21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/1

1.

welcomes the fact that the new Commission has put investment in growth and jobs at the centre of its agenda and stresses the Committee of the Regions’ willingness to cooperate with the European Union institutions, in particular with the European Commission and the European Investment Bank, in order to ensure the necessary political ownership for the success of the plan which combines enhanced investments with structural reforms;

2.

welcomes the recognition in the proposed investment plan of the role that local and regional authorities will play in boosting investment for jobs and growth given that sub-national governments carried out around 55 % of total public investment in the EU-28 in 2013 (1);

3.

welcomes the acknowledgment by the European Commission of the current significant under-investment with current investment levels EUR 230 to EUR 370 billion per year below average;

4.

highlights that the investment plan should be the start of a wider EU investment strategy, closely connected with the revision of the Europe 2020 strategy, interlinked with removing regulatory burdens;

5.

suggests that the investment rate per Member State should be used as a criterion of macroeconomic surveillance;

6.

emphasises that public investments have to comply with the sustainability of the public debt; stresses that quality public investments constitute a stimulus and often a prerequisite for private investment and that their re-launch should aim at producing output effects delivering a decline in the debt-to-GDP ratio;

7.

calls on Member States, regional and local authorities to respond positively to the appeal for voluntary participations to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI);

8.

endorses the Commission’s suggestion to exempt the public investments that support projects under the EFSI from deficit calculations under the Stability and Growth Pact;

9.

considers that this exemption is consistent with the Committee of the Regions’ demand that national co-financing of the European Structural and Investment Funds be exempted from deficit calculations of the Stability and Growth Pact and therefore asks the European Commission to assess the feasibility of this demand;

10.

endorses the Commission’s assessment that without the regional authorities’ financial and project-based involvement the Investment Plan will not reach appropriate leverage effects into the real economy;

11.

questions whether the envisaged 1:15 leverage ratio, can be achieved throughout the EU, taking into account that some less developed regions lack a robust private sector that could provide additional financing for projects;

12.

welcomes the announcement by the Commission that the new EFSI will be established in addition to the European Structural Investment Funds; underlines that any overlap between EFSI and ESIF must be avoided and requests clarification on the complementarity needed between these investment funds, including on the use of financial instruments;

13.

urges accessibility for small-scale projects contributing to job creation at local level, and stresses the need for a balanced urban-rural investment plan;

14.

stresses that this package must not have any negative impact on projects launched or planned under the existing COSME and Horizon 2020 programmes;

15.

considers that capital injections should not only focus on quantitative leverage in general but also on quality investments in areas such as education, training, research, transport, infrastructure, health, energy efficiency, sustainable development which increase the growth potential;

16.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to cooperate with all public and private stakeholders at regional level, in order to facilitate key investment projects and ensure their access to appropriate sources of funding; underlines that public private partnerships could deliver competitiveness but need to have well-defined areas and agreed goals; urges the Commission to require Member States to apply transparency in the selection of projects, sharing the process with the regional and local authorities;

17.

stresses that a stronger involvement of national and regional development banks is needed in the implementation of the investment package;

18.

suggests that the OECD principles on public investment should be taken into account when assessing the foreseen investment projects;

19.

endorses the idea of a one stop shop investment advisory ‘Hub’ to guarantee European priority-setting; highlights the capability of local and regional authorities to bridge with project promoters, investors and public managing authorities to facilitate key investment projects and ensure the right projects access appropriate sources of funding;

20.

welcomes the plan’s initiative to support risk financing for SMEs; however, as SMEs are known to be the most vulnerable enterprises during times of economic and financial instabilities, support should be fully guaranteed by the EIB and not be priced on market terms; underlines that the support for risk financing must also be available to small and micro-enterprises and expresses concerns that the broad definition of mid-cap companies might lead to the support benefiting mostly larger mid-cap companies;

21.

supports the initiative of organising ‘Investing in Europe’ workshops at regional level and confirms its willingness to contribute to their success with its expertise;

22.

underlines that the capacity and the quality of local and regional administrations to identify and prepare suitable projects is often the biggest bottleneck for more private investment; points out that local and regional authorities may be exposed to additional financial administrative burdens during the plan’s implementation phase; stresses the importance of working with local and regional authorities in identifying regulatory and non-regulatory barriers given that local and regional authorities implement about 70 % of EU decisions;

23.

consequently, stresses that more dedicated technical assistance is needed to support the administrative capacity of sub-national public administrations in order to efficiently cope with structural reforms aimed at improving the investment climate;

24.

calls for simplified procedures allowing for timely approval of projects to avoid any delays in the implementation of the plan;

25.

shares the view that efficient and timely transposition of EU public procurement rules, including on innovative partnerships and the promotion of e-procurement tools will improve the conditions for investment; stresses, in this respect, that many contracting authorities do not currently have the facilities to process electronic invoices and thus various Member States should target actions towards developing appropriate IT systems and providing solutions to the existing gap;

26.

commits itself to provide its contribution to the draft regulation implementing the investment plan which is expected to be adopted by the Commission in January 2015;

27.

instructs its president to forward this resolution to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission and the president of the European Council.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/4

1.

stresses that the conditions for financing of the real economy are being fundamentally reshaped by the on-going financial, economic and social crisis. Against this backdrop, support for both public and private investment in the long term is becoming more and more essential. Indeed, public investment may be not only a stimulus for private investment but also a prerequisite, as it may be helpful in setting the appropriate structural conditions in which the economy is operating in a given region and may have a countercyclical effect in times of negative economic conditions. Beyond the complementarity with private investment, public investment may be useful in implementing objectives of general interest in areas (such as education, training, research, infrastructure, health, environment …) where public intervention is needed because the wider benefits to society are not matching private investment patterns;

2.

notes that while worldwide direct investments are rising at an almost double-digit rate (1), private investment in the European Union is declining. At the same time, the currently extremely low real interest rates provide limited incentives for the private sector to support public investment in the short-term. It is therefore important to create favourable conditions that stimulate private investment, whilst at the same time increasing the level, quality and effectiveness of public investment, to compensate for the lack of private demand by public demand;

3.

highlights that according to the IMF World Economic Outlook of October 2014 (2)‘for economies with clearly identified infrastructure needs and efficient public investment processes and where there is economic slack and monetary accommodation, there is a strong case for increasing public infrastructure investment’;

4.

highlights that within the European Union public investment declined by 20 % in real terms between 2008 and 2013. Recognises that underspending in public investment began prior to the crisis and worsened considerably since then. During the crisis, public investment was indeed further constrained by public intervention for the recapitalisation of banks, which had in particular to face the consequences of private over-investment in propertyin some eurozone countries. According to the latest Commission forecasts for 2013 and 2014, public investment in the EU-27 will reach historically low levels in 2014, having done so in respect of the private sector in 2013 (3);

5.

supports therefore the growing consensus that it will prove impossible to restore sustained growth in the EU without stimulating growth-friendly investment (4). Stimulating growth-friendly investment is essential because it has the highest fiscal multiplier effect, i.e. induced impact on real GDP growth, in comparison with other types of expenditure such as government consumption, social transfers, VAT cuts or increased social contributions by employees (5);

6.

points to the risk that a persistent low level of quality public investment would further deepen the dividing lines in terms of cohesion and convergence analysed in the European Commission 6th cohesion report;

7.

draws attention, however, to the fact that both the high level of debt in certain Member States and the crisis-driven increase of expenditure on social services and transfers of capital to companies are reducing the ‘fiscal room for manoeuvre’ for public investment;

8.

notes that the deterioration in public finances and the fiscal consolidation measures implemented since the end of 2010 have resulted in significant changes in the composition of public expenditure in a number of Member States. In particular, growth-friendly expenditure has been cut back disproportionately as part of fiscal consolidation measures and decreased in the EU-27 between 2008 and 2012 from 36,7 % to 35,6 % (6);

9.

reiterates that sub-national governments play a key role with regard to public investment, as they carried out around 55 % of total public investment in the EU-28 in 2013. However, the share of sub-national government investment has declined from 2,2 % of EU-27 GDP in 1995 to 1,8 % in 2013, with a continuous fall in real terms since 2010 (7). This fall is also to a large extent due to a worsening of borrowing conditions. The introduction of rules governing sub-national authorities’ borrowing or a tightening of those already in place as part of fiscal consolidation measures in many OECD countries is necessary in many cases in order to limit public debt but also leads to a further reduction of their capacity to invest;

10.

underlines that Member States are responsible, according to Protocol 12 to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), for deficits of the general government, which includes all levels of government. At the same time, however, the effect of EU fiscal rules on European local and regional authorities differs widely. The impact depends on: i) how Member States have translated the EU fiscal rules into national legislation, ii) the level of fiscal decentralisation within a Member State, iii) the level of competences of local and regional authorities and iv) the financial situation of local and regional authorities which may vary significantly even within Member States;

11.

stresses that while public investment is apprehended indirectly through the macroeconomic requirements set by the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) to have the deficit and public debt below the thresholds of 3 % and 60 % of GDP respectively, the only specific reference to public investment contained in the EU Treaties appears in the context of the excessive deficit procedure (EDP), within which there is no differentiation of the different kind of expenditure. Indeed, Article 126(3) TFEU stipulates that the report preceding the launch of an EDP ‘shall also take into account whether the government deficit exceeds government investment expenditure and take into account all other ‘relevant factors’’. The list of the relevant factors in the regulation on the EDP includes ‘developments in primary expenditure, both current and capital … the implementation of policies in the context of the common growth strategy of the Union, and the overall quality of public finances’.

12.

notes that no EU strategy on public investment has been conceived so far and that the European Commission has mostly limited itself to issuing non-binding recommendations to the Member States: ‘Credible and growth-friendly consolidation that improves the efficiency of the tax structure as well as the quality of public spending will contribute to stimulating growth. (…) The Member States should strive in particular to maintain an adequate fiscal consolidation pace while preserving investments aimed at achieving the Europe 2020 goals for growth and jobs (8)’. This recommendation was further specified in the 2013 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) which underlines that ‘Investments in education, research, innovation and energy should be prioritised and strengthened where possible, while ensuring the efficiency of such expenditure (…)’; insists that any European strategy would have to comply strictly with the principle of subsidiarity;

13.

welcomes, however, the fact that the 2014 Country-Specific Recommendations (CSRs) put a stronger emphasis on long-term measures to boost growth and recognise that short-term fiscal consolidation measures should be accompanied, in a rebalanced policy-mix, by long-term investments for growth and jobs. The CSRs refer frequently to research and innovation, knowledge, education, market access for SMEs (13 countries), the energy sector (12 countries) and transport and broadband infrastructure (8 countries) (9);

14.

recalls that the ‘Compact for Growth and Jobs’ adopted by the Heads of State or Government on 28—29 June 2012 stated that ‘particular attention must be given to investment into future-oriented areas directly related to the economy’s growth potential and ensuring the sustainability of pension systems. The Commission is monitoring the impact of tight budget constraints on growth enhancing public expenditure and on public investment. It will report on the quality of public spending and the scope for possible action within the boundaries of the EU and national fiscal frameworks’. To this mandate, the European Commission replied by presenting a rather academic contribution, which neither had a proper legal status nor contained any kind of policy recommendations (10);

15.

is of the view that the recommendation included in the European Council conclusions from December 2012 to ‘(exploit) the possibilities offered by the EU’s existing fiscal framework to balance productive public investment needs with fiscal discipline objectives (…) in the preventive arm of the SGP (11)’ have not been followed up but remain highly topical as underlined by the President of the ECB on 22 August 2014 when he stated: ‘since 2010 the euro area has suffered from fiscal policy being less available and effective, especially compared with other large advanced economies […] it would be helpful for the overall stance of policy if fiscal policy could play a greater role alongside monetary policy, and I believe there is scope for this, while taking into account our specific initial conditions and legal constraints’;

16.

recalls that the SGP allows for flexibility in its application in exceptional and temporary circumstances, which have been defined by Regulation (EC) No 1177/2011, and that according to the Commission’s own evaluation, ‘the EU fiscal framework offers enough scope to balance the acknowledgment of productive public investment needs with fiscal discipline objectives’ (12).

17.

