging the innovation gap. All target groups in different regions and cultural environments — scientists, civil servants, SMEs, and students — need to be coached in understanding and actively complementing each others’ perspectives, and in how to apply relevant ideas in practice. Schools and all educational bodies play a particularly crucial role here.

62.

Creativity and the ability to assimilate everything new come very naturally to young children during their early years. It is worth asking why the social environment and school system are often unable to crystallise these qualities into an interested, open and innovative way of living. All players should join forces to ensure that schools across the EU put creativity and the ability to learn at the heart of a range of goals and requirements. This is a period during which the basis for European innovativeness is evolving.

63.

Finally, the CoR understands the importance of bridging the gap between science and society. The CoR encourages all parties concerned to actively engage in science-society dialogues that explore and underscore how to translate the results of research into real-life practice. All societal challenges have a strong local dimension, which can be of benefit when scientists become aware of issues and societal stakeholders understand what science can offer. During dialogue, the focus should be on explicitly linking local needs to the research outcomes of Horizon 2020 pillars: societal challenges, industrial leadership and excellent science. Idea nurseries and social incubators can then be created to take new insights from the realm of discussion to actual prototypes that can be tested in real life.

64.

These proposals will truly work to close the innovation divide when they apply to all regions in Europe. The CoR recognises the need to address the requirements of pioneering regions, well-functioning regions, and more vulnerable, poorer performing and less advantaged regions. Of course, specific targeted actions and programmes are required at each level. Beyond this, we stress the importance of supporting transregional cooperation and collaboration of every kind: active partnering in knowledge exchange and co-creating the processes and practices that will work in each particular situation, cross-regional coaching and mentoring, bench-learning and bench-doing initiatives that allow less-advantaged regions to benefit from experiences elsewhere while at the same time contributing their own strengths, and specialised expertise to feed and support innovation in other regions. This powerful regional diversity should be central to Europe’s new collaborative advantage.

65.

The CoR strongly believes that the process of defining how the many suggestions and recommendations in this opinion can be realised in practice, and collaboratively exploring promising approaches for implementing them within and across regional boundaries, is the most effective way to turn excellent intentions into real results with a powerful impact on the streets of Europe. This is key to closing the innovation divide.

66.

Responsibility for the changes needed lies with all levels and all players. Responsibility for implementing the proposals made in this opinion will of course lie chiefly with the European Commission, as well as local and regional decision-makers and other players. Responsibility also lies with the Irish presidency and also the forthcoming presidencies, which can put some or all of the proposals made here into effect as soon and as far as possible.

67.

The Committee of the Regions recommends that LRAs, the Commission and other players ensure follow-up by collecting examples of good practice. The objective is to accelerate the desired change both in general and through a number of measures designated as priority projects. Some of these should also be put on the agenda of future presidencies.

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/22

—

recognises that the continuing economic crisis has focused even more attention on the cost of legislation and the challenge of implementing and enforcing laws already in the acquis;

—

all levels of governance should ensure that legislation is effective and efficient, and the EU institutions have a particular responsibility to demonstrate the clear added value of EU regulation which should be delivering full benefits at minimum cost and respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

—

welcomes this proposal for a new Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) to systematically identify and transparently carry out initiatives that are intended to result in significant regulatory cost reduction and simplification;

—

welcomes the proposal for a mapping exercise to identify laws and/or regulatory areas where there is the potential for simplification and cost reduction without compromising policy objectives, insists that fitness checks should involve input from all levels of government and continues to support systematic ex-post evaluations of EU legislation as an efficient tool of smart regulation;

—

reiterates the significance of simplification for streamlining the regulatory environment, especially for local and regional authorities, whose resources for the implementation of legislation are often limited and diminishing;

—

welcomes proposals for continuous improvement of impact assessments and reiterates that impact assessments of legislative and policy proposals should explore the territorial dimension of major policy options under examination; should the Commission decide to enlarge the membership of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), so as to enhance its independence, the CoR considers that local and regional authority interests should be represented;

—

urges the European Commission to improve its efforts to translate consultative documents into all official EU languages;

—

reiterates the institutions' shared responsibility to inform citizens, businesses and the public at large of the benefits that are to be reaped through the application of the tools inherent in smart regulation;

Rapporteur

Lord Graham TOPE (UK/ALDE), Member of the London Borough of Sutton

Reference documents

Communication from the Commission on EU Regulatory Fitness

COM(2012) 746 final

Taking into account:

1.

recalls that European legislation is in itself part of the effort to improve and simplify the regulatory environment and therefore to reduce cost and administrative burdens;

2.

recognises that the continuing economic crisis has focused even more attention on the cost of legislation and the challenge of implementing and enforcing laws already in the acquis;

3.

endorses the European Commission's view that national administrations are increasingly under resource constraints in their task of transposing and applying EU legislation; considers that this is a challenge that must be tackled in cooperation with local and regional authorities and should not become an excuse for increasing the burden for other levels of governance;

4.

In this overall context, believes that all levels of governance should ensure that legislation is effective and efficient, and the EU institutions have a particular responsibility to demonstrate the clear added value of EU regulation which should be delivering full benefits at minimum cost and respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

5.

recalls that the main elements of the EU better regulation strategy have been:

6.

welcomes this proposal for a new Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) to systematically identify and transparently carry out initiatives that are intended to result in significant regulatory cost reduction and simplification;

7.

continues to insist that better regulation should be pursued in the spirit of multilevel governance, i.e. through coordinated action by the EU, national institutions and local and regional authorities;

8.

considers that the European Commission and the other institutions should be encouraged to involve regions and local authorities more actively when designing legislation, assessing its impacts or devising ways to implement European policies and objectives. Indeed, most of the new proposals seek to amend or add to the existing EU legislation. As part of an ongoing — and necessary — process to keep legislation fit for purpose, it is important, when framing new proposals, to give due consideration to the valuable experience of local and regional authorities in the application of EU rules;

9.

calls for further efforts to improve the quality of regulations to ensure they are clear, accessible and easy to comply with for everyone, respecting the regional languages officially recognised in the Member States, where such agreements exist;

10.

believes that the strategy should be underpinned by a partnership and participatory approach in the conception and implementation of EU policies;

11.

while showing due regard for the principle of the Member States' institutional and constitutional autonomy, as enshrined in the Treaties, the CoR stresses the importance of involving local and regional authorities in drafting and assessing EU legislation, since it is these authorities that are usually responsible for implementing Community policies;

12.

welcomes the proposal for a mapping exercise to identify laws and/or regulatory areas where there is the potential for simplification and cost reduction without compromising policy objectives (the so-called ‘evaluate first’ policy);

13.

insists that fitness checks should involve input from all levels of government in the principal sectors that are of concern to local and regional authorities, i.e. cohesion policy, urban policy and funding instruments, environment legislation, industrial policy, social legislation and transport;

14.

continues to support systematic ex-post evaluations of EU legislation as an efficient tool of smart regulation;

15.

regrets that — despite the calls in its 2011 opinion on smart regulation and the admission of the possibility in the REFIT communication — the CoR has not been invited to cooperate on an evaluation exercise;

16.

notes the activities of the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burden; notes that the most significant achievements to date have been mainly in fields — company law, corporate taxation etc — which have little direct relevance to local and regional authorities. It would therefore be useful to include areas that are more relevant to local authorities, such as licensing or authorisations. Recognises however, that this programme constitutes a change of regulatory culture that may ultimately benefit public administrations;

17.

reiterates the significance of simplification for streamlining the regulatory environment, especially for local and regional authorities, whose resources for the implementation of legislation are often limited and diminishing. This applies, for example, to the extensive reporting requirements which are often passed on to the general public and businesses;

18.

notes that simplification could result in significant cost efficiencies, not only for business but also for local and regional administrations, thereby releasing scarce resources — financial and human — for other key public services;

19.

reiterates its commitment to assist the High Level Group in carrying out its tasks, especially within the ‘new’ work-stream concentrating on making public administrations more efficient and responsive to the needs of stakeholders and SMEs;

20.

underlines the need for transparency and accountability in the work of the Group;

21.

endorses the proposal for a follow-up to the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burden (ABRplus) to ensure that efforts to cut red tape by 25 % bring benefits to businesses and SMEs in the Member States;

22.

regrets that the REFIT communication does not take into account alternative ways of regulating or alternatives to regulation itself;

23.