Referring to the conclusions of the European Council of 27 June 2014, which confirmed that ‘… the Union needs bold steps to foster growth, increase investments, create more and better jobs and encourage reforms for competitiveness’ and that ‘this also requires making best use of the flexibility that is built into the existing Stability and Growth Pact rules’, asks the Commission to publish a communication on how it intends to apply the existing flexibility provisions of the SGP in order to promote the public investments needed to boost economic growth;

18.

recalls that, in order to provide an adequate and sustainable level of net public investment, it is important to prevent governments — when fulfilling fiscal adjustment requirements — from cutting investment spending. In fact, experience shows that at the height of the crisis governments decided to cut investment rather than current spending. It is well-known, however, that investment is crucial to driving effective structural action by Europe’s regions and cities, as beneficiaries of the ESI Funds; without that stimulus, it would not be possible to ensure that they play an active participatory role in the Europe 2020 strategy;

19.

reiterates its support for the European Parliament’s call to exclude national co-financing of investments co-financed by the European Union under partnership agreements and, in that context, asks that investment made by local and regional authorities in the context of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund be excluded from the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact; but also points out that that all levels of government must strive to limit their levels of public debt in order to lower the burden of repayment for future generations;

20.

expresses concern over the fact that the new Eurostat accountancy norm ESA 2010, to be implemented as of September 2014, does not distinguish between expenditure and investment. Moreover, in certain Member States, the transposition in national law of these norms translates into local and regional authorities being obliged to apply maximum investment ceilings per year and per inhabitant. These ceilings hinder in particular local and regional authorities in certain Member States from providing the co-financing needed for ESIF projects. These ceilings also block those LRAs which have financial means in reserve to launch significant investment projects not related to ESIF. Urges therefore the European Commission to present a report on the implementation of ESA 2010;

21.

stresses that excluding the co-financing from deficit calculations would be of particular importance in order to speed up and facilitate the process of implementing European programmes. Stresses, in addition, that this exclusion would also be important for those Member States that have been most affected by the crisis and have received financial support under a programme from the Balance of Payments Mechanism for countries not in the Euro area (Romania, Latvia and Hungary) or from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism for countries in the Euro area (Greece, Ireland and Portugal) and where the national co-financing rate for structural funds has been lowered since 2011. Excluding the co-financing rate from deficit calculations would, moreover, facilitate access to and greater co-financing for local and regional authorities, which in turn would allow EU funds to be spread to cover more projects and thus increase their leverage effect and promote quality public investment;

22.

considering that EU public investment through the cohesion policy is already determined by considerations about the differentiated quality of public investment through the principle of thematic concentration (EU 2020 earmarking/menu setting), asks the European Commission why the EU should not consider applying similar assessment criteria to the consideration of national public spending;

23.

calls on the European Commission to present a White Paper setting out an EU-level typology for quality of public investment in the accounts of public expenditure according to its long-term effects. Eventually, such a typology could lead to a weighted consideration of the quality of public investment in the calculation of budget deficits and/or to a better consideration of the actual macroeconomic cycle/context with the ultimate objective of introducing a ‘golden rule’ allowing for a separation in public accountancy between current spending and investment so as to avoid public investments with long-term net benefits being accounted for their short-term negative ‘costs’ only;

24.

also confirms its support for the recommendations made in November 2012 by the European Parliament in its report on a ‘Social Investment Pact — as a response to the crisis’ (13). Recognising the long-lasting effects of the current economic and financial crisis i.e. on the quantity and quality of social investments in Europe, the report called for a renewed approach to Social Investments in Europe. Indeed, the European Parliament suggested that, based on the model of the ‘Euro Plus Pact’, Member States should consider signing a ‘Social Investment Pact’, setting investment targets to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy related to employment, social policy and education. The Committee therefore calls in addition for the public investment strategy to be oriented towards environmental and social objectives;

25.

calls for a review of the methodology for calculating the ‘structural deficit’ in order to take account of the intrinsic characteristics of national economies and of the structural differences of public expenditure (14);

26.

requests the European Commission to include a chapter on the quality of public investment, including at subnational level, in every annual report on Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) public finances;

27.

draws attention to the fact that the quality of spending is determined to a large extent by good governance. In this regard, shares the view that ‘spending reviews appear as an adequate instrument of expenditure performance. They consist in seeking a “smarter” expenditure allocation across national policy priorities based on a selective and sustainable expenditure-based consolidation; i.e., an in-depth and coordinated examination of baseline expenditure in light of the policy outcomes pursued. They offer in principle a more sustainable approach compared to linear across-the-board expenditure cuts which may generate some negative economic and social impact in the medium and long term’ (15);

28.

suggests that the European Commission officially endorses the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommendation establishing a set of principles for public investment (16) (March 2014). Welcomes the fact that throughout the areas of policy action (coordination of public investment, capacity-building, setting of framework conditions), the recommendation recognises the important and growing role of regional and local authorities in planning and implementing public investment;

29.

welcomes the announcement of the ‘Juncker package’, which should mobilise up to EUR 300 billion in total for investment in sectors such as broadband, energy and infrastructure in industrial areas and in the field of communications; and asks in this connection for more information on the origin of resources, their true additionality and the amount of private resources intended to be activated, calling for local and regional authorities to be properly involved in the process of planning and implementing the support measures;

30.

proposes in the framework of the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy that an indicator relating to the investment rate be included in the macroeconomic scoreboard;

31.

insists that a European Strategy to step up the fight against tax evasion and curb tax avoidance would at the same time free revenues to relaunch quality public investments and guarantee a better and fairer level playing field in terms of corporate competition;

32.

suggests that the establishment of a European savings account could contribute to the financing of the EUR 300 billion investment package.

33.

expects that the revenues of the Financial Transaction Tax which 11 Member States intend to establish on the basis of a reinforced cooperation would be coordinated with the EUR 300 billion investment package;

34.

pleads for a stronger coordination between the EIB and the national investment banks with a possible pooling of financial capacity around shared projects in order to create cross-border spill over effects;

35.

welcomes the first European project bond for superfast broadband launched by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) on 23 July 2014 and calls for the launching of further cross-border/European project bonds to support infrastructure development;

36.

supports a further increase in the paid-in capital of the EIB by EUR 10 billion, on the model of the successful increase of mid-2012 which allowed the lending to SMEs to almost double. A further increase of another EUR 10 billion would allow another increase of up to EUR 80 billion in EIB lending, insofar as it falls within the EIB’s mandate in the individual Member States.

37.

In this context, asks the European Commission to examine the possibility that a small part of the EU budget, possibly around EUR 5 billion annually, be used as a risk buffer to allow the EIB to lend additional resources for financing infrastructure projects (project bonds) and to promote innovation, which could generate up to EUR 40 billion of investment;

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/9

1.

considers cohesion policy to be one of the hallmarks of the European model and the policy most suited — given its potential to reform economies and administrations and its far-reaching and multilevel influence — to contributing to a system that can enable the EU and its regions to address the major challenges of our time, from globalisation to climate change, energy supply and sustainable development.

2.

highlights how, during the economic crisis, cohesion policy has demonstrated its contribution to maintaining public investment levels in various Member States, in terms of both quantity and quality, on account of selection mechanisms that ensure consistency with EU strategies.

3.

believes that local and regional authorities often have primary administrative responsibility for public spending on investment, and that cohesion policy, which is a vital tool enabling those authorities to play a key role in the EU, ought to increase their ability to offer quality services to the public.

4.

considers that the impact of the financial and economic crisis on public finances across Europe has increased the need to relaunch sustainable public and private investment and to pay more attention to the spending processes involved so as to ensure their efficiency, regularity and promptness;

5.

stresses the need to improve the coordination between cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 strategy, for which the mid-term review will take place in 2015. In practice, this could involve including a chapter on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Annual Growth Survey presented every September at the beginning of the European Semester, to replace the progress reports on cohesion published in the past between cohesion reports;

6.

believes that cohesion policy has a central role to play at a time when the balance between austerity and growth measures and the framing of a new development model that responds to the pressures of globalisation are crucial issues on the EU’s agenda. It is against this backdrop — and in the context of pressure on public finances — that EU intervention here must continue to support growth, direct action towards strategic goals for the individual regions and the European economy and build an effective European administrative system for tackling the challenges of globalisation. To this end — and specifically to coincide with the launch of the 2014-2020 programming period — feels that it would be useful to reflect on how to maximise the role of cohesion policy, tap into its synergies with other instruments and increase awareness of it among the public;

7.

welcomes the Sixth report, considering it to be an important source of information on the state of cohesion policy, its results and operational difficulties, the problems it is required to tackle in the coming years and the possibilities opened up by its effective use.

8.

underlines that properly functioning multilevel governance, combined with an effective set-up for responding to the requests of the public and business, and transparent and innovative public procurement, is crucial to enhancing the impact of cohesion policy. To that end, and in line with the Sixth report, the Committee recommends that the resources and knowledge made available by cohesion policy be used to significantly bolster administrative capacity, including through greater use of new technologies and a drive for more streamlined procedures;

9.

thinks that, in order to enhance the quality of public spending, beyond focusing on effectiveness in resource allocation, consideration should be given to regional differences and specific features that could impede growth, the effects of these on spending should be analysed and that spending adapted so as to increase the impact of cohesion policy (1);

10.

stresses that, given the specific vulnerabilities of many economies in the current crisis, public policies should concentrate on the ability to rapidly and effectively respond to economic shocks. The Committee believes that the Structural Funds, which were designed for long-term structural and economic adjustment, should be accompanied by short-term stimulus measures;

11.

underscores, as pointed out in the Sixth report, that the development of new entrepreneurship depends partly on the ease of doing business and that this varies considerably within the Member States. On this point, the Committee feels that further action is needed on simplifying rules and instruments, cutting red tape and enhancing the framework conditions for investment and encouraging entrepreneurial skills in the spheres of education and training.

12.

agrees on the importance of smart growth as an opportunity to promote more competitive regional economies that are less vulnerable to external shocks. The Committee thus encourages regions and cities to develop consistent, ongoing initiatives for stimulating enterprise in innovative sectors and to focus their investment on sectors ‘of the future’, such as the agri-food sector (agricultural, veterinary and food technologies), the green economy, the creative industries, e-Health initiatives, tourism, the social services, and the so-called silver economy. To that end, the Committee calls on the Commission to support regional authorities so as to ensure that the ‘smart specialisation strategies’ that they devise in accordance with the EU framework are implemented effectively at regional level;

13.

believes that changes linked to the globalised economy are having a massive impact on the world of work, and that this should focus attention on modernising the labour market to help Europeans find employment and on gearing training to creating the skills required by the new challenges facing the economy. The Committee would highlight here the central role of the European Social Fund (hereinafter referred to as the ESF) in supporting active policies and, in particular, policies aimed at enhancing workers’ knowledge and helping them adapt to social, technological and cultural changes;

14.

notes that cohesion policy allocates a share of its funding to initiatives in the field of education and training, and points out that one of the effects of the crisis has been the sharp increase in youth unemployment. The Committee would highlight the key role played by local and regional authorities in this field, and considers it necessary to strengthen the links between the Youth Employment Initiative (2) and the activities funded by the ESF, with specific regard to the Youth Guarantee and facilities for gaining access to employment;

15.

considers that, in the light of the growing poverty and social exclusion across Europe, public policies should bolster the tools available to support the most deprived people in society, including through the use of EU-level initiatives and cohesion resources;

16.

endorses the fact that urban issues are high on the Sixth report’s agenda, given the importance of cities in the globalised economy and the potential impact in terms of sustainability, but is disappointed that the major gaps in development between rural and urban areas are not given greater attention, and therefore maintains the need to promote growth that is polycentric and geographically balanced between the various regions, inter alia, through action to decisively tackle the digital divide and a sustainable transport policy underpinned by a strategy that is differentiated to take account of specific regional features;

17.

points out the importance of growth that creates new economic opportunities through the development of clean and efficient energy. The Committee welcomes the fact that local and regional and local authorities have increased public investment in the environmental sector in recent years, and notes the commitment of European regions and cities to making the transition to greener growth. In this regard, the Committee calls for the Covenant of Mayors to be strengthened in order to increase and enhance the commitment of local and regional authorities to combating climate change.

18.

recommends that EU cohesion policy, with its objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, should continue to make a significant contribution to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy’s goals in future. By strengthening the links between targets for growth and convergence, cohesion policy can help to reduce disparities within the European Union with a view to achieving the strategy’s headline targets, and thus to achieve long-term gains in prosperity throughout Europe. This potential needs to be exploited systematically, by using the partnership-based approach to cohesion policy to ensure that strategies established at regional level specifically address local circumstances and potential;

19.

reiterates its request that public spending by Member States and local and regional authorities as part of Structural and Investment Fund co-financing not be included among national or equivalent structural expenditure as defined within the Stability and Growth Pact. Such a shift would free up resources for investment — selected on the basis of European interest — and speed up expenditure procedures;

20.

underlines, as pointed out in the Sixth Report, that the guidelines for developing the Trans-European Transport Network set the goal of having a genuine multimodal network at EU level — which must include the railways — by creating a new infrastructure, but also by upgrading the existing infrastructure. On this point, the Committee considers it necessary to have sustainable, competitive, energy-efficient and more environment-friendly means of transport, to encourage intermodality, the complementary use of different modes of transport and to carry out infrastructure projects in the least developed regions (such as the outermost and mountain regions) which are up against physical barriers to the Internal Market and are experiencing territorial cohesion problems;

21.

in order to increase and enhance the volume of investment directed at growth, would like to see better synergies between the budgetary instruments of the various tiers of government in the Member States and the EU’s financial instruments. Here, the Committee would consider it a priority to look in more depth at the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund with a view to broadening their remit and bolstering their capital. The Committee points out that the launch of the programming period might be an appropriate time to establish EIB funding specifically for regional development, with durations and conditions designed to meet the needs of spending administrations. In addition, the possibility should be explored of giving the EIB an oversight role over certain investments initiated by local and regional authorities. In particular, the EU’s financial institution could assess the quality of those investments and whether they are in keeping with Europe’s major strategic choices, partly in order to obtain preferential treatment for the loans needed to implement them under the Stability Pact.

22.

reiterates its concern that macroeconomic conditionality might cause the effectiveness and usefulness of the Structural and Investment Funds to be compromised by Member States’ macroeconomic policies;

23.

calls on the Commission to evaluate the extent to which requirements in the area of ex ante conditionality contributed to the considerable delays in concluding the partnership agreements and operational programmes;

24.

points out that the indicators used under the macroeconomic imbalance procedure introduced in the ‘six-pack’ legislative package are exclusively economic. The Committee recommends that social, environmental and territorial indicators in line with the Europe 2020 strategy’s headline targets should also be taken into account in the scoreboard used by the Commission to decide whether to issue a preventive recommendation to a Member State or, in more severe cases, to launch the macroeconomic imbalance procedure. The Committee believes that the close link between financial and fiscal objectives and cohesion policy could weaken the implementation of territorial cohesion measures;

25.

calls for better respect to be given to Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on territorial cohesion, in particular in rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions with low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions. Consideration should also be given to other demographic challenges that have a major impact on regions, such as depopulation, an ageing population and highly dispersed populations. The Committee of the Regions asks the Commission to pay particular attention to the most geographically and demographically disadvantaged areas when implementing cohesion policy;

26.

underscores the essential support that cohesion policy provides as a vector for growth and change to the least developed regions that require sustained long-term efforts;

27.

also calls for greater attention to be focused on the specific features and constraints of the outermost regions, as identified in Article 349 TFEU, when framing and applying cohesion policy.