welcomes proposals for continuous improvement of impact assessments; more comprehensive and critical evaluations, firmly anchored in the policy process, improved stakeholders' consultations, and more support to implementation of EU legislation;

24.

reiterates that impact assessments of legislative and policy proposals should be required to include the territorial dimension (local and regional aspects, financial and administrative implications on national, regional and local authorities) of major policy options under examination. Recalls that this is a consequence of the recognition of territorial cohesion as one of the objectives of the Union (Article 3 TEU), and moreover the obligation to ‘take account of the need for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon … regional or local authorities … to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved’ (Article 5, Protocol 2 TFEU);

25.

regrets that the revision of the CoR Cooperation Agreement with the European Commission did not install a basis for a structured cooperation on impact assessment and encourages the European Commission and individual Directorates-General to consider the Committee of the Regions as an institutional partner in impact assessment. The involvement of LRAs at an early stage in this process makes EU legislation more workable and gives it a stronger foundation;

26.

notes that substantive amendments made to legislative proposals by the European Parliament or the Council may also entail significant impacts on local authorities and regions. Therefore urges Parliament and Council to seek the assistance of the Committee of the Regions when they decide to perform impact assessments of such amendments;

27.

therefore calls upon the European Parliament and the Council to improve or set up their own impact assessment departments, so as to provide impact assessments from different perspectives, including the territorial one, as well as improved communication channels with regional and local authorities, in coordination with the Commission;

28.

requests to be involved in the update of the impact assessment guidelines to be conducted in 2014, recalling that it contributed with a consultation of local and regional authorities on the draft impact assessment guidelines of 2009;

29.

reiterates its reservations about ‘externalising’ impact assessment. However should the Commission decide to enlarge the membership of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), so as to enhance its independence, the CoR considers that local and regional authority interests should be represented, as the level of governance most likely to be involved in the delivery of the proposal under discussion;

30.

welcomes the review in the European Commission's consultation policy and encourages the Commission to deliver on these findings, notably by providing more adequate feedback to consultation participants;

31.

encourages the Commission to involve it, and the European representative associations of local and regional government, in the work leading up to the review of the minimum consultation standards;

32.

in this regard, underlines the need for visibility of the consultation process and should urge all institutions to consider a better and interlinked use of new information and communication technologies to publicise and to conduct consultations;

33.

agrees with the need to devote greater efforts to quantifying results, to presenting the main conclusions more clearly and to consulting on draft impact assessments, in order to enable stakeholders and, in particular, local and regional authorities, to have a say in the early stages of the process and to better understand the results;

34.

in the interest of full transparency and feedback, supports the publication of contributions to consultations. In the impact assessment, the European Commission could also indicate what follow-up it has given to the feedback from these consultations;

35.

urges the European Commission to improve its efforts to translate consultative documents into all official EU languages. Believes that a consultation cannot be considered representative if it does not address citizens in their own language;

36.

recommends a stronger two-way cooperation between the Commission and itself: CoR targeted consultations could be advertised on the ‘your voice in Europe website’ for greater transparency. Considers that European Commission consultations could also be routinely promoted through CoR channels, provided that these complement and strengthen direct consultations with regional and local authorities;

37.

recognises that a ‘consultation’ of the EU advisory bodies is not a public consultation under Article 11 TEU, but a specific institutional requirement under the treaties; however encourages individual Directorates-General and services of the European Commission abide to this in a consistent manner;

38.

undertakes to perform an integrated review of its own consultation tools and networks in the same manner as the European Commission's audit;

39.

understands ‘goldplating’ to be the practice whereby Member States, in transposing EU Directives into national laws, go beyond the minimum requirements thereof;

40.

believes that there should be an EU-wide standard definition of goldplating for the purpose of legal certainty in the implementation and application of EU law, comparative analysis and for judging the claims of member States who assert that they do not goldplate;

41.

considers that the following might be incorporated into such a definition:

42.

acknowledges that goldplating is not prohibited by EU law and in some cases it may be justified that national or subnational legislation provides for a higher level of protection than that of the EU Directive being transposed; this could apply to environmental protection (Article 193 TFEU), legislation aiming at the protection of workers (Article 153(4) TFEU), legislation on the quality and safety standards of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivatives (Article 168(4)(a)) and consumer protection (Article 169(4) TFEU);

43.

nevertheless, recommends that such additional measures should be specifically justified, so that national and EU regulation is not aggregated in the mind of the citizen, which reinforces the view that EU bodies ‘over-regulate’;

44.

also underscores the value of subjecting these measures to a national impact assessment, taking into account the different types of impact dealt with at the European level, including the territorial dimension and the regional impact;

45.

reiterates its view, and that of the Commission, that Member States must desist from ‘goldplating’ EU legislation in a way that increases the complexity and cost of new laws on local and regional authorities, business and the general public;

46.

expresses its satisfaction that the European Commission acknowledges the role of national parliaments with regard to smart regulation and in particular concerning the correct application of the subsidiarity principle;

47.

urges the European Commission and the European Parliament to take account of the positions of regional parliaments with legislative powers and could point to its REGPEX platform within the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network as a source of information;

48.

considers that implementation assistance offered by the European Commission to Member States should also take account of local and regional specificities, and where regional or local authorities are responsible for implementation, they should receive direct assistance;

49.

proposes a meaningful role for the CoR, local authorities and regions within the new Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT);

50.

welcomes the European Commission's position that smart regulation is a shared mission between all EU institutions, i.e. including the Committee of the Regions. Encourages the European Parliament and the Council to pursue the smart regulation agenda and the REFIT programme in a similarly sincere manner that minimises the additional burdens that might arise from their legislative amendments;

51.

welcomes the fact that the renewed cooperation agreement with the European Commission takes into account the Committee's activities covering the whole spectrum of smart regulation. Proposes to the European Parliament and Council that similar cooperation agreements be negotiated with them as well;

52.

reiterates the institutions' shared responsibility to inform citizens, businesses and the public at large of the benefits that are to be reaped through the application of the tools inherent in smart regulation, and commits itself to bringing this to the notice of local and regional authorities.

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/27

—

calls for urgent complementary studies to assess the territorial impact of quota abolition

—

calls for a realistic evaluation of production, internal consumption and export prospects over the medium and long term

—

calls for a comparative study of the milk policies of the large milk-producing countries and a detailed study of the Swiss experience

—

calls for an impact assessment of ongoing bilateral trade negotiations

—

calls for the possibility to be studied of adapting to the EU certain measures taken by other countries to manage potential milk market crises, in particular the measures of the forthcoming Farm Bill 2013-2017

—

proposes extending the possibility of managing the volumes stipulated in the milk package to mountain milk

—

calls for security of supply and the sustainability of the European Union's internal markets to be made a priority

—

proposes, in the context of export strategy, giving greater support to innovation in high-added-value dairy products

—

proposes establishing solid partnerships with the countries of the southern Mediterranean and the Middle East that do not have sufficient land or water to produce milk at a reasonable cost and that constitute a milk market that is more easily accessible than Asia

—

calls on the Commission to redefine a coherent rural and milk development project for mountain areas, for disadvantaged milk production areas and for Member States where most of the milk is produced by very small farms.