28.

considers that, given the discrepancies that have emerged with regard to levels of innovation, the territorial dimension should be given full consideration in the framing and implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. To this end, believes that bestowing a greater role on local and regional authorities would increase their level of accountability, fostering more effective decision-making as regards priority investments, and would suggest that regional indicators be introduced to monitor progress made;

29.

regrets that the Sixth cohesion report does not include an explicit assessment of the regional impact of EU sectoral policies on cohesion policy. In view of the links between cohesion policy and the other sectoral policies, the Committee suggests that the Commission include a specific chapter on this aspect in the report, as used to be the case in the past and in line with the provisions of the TFEU, which require EU policies to promote cohesion in Europe;

30.

points to the importance of adopting instruments for assessing the territorial impact of policies, the main objective of which being to consider the territorial impact of EU policies on local and regional authorities and to draw greater attention to that impact in the legislative process;

31.

calls, therefore, for a priority territorial dimension within operational programmes, incorporating the issues linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, so that territorial cohesion can secure a balanced territorial structure able to ensure regional interdependence;

32.

reminds the European Commission of its previous work on beyond GDP and on the need to look at regional challenges in a more acute way (such as how ICT and high speed broadband projects could be supported using the ERDF); considers that reliance on a region’s GDP has a number of weaknesses which undermine the credibility of Cohesion Policy, particularly in terms of classifying regions and allocating ESIF resources.

33.

in order to ensure rapid implementation of the programmes, encourages the adoption of measures to simplify and streamline the procedures for accessing EU funding, project management and the oversight arrangements, to achieve greater efficiency;

34.

urges the relevant authorities to make a special effort to harmonise and properly transpose the basic cross-cutting rules which form the basis for managing cohesion policy resources, and particularly the rules governing procurement (3);

35.

considers that the Commission should ensure that unnecessary red tape does not hinder the effectiveness of measures; urges the Commission to review the practice whereby more efficient operational programmes are subject to the same administrative burdens as programmes characterised by a high incidence of errors or fraud. Moreover, the Committee of the Regions calls on the Commission to adopt the measures required to expedite the approval of operational programmes so that the new programming period can be launched as soon as possible;

36.

agrees with the report on the need to concentrate the Structural and Investment Funds on a limited number of objectives so as to maximise their impact on the ground. However, the Committee expresses its concern regarding the lack of flexibility as to the choice of thematic objectives, which should instead be established on the basis of the specific nature and needs of the various regions;

37.

is concerned about the weakening of the principle of additionality for the 2014-2020 period, where verification is required in only 14 Member States, and would ask the Commission to assess the application of this principle across the EU, in order to avoid the ESIFs being used to substitute Member State investments;

38.

does not endorse the creation of an EU performance reserve at national level, as it feels that such an arrangement might lead to the setting of easily achievable objectives with modest results. The Committee considers that one of the biggest challenges regarding the performance framework is that of setting targets and indicators that are ambitious but at the same time achievable;

39.

points out that there has been a decline in public and private investment in recent years, reaching negative spikes in some Member States. Tight budgets and spending cuts have seriously compromised investment in sectors capable of stimulating economic growth. In this respect, the Committee would call on the Commission to carefully assess — taking into account possible repercussions on growth and jobs — the cases involving financial corrections or suspension of payments;

40.

urges the Commission and Member States to speed up negotiations and adoption procedures for the partnership agreements and operational programmes, highlights how important the European Structural and Investment Funds are to investment activities in local and regional authorities, and therefore calls on the Commission and Member States to work in close cooperation to guarantee the quality of these procedures and to minimise the negative impact of further delays in the run-up to the new funding period;

41.

calls on the Commission to define forms of administrative assistance on key issues such as setting targets for initiatives, assessing their results through appropriate indicators and determining the next steps to be taken. The aim is to ensure that this is done in a uniform manner by the various authorities involved and to help to establish an administrative culture based on monitoring and evaluation across the EU. On a similar note, the Committee considers it important to ensure assistance to local and regional authorities on ‘financial engineering’ initiatives, which are crucial to increasing resources and investments, and on public procurement, which should increasingly feature as a public administration tool for spurring innovation and creativity.

42.

is convinced that the Code of code of conduct on partnership will strengthen participation in programming in the regions, in form and substance, and has a fundamental role to play in boosting the effects of cohesion policy and consolidating its impact. The Committee calls on the Commission to monitor how the Code is implemented in the individual legal systems so as to ensure broad and transparent participation of local stakeholders, given that, unless they are fully involved in drafting the programming documents, their participation will be less effective at the implementation stage, particularly when it comes to the instruments that require participatory programming by the various tiers of government;

43.

at a time when, with a view to fully justifying the policy and deepening EU integration, public awareness ought to be raised and the people informed about the results of projects funded by the Structural Funds and the effects of EU policies in their area, the Committee would point out that there is no specific focus in the Sixth report on communication and information. On this point, and in order to maximise efforts to raise public awareness of cohesion policy, the Committee calls on the Commission and the Member States to give local and regional authorities greater involvement in communication campaigns. At the same time, the Committee sees a need to give full effect to provisions that require transparency regarding the allocations made and the outcomes expected from the measures, inter alia, by making full use of IT tools, and to enhance the use of the data collected (Open Data) for the purposes deemed most useful and efficient for the public.

44.

thinks that the cohesion report pays insufficient attention to European territorial cooperation, given that this has been a fully-fledged cohesion policy objective since the 2007-2013 programming period. Its cross-border cooperation component, in particular, influences the cohesion of cross-border regions. The Committee therefore proposes that the report should in future include an assessment of the cohesion of Europe’s cross-border regions, including an analysis of their key problems, as well as an assessment of the impact of cross-border cooperation operational programmes. This instrument should be given greater attention not least because it promotes cooperation and pools experience between authorities across the Member States and moves towards an administrative system that is increasingly based on shared values and operating methods;

45.

regrets that the essential role of cohesion policy in supporting macro-regional strategies has not been further developed in the Sixth report on cohesion;

46.

calls for closer coordination between cohesion policy and EU neighbourhood policy and for better assessment and dissemination of the results of projects.

47.

recommends the creation of a ‘Cohesion Policy Council’ comprising the ministers responsible for cohesion policy at the relevant level of government in the Member States. The Committee feels that this could raise the profile of cohesion and ensure ongoing political debate on the issue. The Committee would be willing to play an active role in the political discussions on the creation of such a structure with a view to ensuring that the point of view of local and regional authorities is fully taken on board (4).

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/15

1.

Since 2010, the CoR has addressed industrial policy primarily from the standpoint of the related flagship initiatives in the Europe 2020 strategy, which it has assessed in a series of surveys and conferences (1). This work culminated in the CoR’s comprehensive overall assessment of the Europe 2020 Strategy, presented on 7 March 2014 in the Athens Declaration (2) on a territorial vision for growth and jobs, accompanied by a Mid-term Assessment Report (3). In brief, the CoR advocates:

2.

notes that by involving cities more closely in all stages of the policy-making cycle, the EU will be better able to manage the changes that citizens are facing all across Europe. This requires a multilevel governance approach, working together with all tiers of governments (vertical partnership) and in cooperation on different scales with all stakeholders (horizontal partnership);

3.

proposes that the Commission increase its activities in regional and local benchmarking, exchange of experiences and peer learning — all of which are crucial to building industrial innovation capacity and are therefore of great relevance to Europe 2020. To take on a coordinating role and offer partners a platform for finding solutions, LRAs’ administrative capacity in these areas needs to be strengthened;

4.

The CoR has analysed the territorial dimension of the Industrial Policy Package and identified the main issues and needs of LRAs when implementing industrial policy: (1) the role of local and regional areas in the global value chain; (2) the uneven and persistent impact of the crisis on territorial, economic and social cohesion; (3) multi-level governance and policy coordination; (4) the institutional capacity and strategic governance of industrial policies; (5) the capacity to promote entrepreneurial discovery and to regulate the market fairly and efficiently;

5.

notes that the analysis also included evaluation of links between these problems and needs and the Industrial Package communications, and benchmarking of some best practice cases. The outcomes include proposals for LRAs to support and promote industrial activity;

6.

Based on this analysis, the CoR recommends that LRAs pay special attention, in their research and innovation strategies based on RIS3 smart specialisation, to the following, where in many cases implementation will require Commission measures:

7.

agrees with the Commission that a strong industrial base is of prime importance to Europe’s competitiveness and steady growth. Stressing that industry means much more than the traditional manufacturing sector which it is typically used to refer to, and stressing that industrial processes and ecosystems have an enormous impact throughout society, the CoR urges rapid implementation of the measures proposed in this statement;

8.

points out that Europe’s competitive advantage in the global economy derives mainly from its sustainable, high-added-value products and services, and therefore that reducing during a period of economic crisis the innovation investment that is essential to industrial renewal has come to pose a serious threat to Europe’s future;

9.

urges Europe to recognise its need to pursue global leadership in strategic sectors with high-value jobs. For this, existing industry needs to be stimulated by investing in new technologies, by improving the business environments, by easing access to markets and to finance, as well as by ensuring that workers have the relevant industrial skills;

10.

stresses that the longest crisis ever experienced by the EU has underlined the importance of strong, competitive and sustainable industry as a cornerstone of citizens’ well-being. Industry accounts for more than 80 % of Europe’s exports and 80 % of private research and innovation. Nearly one in four private sector jobs is in industry, often requiring a high level of professional skills. Every new job in manufacturing results in 0,5-2 jobs in other sectors;

11.

underlines that, in addition to measures taken by society, the responsiveness of, and measures taken by, each industrial business itself are crucial to enabling industry — as the backbone of the real economy and prosperity — to develop in a competitive way;

12.

draws attention to change management skills at the local level across Europe. Industrial and also political competencies more than ever include an understanding of business processes, knowledge and technology management, as well as personal interaction skills. Industrial activities within value chains and networks are becoming ever wider and ever more complex, as large companies and SMEs operating in different sectors and countries interconnect with each other. The policies of large businesses and SMEs in the industrial sector must be effectively linked to the particular industrial policies of the states and regions in which they are located;

13.

points out that the traditional product chain concept with its fixed phases and production factors is becoming blurred, because the reality is based on complex interactions in globally networked ecosystems. Technologies play a key role as enablers for new, sustainable approaches;

14.

highlights the importance of emphasising the modernisation of traditional EU industries, above all those whose competitiveness was predominantly a factor of labour costs and in which there is a high level of know-how which can be capitalised on;

15.

acknowledges the recent industrial development in which industrial products and services complement each other. Services represent about 40 % of the value added in European manufacturing exports. About a third of the jobs generated by these exports are located in companies that supply the exporters of goods with auxiliary services. Services such as maintenance and training are crucial elements in the delivery of complex manufactured products. Expert services — such as financing, communications, insurance and Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) — are playing an increasing role in the production of manufactured goods. This is one of several explanations for the increasing contribution of services to the overall output of an economy;

16.

wishes to highlight the consequences of the ICT paradigm shift. Today, mobile networks are more prevalent in cars, consumer electronics, industrial production and healthcare than in people’s everyday activities. A modern machine tool company often has more than ten times as many computers and network devices as an office environment. Networked activities require effective knowledge management: information modelling for systems, as well as open innovation and cooperative activity, with benefits for all concerned. There is an urgent need for regional information modelling in urban planning, and process management at municipal and regional level;

17.

wishes to promote the adoption of corporate social responsibility concepts in European industrial policy as a basis for a more productive, sustainable and inclusive economy;

18.

agrees with the Commission on calling on the Member States to embrace the cause of revitalising industry and find common ways to strengthen European competitiveness and sustainable growth; believes that the European Commission must better harness all the potential in the area of industrial policy in the spirit of Article 173 of the TFEU, particularly by opting to ‘take any useful initiative to promote … coordination (of Member States in the area of industrial policy), in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation’;

19.

stresses that the industrial strategy cannot be put into practice as a stand-alone policy, as it has numerous interactions with many other policy areas. Industrial strategy must be closely linked with energy, training, RDI, trade, infrastructure, social responsibility and health and safety policies; therefore asks for a more integrated and interdisciplinary approach to the industrial policy;

20.

notes that SMEs should be recognised as a strategic component of European industrial policy, ensuring the effective application of the Communication on the Small Business Act;

21.

draws attention to the important role played by heavy primary industry in developing bioindustries in Europe, and recommends that the EU introduce new cooperation and financing mechanisms for applying the latest European technology and other know-how in complex, large-scale projects for renewing primary industry, especially in areas suffering from intractable unemployment;

22.

wishes to emphasise the priorities proposed by the Commission to be pursued in support of the competitiveness of European industry. The CoR, however, stresses that those are basic requirements which need further development and concrete implementation;

23.

welcomes the important decisions with respect to increasing industrial competitiveness made by the European Council on 20—21 March 2014. The Council stated that key enabling technologies (KETs) should be consolidated by defining projects of European interest as soon as possible, and also paid special attention to the role of cleantech as a cross-cutting element for enhancing the competitiveness of industry;

24.

considers it necessary, in connection with Regulation (EC) No 1260/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, to stimulate innovation and ensure the maximum exchange of knowledge which could be a source of future technological progress. At European level, it is necessary to prevent the use of patents as a strategic weapon, for example through the abusive use of patent thickets or the fragmentation of patents, and to promote strict patenting criteria to avoid awarding patent monopoly rights to patents with a low added value;

25.

acknowledges that the Council, in addition, urged the Commission and the Member States to address shortages in the area of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM skills) as a matter of priority, with the increased involvement of industry. Measures are urgently needed to put this into effect, and the Committee recommends that these also include measures to improve language skills and thus improve the performance of the internal market;

26.

calls for the Commission to take re-industrialisation measures that focus on excellence and promoting excellence across Europe’s industrialised regions, supported by the Horizon 2020 programme. INTERREG programmes are certainly necessary instruments for strengthening networking between universities of applied sciences located in industrialised regions, however, in light of the ever greater interaction between the worlds of science and industry, the CoR sincerely regrets the absence of the ‘Knowledge Regions’ tool of the Horizon 2020 programme from the 2014-2020 programming period, a tool which had previously proven its worth in framework programmes in terms of coordinating the research agendas of regional clusters for a period of almost 10 years; underlines that the Horizon 2020 programme’s first year of operation has shown that no sufficiently effective new tool has been developed to meet this requirement. The ‘Knowledge Regions’ tool should be rapidly re-developed and implemented;

27.

encourages the Commission to stress the relationship between science, business, society, the public and policy-making, and supports the important role of regions in bringing together all relevant stakeholders on the basis of the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix models;

28.

highlights that the Council also emphasised that all available instruments, including EU structural and investment funds, should be used to achieve the objectives for Europe’s competitiveness and sustainable growth;

29.

stresses the joint responsibility of the European Commission, Member States and local and regional authorities for creating and implementing the 300-billion investment package for promoting growth and jobs, since they hold complementary legal and budgetary competences in this respect. New solutions with both short- and long-term impact can be based on the following principles:

30.

supports the research of alternative sources of finance to strengthen ecosystems; such sources include crowdfunding, venture capital, and other innovative tools to break free of the traditional dependence on bank loans;

31.

acknowledges that Europe’s competitive advantage in the world economy is based on sustainable, high value-added goods and services, the effective management of value chains and access to markets throughout the world;

32.

points out that a stable and predictable regulatory environment is a prerequisite for investment in industry to take place in the EU. This stability and predictability must be achieved both at local and regional level, and at national and EU level. Stability and predictability as a guarantee of legal certainty for businesses must be driven by EU legislation, preferably via directives;

33.

supports the Commission policy of developing the Single Market as a cornerstone of competitive and sustainable industry. In addition, the CoR points out that the internal market legislation for products and services is a key factor not just for the competitiveness of European industry but also for consumer and environmental protection;

34.

supports the Commission statement that to remain competitive, the European market for industrial products and services needs a regulatory framework that facilitates innovation and does not create unnecessary barriers to the timely take-up of new technologies and introduction onto the market of innovations. EU legislation and standards need to allow new products, services and technologies to be made available on the market rapidly so that Europe can avail itself of a first mover advantage in the global marketplace;

35.

underlines that regions must be able to define their own growth potential and drive innovation, involving in this definition local and regional authority bodies, in a mixed top-down and bottom-up approach;

36.

reiterates its proposal for territorial pacts to organise the levels of cooperation involved in regional development projects and promote cooperation between regions; proposes that this process be covered by a single programming document, ensuring that at the regional level, national and local policies reflect EU sectoral and cohesion policies;

37.

calls for investments linked to these single programming documents to be included within a set of loans issued by the European Investment Bank (EIB) working to create new territorial ecosystems for economic and social innovation. This could be an excellent way to foster innovative solutions, provide demonstrators for companies and promote consortia in areas where companies need to establish new partnerships. These ecosystems would be public/private partnerships and would have to meet the dual objective of making companies more competitive and the public sector more efficient (thus helping to rationalise public spending);

38.

is convinced that the key building block to support the EU’s industrial ambitions is represented by the regional policy of smart specialisation RIS3, founded on a systematic analysis of existing regional specificities and potential for innovation and growth;

39.

suggests that Member States adopt spatial planning policies that allow them to decide in good time on the location of entrepreneurial areas and that do not create unnecessary obstacles which make the location of firms unviable;

40.

urges regions to evaluate the need for technologies to promote the intended development in their own RIS3 smart specialisation strategies, and to take the necessary measures to promote industrial policy as a key funding priority as well as measures to increase their partnerships across the EU to achieve their targets;

41.

calls on the Commission to support interregional networks in particular, cooperation between them and mutual learning. One example is the Vanguard initiative, which has put the industrial renaissance at the core of their S3-activities with a view to promoting an exchange of experiences, creation of stairways of excellence and joint processing of project applications;

42.

calls on the EU to deliver financing for regions in helping them to create efficient innovation ecosystems and take joint European initiatives. The CoR stresses that decentralised EU supported innovation activities are the only way to achieve the RIS3 targets across Europe;

43.

stresses that compared to the previous programme period 2007-2013, the rules and practices defined by the Member States and regional authorities should be renewed to emphasise and measure the outcomes and the impact. This essentially requires increased participation of all key RDI players in the region in implementing the region’s RIS3, as well as effective networking at the EU level;

44.

agrees with the concerns voiced by many players across Europe that the Member States and regional authorities have not followed the Commission guidelines in cutting red tape, renewing the financing to be based on RIS3, and in building the flexible user-driven ESIF funding system;

45.

urges the Member States to assess local business conditions with a view to making administrative procedures more efficient and cutting red tape for companies. This will make it possible to compare how different procedures and ways of applying rules affect the local business environment;

46.

urges the regions jointly with the Commission to review their RIS3 and European Partnership plans with respect to KETs. According to the S3 Platform report, regional policy-makers have a lot of questions related to state aid and financing of KETs, including rules of financing demonstration projects and infrastructure;

47.

points out that national instruments must also be deployed, notably market-based and other innovative funding instruments. The new funding priorities agreed on by the Commission and the EIB provide a significant opportunity for cutting-edge companies to invest in KET technologies;

48.

emphasises the importance of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and the Horizon 2020 programme for strengthening the industrial competitiveness of the EU. It is particularly important to enhance multidisciplinary top-level research and the practical application of its findings at regional level. Multifund packages of measures are needed through which in particular the latest ICT and KET research knowledge is used to modernise the various industrial sectors and to create the new practices needed to achieve lasting social outcomes;

49.

in addition, support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) continues to be an important practical tool that helps people and regions to recover from the consequences of the economic crisis and the impact of globalisation by helping people who have been made redundant to find new jobs;

50.

draws attention to the crucial role of human capital, first-rate know how and skills in tackling industrial challenges. Skills mismatches and training issues will be a key challenge for EU industry in the coming years, especially as progress in manufacturing technologies increases demand for specific skill and training sets; believes that public awareness needs to be raised and multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral training and educational programmes need to be established so that the findings of research and innovation can be further developed, made permanent and implemented;

51.

challenges the young digital generation and their start-ups to contribute to the design and implementation of regional smart specialisation strategies by helping to identify gaps and to fix the processes in the necessary value chains in the regions. The new innovative solutions should focus on both public and private industrial processes and behaviour of citizens as customers;

52.

urges the EU, Member States and regions to direct cohesion funds and Horizon 2020 into competitiveness enhancing investments in industrial cross-regions, cross-border and cross-sector opportunities. Particular attention needs to be paid to energy, transport and digital infrastructure, enabling cooperation between countries, supply chain integration, and enhanced internal EU trade;

53.

has pressed in its opinions for structural reform of industry and emphasised the importance of society’s and companies’ responsiveness in the competitive environment created by globalisation and digitalisation. These recommendations are also tied to measures raising the level of skills required, and to lifecycle thinking that emphasises overall impact and climate change targets. These statements include:

54.

has already identified the key changes needed to industrial policy and the necessary investment for modernising business activity as well as the means for implementing these. The following quotations from the CoR opinion adopted three years ago show that these same guidelines are still in preparation and that EU measures are too slow to respond swiftly to changing economic and business needs. The CoR (6):

55.

emphasises that the pace of change can be enhanced by allocating more resources to the local and regional levels. We need innovative and high-quality pioneering activities and replication of results across Europe. The regions are ready to start experimenting and rapid prototyping, which is a key for success;

56.

has indicated in a number of its opinions what should be stressed in implementation. The following examples taken from the opinion on Horizon 2020 (7), which the CoR adopted two years ago, are relevant, among others, when it comes to implementing the Industrial Policy Package. The CoR:

57.

acknowledges that the global competitive environment has changed fundamentally and it is necessary not just to adapt to the situation but also to become a motor of change in many respects. The long-term global competitiveness of EU business needs to be given greater weight when evaluating existing EU regulation and deciding how to target RDI funding;

58.

underlines that the EU legislation on industrial products lays down the main requirements for companies in respect of safety, health and other matters of public interest. It is particularly important that industry should not be excessively burdened with pointlessly frequent regulatory changes, but, on the contrary, have concrete mechanisms available aimed at facilitating and supporting business investment. Controlled dismantling of regulatory barriers is important as technology develops ever more rapidly and global supply chains become even more interconnected;

59.

encourages European regions and cities to create and implement a regulatory framework that stimulates innovation and ICT investment throughout the economy in their territories. The EU’s re-established role as a global innovator will trigger a virtuous circle of productivity gains, growth and job creation;

60.

points out that the Commission has promised to ensure that regulation is stable over the long term and that rules are substantially simplified. This objective is an immediate priority. Thorough impact assessments should be carried out of new rules. EU standards serve in practice as a model throughout the world, and the Commission will continue to promote a system of international standards;

61.

once again, calls on the Commission to enhance its powers of analysis and its support measures for businesses, by looking into the possibility of creating, as it has agreed for the agri-food industry, a new category of mid-sized enterprise somewhere between SMEs and large enterprises, employing between 250 and 750 workers and with a turnover of under EUR 200 million. This category could receive appropriate rates of aid, higher than those for large enterprises and lower than those for SMEs (8);

62.

points out that new state aid rules for General Block Exemption Regulation GBER and Research, Development and Innovation RDI came into effect in July 2014 (9). The new rules enable increased R&I investment, especially in large-scale, complex project clusters, with one aim being to significantly influence industrial renewal;

63.

notes that facilitating the implementation of EU structural and investment funds by extending the scope of application of the GBER represents a significant improvement;

64.

notes that the GBER sets out the conditions under which state aid is exempted from the obligation of prior notification to the Commission, and that the GBER sets out increased notification thresholds and aid intensities, and introduces additional new categories of exempted aid such as aid to innovation clusters and investment aid to research infrastructure;

65.

notes that the framework for state aid for RDI includes aid for experimental development and industrial research and that higher maximum aid intensities for applied research are now possible;

66.

emphasises that the Important Projects of Common European Interest IPCEI instrument has an extended scope beyond R & D which includes first deployment, and the deployment of IPCEIs often requires a significant participation from public authorities since the market would not otherwise finance such projects;

67.

reiterates that IPCEIs may represent an important contribution to economic growth, jobs and competitiveness for the EU economy and industry in view of their positive spill over effects on the internal market and EU society;

68.

underlines that Member States and industry should make full use of the possibilities offered by new state aid rules when promoting business activity, industrial renewal and job creation in Europe;

69.

highlights that even though unfair conditions are imposed on European companies operating in key emerging markets, European companies should improve their innovation capacity and become key players within dynamically expanding networked value chains.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/24

1.

believes that using the potential of blue growth represents an opportunity to boost the local economy and creates quality jobs in knowledge- and investment-intensive economic sectors;

2.

points out that protecting the environment should continue to be one of the primary objectives of the European blue growth strategy;

3.

believes that the assessment of scientific data can significantly contribute to a successful reform of the common fisheries policy and is a major condition for the implementation of the regionalisation component of the policy;

4.

reaffirms its belief that developing and supporting European aquaculture represents a key element for the creation of jobs in structurally weak areas and ensures the supply of high-quality seafood for European consumers;

5.

endorses the initiatives taken by the European Commission aimed at stimulating the growth of the blue economy;

6.

stresses the need to use a cross-policy integrated approach in the coordination of research policy, economic policy, the common fisheries policy and transport policy. To make the EU's action for the blue economy more effective, the above policies should not be treated exclusively as separate areas. Ensuring synergies between them will make the initiatives adopted more effective and provide greater added value;

7.

draws attention to the need to use scientific research for implementing the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, protecting marine ecosystems and managing risks in crisis situations; stresses, however, that the use of scientific research and the implementation of innovation should primarily focus on blue growth understood not only in terms of economic growth in the marine economy but also as growth that has a positive impact on other parts of the economy;

8.

notes that while the process of unlocking the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and economic growth is both necessary and desirable, it must not lead to the deterioration of the natural environment or the destruction of marine ecosystems;

9.

calls for a broader focus on the aquaculture sector and marine, coastal and cruise transport when introducing innovation in order to ensure more economic growth and create new jobs;

10.

calls for broader and more effective coordination between the blue growth strategy and other EU strategies and programmes, in particular the Europe 2020 strategy;

11.

emphasises that the process of conducting scientific research and introducing innovation — while aimed at fostering blue growth — should not only have an impact on the marine economy but also on other areas of the economy;