Rapporteur

René SOUCHON, President of the Auvergne Regional Council (FR/PES)

Reference document

Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Evolution of the market situation and the consequent conditions for smoothly phasing-out the milk quota system — second ‘soft landing’ report

COM(2012) 741 final

1.

notes that in many Member States and regions milk production is a key pillar of the regional economy and agricultural added value. Milk production therefore has an important environmental role, has an enduring impact on the cultural landscape and is an important employer in rural areas;

2.

notes that the reform process needs to take account of regional and structural differences in milk farming and the milk industry. In many regions, most milk is produced on small and medium-sized family farms, while in other areas milk production is dominated by large agricultural holdings. It is essential, therefore, that reforms involving the milk sector not damage the family businesses that contribute most to sustainable development;

3.

notes the need to better guarantee the incomes of milk producers to make sure that they can have a decent living from their work, to protect the future of the milk-production sector and to ensure the supply of quality milk products for Europe's consumers;

4.

recognises that the European Union has experienced neither an explosion in milk production nor an unduly sharp drop in the value of quotas, due to the ‘free’ 8 % increase in their volume between 2008 and 2015, but notes that this increase in volume has twice provoked a steep rise in production that has threatened to overwhelm processing plant, especially the towers for drying milk powder, in several countries;

5.

notes that the situation on world markets has been favourable since 2010, enabling milk products from the EU — especially butter and milk powder — to maintain their price on these without recourse to export refunds, but that this is no guarantee of world prices holding over the medium and long term;

6.

contends that the arguments for abolishing quotas and liberalising the milk market put forward by the European Commission since 2003 are increasingly controversial;

7.

notes that no progress has been made in WTO negotiations for the past ten years and that the EU's proposals in Hong Kong in 2005 to cancel refunds on milk products have ceased to be relevant;

8.

notes that the milk sector is not included in bilateral negotiations with the USA, New Zealand and Australia;

9.

notes that most of the other major milk producers, such as India, China, Japan, and South Korea, have maintained or — in the case of the USA — even stepped up their protective measures in the sector. In the United States, the strengthening of public regulation of the milk market being discussed in Congress envisages the guarantee of a minimum margin for producers above the costs of feeding the animals, as well as a measure, obligatory for all, to reduce supplies in the event of a crisis;

10.

notes that the consumer interest argument advanced by the European Commission to justify milk market liberalisation is unsubstantiated; in particular, the steep fall in prices in 2009 was not — or was hardly — reflected in prices to the consumer;

11.

notes that increased margins in the agro-food and large retail sectors have been achieved at the expense of producers, with producer prices plummeting compared with consumer prices;

12.

notes that studies conducted in Canada have shown the dairy products shopping basket to be no more expensive in that country — which has a quota system — than in the United States, despite very different farm gate prices (around 50 % higher in Canada);

13.

thinks that milk price volatility is very costly for the whole sector, but especially for producers, whose incomes become unpredictable and discourage entry into the milk sector;

14.

notes that it is butter and milk powder surpluses — expensive to store and to export — that resulted in the introduction of milk quotas in 1984 and that the reduction of surpluses by quotas led to significant budget savings up to 2003. Considers that, even if the quota system no longer responds completely to current problems, its abolition must be accompanied by suitable regulatory tools;

15.

notes that trading of milk products on the world market, principally as powder and butter, involves only 6 % of world production, but that it is the prices of these two products that more and more determine the farm gate price of milk in the European Union, although most milk achieves higher prices in the internal market;

16.

notes that EU exports to world markets account for around 10 % of the Union's production, in the form of both cheese and lower added-value milk powder, and regrets that the investment announced by dairy companies is mostly in drying towers;

17.

notes that the EU's principal competitor on world markets is New Zealand, whose production costs are half those of European producers, and that New Zealand, via Fonterra, a cooperative that has a quasi-monopoly, exports more than 90 % of its production, mainly as butter and powder, thus alone accounting for a third of the world market and enjoying a firm foothold in the markets of Asia. Fonterra also controls the futures markets;

18.

notes that even if Asia offers a potential opening for the European Union, countries such as China and India also plan to develop their own production to the utmost in order to reduce dependency on the vagaries of the market to feed their populations;

19.

also notes that, when it comes to cheese, the European Union has made inroads into the Russian, Japanese and Korean markets, but little progress in quantitative terms on the Chinese market;

20.

thinks that the measures proposed by the Commission for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly the milk package and the Single CMO Regulation (including imports), lack the necessary mechanisms for public regulation of milk production and markets and imports; they should also be complemented by additional regional policy instruments to ensure balanced development of the regions;

21.

regrets that the Commission's second progress report confines itself to a macroeconomic analysis of the milk market situation, using a very general model, and to numerous hypotheses, some of them already outdated;

22.

regrets that the Commission fails to provide a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the prospects of the EU market in the medium term, broken down by large groups of countries, taking account, in particular, of the diversity of farm sizes and methods, production conditions and marketing methods;

23.

regrets that the report includes no comparative analysis of the policies of other large milk-producing countries that are rivals and/or customers of the European Union;

24.

notes that the High Level Experts' Group (HLG) on milk had suggested tracking developments in Switzerland following the removal of quotas, which had given rise to a 7 % increase in milk production in the country, bringing in its wake a fall in average prices of between 20 and 30 %. Structures and production conditions in Switzerland are different from those in the EU, and Switzerland also prepared for and implemented quota abolition differently. However, the Commission's report appears not to take account of this experience, which should be analysed in more depth;

25.

notes that the European Commission appears more concerned about the limits of competition law when it comes to hundreds of thousands of producers, than when it comes to multinational milk processers and distributors who control more than half of European milk;

26.

regrets in particular that the Commission's report ignores the territorial impact — economic, social and environmental — of lifting quotas for all the European Union's regions;

27.

notes that more than two thirds of dairy farms are located in areas that are disadvantaged by virtue of their soil and climate conditions, are situated far from large cities, or have very small herd sizes;

28.

notes that mountain milk accounts for around 10 % of milk from the EU-27, but constitutes 2/3 of milk and involves 3/4 of producers in Austria, Slovenia and Finland, and that the corresponding figures also remain very significant in a further ten or so countries. In most of these humid mountain regions, and also in outermost regions, milk herds are the principal users of grasslands, keeping landscapes accessible and inhabited and so benefiting tourism, biodiversity and the environment;

29.

also points out that the cow's milk produced in the outermost regions represents a major part of the output of the states concerned and, as is the case in upland regions, dairy farming bears the main responsibility for maintaining the region's agricultural landscape, with a positive impact on tourism and the environment;

30.

notes that in most of the new Member States in Eastern Europe, milk collection remains very uncertain. It has fallen since 2005 and depends mainly on large herds in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Collection has also fallen in Bulgaria and Romania despite rigorous restructuring, to the benefit of informal milk distribution. Prospects appear brighter in Poland and, to a lesser extent, in the Baltic countries, with the emergence of family herds of 10 to 30 cows when farmers have access to training and credit;

31.

considers that this family model of farming, making the most of local forage possibilities, especially grasslands, best reconciles the future of the milk sector as a whole, the expectations of society and those of farmers;

32.

considers that second pillar aid will be not be enough to compensate for the damaging impact of price instability of milk and inputs, discouraging people from starting up in a business that requires heavy long-term investment;

33.

asks for consideration to be given to the problem of milk herds that are heavily dependent on feedstuffs in areas with low fodder availability and to the importance of implementing mechanisms to protect this sector from fluctuations in cereal prices and to support production in regions where it is of major socio-economic importance;

34.

calls for specific attention and support for regions where restructuring has resulted in a sharp fall in traditional milk production but where the sector has managed to survive over recent decades; local production must be exploited here, using all existing instruments, including short marketing circuits;

35.

thinks that the four measures in the milk package — the use of contracts, producer organisations, interbranch organisations and transparency — are necessary but insufficient, and are not intended to offer guarantees that volumes, prices and revenues for producers can be adequately managed;

36.

considers that the milk package lacks the instruments to mitigate the adverse effects of removing milk quotas in the regions and on the family model of farming, which makes the most of local forage possibilities, especially grasslands; feels and that this abolition will result in the concentration of production in the most advantaged farming regions, with increased risks to the environment;

37.

notes that cooperatives enjoy a dominant — not to say monopoly — position in the main milk-producing countries in the north of Europe and have announced an increase in collection at the request of their members;

38.

notes that the use of contracts as set out in the milk package — and from which cooperatives are exempt — will affect at best only 40 % of the volume of milk produced in the whole of the EU and that forecasts will be impossible throughout the market;

39.

considers that producers' organisations are necessary but in some cases lack real negotiating power vis-à-vis dairies if they can only be vertical organisations within a branch — in effect a kind of merger — and that producers will not be able to hold their own in business negotiations unless they can exercise a countervailing power that comes from being an organisation of producers in a particular production area that is able to negotiate with a number of dairies;

40.

considers that the milk package tools will be unable to meet the goal of guaranteeing producer incomes and proposes to include production costs in negotiations on farm gate milk prices on the basis of the results of the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) by country or even by region;

41.

calls for a return to a public policy of management of security stocks, raising the intervention price and maintaining exceptional export refunds in exchange for a policy of milk production that is better tailored to the evolution of demand from the internal market and from external markets for quality products;

42.

notes that the management of supply for PDOs and PGIs is a positive point of the milk package but concerns relatively few countries and a minority share of European production (even in France, these PDO-PGIs make up only 10 % of the country's total milk production, but 30 % of mountain milk);

43.

considers the current European Parliament proposals on voluntary production caps in the event of a crisis, which would enable the Commission to grant aid to milk producers who voluntarily cut their milk production by at least 5 % for at least three months (renewable), with levies for producers who increase their production in the same period to be insufficient to mitigate a fall in prices in the event of overproduction;

44.

considers that an effective crisis management system must be able to respond promptly and that this requires centralising national and European information on output per farm over several years and defining the state of crisis via reference prices and/or margins, which presupposes direct management, either by the European Commission or by a European regulatory body;

45.

calls for urgent complementary studies to assess the territorial impact of quota abolition by groups of countries, regions, particularly outermost regions, and soil and climate zones — mountain areas, disadvantaged areas, intermediate mixed farming areas (livestock farming, lowlands) — so that the risks of relocation and abandonment of farms in numerous regions can be anticipated and, if possible limited;

46.

calls for a realistic evaluation of production, internal consumption and export prospects over the medium and long term (2020-2030) by type of product, factoring in the increasing volatility of prices on the world market. The absence of any guidance of supply and of any policy on public stocks in Europe and the United States can only heighten this volatility, which is incompatible with the development of a European milk sector;

47.

calls for a comparative study of the milk policies of the large milk-producing countries and a detailed study of the Swiss experience, from an economic, social and environmental perspective;

48.

calls for an impact assessment of ongoing bilateral trade negotiations, with particular emphasis on milk production regions;

49.

following up its opinion of 4 May 2012 on The reform of the common agricultural policy and rural development policy post-2013, considers rebalancing aid to be a vital step and feels that the Commission's proposals are insufficient for introducing greater competitiveness in small and medium-sized farms making the most of local forage possibilities, areas facing specific natural constraints, outermost regions, island regions and certain fragile industries;

50.

calls for the possibility to be studied of adapting to the EU certain measures taken by other countries to manage potential milk market crises, in particular the measures of the forthcoming Farm Bill 2013-2017, which provides inter alia, for producers enrolling in the system, a guaranteed margin over feed costs coupled with a reduction in supply; calls for these crisis management measures adopted by other countries to be examined to evaluate their impact on the world milk market;

51.

proposes extending the possibility of managing the volumes stipulated in the milk package — limited for the moment to PDO and PGI cheeses — to mountain milk in relation to the new optional quality mark for mountain products;

52.

thinks that in fact the ‘mountain product’ mark could be a useful tool for giving the milk sector regional identities, assuming that appropriate implementation methods were adopted accordingly;

53.

proposes that, before putting in place any measures to replace milk quotas, the adoption of a moratorium on ending quotas be studied, so that the mechanism could possibly be extended until the end of the 2019/2020 milk year in order to be able to ascertain the consequences of abolishing them in more detail; at the same time calls on the Commission to adapt the safety net for the milk market and to introduce regular surveillance of the world market and assessment of public policies in key producer countries;

54.

calls on the Commission to redefine a coherent rural and milk development project for mountain areas, for disadvantaged milk production areas, for outermost regions and for Member States where most of the milk is produced by very small farms;

55.

calls for security of supply and the sustainability of the European Union's internal markets to be made a priority, particularly through the distribution of milk to schools and old people's homes and for food aid and by revising and simplifying support and promotion measures for milk products;

56.

proposes, in the context of export strategy, giving greater support to high-added-value dairy products to help develop products better suited, for example, to the new consumers in countries in the Maghreb, the Middle East and Asia, and supporting this strategy with appropriate measures;

57.

proposes establishing solid partnerships with the countries of the southern Mediterranean and the Middle East that do not have sufficient land or water to produce milk at a reasonable cost and that constitute a milk market that is more easily accessible than Asia.

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/33

—

is aware that it is important to respect the fundamental right of businesses to operate without interference; however, it is also important that equality between sexes be respected, as a fundamental value of the EU. This directive which provides a minimum standard, seeks to secure equal conditions for both sexes in all Member States and thus improve the economic conditions in the internal market.

—

suggests that it would make sense to adopt sanctions which were similar in every Member State, if we wish to achieve the aim of securing a level playing field and a coherent regulatory framework throughout the EU. Otherwise, the disincentives in some countries might end up being significantly weaker than in others, thus leading to a lower level of compliance with the national legislation implementing the directive.

—

supports the Commission's decision to pursue the goal of improving gender equality by means of a legislative proposal with binding objectives, rather than by supporting a self-regulatory and/or voluntary approach.

—

stresses that the selection of the best qualified candidates for posts of non-executive directors be based on transparent qualification criteria and selection processes, encouraging all talented people to submit an application;

—

stresses that, in many jobs, diversity among the staff in terms of knowledge, skills, experience, life situation and gender is vital to achieving the intended results. The Committee therefore feels it is important that priority be given to a candidate of the under-represented sex if that candidate is equally well qualified as a candidate of the other sex in terms of suitability, competence and professional performance, and if an objective assessment taking account of all personal criteria does not tilt the balance in favour of a candidate of the other sex;

Rapporteur

Ms Andreja POTOČNIK (SI/ALDE), Deputy Mayor of Tržič

Reference document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures

COM(2012) 614 final

1.

Equality between men and women is one of the fundamental values and key objectives of the European Union, enshrined in the EU Treaty (Article 3(3)) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 23). In accordance with Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union aims to eliminate inequalities and promote equality between women and men in all its activities. TFEU Article 157(3) provides a legal basis for the adoption of Union measures to ensure the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.

2.

The European Commission, in its proposal for a directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges, is aiming to ensure balanced representation of men and women in this category by 2020, such that neither gender exceeds 60 % or falls below 40 % of the total number of directors.

3.

The Commission warns that progress towards an increase in the percentage of women on company boards has been too slow, with an average annual increase in the past years of just 0.6 percentage points (1). At the current pace it would take several decades to approach gender balance throughout the EU. Rapid and significant progress has been noted in those Member States and other countries where the prevailing social values and attitudes favour this development, and also where recommendations and binding minimum requirements have been introduced for representation of each gender.

4.

Ignoring the knowledge/skills of highly qualified women means wasting a range of opportunities, given that economic recovery also requires the active participation of women. New, more effective ways of successfully balancing family and working life have to be conceived. Measures designed to promote the careers and postgraduate studies of women graduates are crucial to their career development.

5.

welcomes the Commission's resolve to improve the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and agrees that there is an urgent need for measures to be taken in this area.

6.

supports the Commission's decision to pursue the goal of improving gender equality by means of a legislative proposal with binding objectives, rather than by supporting a self-regulatory and/or voluntary approach.

7.

is conscious of how important and serious it would be if women were not appointed to decision-making roles in the economy and if their human resources potential were thus to remain untapped. There should be a determined effort to remove obstacles to women's career development.

8.

In the Commission's view, the current lack of transparency of the selection procedures and requisite qualification criteria for board positions in most Member States represents a significant barrier to better gender balance in board membership and negatively affects not only board candidates' careers, but also their mobility, as well as investment decisions.

9.

The proposed directive seeks to promote gender equality in economic decision-making and to fully exploit the existing pool of candidates for more equal gender representation on company boards, thereby contributing to the Europe 2020 objectives.

10.

Member States must provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for breaches of this directive, which could include, inter alia, judicial bodies imposing administrative fines or declaring the nullity or annulment of the appointment or election of non-executive directors in breach of national provisions.

11.

Member States are to report to the Commission on the implementation of this directive. Such reports are also to include information on measures adopted to achieve these goals.

12.

The directive does not cover small and medium-sized enterprises.