12.

calls for the creation of a specific Knowledge and Innovation Community for the Blue Economy as a further measure for the development of skills and the transfer of ideas from marine research to the private sector;

13.

agrees that gaps in knowledge and data about the state of our seas and oceans, seabed resources, marine life and risks to habitats and ecosystems represent one of the key problems hampering the development of the blue economy. Increased knowledge of our seas will promote growth in the blue economy, through both a better knowledge of the resources it contains and a better understanding of how these can be used, in tandem with achieving our environmental objectives;

14.

stresses the importance of the availability of data about the state of our seas and oceans for the development of the blue economy. Improving the supply of data and making them more accessible will drive forward innovation and competition, making it possible to manage crisis situations effectively and to reduce uncertainties connected with marine areas;

15.

notes that the availability of data about the state of our seas and oceans should not be limited to general information that is relevant only at EU or individual Member State level. It is vital to take account of the needs of individual regions and to make more information available to them in the above area which they can use effectively both in the public and private sectors;

16.

notes that while it is important to make available data about the state of our seas and oceans at local, regional and national level, the whole process must be coordinated at EU level. This will increase the effectiveness of the data used and allow for an appropriate exchange of information among the interested parties;

17.

calls on the European Commission to further extend the use of scientific research in its efforts to achieve regionalisation in the common fisheries policy. The wider use of scientific research will both reflect the principle of a cross-cutting approach towards the blue economy and improve the rational management of fisheries resources;

18.

emphasises that the European Union should continue to support aquaculture as one of the fastest growing areas in the food production sector. Appropriate scientific research which gives businesses access to new, wider information about the state of our seas and oceans can make businesses more competitive and, accordingly, trigger growth in employment, particularly in structurally weak areas;

19.

highlights that collecting and sharing marine information should not create any disadvantages or additional administrative burden for local and regional authorities and economic operators;

20.

notes that adequate access to information about the state of our seas and oceans is not only important for implementing innovative solutions, protecting our environment and managing fisheries resources and aquaculture but can also be a key enabling factor for risk management and the adoption of appropriate supporting action in crisis situations. Accordingly, the Committee of the Regions calls for steps to be taken towards the elaboration of a mechanism for the use of satellite imaging data delivered by the Copernicus satellite service to assist LRAs in their initial response to natural disasters;

21.

emphasises the need to monitor the implementation of innovation and growth in the blue economy on an ongoing basis to ensure that the action taken is as effective as possible. The Committee of the Regions therefore recommends the development of clearly defined performance indicators for growth and innovation in the blue economy. Indicators that are defined in this manner will not only be useful for the Commission but will also help identify appropriate objectives for Member States and regions;

22.

notes that the key issue for the blue economy is not just about using marine information to boost economic growth but mainly about using it to preserve marine ecosystems and maintain the quality of the marine environment. Protection and conservation of marine ecosystems must be a key element in European maritime policy;

23.

stresses that a marine environment should be clean and healthy. Accordingly, the idea of drawing up plans for the removal of military material leftovers and chemical waste dumped at sea, as set out in a previous opinion of the Committee of the Regions (1), should be officially taken into consideration, while information about our seas and oceans should also be used to help cleanse and replenish our marine environment, which will help ensure its biological diversity and fertility;

24.

highlights that a clean and healthy marine environment based on Marine Protected Areas is also important for the development of tourism, e.g. sustainable diving, which represents a strategic tool for acquiring knowledge about the marine environment and for raising public awareness about it;

25.

notes that increased competitiveness and employment in the aquaculture sector will help make the development of this sector more dynamic. This must not, however, lead to any deterioration in the quality of marine products in favour of their quantity. Accordingly, all necessary action should be taken to ensure that European consumers are supplied with high-quality products. In particular, this means a lack of authorisation to supply genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to consumers;

26.

appreciates the importance of the European Commission's initiatives aimed at extending the use of scientific research and innovation in the blue growth strategy. It is important, however, to remember that the main and most desirable outcome of the blue growth strategy should be to develop entrepreneurship based on the untapped potential of our seas and oceans;

27.

notes that the communication does not take account of some areas with the biggest share in the blue economy such as shipbuilding, maritime transportation and blue energy. It is clear that the communication is paving the way for future innovation and scientific initiatives; however, the above economic sectors continue to be the drivers of the blue economy;

28.

considers that, when assessing the possibilities of introducing innovation into the blue economy, particular consideration should be given to the development of marine transport and tourism, which harbour huge potential in terms of increasing employment;

29.

emphasises that businesses from the private sector can play a key role in terms of innovation and using it to boost economic growth and create new and better jobs. Businesses from the SME sector in particular can play an important role in this area;

30.

notes that the Commission's plans to increase SME participation in the blue economy should be backed by adequate financial assistance under both existing and future programmes. The need for funding is particularly visible in the aquaculture sector; micro-businesses represent 90 % of this sector and are capable of generating the desired level of innovation;

31.

an enhanced policy framework for the inclusion of private business in the blue economy is necessary. To ensure optimal synergy between the public sector and the needs of the private sector, businesses should have an important voice in identifying research needs as well as in formulating norms, standards and business-friendly solutions;

32.

notes that the wider inclusion of private businesses in the blue economy should take place without any unnecessary burdens on the private sector;

33.

calls upon the Commission and the Member States to work towards improving the competitiveness of European maritime economic operators. If we understand private sector needs in relation to participation in the blue economy, it should be easier to adapt measures and policies at EU, national and regional level in line with them;

34.

stresses that entrepreneurship in the blue economy extends beyond operations in our seas and oceans. It is important to plan appropriate support for onshore businesses related to the blue economy such as local fish processing plants to create a sustainable business environment for local fishermen;

35.

notes that the introduction of innovations in the blue economy for economic growth and new jobs also requires selecting appropriately skilled people. Close coordination between policy making, education and business is needed in order to make offshore jobs more popular and desirable among young people;

36.

emphasises that the benefits arising from the blue economy will be felt in both the public and the private sectors. All public funding has its limitations, however. It is therefore important to also raise private capital to finance operations in this area. In view of this, broad cooperation should be encouraged between the public and the private sectors, not least through public-private partnerships, in which the public sector can benefit from the financial capacity of the private sector as well as its expertise, business experience, management skills and intellectual potential in order to develop and implement innovative solutions for the blue economy;

37.

emphasises that, owing to the differences that exist between EU Member States in terms of legal arrangements for public-private partnerships, the European Commission has a crucial role to play in promoting best practices and solutions for the use of PPPs in the blue economy. Particular consideration should be given to the possibility of implementing institutionalised public-private partnerships in view of the potential creation of new jobs;

38.

notes that it will not be possible to engage private sector representatives — including those of small and medium-sized enterprises — in cooperation with the public sector, unless such cooperation is promoted at local and regional level. There is a need to facilitate and support work by local and regional authorities to get representatives of the private sector involved in projects carried out in the form of public-private partnerships;

39.

notes that PPPs should not only be used for the blue economy for the purpose of acquiring large businesses as private partners. If they are to be properly implemented, public-private partnerships should take account of the financial potential and risk management capacity appropriate for the small and medium-sized business sector which will also allow smaller authorities to use the resources held by such businesses;

40.

welcomes that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as laid out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, are upheld in the communication.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/28

1.

values the Commission’s communication, which states that health systems should be able to add more years to life, but also to add more life to years, and thereby help to improve citizens’ health. A person’s health, defined as including both physical and psychological well-being, is also determined by factors other than healthcare measures;

2.

calls for health to be recognised as a value in its own right, so that health system expenditure is seen as an investment in population health, one which can have additional benefits in the form of greater productivity, increased labour supply and sustainable public finances;

3.

notes that decentralised levels of government face the same challenges right across the EU: rising health care costs and ageing populations with an increase in chronic disease and multimorbidity, resulting in a growing demand for health care. The Committee points out that responsibility for addressing these challenges lies at national, regional and local level;

4.

welcomes and endorses the right of EU citizens to have access to effective, good quality treatment and the fact that, in the light of experience in recent years, the Commission wishes to help the Member States to develop strategies to make health systems more efficient, improve access to care and create more resilient health systems;

5.

confirms the need to comply with Article 168 TFEU, which stipulates that public health is in the first instance a national responsibility, and to uphold the subsidiarity principle in this area. The Committee takes this opportunity of reiterating that the Member States are responsible for health policy, and that in most cases a considerable part of the responsibility for health affairs lies with local and regional authorities;

6.

notes that in 2013, eleven Member States received a recommendation for reform in their health systems as part of the European Semester. In this respect, the Committee would like to draw attention to fact that differences in Member State health systems are a reflection of different societal choices and that under Article 168 TFEU, the EU’s role in the area of public health is meant to complement national policies;

7.

agrees that the healthcare sector is strongly driven by innovation and acknowledges that it has major economic significance, but recommends that the common values underlying European healthcare systems — universality, access to good quality care, equity and solidarity — as recognised by the Council (health) in 2006, should always override concerns dictated by the current economic situation;

8.

realises that the economic crisis has put added pressure on Member States’ financial resources, but would also point out that healthcare systems must be sustainable, so as to safeguard common basic values in the future, while ensuring that they are met at the present time;

9.

is pleased to see that, in its efforts to assist Member States in making use of health system effectiveness assessments, the Commission intends to cooperate more closely with international organisations, such as the WHO and the OECD;

10.

advocates caution on the part of the Commission when it comes to introducing a comprehensive reporting system for evaluating health system outcomes and notes that one of the advantages of cooperating more closely with the WHO and the OECD could be to make better use of existing data;

11.

encourages Member States to strengthen, and where necessary expand, existing capacity so as to ensure ongoing and regular collection of health-related data, as this will contribute to the quality of international data available in organisations such as the WHO and the OECD;

12.

draws attention to the need for health outcomes to be based on general and easily accessible indicators, such as survival rates for certain types of disease or waiting times, and would welcome a framework containing a number of common EU criteria for assessing health outcomes on which Member States can base policy debates and set priorities;

13.

agrees that increasing mobility on the part of patients and health professionals means that Member State healthcare systems interact more closely with each other, and points out that, if they are to work more closely in addressing this development, they will need to draw on the knowledge available at regional and local administrative level;

14.

notes that a well-trained workforce with good opportunities for skills development, availability of skills, good leadership and a correct flow of information in the system are to a large extent the hallmark of healthcare systems in which delegating competence to regional and local levels is an established feature;

15.

draws attention to the fact that integrated care should go hand in hand with increased focus on patient involvement and quality of care, and observes that the work of the Commission’s expert panel in this and other areas should be discussed with local and regional authorities, possibly in the form of public hearings on the panel’s findings;

16.

recognises that healthcare systems need to demonstrate resilience, the capacity to adapt to different environments and to rise to considerable challenges at a time of limited resources, and considers that these qualities should be secured from the outset by giving regional and local authorities responsibility for public health;

17.

is pleased that the Commission recognises the importance of the health sector in combating the social consequences of the economic recession, but stresses that decisions intended to tackle over-arching economic crises/problems must be analysed with respect to their potential negative impact on public health, so that such effects can be avoided;

18.

welcomes and endorses a social inclusion strategy, including broad access to affordable and high-quality health services with the aim of stemming the rising health inequalities among the Member States;

19.

welcomes and endorses the ongoing work on patient safety at EU level, and calls for work on patient experience and patient involvement — a key aspect here — to be given higher priority in future EU health initiatives, along with efforts to develop human resource skills;

20.

draws attention to the fact that health outcomes are difficult to define, making comparisons among Member States a tricky exercise, but agrees that it is appropriate to measure and compare the effectiveness of healthcare systems;

21.

also thinks that the exclusive purpose of making comparisons among Member States should be to learn from, and exchange, best-practice experiences; this will give Member States the opportunity to track their own progress from an international perspective in their efforts to make ongoing improvements;

22.

acknowledges that in some areas, where data from international organisations such as the WHO and the OECD is not sufficient, there might be a case for setting up an EU database for Europe;

23.

sets store by the fact that the Commission’s communication reiterates the principles underpinning the European Social Pact, which highlights the importance of transparent criteria for access to medical treatment and the obligation to ensure that no segments of the population are excluded from access to healthcare;

24.

agrees that it is difficult to measure access to healthcare services, but would make the point that indicators based on feedback of people’s personal experiences are an important weathervane in terms of the public’s perception of access to healthcare services;

25.

agrees that in assessing access to healthcare services, the focus should be on both the proportion of the population with health coverage and the extent of this coverage, but reiterates the point that discrepancies in the type and scale of coverage are a reflection of societal choices made nationally, regionally and locally;

26.

agrees that accessibility is a prerequisite for accessing healthcare and that ‘accessibility’ includes waiting times, distance and the size of the workforce in the health sector; nevertheless, it would point out that concentrating specialist treatment centrally, even though it might involve making longer journeys, may be necessary in order to provide adequate expertise in specific fields of treatment. However, steps must always be taken to ensure that populations in regions that suffer demographic and geographical disadvantages also have access to specialist health services of this kind;

27.

points out that regions with geographical and demographic disadvantages (highly dispersed population, low population density, acute demographic ageing, island or mountain regions) present specific challenges that are particularly sharply felt in the health field;

28.

recognises that integrated care models and e-health options are a way of solving the problem of health service accessibility in the Member States, and that this is particularly the case for regions with geographical and demographic disadvantages;

29.

misses in this context a reference to the fact that especially people with disabilities sometimes have limited access to health-care services and reminds the European Commission against the backdrop of Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of its commitment [COM(2010) 636 final] to pay special attention to people with disabilities when implementing strategies to fight health inequalities;