13.

stresses that the selection of the best qualified candidates for posts of non-executive directors be based on transparent qualification criteria and selection processes, encouraging all talented people to submit an application;

14.

stresses that, in many jobs, diversity among the staff in terms of knowledge, skills, experience, life situation and gender is vital to achieving the intended results. The Committee therefore feels it is important that priority be given to a candidate of the under-represented sex if that candidate is equally well qualified as a candidate of the other sex in terms of suitability, competence and professional performance, and if an objective assessment taking account of all personal criteria does not tilt the balance in favour of a candidate of the other sex;

15.

is aware that it is important to respect the fundamental right of businesses to operate without interference; however, it is also important that equality between sexes be respected, as a fundamental value of the EU. This directive which provides a minimum standard, seeks to secure equal conditions for both sexes in all Member States and thus improve the economic conditions in the internal market;

16.

is convinced that the proposal does not entail any breach of the subsidiarity principle since it is based on clear legal bases in the EU Treaties and brings true European added value as it addresses the European Union policy objective of gender equality and ensures legal certainty for companies operating in more than one Member State and whose cross-border operations could be negatively affected by the current disparities in rules applying to gender equality on company boards;

17.

underlines that it is necessary to support measures at European level and ensure a uniform pan-European regulatory framework in this domain. The current situation, where every Member State has its own standards and legislation, leads to uncertainty in the operation of the internal market, since many listed companies operate in more than one Member State;

18.

suggests that it would make sense to adopt sanctions which were similar in every Member State, if we wish to achieve the aim of securing a level playing field and a coherent regulatory framework throughout the EU. Otherwise, the disincentives in some countries might end up being significantly weaker than in others, thus leading to a lower level of compliance with the national legislation implementing the directive;

19.

points out that it would be appropriate to place more stress on improved gender balance between all directors, and not just non-executive ones;

20.

warns that, in taking on management positions, women are still hindered by certain factors; one to be highlighted is the lack of measures for making it easier to reconcile family and professional life.

21.

believes that local and regional authorities must endeavour to secure greater equality. Equal representation of the sexes is not just a precondition for true democracy and an equitable society, it is an essential condition for achievement of the EU's objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

22.

feels that the 2018 deadline is appropriate for securing 40 % representation of the under-represented sex, in cases where representatives of local and regional authorities are members of (publicly owned) company boards;

23.

points out that it is important that public companies provide a good example for private companies as regards the 40 % representation of the under-represented sex.

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/42

—

requests that coordinated or joint environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures as proposed under Article 2 (3)should be voluntary rather than obligatory; it should be clearly indicated which other EU legislation would fall under this provision;

—

rejects the idea in Article 5(2) of making scoping mandatory for all cases, without exception. The responsibility to ensure an appropriate scope and level of detail of the environmental report should continue to lie with the developer;

—

requests that the EIA Directive under Article 5 (3) should accommodate the different systems for checking environmental reports established in the Member States, including those where the verification of the reports may be done in-house by the competent authorities or the environmental authorities;

—

welcomes the introduction of a minimum deadline for public consultation of 30 days under Article 6 (7). However, any deadlines exceeding this minimum should be a matter for the Member States to decide on;

—

requests to modify the proposal under Article 8 (1) on the decision to grant development, in order to accommodate the different systems that exist in the Member States, and recommends, as a measure contributing to the quality and hence the effectiveness of EIAs, that the Directive specify the duration of validity of an EIA;

—

is critical of the setting of binding time-frames for decisions on concluding EIAs for projects under Article 8 (3).The acceleration of proceedings sought by setting a time-frame is better achieved with more nuanced rules in the Member States;

—

calls for transitional rules to be worded in such a way as to require EIAs for projects at an advanced stage of procedures to be conducted in line with the provisions of the current EIA Directive.

Rapporteur

Marek SOWA (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Małopolska voivodship

Reference document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

COM(2012) 628 final

1.

emphasises that in many ways, the proposed changes to the legal framework for European environmental impact assessment are necessary and welcome. Stresses, however, that any changes should need to strike a careful balance between the requirements of environmental protection on the one hand, and economic development on the other. Excessively lengthy development consent procedures could threaten economic and social interests and could undermine the competitiveness of the EU as a whole. In many cases they would not be conducive to environmental protection or to people's health and quality of life. Changes to ensure quality as well as consistent procedures and documents should be implemented in such a way as to ensure effective and efficient decision-making;

2.

notes, however, there are serious doubts regarding some changes which would lengthen the main stages of the process;

3.

recalls that the proposed revision of the EIA Directive will have a significant impact on local and regional authorities, which will have a central role in the implementation of the proposed actions. Contrary to the European Commission’s expectation, the CoR believes that many of the proposed amendments of the EIA Directive will lead to an increased administrative burden for local and regional authorities in terms of organisation, management and expenditure. Within this context, the CoR urges that any shift of responsibilities from the developer to the competent authority should be avoided;

4.

maintains that any additional costs or administrative burdens for public authorities should be weighed up against the socio-economic and environmental benefits of the proposed changes, so that in the long term the benefits outweigh the costs;

5.

stresses that the Directive can be successful on the ground only if national, local and regional authorities establish well-functioning institutional structures provided with the necessary financial and human resources enabling all responsible departments, in particular environment departments, to be actively involved; emphasises the persistent need for further capacity building in local and regional authorities, which should include closer cooperation with, and support from, the existing national EIA Centres;

6.

calls for greater terminological consistency throughout the text of the draft directive and its annexes, in order to increase legal certainty;

7.

supports the intention to increase the quality of the environmental reports; however, the EIA Directive should accommodate the different systems for checking environmental reports established in the Member States, regions and cities;

8.

believes that the new provisions do not sufficiently accommodate the different EIA systems (EIA procedure integrated or separate from the development consent procedure) that exist in the Member States;

9.

seeks clarification on the widening of the definition of a project in Article 1(2) to include demolition works; believes that if the provision intends to introduce a possible EIA for demolition works in all projects listed in Annexes I or II, this could lead to a substantial additional administrative burden. The CoR believes that the obligation to carry out an EIA for demolition work should be limited to the clearly defined cases mentioned in Annexes I and II, for the demolition or dismantling of the project at the end of its life or for the demolition work required to carry out the project;

10.

calls for both the definition of the term ‘authorisation’ and its use in the main body of the directive to be examined once again given that the transposition and application of the Services Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market) has given rise in the Member States to the abolition of the requirement for prior authorisations to carry out particular services, replacing them with checks at a later stage;

11.

is pleased that ‘projects having as their sole purpose national defence or the response to civil emergencies’ are to be exempted from compulsory EIAs. To ensure that this provision is not abused and that too many projects are not exempted from an EIA, a list with examples of such civil emergency projects could be inserted into the Directive, with consideration also given to projects supported by the European Solidarity Fund;

12.

deplores that the proposal does not include a revision of Annexes I and II, therefore missing an opportunity to review them and where appropriate to limit their scope based on experiences to date; reiterates its call for the setting of EU minimum thresholds, in order to increase legal clarity. This would reduce differences in treatment of businesses in the EU, and the administrative and financial burdens for local and regional authorities in the various Member States. It is noted that, when establishing thresholds, some Member States often exceed their margin of discretion, either by taking account only of certain selection criteria from Annex III or by exempting some projects in advance. A harmonisation of thresholds should also take into account the thresholds and criteria used by the Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED);

13.

considers that coordinated or joint procedures should be voluntary instead of obligatory as proposed by the European Commission;

14.

for greater legal clarity, calls for a clear indication in Article 2(3) of which other EU legislation would fall under this provision;

15.

points out that setting up an EIA one-stop shop should not entail an increase in staff and costs disproportionate to the benefits of implementing environmental impact assessments; asks for clarification as to whether the provision that ‘Member States shall appoint one authority, which shall be responsible for facilitating the development consent procedure for each project’ would apply only to projects covered by the coordinated/joint procedure, or to all projects. In some Member States such an obligation would be very difficult to comply with due to the specific hierarchy and competences of different authorities involved in the process. For Member States where the EIA procedure is integrated in the development consent procedure and carried out by the authority in charge of the development consent, it might be necessary to clarify that the ‘one authority’ referred to can also be this authority;

16.

calls for more coherence between the terminologies and the level of detail used in Article 3 and Annex III and IV. The factors listed in Article 3 should be described in greater detail, in coordination with Annex IV, for example when it comes to reference to land use and land take, reference to ecosystems and their services, and to ‘natural and man-made disaster risks’; calls for some lists (e.g. number 5: ‘inter alia’) to be made exhaustive in order to avoid broadening the scope of the assessment;

17.

calls upon the European Commission to issue, as soon as possible after the entry into force of the revised Directive, guidance documents that include methodologies to determine local impacts of a project on climate change, as well as the exposure, vulnerability and resilience of a given environment to natural and man-made disaster risks;

18.

calls for the inclusion of environmental objectives established at regional or local levels in Annex IV, point 5, last paragraph;

19.

supports the call of the Council for further clarification on the term ‘reasonable alternatives’ used in the Directive, and on the assessment of the state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario). Reasonable alternatives should be only those which are also commensurate with the objectives, comply with other EU legislation, or correspond with the planning stage and type of the individual project;

20.

welcomes the overall intention of the European Commission to streamline the screening procedure and enhance the consistency of Member States' approaches to ensure that EIAs are required only when it is clear that there are significant environmental impacts;

21.

is critical of certain new provisions which give the impression that the screening becomes a ‘mini EIA’. Annexes IIA and III imply that in practice a report should be submitted assessing whether the project has significant effects or not. The difference is that there is no assessment of alternatives here. Instead, screening should involve a checklist, giving local and regional authorities easily applicable mechanisms for screening out developments with no significant impacts. In addition, according to the proposed amendment to Article 4 (3), for each project listed in Annex II, the applicant is required to provide information on the characteristics of the project, its potential impact on the environment and the measures envisaged in order to avoid and reduce significant effects, in line with the information set out in the new Annex II.A. This contradicts the solution allowed under Article 4 (2), under which Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). In addition, the use of the thresholds referred to in Article 4 (2)b should be clarified and it should be specified whether Member States can set these thresholds themselves, on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III, or whether they are established by the Directive;

22.

also points out that the selection criteria referred to in Article 4(4) in Annex III are in many respects significantly tougher than in existing legislation. For example Annex III not only includes numerous detailed specifications, but also several additional criteria (natural disaster risks, impact on climate change, agriculture areas with a high nature value, etc.), although these are not of direct relevance to projects and in some cases go beyond the scope of the test programme for the consent decision. For example, climate change is a large-scale phenomenon, whose impacts are difficult to measure in terms of space and time, and which for the time being can only be simulated using very costly computer models. At project level, local climate impacts are already taken into account where necessary. If EIAs start looking at large-scale climate change, there is a risk of high costs arising for project developers, leading to questionable technical outcomes; such costs would be excessive given the secondary importance of point and linear projects for climate change; therefore calls for an exhaustive list of projects to which this provision applies; points out that the proposed change is inconsistent with the subsidiarity principle. The inclusion of additional specifications and criteria contradicts the idea expressed in recital 11 of the EIA directive that Member States should be given scope to take appropriate decisions reflecting specific national circumstances. The number of criteria to be taken into account and the level of detail go beyond what should be made binding at EU level;

23.

notes with satisfaction that the European Commission proposal to introduce mandatory scoping reflects the previous CoR recommendation to improve the quality of information and rationalise the EIA procedure; however, rejects the idea of making scoping mandatory for all cases, without exception. The responsibility to ensure an appropriate scope and level of detail of the environmental report should continue to lie with the developer; considerable additional costs for the developer and the authorities involved should be avoided;

24.

recommends complementing scoping with the introduction of European Commission or national guidelines for sector-specific content where this would help ensure the quality of an EIA and the gathering of all aspects relevant to decisions;

25.

is critical of the proposal in Article 5(2)(a) on the decisions and opinions to be obtained, (c) on the competent authority defining the individual stages of the procedure and their duration and (d) on reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and its specific characteristics;

26.

feels that the obligation for ensuring the quality of the environmental report should stay with the developer. A distinction should be kept between ensuring quality in the preparation of the reports by the developers, and in the control of the reports by the competent authority; acknowledges, however, that quality control for the reports needs to be tightened to ensure that analyses are conducted with proper independence from the developer;

27.

feels that the EIA Directive should accommodate the different systems for checking environmental reports established in the Member States and in local and regional authorities. The systems put in place do not only work with external experts and expert committees, as reflected by the European Commission proposal, but also other systems, as it is often the case for older Member States, where the verification of the reports is done in-house by the competent authorities or the environmental authorities;

28.

considers the EIA Directive as a key instrument for local and regional public participation to ensure local knowledge is taken into account, while noting the cost and skills implications; therefore welcomes the introduction of a minimum deadline for consultation of 30 days under Article 6 (7). However, any deadlines exceeding this minimum should be a matter for the Member States to decide on. Otherwise, the procedure could be excessively drawn out for many companies and public sector developers, given the risk that concerned sections of the public could insist on the full 60 to 90 days provided for in Article 6 (7). These maximum deadlines would make it difficult to integrate environmental impact assessment into consent procedures and are inconsistent with the objective of faster planning procedures. The faster procedures which timeframes are intended to serve could be better achieved through differentiated national rules adopted by the Member States;

29.

bearing in mind the interests of all concerned, and in line with the principle that each decision should be taken without unjustified delays, suggests reasonable limits to the amount of time needed to pass on information and prepare for the decision-making procedure;

30.

underlines that the new provisions in Article 8 (1) must be flexible enough to accommodate the different EIA systems that exist in the Member States. In some Member States, the EIA is a separate procedure by the environment authorities, where development consent issued by a different authority comes after the EIA permit and must comply with the stipulations of the EIA permit. In other Member States, the EIA is integrated into the development consent procedure;

31.

notes further criticism that the new provisions in Article 8 do not sufficiently take account of the integrated system established in some Member States, inasmuch as these provisions create new material preconditions, which lead to overlaps or contradictions between EU and national sectoral law. These provisions should not therefore be part of the EIA Directive, which is deemed to be of a procedural nature only;

32.

points out that there may be procedural problems in regard to the new provision of Article 8(2) that, if it is concluded that a project will have significant adverse environmental effects, the competent authority, in cooperation with the environmental authorities and the developer, shall consider whether the environmental report should be revised and the project modified and whether additional mitigation or compensation measures are needed;

33.

points out that the long period needed to obtain development consent gives rise to a real danger that Article 8(4) of the amended directive would frequently be invoked, which stipulates that, before a decision to grant or refuse development consent is taken, the competent authority should verify whether the information in the environmental report referred to in Article 5(1) is up to date, in particular concerning the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant effects on the environment;

34.

recommends, as a measure contributing to the quality and hence the effectiveness of EIAs, that the Directive specify the duration of validity of an EIA;

35.

is critical of the setting of binding time-frames for decisions on concluding environmental impact assessments for projects (Article 8 (3)). For many companies and public sector developers, this could lead to excessively lengthy procedures; Article 8 (3), moreover, does not adequately address the fact that extensive and time-consuming assessments have to be conducted in the case of large infrastructure projects that cannot be performed to the required standard in the time available. This raises the fear, despite recital 22, that establishing a definite time-frame would compromise demanding environmental protection standards, which could also be detrimental to legal certainty. The acceleration of proceedings sought by setting a time-frame is better achieved with more nuanced rules in the Member States;

36.

calls for the harmonisation of the different terminologies used for the corrective measures throughout the proposal, for example ‘compensation’ in Article 8 (2) versus ‘offset measures’ in Article 9 and Annex IV;

37.

warns that monitoring should not undermine the need for a detailed analysis of the significant impacts and their mitigation and compensation by the developer, or the prevention and precautionary principles. This means that uncertainty as to the significant impacts of a planned project should not lead to a situation in which, rather than looking for their mitigation/compensation, the project is authorised with a monitoring obligation only, with subsequent difficulties in readapting it in view of its impact. Article 8(2) subparagraph 2 is problematic. It provides for a check on the implementation and effectiveness of damage mitigation and compensation measures which in effect amounts to monitoring. It is not clear here why the authorising body should establish measures to monitor significant adverse environmental effects if it is convinced of the effectiveness of the planned mitigation and compensation measures, since there is already enough experience with this in practice. This blanket monitoring requirement appears disproportionate and would burden the developer unreasonably. Whether monitoring of significant adverse environmental effects is necessary can usually only be decided in each instance by the authorising body;

38.

takes note of criticism of the additional administrative burden that will be implied for Member States and regional and local authorities in collecting and providing the new information required by the European Commission in the proposed Article 12(2) in order to monitor implementation of the Directive;

39.

objects to empowerment of the European Commission to adopt delegated acts in order to more easily adapt Annexes II.A, III and IV to technical and scientific progress; believes that all Annexes should be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, as they are closely connected to the EIA requirements as laid down in the Directive;

40.

calls for transitional rules in Article 3 to be worded in such a way as to require EIAs for projects at an advanced stage of procedures to be conducted in line with the provisions of the current EIA directive — for example, if an environmental report has already been drawn up pursuant to Article 5, or if the project has already been publicly announced;

30.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/53

—

underlines that this new EAP must ensure that the environmental choices are sufficiently clear and predictable, in particular for local and regional administrations;

—

stresses that it is necessary to overcome certain shortcomings, reduce the differences between Member States and push for full compliance with environmental legislation, at all levels of government, with a view to improving the environment and public health, ensuring a level playing field and regulatory certainty, and preventing market distortions; recommends in the Opinion numerous concrete actions to be included in the 7th EAP in this regard;

—

highlights the need for good impact assessments when revising or developing new EU environmental legislation and urges the European Commission to take into account of the practical experience of Member States in a demonstrable and verifiable way;

—

calls for aligning EU sectoral environmental legislative policies (EU limit values) with the EU emissions policy (EU measures at source), adopting a holistic approach that enables a coordination between these measures, their level of ambition and calendars;

—

welcomes the inclusion of a ‘priority objective’ on the sustainability of cities among the objectives of the 7th EAP and calls for minimum sustainability criteria to be fulfilled by a majority of cities in the EU; with the indicators to be developed in close cooperation with local authorities and with environmental and statistical authorities;

—

calls for the programme to be more ambitious at local level, extending initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors to other areas of the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, and further developing the European Green Capital Award.