30.

finds it encouraging that the European Parliament and Council directive on the application of patient rights in cross-border healthcare has focused more clearly on health system responsibility for access to treatment;

31.

is pleased that the Commission is focusing on the important counselling role that health personnel will have the future, in cooperation with other sectors, and reiterates that regional and local authorities have a wealth of expertise in this type of cooperation that can usefully be brought to bear in further developing this aspect;

32.

welcomes the exchange of information on how to improve access to medication, but again points out that decisions on pricing and patient reimbursement are the result of societal choices and national, regional and local priorities. The Committee draws attention, however, to the fact that greater transparency in pricing medical products will make for more efficient use of resources;

33.

notes the Commission’s intention to continue to support Member States in their workforce planning in the health sector as a way of helping them to meet the challenges posed by health personnel mobility;

34.

agrees that the Member States should ensure that the European Parliament and Council directive on the application of patient rights in cross-border healthcare is properly implemented;

35.

notes that the Commission recommends that Member States undertake health system reforms as part of the European semester, and draws attention here to Article 168 TFEU, stipulating that the EU’s role in the area of public health should complement national policies;

36.

welcomes the fact that the Commission is assisting Member States in their health system reforms by introducing initiatives to help them learn from and exchange best practices with the other Member States and regions;

37.

points out that adequate long-term investments in health systems can, in the long run, be cheaper than short-term investments determined by cyclical financial constraints, and thinks that there should be a more forward-looking focus on identifying the short- and long-term effects of health investments;

38.

recognises that health systems must be financially resilient; cautions that health as a value in itself, patient safety and participation, and the development of human resource skills should not be eclipsed by short-term, cyclical financial considerations;

39.

acknowledges and endorses the work carried out by the Commission in identifying six resilience factors that can help health systems safeguard accessible and effective healthcare services for their population;

40.

subscribes to the Commission’s support for setting an ambitious objective for the HTA (Health Technology Assessment) network established under the European Parliament and the Council directive on cross-border healthcare and agrees that this will reduce duplication of work by the authorities;

41.

takes note of the Commission’s focus on channelling patient-level information flows to the necessary healthcare providers and calls on the Commission to assist Member States in this task by promoting knowledge-sharing and exchange of best practices in information flows;

42.

reiterates that there is a wealth of regional and local knowledge on the public’s perspective of healthcare and believes it is more important to draw on this knowledge than to explore the potential of a comprehensive European research infrastructure consortium;

43.

believes that the potential synergies between health services in border regions have not yet been fully harnessed. This would however help to make health systems more accessible, benefiting patients. The Committee of the Regions urges the public authorities of the Member States to encourage cooperation agreements in this regard;

44.

observes that making use of existing data through closer cooperation with the WHO and the OECD will also benefit research infrastructure.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/32

1.

welcomes the European Council conclusions of December 2013, which invited the European Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to draw up an EU strategy for the Alpine region (EUSALP) by June 2015;

2.

stresses that this also significantly strengthens the role of the regions in the process of drawing up and implementing the EUSALP, the consequence being that, in order to promote further development, Europe needs to acknowledge and make the most of its own diversity rather than seek to suppress it. Macro-regional strategies are an instrument that can make a tangible contribution to capitalising on the specifics of development in different areas, respecting their natural potential and characteristics;

3.

welcomes the concept of the macro-regional strategy as an integrated framework, endorsed by the European Council and supported by the European Parliament, for Member States and third countries in the same geographical area to tackle common challenges and step up cooperation regarding economic, social and territorial cohesion (1);

4.

is committed to continuing to support the development and implementation of macro-regional strategies, as previously stated in its opinion on the added value of macro-regional strategies (2), and stresses that the added value of existing macro-regional strategies is already recognised in both political and strategic terms (3);

5.

notes that the EUSALP will be the fourth macro-regional strategy, after the EU strategies for the Baltic Sea region, the Danube region and Adriatic and Ionian region and, given the challenges facing other European macro-regions, declares its support for the establishment of additional macro-regional strategies;

6.

welcomes the fact that the EUSALP will involve cooperation between five EU Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) and two third countries (Liechtenstein and Switzerland), thus making a major contribution to pan-European integration. This integration component gives the macro-regional strategy particular added value (4);

7.

stresses that it was the Alpine regions that took the initiative to produce a common strategic position for the Alps at EU level, and that the EUSALP was developed on the basis of a genuine bottom-up process, from the regions concerned, via national level in the Alpine States, up to European level;

8.

welcomes the efforts being made by the European Commission, in consultation with the Alpine countries and regions, in the EUSALP steering committee to develop a specific action plan to implement the strategy;

9.

welcomes the fact that a wide-ranging public consultation on the priorities developed to date for the EUSALP has given all citizens and stakeholders the opportunity to evaluate those priorities, to propose and prepare different or additional topics and to identify interested actors, in order to develop the right goals and the most appropriate tools to achieve the high level of development and prosperity sought by all local authorities in the Alpine region;

10.

highlights the fact that there is already a long-standing tradition of cross-border cooperation in the Alpine region that has produced a variety of cooperation instruments since the 1970s. These include the Working Community of Alpine Countries, the Alps-Adriatic Alliance, the Alpine Convention, the EU Alpine Space Programme, bilateral and multilateral cooperation structures such as the Alps-Mediterranean Euroregion and the European groupings of territorial cooperation Senza Confini and the Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino Euroregion, and various civil society organisations;

11.

stresses that the EUSALP is heavily based on a bottom-up approach and is intended to incorporate the substantial work done by existing cross-border cooperation instruments in the Alpine region and further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this wide-ranging cooperation under one roof;

12.

points out that a key element of the added value provided by macro-regional strategies consists in tackling common challenges using targeted activities by interested actors, making the best possible use of appropriate financing instruments such as public-private partnerships;

13.

notes that the EUSALP will provide joint responses to the challenges facing the Alpine region. These challenges include maintaining quality of life, a high level of environmental protection and sound economic development against a background of globalisation, climate change and demographic change, in particular fundamental structural changes in the fields of agriculture and tourism, deindustrialisation, the digital divide and limited access to services of general interest in certain areas;

14.

stresses that the reference point for the strategy is the mountain range of the Alps, and that the Alpine region comprises both the mountainous region at its heart, as laid down in the scope of the Alpine convention, and its surrounding areas, including a number of large cities. These areas are linked together by close interactions and functional relationships, all of which influence economic, social and environmental development;

15.

realises that the mountain areas often have different concerns and priorities from the surrounding areas and cities, and highlights the need to strengthen dialogue on an equal footing between the heartland of the Alpine region and the surrounding area, in order to strike the right balance between the interests of the people living in each area;

16.

advocates taking a flexible approach to the EUSALP’s area of application, so that the scope of strategic cooperation can be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the requirements of the specific field of action and with due consideration for the functional relationships between the Alpine heartland and its surrounding area;

17.

shares the view that the EUSALP should be able to make a specific contribution, tailored to the needs of the Alpine region, to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in order to further economic, social and territorial cohesion in Europe;

18.

calls for the strategic priorities of the EUSALP to be chosen in such a way that the interests of the core Alpine mountain regions are prioritised and that those of the surrounding areas and their cities are given appropriate consideration, so that relations between these regions can be of mutual benefit;

19.

believes that innovative approaches enabling the development-oriented components of the strategy to be reconciled with the need for environmental protection are of crucial importance in ensuring the success of the EUSALP; this is the only way of preserving and sustainably tapping into the potential of the Alpine region with its inhabitants, economic activity and nature in the heart of Europe;

20.

refers to European Parliament Resolution 2013/2549 (RSP) of 23 May 2013 on a macro-regional strategy for the Alps, and also points out that the content of the strategy must be consistent with the Alpine Convention;

21.

stresses that it is important for all local and regional stakeholders to work together as partners to develop and implement the EUSALP. It also welcomes the details so far drawn up by the EUSALP steering committee, with equal participation by the regions, States and European Commission, under the following three pillars: ‘ensuring sustainable growth and promoting full employment, competitiveness and innovation by consolidating and diversifying specific economic activities with a view to reinforcing mutual solidarity between mountain and urban areas’; ‘promoting a territorial development that is focused on an environmentally friendly mobility, reinforced academic cooperation, development of services, transports and communication infrastructures policy’; and ‘promoting sustainable management of energy and natural and cultural resources and protecting the environment and preserving biodiversity and natural areas’;

22.

with regard to the integrated further development of these details in the action plan, calls for particular attention to be paid to the following themes: stimulating employment; developing alpine value chains, tourism and a network of Alpine businesses on the macro-regional scale; strengthening services of general interest and solidarity between people living in different areas of the Alpine region; improving networking and eliminating the digital divide in less favoured areas; boosting transport intermodality and interoperability, for example by linking local and regional transport networks to higher-level European transport infrastructure; seeking to shift freight transport from road to rail; improving energy efficiency and the sustainable generation of renewable energy, particularly hydroelectric power; making sustainable and efficient use of natural and cultural resources; and further developing natural hazard management in view of climate change, with particular attention to the protection of the hydrogeological structure and of the environment;

23.

expects the action plan to develop synergies between the various existing programmes and to focus on a limited number of priorities so that resources can be concentrated;

24.

notes with interest the European Commission’s report on the governance of macro-regional strategies (5), but would point out that it does not take sufficient account of the decision-making role of the regions;

25.

highlights the role of local and regional authorities in ensuring that the EUSALP takes the down-to-earth approach that the public expects. It is necessary to develop the right conditions so that local and regional authorities can also run flagship projects;

26.

points out that the EUSALP can only be successful if the leadership of this multilevel governance process continues to be shared with regional and local political actors — including European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation — and if the subsidiarity principle enshrined in EU law is respected; it would be useful, in this connection, to encourage the participation of other social, economic and cultural stakeholders in the territories involved;

27.

calls for methods to be developed for implementing the strategy that, in keeping with the principle of multilevel governance as set out in the Committee of the Regions’ Charter (6), ensure that, within its competences, the regional level is involved on an equal footing with the national level;

28.

stresses that its Alpine Macroregion interregional group, set up in June 2014, is intended to assist the European Commission and the Alpine states, via their national contact points, in developing and supporting a strategy for the Alps; to support the development of the action plan; to give the Alpine region a higher profile at regional, national and European level by emphasising its common identity; and thus to highlight the region’s huge potential;

29.

recommends that the EUSALP establish a rotating presidency, to be assumed by the Member States or regions from each of the Member States, to set the main guidelines for the strategy. On the basis of an agreed system of rotation, each of the Member States of the Alpine strategy would hold the presidency for one year. This would enable the states and regions involved to contribute in a balanced way to the development of the EUSALP and would spread the load of leading it evenly. The presidency could also be involved with establishing and organising a strategic forum;

30.

recommends that the EUSALP Member States and regions create a coordinator position analogous to the European TEN-T coordinators. This coordinator would not hold any political office during his/her tenure or have any executive power, and would support the European Commission and the presidency and make it possible to embed the strategy more firmly within the European institutions;

31.

recommends that the position of EUSALP coordinator should be filled by a public figure from the regions in question, with experience in the field of interregional and cross-border cooperation in the Alpine region. This is particularly vital in view of the bottom-up approach taken by the strategy;

32.

takes the view that a balanced overall configuration of the political leadership structures should ensure that the interests of states and regions are given equal weight alongside the European Commission;

33.

recommends that the European Commission play a key role in the strategic leadership of the EUSALP, in particular by ensuring that it is consistent with the EU’s policies and positions and that the macro-regional concept is taken into consideration in EU measures, particularly in European financing programmes and instruments;

34.

feels that governance of the implementation of the strategic priorities should start with the individual focal points within the ‘pillars’, with a view to spreading responsibilities widely, and that specific organisational forms will need to be developed, especially for cross-cutting issues such as climate change;

35.

is quite convinced that it will be impossible to implement European strategies and policies effectively without multilevel governance, and recommends that the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation should also be envisaged as instruments for implementing strategies within their own areas of competence;

36.

refers to European Parliament Resolution 2013/2549 (RSP) of 23 May 2013 on a macro-regional strategy for the Alps, and also points out that existing cross-border cooperation structures and networks should be involved in implementing the EUSALP;

37.

realises that tangible results for ordinary Europeans can only be achieved by means of specific projects implementing the EUSALP action plan, and advocates removing legal and administrative obstacles to its implementation;

38.

stresses that macro-regional strategies form an appropriate framework for involving civil society partners in the political decision-making process, in order to achieve synergies with existing initiatives and to optimise the use of resources; in this connection, and to make the involvement described above more tangible and the access and use of financial resources more effective, it seems expedient to establish cooperation agreements and protocols with these civil society bodies, such as industry associations, chambers of commerce, universities and other economic and social bodies in the participating areas;

39.

advocates involving the Council of Europe, in particular the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, in the Alpine macro-regional strategy, particularly given that two of the states included in this macro-regional strategy — Liechtenstein and Switzerland — are not EU Member States, but are members of the Council of Europe;

40.

welcomes the fact that the Common Provisions Regulation and European territorial cooperation mean that macro-regional priorities can be supported by all the Structural Funds, and urges the European Commission to determine how these funds can be used in line with the partnership agreements and regional operational programmes in the Alpine region;

41.