Rapporteur

José Macário CORREIA (PT/EPP), Mayor of Faro

Reference document

Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 — Living well, within the limits of our planet —

COM(2012) 710 final

1.

Recalls that the six environment action programmes to date have been important in terms of highlighting the growing prominence of European environment policy and trying to ensure its coherence as an integral part of European integration, but have failed to solve many of Europe's environmental problems because of insufficient political will to implement measures.

2.

The Sixth Environment Action Programme, sub-titled ‘Environment 2010: our future, our choice’, which expired on 22 July 2012, was drawn up in 2001 as the environmental dimension of the EU's sustainable development strategy, with the Lisbon Strategy as the economic dimension.

3.

It set out the European Union's priorities to 2012, emphasising four areas for action: climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health, and the sustainable management of natural resources and waste. However, the European Commission has allowed the strategy for sustainable development to be forgotten.

4.

The Europe 2020 strategy is now seen as the new political and strategic tool, and the environmental policy should be coordinated within the framework of this flagship initiative of the strategy, entitled ‘A resource-efficient Europe’, considering it not as a sub domain of the Europe 2020 strategy, but as an overall strategic goal autonomously around the sustainable development of the European Union by 2050.

5.

Stresses that the 7th EAP should be adopted as soon as possible to ensure the coherence of the EU's environmental policy and guide the future development in this key policy area; underlines that this new EAP must ensure that the environmental choices are sufficiently clear and predictable, in particular for local and regional administrations (1).

6.

Integrating the substantive outcome of UNCSD 2012 into action at local, regional, national, European, international and global level is also a priority.

7.

while positive progress has been made to date, in particular significant reductions in harmful emissions to air and water, better and more efficient management of waste and reductions in dangerous chemical products, there are objectives in terms of air, the urban environment, biodiversity, eco-system functioning and sustainable use of natural resources which have yet to be met;

8.

despite the consolidation of environmental legislation over the last decade, the Member States and the Commission have not always acted in accordance with the programme, and it is necessary to overcome certain shortcomings, reduce the differences between Member States and push for full compliance with environmental legislation, at all levels of government, in relation to control of air pollution, water treatment, wastewater, waste and nature conservation, with a view to improving the environment and public health, ensuring a level playing field and regulatory certainty and preventing market distortions;

9.

at the end of the 6th Environment Action Programme, several fields of environmental policy have not yet been sufficiently addressed, in particular:

10.

to state in the new programme, in a clear and unambivalent manner, the environmental challenges the EU is faced with, including accelerating climate change, deterioration of our ecosystem, untenable disruption of the nitrogen cycle, and the increasing overuse of natural resources;

11.

to reflect the Rio+20 Declaration as adopted by the UNCSD on 22 June 2012, with its emphasis on an inclusive green economy, as well as the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals and the CoR contribution to the Rio Summit (2);

12.

to set concrete targets. The CoR welcomes the ambition shown in the 7th EAP, but wonders whether these ambitions are realistic and how they will be achieved. There is reference to existing policy documents and roadmaps, but these documents often lack practical details on implementation, such as timeframes and intermediate objectives. The CoR believes that new ambitions must be feasible: setting unrealistic ambitions harms the credibility of EU environment policy. It must therefore be clear, when new EU environmental targets are set, that these targets are achievable and, where necessary, that there is a parallel EU source-based policy in the relevant sectors. The proposals should have a clear timeframe (with a final objective, intermediate objectives and interim evaluations) linked to appropriate actions. The CoR therefore calls for concrete, and wherever possible, quantifiable targets to be set for 2020 as well as setting out a clear, ambitious vision and intermediary targets for the environment up to 2050, aimed at providing a high quality of life and well-being for all within safe environmental limits;

13.

it is important to take account of experience from the Member States when revising or developing new EU legislation. To this end, there needs to be better coordination between the stages in producing EU law. There are five stages in producing EU law: preparation, decision-making, implementation in national legislation, application by (national) courts, and feedback on experiences in the Member States. The links from the first stage to subsequent ones run smoothly, but it is not clear how experience in the Member States and local and regional authorities (stage five) feeds back into the development of new EU law (stage one). The CoR urges the Commission to take account of this experience in a demonstrable and verifiable way when drafting new proposals;

14.

for the European Commission initially to examine the existing legislation and, on this basis, to carry out an impact assessment. The data from the impact assessments should be taken into account in a demonstrable and verifiable way when revising existing legislation or drafting new proposals. The CoR highlights the need for good impact assessments, as they make it clear, at an early stage in the decision-making process, that:

15.

to change the way the Commission publishes its proposals. When the sixth EAP was implemented, the impact assessments, thematic strategies and legislative proposals were published simultaneously. To take account of the aforementioned issues, the CoR would suggest the following procedure and timeframe:

16.

to ensure that the Europe 2020 strategy continues to cover certain priority sectors which were hitherto covered by the sustainable development strategy, such as distribution justice and intergenerational justice;

17.

to ensure that the objectives of 7th EAP are adequately reflected in the post-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Europe 2020 strategy, bearing in mind that the main decisions with major environmental impacts in other areas may be taken before the adoption of the 7th EAP. The funding of environmental objectives, in synergy with the LIFE programme, and the full integration of environmental protection, must be a significant part of the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), cohesion policy and Horizon 2020;

18.

to provide the appropriate framework for guaranteeing sufficient funding, in particular for innovation, research and development, through the mobilisation of market instruments and payments for ecosystem services;

to guarantee, in a clear and appropriate fashion, support for the role of local and regional authorities in implementing legislation, in order to secure commitment to improving results in relation to the environment and human health, the policy on chemicals and in particular the objectives set in the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, the Low-Carbon Roadmap and the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, through the inclusion of energy efficiency targets and indicators in the Annual Growth Survey and in Member States' national reform programmes.

19.

Stresses that the priorities of the 7th Environment Action Programme should be based on three fundamental axes:

Welcomes therefore the nine objectives outlined in the Commission proposal.

20.

With regard to safeguarding Europe's natural capital, there should be better implementation of measures and actions relating to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, protecting and enhancing forests, eliminating emissions from urban and industrial wastewater, fertiliser use and air emissions responsible for eutrophication. Similarly, the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive should be fully implemented.

21.

In the implementation of these measures, more effective environmental inspections and surveillance must be carried out. The RMCEI — the recommendation for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States 2001/331/EC — is therefore crucial for all Member States, in order to provide structured and consistent guidance for the environmental inspection work of inspectors in the Member States.

22.

To strengthen the existing legal framework in order to enable the EU to guarantee that environmental inspections and surveillance systems at local and regional level are fully consistent, coherent and effective, with a view to ensuring the uniform application of EU environmental law and fair conditions of competition for companies within the internal market.

23.

To support enhanced complaint-handling and mediation mechanisms at national, regional and local levels.

24.

To support the establishment of information systems at national level to disseminate information on the actual implementation of EU environment law.

25.

To conclude tripartite partnership implementation agreements (PIAs) between the European Commission, the Member States and local and regional authorities to improve the implementation of specific environmental legislation and resolve specific or cross-border problems regarding the management of environmental problems.

26.