recognises that the ‘three noes rule’ (no new regulation, no new EU institutions and no additional funds) helped ensure that European territorial cooperation funds were used more effectively in the regions where a macro-regional strategy is already in place. It would, however, underline the importance of longer-term funding. Long term funding is particularly necessary for organisations in charge of coordinating a strategy’s implementation. The Member States concerned and their local and regional authorities must shoulder more responsibility, in the context of multilevel governance, and provide adequate resources for implementing the Alpine macro-regional strategy;

42.

stresses, as it said in its opinions on existing macro-regional strategies (7), that there should also be ‘three yeses’ (more coordination in the use of existing funding, more institutional coordination and more new ideas and projects), and advocates getting local and regional authorities effectively involved in this coordination;

43.

welcomes the fact that one of the priorities for the Alpine Space 2014-2020 cooperation programme will be used to support innovative governance models;

44.

expects the EUSALP to achieve closer coordination of funding available at European, national, regional and local level. It therefore calls in particular on the European Commission and its services administering both operational programmes related to European Structural and Investment Funds and programmes under direct management to act within their remits in order to enable implementation of EUSALP objectives and actions within these instruments and policies.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

1.

notes that an updated and functional Europe-wide information system catering to drivers and travellers and covering all transport modes is a key instrument for exercising one of the EU’s fundamental freedoms, namely the free circulation of people. To make this a reality, it is not enough merely to do away with any obstacles: it must be made as easy as possible for the public. It should be mandatory, therefore, to publish timetables and other travel information and make it accessible — fully and without distinction — to all the EU’s citizens in such a way that they can all use it as easily and effectively as possible. The EU and all its Member States should also make sure that no public transport operator is favoured in this system at the cost of others. They should also guarantee all travel and transport operators equal access to such systems. European legislation — later transposed into national legislation — should therefore also be drafted with the broader picture in mind. This approach should be taken not only to ‘static’ transport information — i.e., fixed timetables —, but also to ‘dynamic’ information, such as the real-time location of public transport vehicles en route. This requirement to gather data on real-time location of vehicles will also encourage the use of the Galileo space segment;

2.

welcomes the European Commission’s attention to multimodal information for transport and ticketing services for travellers and finds the publication of the present working document a step in the right direction that will simulate further debate, the search for solutions and the implementation process;

3.

is aware of the complexity of the whole question and, while welcoming the inclusion of individual as well as public transport in the Commission’s approach, believes that a new extension of its field of application, while it undoubtedly has the merit of being comprehensive, nevertheless very much complicates the problem in its entirety at this stage, which means a solution will be delayed and more difficult to achieve; therefore recommends proceeding in stages, starting with public passenger transport and only subsequently adding individual transport to the operational systems of public transport. The pace of integration of the various transport modes is likely to vary in different EU regions depending on which part of the market runs a particular mode;

4.

points out that, in the longer term, individual transport also requires careful attention and the development of legal and technical solutions; therefore calls for a schedule to be drawn up to make sure work is sufficiently effective;

5.

points out that the working document shows quite clearly that the most complicated stage in terms of travel information and service provision is that of the first/last mile, which is generally that part of the journey in the hands of local and regional authorities. It is absolutely essential, therefore, to get local and regional authorities involved in both implementing all the methods and monitoring how they work to make sure the whole system functions well;

6.

notes that there are a number of stages involved in using public transport (including ticketing services) that need to be addressed: 1) finding the right connections, 2) booking a seat, 3) paying for the ticket, 4) using the ticket while travelling; a method has to be found, then, for each of these steps — also bearing in mind the crucial importance of getting the first of these right (finding connections), since the rest depend on this;

7.

points out that most Member States do not currently even have a national system bringing together all static transport timetables in operation and enabling public transport connections to be looked for and booked within a single country; thinks it essential, therefore, for each Member State to create such systems, since it is at the national level that legislation can be enacted to oblige transport operators — public and private — to give the State such information about their timetables. Each Member State should set up a national timetable information system, which should include all regional timetables of public and private carriers. Regular updating and maintenance of this system should also be assured, especially when timetables are altered. This is the first step needed to create a similar system for Europe as a whole. Each Member State should also guarantee the accuracy of the information in its national system; it should also be possible to use this system without restriction to book and pay online. This means that information must be provided not just about timetables but also about the fares of all carriers;

8.

thinks that the way to get the minimum amount of information needed to guarantee the quality expected of the system is through consultation of interested parties and experts in the field and from the results of tests and a pilot programme;

9.

believes that, since the regional, rather than the national, level gathers and processes timetable data most frequently and since there is even a raft of regional information systems, these systems should first be connected to one another and subsequently across borders. The Committee of the Regions welcomes that information on multimodal transport is part of the thematic objective 7 on ‘Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’, but points out that a better coordination and concentration of the instrument within, and between, individual operational programmes of the European Structural and Investment Funds has to be ensured, in order to achieve such interconnection, especially cross-border;

10.

considers it essential, if information and ticketing services for all modes of transport are really to be taken forward, that ESIF resources, mainly in individual corresponding operational programmes, be allocated to the actual implementation of systems and not merely to research and development or other related measures;

11.

stresses the need, on this front, to start addressing the issue as a whole by tackling some of its simpler yet tangible challenges. These include harmonising current terminology and symbols within the EU, compiling static timetables in each Member State and ensuring their use across borders. When it comes to ticketing, a reference model should be created for the entire sector that shows both the system’s failings and its potential, while seeking ways to open up booking systems on a reciprocal basis among all transport operators and providers;

12.

points out that modern electronic ticketing systems using rechargeable smart cards that do not work in neighbouring countries erect new borders and encumber cross-border movement; calls, therefore, for a new European smart ticketing system to be designed for public transport that would work in all the Member States and for journeys across borders;

13.

thinks it unrealistic in the short term to frame Europe-wide mandatory standards on this question, but sees a need to ensure interoperability — i.e. that different systems can communicate with one another. To this end, it would be expedient to establish a joint specification for the various interregional and cross-border connections, to be tested in a pilot operational phase. It would make sense to use this as the basis for a ‘joint technical specification’ that would enable existing or newly created systems in a particular area to communicate with one another. To this end, it would also be good to ensure that compliance with this ‘joint technical specification’ is not seen as a discriminatory criterion in procurement procedures;

14.

also thinks it would make sense, when connections between the different information systems are being put in place, to rely not only on the static information provided by predefined timetables, but also on the huge potential of information obtainable from GNSS systems, including Europe’s Galileo navigation system. This would make it possible to use systems that process only static data as a basis for creating intelligent systems that react to real-time transport movements and the capacities of operators. These systems will then be able not only to give travellers traffic information in real time and give them alternatives, but also provide broader just-in-time information to public and individual transport providers, enabling them to respond swiftly. It is this transformation of existing local and regional systems to benefit from dynamic transport information — and at the same time their transformation into significantly better systems — that should deliver the main stimulus for establishing interconnected information systems. There are benefits to be had in enlisting the existing Galileo European navigation system for gathering dynamic transport information, since, unlike similar systems, it also offers a service with a defined quality of location signal. This information, which is essential to modern transport management, can be used not just by transport providers, but also by information systems for multimodal transport and by national, local and regional authorities. These can use the data obtained by various applications for long-term planning (of timetables and itineraries, for example), strategic decision-making and crisis management;

15.

proposes, with a view to solving various — especially crisis — situations and enabling public transport providers (in great part local and regional authorities) to respond rapidly, that multimodal transport information systems should also be interconnected with the EU Copernicus programme for monitoring and environmental security (formerly GMES). The various applications employed by these two sources would make it possible not just to identify potential crises, but also, for example, to propose the necessary measures not only to find alternative routes, but also the replacement means of transport that needs to be deployed and then to propose other itineraries to every traveller;

16.

also points that, if travellers are to be able to use the multimodal transport information system fully and actively, they must have guaranteed access to broadband networks in public transport vehicles, waiting rooms and bus stops etc., ticket offices and boarding stages. This necessitates an uninterrupted, high-quality connection so that the system can operate smartly and travellers can enjoy the benefits offered by processed dynamic information on current network conditions;

17.

notes that European passenger rights only apply separately for each contract of carriage; as it is impossible to buy through tickets on many cross-border journeys, or in case of multi-modal journeys, passengers cannot rely on the usual passenger rights; calls therefore for legislation establishing a European passenger rights scheme for multi-modal transport;

18.

notes that systems providing information on multimodal transport must be as user-friendly as possible; to this end, they must be accompanied by up-to-date maps and geographical support. It would also be expedient, and appreciated by users, if these systems could be linked to applications relating to local and regional tourist information — accommodation options, for example, or tourist destinations, and cultural and other events;

19.

stresses that the interconnecting of complex multimodal transport information systems with GNSS systems, especially Galileo, with maps and geographic support, with the Copernicus programme and other sources of information and data paves the way for creating a vast range of applications. These applications can be used to plan transport routes effectively, to react swiftly to requirements as they arise, to resolve various exceptional or crisis situations, to markedly improve the efficacy of transport (which means energy savings, a significant reduction in CO2 emissions and environmental improvement in general), to boost people’s mobility by giving them more opportunity to answer job adverts, and so on. Above all, however, an entirely new branch of industry will emerge in data processing, the creation and administration of applications and the exploitation of their outcomes, which will in turn create a large number of jobs. In many cases, these new jobs will have the advantage that they can be performed away from the workplace, thus providing work opportunities in outlying and less developed regions;

20.

Notes that more and more mobile applications on multimodal travel planning and information services are available and that these are often developed by creative private developers; calls on the relevant operators and authorities to cooperate and make their data available on an open source basis;

21.

points out, finally, that, because local and regional authorities are key pillars in the creation of this comprehensive system, the following questions need to be resolved if these authorities, and the bodies operating under them, are to play a far more active role and become a motor driving the whole process forward:

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/40

1.

notes that antagonism towards institutions and politics in general, the increase in votes for anti-EU parties in the European elections of 22—25 May 2014 and a historically high abstention rate are another warning calling for prompt action;

2.

stresses that restoring public approval of the European Union and stimulating people’s engagement with Europe is a political and democratic challenge as well as a communication challenge that must be addressed by a joint effort of all EU levels of government, including the local level;

3.

points out that it is the responsibility of the European institutions to put forward a new, partnership-based approach to communication about the European project so as to strengthen people’s attachment to the EU. This decentralised, creative process should entail the institutions agreeing on a unifying communication concept that explains the advantages of the European Union, its identity, rationale, values and the actual results of its policies in people’s lives. The communication concept must respond to ordinary people’s concerns;

4.

observes that regions and cities have a proven tradition and expertise in consultation and dialogue with the general public, based on participatory mechanisms that are major assets for the EU’s official communication effort;

5.

notes again that in order to bring the European Union closer to its citizens, the basis must be provided for improving the decision-making process and for a more democratic and more transparent dialogue between citizens and the institutions at local, regional, national and European level;

6.

welcomes initiatives to improve the context of civic and democratic participation at EU level, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative, and regrets that the budget of the Europe for Citizens programme has been cut under the new multiannual financial framework;

7.

as stated in the resolution adopted on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and in its Charter for Multilevel Governance in Europe, insists that any action the EU takes should reflect public concerns more closely and offer real added value, while respecting the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;

8.

firmly believes that local and regional authorities should be given more responsibility in their capacity as key partners in providing communication aimed at building bridges with Europe’s citizens. CoR members should be important promoters of European integration in their own constituencies, alongside regional and local political representatives, as well as conveying to the European institutions the opinions of the general public in their locality. Reciprocally, it is up to the regional and local authorities, notably to those who are elected, to inform all citizens through an exhaustive awareness-raising activity on the EU interventions on their own territories, as foreseen anyway by the rules governing the communication about structural funds. In order to fully assume these mutual responsibilities, they should ideally be involved in local and European events;

9.

believes it is important to avoid fragmentation and proliferation of communication channels, priorities, resources and styles, with a view to achieving better coordination of strategies and communication activities between the institutions and bodies of the European Union;

10.

also notes the need to bring about a convergence between the branding approaches of each of the European institutions so as to give citizens an overview of the European project as well as the need to ‘translate’ EU-specific language and terminology for citizens, and to use clear information material to help improve people’s understanding of the EU’s institutional structures;

11.

feels that the EU institutions must continue their efforts to professionalise and optimise their communication and participation policies. Communication must concord with ordinary people’s interests and not be limited to official campaigns and last-minute efforts just before the European elections. For instance the work carried out by the European Parliament with the support of Political Parties during the European elections campaign should serve as a model in the day-to-day communication of the EU;

12.

calls on the European institutions to make a joint commitment to the 2015-2019 Communication Plan: reconnecting Europe with its citizens, with a view to the next European elections, by setting quantifiable and measurable objectives for mobilising people and raising public awareness about the European project, based on coordinated and decentralised communication initiatives and strategic priority areas;

13.

emphasises that this plan should step away from the usual top-down approach of explaining and ‘selling’ Europe. The emergence of dialogue with and between citizens will allow two-way communication and feedback from grassroots level;

14.

would wish that by May 2019 a majority of respondents in the Standard Eurobarometer public opinion survey should consider that their voice counts in the European Union, that they understand the main decision-making processes and major policies of the EU and that they are well-informed about European issues, and should report that they have a positive image of the EU (1);

15.

believes that the content of EU communication should be adapted to local cultural, social and economic circumstances and take account of national issues, and believes it would be more relevant and functional to ‘europeanise’ the existing public domain at local, regional and national level rather than to try and create a uniform European public sphere;

16.

recommends that communication is targeted and tailored according to the needs and interests of citizens, especially young people, the growing elderly population and inhabitants of rural and periurban areas;

17.