To improve the scientific evidence base for environment policy — especially regarding the functional understanding of ecosystems (energy, water and material flows and related sustainable soil, water and local climate functions) —, including its accessibility, by simplifying, streamlining and modernising the collection, management and sharing of environmental data and information, and to develop instruments to anticipate, evaluate and manage emerging environmental risk and fill existing knowledge gaps as quickly as possible. At the same time, there should be special support in this field for researchers (in the form of scholarships), and where possible they should be involved as experts in solving environmental problems at local and regional level. In doing this, any increase in red tape arising from additional inspection and surveillance rules should be avoided; the aim should be, rather, to set targeted priorities and exploit synergies with existing surveillance requirements.

27.

With regard to the efficient use of resources and low carbon emissions, the challenge includes fully implementing the EU Climate and Energy Package by 2020, as well as EU waste legislation, ensuring that it is properly transposed and implemented in all Member States, setting up teams to transpose environmental law at regional and local level.

28.

In parallel, internal market barriers facing recycling activities must be removed and the overall environmental impact of production and consumption must be reduced, promoting products with a low environmental impact and providing accurate scientifically-based information and guidelines for consumers regarding products.

29.

Furthermore, in terms of companies, their increasing responsibility in relation to environmental problems, voluntary environmental audits, eco-labels attesting to the environment-friendliness of products and the expansion of eco-business can in themselves help to create the environmental quality that needs to be fostered.

30.

Greener, more efficient technologies, improved productivity and new employment opportunities will support growth and jobs.

31.

A coherent and integrated policy framework at local and regional level in support of resource efficiency and greener products will help SMEs striving to become more resource efficient, reducing their production costs and facilitating their access to new markets.

32.

In terms of funding, it is important to ensure that environment and climate objectives are supported by adequate finance, by reflecting them in partnership contracts and ensuring that at least 20 % of the 2014-2020 EU budget is allocated for that purpose. In particular, the financing of especially cost-intensive environmental measures to be carried out in the period up to 2020 — e.g. the proposed improvement in degraded ecosystems using green infrastructure networks — must be ensured; the EU's biodiversity strategy makes provision for this as an essential component of the 7th Environmental Action Programme.

33.

In parallel, efforts should be made to increase the allocation of EU funding for environmental action by at least 25 %, using a system for reporting and tracking environment-related expenditure, in order to ensure, inter alia, the timely financing of especially cost-intensive environmental measures for the improvement of degraded ecosystems to be carried out in the period up to 2020.

34.

To progressively phase out environmentally-harmful subsidies and increasingly use market-based instruments, including taxation and penalties for those causing environmental damage.

35.

To promote and increase private sector funding for environment and climate-related expenditure, in particular by facilitating access to innovative financial instruments.

36.

The CoR calls for aligning EU sectoral environmental legislative policies (EU limit values) with the EU emissions policy (EU measures at source), adopting a holistic approach that enables a coordination between these measures and the ambitions and calendars of environmental sectoral directives. It urges the Commission to calculate the duration of the renewal cycle of the measures at source and evaluate the deadline for achieving the limit values under real conditions, in order to achieve a significant reduction in emissions across Europe. To this end, the level of ambition of environmental sectoral directives (limit values) and deadlines for implementation must be equivalent to the level of ambition and timetables for implementation of the EU measures at source.

37.

With regard to the need to ensure the health and wellbeing of EU citizens, it is important to stress the need to update the EU policy on air quality and to align it with the latest scientific knowledge, identifying cost-effective measures to combat air pollution at source and strengthening efforts to reach full compliance with EU air quality legislation, more particularly regarding fine particles in the air.

38.

In relation to noise, there is an urgent need to identify cost-effective measures to reduce noise pollution at source.

39.

The CoR calls for ambitious measures to tackle key sources of environmental pollution, in particular transport and mobility. The 7th EAP refers in this connection to the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area — towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011) 144 final). The CoR welcomes the ambitious nature of this White Paper but, in order to achieve these ambitions, calls for a European action plan to be drawn up, including intermediate targets, specific measures (e.g. EU source-based measures) and scheduled evaluations (3).

40.

With regard to water, efforts should be stepped up to implement the Drinking Water Directive, in particular for small suppliers in each Member State, and similar efforts should be made in relation to the Bathing Water Directive with the aim of achieving compliance levels over 95 % by 2020.

41.

Systematic ex ante assessments must be carried out of the socio-economic, environmental and territorial impacts at EU, Member State and local and regional level.

42.

The CoR welcomes the inclusion of a ‘priority objective’ on the sustainability of cities among the objectives of the 7th EAP and calls for minimum sustainability criteria to be fulfilled by a majority of cities in the EU.

43.

There should be greater cooperation in relation to international agreements, supporting international and regional processes aimed at making the world economy an inclusive green economy, fostering an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for current and future generations.

44.

At local level, the programme should be more ambitious, extending initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors to other areas of the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, such as biodiversity and in particular soil use as recommended in the recent CoR opinion on this matter (CdR 1121/2012 fin). Equally the management of waste and water resources and air pollution should be looked at, since this would facilitate implementation of EU environmental policy through an innovative method of multilevel governance, which promotes the proactive involvement of local and regional authorities in the application of EU legislation.

45.

The same applies to the establishment of the European Green Capital Award, as an important means of showcasing cities that are exemplars and innovators in implementation of EU environmental law.

46.

The 7th EAP should therefore be based on the fundamental principles of environmental law — the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, the preventive principle and the rectification at source principle — with a view to implementing measures, actions and targets in accordance with the principles of smart regulation and within a framework of balanced and sustainable environmental policies. Too many measures still involve corrections made at the end of the process or the end of the chain, whereas priority should be given to adapting or even rethinking these processes with a view to significantly reducing their environmental impact at each stage. Innovative initiatives in the ‘circular economy’, closing the materials cycle, and life-cycle benchmarking should be encouraged, and to this end targeted use made of our functional understanding, which in some cases still needs to be developed, of ecosystems and energy, water and material cycles, with their positive effects on sustainable soil, water and local climate trends, with a view to achieving more systemic reductions in the environmental impact of human activities.

47.

European citizens are increasingly aware of the role played by the environment in their lives. As the level closest to local communities, local and regional authorities are crucial as interfaces for training and mobilisation.

48.

The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are applied in the drawing up and implementation of environmental legislation in accordance with Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which provides for sharing of powers between the EU, the Member States and national, regional and local authorities on issues of environment policy.

49.

Taking account of the specific measures adopted by the Commission, the objectives which will represent local and regional challenges must be identified.

50.

Local Agenda 21 can and must be a tool for participatory democracy at local and regional level, with a view to pursuing environment policy objectives, disseminating, with the help of the internet, information on the application at local level of the 7th EAP and the available judicial remedies.

51.

The principle of multilevel governance in relation to the environment should be recognised. The CoR does not believe that environmental problems can be solved, or EU policy implemented, by a single level of government. EU environment policy can no longer be developed purely at EU level, with national and sub-national authorities expected to implement legislation passed by the EU: it must be developed via coordination between the different levels of government. A multilevel approach is needed, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) takes responsibility in coordination with the other authorities and adopts those measures that can and must be adopted at that level in order to avoid duplication of competences.

52.

In the CoR's view, the multilevel approach needs to be strengthened during the policy development phase. Improving Europe's environment will necessitate a realistic level of ambition, requiring coordination between legislation and implementation. To this end, it is vital to pay attention, during the policy development phase, to the possible financial, policy or legal impact for subnational authorities and to the practicability and feasibility of EU regulations.

53.

The CoR recommends also strengthening the multilevel approach in the implementation phase. The implementation of environmental legislation is not just a question of legal implementation (transposition into national law). This means that EU environmental legislation must be accompanied by European and national implementation plans (with guides, best practices and source-based measures). In this connection, the CoR advocates a multilevel approach and points to cross-government teams in Member States in which experts from the various levels of government work together to draft national implementation plans.

54.

It is therefore crucial that the 7th EAP supports the role of local and regional authorities in implementing the legislation, by means of the following actions:

55.

The strategy of the 7th EAP will depend partly on specific policy instruments chosen with a view to achieving the objectives set, which will not be determined until impact assessments have been carried out. That will have an effect on cost-effectiveness and specific social and economic impacts, as well as on the role of national, regional and local authorities in implementing policies and legislation agreed at European level. The measures set out in the previous point must not increase spending pressures on local and regional authorities. The Committee believes that responsibility for the cost of the measures set out in the previous point should primarily lie with the EU or national governments. It is important to ensure that economic progress is sustainable, and that our ecosystems, which support growth and safeguard our citizens' health, remain resilient.