specifically emphasises that one target group that is equally important in all regions is that of young people. Young people who have been able to participate actively in EU mobility programmes, school exchanges, semesters abroad, international youth exchanges and school partnerships are the European Union’s ambassadors of tomorrow; therefore calls for the opportunity to take part in European programmes and partnerships to be opened to as many young people as possible, for example via the Erasmus+ programme, which should be more heavily publicised in the regions;

18.

considers it indispensable for the success of the 2015-2019 Communication Plan to create publicity tools that will help to involve and motivate the public and develop the emotional aspect of being and feeling European. To this end, many local and regional authorities have web/social platforms that can be very useful for reaching out to the public and succeeding in involving them in the European project;

19.

reiterates the need to highlight hard data about the scope and impact of EU policies on people’s everyday lives;

20.

notes the importance of multilingualism and therefore calls for information to be made available in all the official EU languages;

21.

encourages the EU institutions to provide information to counter rumours and false information aimed at discrediting Europe by distorting the facts; calls on political representatives at all levels to directly counter unfounded ‘Brussels-bashing’ especially when practiced by national governments and political parties for domestic policy reasons; wishes to build on the efforts of those men and women who are shaping Europe day by day and to try and debate European affairs on the basis of objective and accurate information;

22.

supports the effort to encourage an European narrative that would allow a public debate in Europe about the historical, cultural, philosophical and sociological foundations of European integration, including the costs of ‘Non-Europe’, without this being imposed from the top down or becoming an exercise in legitimising EU policies a posteriori;

23.

stresses the importance in this context of making use, at the local, regional, national and European levels, of innovative, Europeanised and as yet under-utilised sectors such as sport to strengthen the ‘European narrative’ on the basis of a shared narrative and an educational approach;

24.

recommends that this European narrative be strengthened by using communication tools such as video clips; applications for portable devices or comic strips to relate a family history against the background of major European events, and that personalities representing EU values feature on euro banknotes; recommends also providing platforms and framework conditions to facilitate networking and exchange between cultural professionals and intellectuals who contribute to this new narrative;

25.

calls for the Interinstitutional Group on Information (IGI) to meet every quarter, co-chaired by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission, with a clear brief to formulate, implement and evaluate joint strategic priorities and to better meet the communication needs of each institution; also recommends mobilising the Council’s Working Party on Information to set up systems in each Member State for coordination between the people responsible for communication about the EU at national and subnational level;

26.

thinks that the European Parliament demonstrated the appropriateness of a centrally coordinated information campaign — in which the Committee of the Regions was very much involved — during the 2014 European elections, but notes that pan-European communication activities mean developing decentralised cooperation with the regions and municipalities, civil society and the media; notes, in this respect, the restructuring of the European Commission’s communication policy which is expected to help this cooperation to be achieved;

27.

proposes that the EU institutions organise 500 ‘citizens’ dialogues’ over a five-year period, covering the whole of Europe and without organising events only in large cities; emphasises that such citizens’ meetings should systematically involve the European Parliament information offices, Commission representations, the Committee of the Regions and local authorities with the necessary resources, experience and knowledge of local particularities. Citizens’ dialogues should take place in venues with symbolic significance and should be devoted to an EU sectoral policy and to issues of critical importance for a population or region. Regional and local policy-makers, especially CoR members and MEPs, would be asked to lead such events and ensure explicit follow-up; it would be useful for this initiative to be coordinated with the Europe Direct network of information centres set up by the European Commission, which covers all the Member States and has experience of promoting the European project at regional and local level;

28.

would like to see a visit of one European Commissioner organised annually to each of Europe’s 277 regions to listen to their fellow citizens and to raise the profile of EU action;

29.

it would be useful for Members of the European Parliament and Committee of the Regions members to take part each year in the Back to school initiative, as European Commission officials do every year;

30.

commends the ‘pilot’ communication campaigns launched by the European Commission during the second half of 2014 in six Member States, which could form another pillar of the 2015-2019 Communication Plan as grassroots campaigns demonstrating the actual impact of European policies and legislation; suggests that this initiative be extended to other Member States, that regions and municipalities also be included, and that it also be given an interactive dimension;

31.

calls for official EU communication bodies based in the Member States (European Commission representations, information offices of the European Parliament, Europe Direct information centres, managing authorities responsible for the overall implementation of European funds) to cooperate more actively with local and regional authorities and their national associations and to include relevant information on the Committee of the Regions’ work on EU legislation in the decision making process so as to draw attention to the importance and impact of European policies at local level and to promote initiatives taking note of citizens’ doubts and concerns and enable them to express their concerns;

32.

calls on the communication services located in the Member States to draw up a list of public and private citizen participation initiatives for conveying messages, and thus achieve message interactivity and greater impact at local level. To this end, it is recommended that networks be created and incorporated into the Communication Plan as essential dissemination tools;

33.

observes that local and regional authorities often have media of their own with a wide audience that can be used to communicate and initiate debate on European news as it is relevant to the local context. The EU could send these 1 00  000 or so local authorities ready-to-use, jargon-free communication materials (articles for information brochures, diagrams, video clips, etc.). National associations of local authorities and the CoR national delegations are the proper gateway for connecting with this target group of subnational authorities;

34.

reiterates that local authorities are responsible for implementing a very substantial proportion of EU legislation. It is therefore essential to grant them every opportunity to take part in the European legislative process on the best possible terms. However, the recent joint proposal by the Commission and the European Parliament, which would oblige local authorities and associations of local authorities to register as lobbyists, severely limits their chances of participation. The Committee of the Regions therefore calls for this element of the proposal to be reviewed and for local authorities and associations of local authorities to be exempted from the registration requirement, as are the regions;

35.

asks the European Commission to strengthen the communication commitments associated with granting EU aid to European local authorities (size of hoardings, location, EU logos on communication media, etc.). The words ‘co-funded by the EU’ should replace abbreviations such as ERDF, EAFRD and ESF, which mean nothing to the average person. The example should be followed of certain regions that have taken steps to merge the communication budgets of the various European structural and investment fund programmes and thus improve the effectiveness of campaigns. Synergies should also be sought (using the europa.eu portal) between the various online projects (2) of the European Commission, the Member States, the European Parliament and the CoR, which are all based on interactive maps showing local EU-funded projects;

36.

recommends making more and better use of online communication tools and social media, as key instruments of the 2015-2019 Communication Plan; welcomes the initiatives to develop novel approaches to online participation and collecting citizens’ input in several Member States, and points to the huge multiplier potential of local and regional players given the number of people they can reach through social media;

37.

opposes decreasing the current resources available to the EU institutions for communication during the period 2014-2020;

38.

suggests that 20 % of the EU’s communication budget should be decentralised to national and local level, e.g. to the Europe Direct and Europe House information centres, with a view to reinforcing these bodies and establishing practical cooperation arrangements with local or regional partners and reaching a wider audience;

39.

recommends enhancing publicity campaigns to raise the profile of EU action and improve understanding of EU decision-making mechanisms. Partnership agreements could be concluded with 500 local print media, television and radio stations to organise debates and give a voice to those who are living and building Europe every day; stresses that these partnership agreements must accord full editorial independence to the editors and broadcasters. The European institutions support the Committee of the Regions’ efforts to inform and raise the awareness of local and regional journalists by organising regular activities with them;

40.

recommends drawing up new models for co-financing EU communication strategies, which would replace the management partnership programme that was discontinued in 2013, emphasising that the system devised should also allow for direct partnerships with local and regional authorities in the Member States. The strategic partnerships recently piloted between Commission representations and regional authorities could serve as a model and be scaled up, provided that they include reciprocal financial commitments;

41.

recommends that 500 strategic partnerships backed by funding be concluded between the Commission representations and local and regional authorities under the 2015-2019 Communication Plan: reconnecting Europe with its citizens.

42.

stresses the usefulness of well-organised networks, such as the CoR’s annual EuroPCom conference that brings together over 700 communication professionals in Brussels each year, and of support measures to strengthen the communication capacity of local, regional and national authorities. The Committee aims to bring at least 5  000 municipalities, cities and regions into the Friends of Europe network by 2019 in order to mobilise, train and help communication professionals in the Member States;

43.

encourages the representations of the Commission and the Parliament in the Member States to hold meetings at regional level, in Brussels and in Strasbourg with public communication professionals and staff of local and regional authorities;

44.

recommends that the impact of the 2015-2019 Communication Plan be evaluated, and that more regional Eurobarometer surveys be carried out that capture local and regional data. A common methodology should also be introduced in order to measure the local impact of communication about the EU, drawing on the expertise of local authorities and their understanding of public opinion.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/45

1.

would like to emphasise the importance of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) as an EU external policy instrument targeted at countries situated to the south and east of the EU, with a view to achieving closer relations between these countries and the EU;

2.

stresses the comprehensive and multilevel nature of ENP relations and the policy’s multilevel governance. In view of this, support is needed for the ENP’s regional and local dimension complementing cooperation at the level of national governments;

3.

calls therefore on the newly appointed high representative to involve the local and regional level both in the EU and in the ENP countries in the further development of the policy and to work closely with the CoR in order to improve the design, implementation and acceptance of the ENP on the ground;

4.

stresses also the need for more flexible action together with a customised, ‘tailor-made’ approach to supporting democratic changes and economic reforms in the individual beneficiary countries;

5.

emphasises the importance of two initiatives, i.e. the Eastern Partnership and the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). These are regional dimensions of the ENP, and are not just thematic aspects of EU policy, but also reflect EU Member State foreign policy priorities at central, regional and local level;

6.

calls for subnational governance levels to participate more actively and be more closely involved in the process of ENP implementation. The Committee of the Regions’ establishment of two platforms for dialogue and cooperation operating in parallel, i.e. the Euro-Mediterranean Local and Regional Assembly (ARLEM) and the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (CORLEAP), provides opportunities to develop this dimension of the ENP further through concrete cooperation and direct dialogue at local and regional level;

7.

appreciates the European Union’s efforts to support constitutional and economic reform processes through appropriate financial and technical support for ENP beneficiary countries; however, these efforts require further simplification and organisation. Increased EU support for neighbouring countries should be conditional on the progress of constitutional changes, democratisation, respect for the rule of law and gender equality. This progress is even more urgently needed following recent tragic events; it must be made ensuring full respect for human rights, and with the countries concerned granting full citizenship to citizens of all religious and ethnic minorities;

8.

points out that that the regional and local level has a fundamental role to play in properly forecasting, planning, implementing and monitoring support programmes and instruments; also argues that local and regional authorities (LRAs) should have easier access to funding, and that the associated mechanisms and procedures are in need of simplification;

9.

emphasises the need to promote strong and democratic governance at subnational level; draws attention to the issue of local democracy in partner countries, and to problems relating to the work of local and regional government; is therefore in favour of decentralisation, particularly in the field of taxation; also recommends supporting bottom-up initiatives and acknowledging the role of local and regional authorities in carrying out the requisite domestic reforms;

10.

stresses that 2013 saw huge changes in the region covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy. The goal of the ENP is to develop special relations between the EU and individual neighbour countries, in order to enhance security, prosperity and neighbourly relations. Some of these objectives were met last year but a number of important set-backs have also been suffered. The ENP as a whole needs to be critically examined in order to assess if it is adequate in its current form;

11.

on the positive side, the pace of difficult democratic reforms in some countries of the southern neighbourhood such as Tunisia, Morocco, and to a certain extent Egypt, was stepped up. Furthermore, November 2013 saw the approval of two association agreements (including documents on deep and comprehensive free trade areas) with two eastern neighbourhood countries, i.e. Georgia and Moldova, and then, in 2014, by Ukraine. The signing of the agreements by the first two countries was the culmination of a lengthy negotiation process, establishing a basis for work on an agenda implementing the commitments set out in those agreements;

12.

notes, however, that 2013 was also a period of considerable political turbulence and socioeconomic crises in many ENP countries. Security threats at national and regional level (in both southern and eastern ENP countries) have multiplied. Dramatic events in Ukraine, civil war in Syria and escalation of the conflict between Israel and Palestine mean that the challenge of a consistent European policy to promote stability with a strong local and regional dimension is becoming even greater;

13.

calls for appropriate steps to assist local authorities in dealing with the humanitarian crises, in particular the waves of refugees caused by instability in many ENP countries, especially currently in Syria and Ukraine. Migration flows notably in the Mediterranean area, require a long-term and comprehensive approach, with the active involvement of all Member States including local and regional authorities and not only those geographically concerned. The countries, regions and local authorities situated on the EU’s external borders should receive appropriate support in controlling these borders and in handling the emergencies, including health emergencies, arising from immigration;

14.

notes that there are big differences between the different ENP countries concerning the agendas and the political will to carry out the necessary political, social and economic reforms. Initiatives under the ENP should therefore be adapted according to the real willingness of individual governments to make the necessary changes and deepen relations with the EU, as well as on their determination to promote the reforms and secure public support for them. Local and regional authorities play a central role in this respect but are often dependent on national governments — nevertheless they should be considered as key interlocutors;

15.

agrees that building democracy in partner countries is crucial for the EU. Democratisation and decentralisation are essential for socioeconomic development, and are of fundamental importance for transformation processes in the Eastern Partnership region and the Mediterranean basin. The ENP is an excellent initiative to support those processes, and CORLEAP and ARLEM are appropriate platforms promoting partnership and openness in the process of building democracy and civil society;

16.

fully supports the idea set out in the Joint Communication that the ENP should continue to act as an attractive cooperation initiative responding to partners’ needs. The EU should indeed act as a strategic partner for ENP countries, helping them to steer economic development and work towards better governance, while respecting their sovereignty;

17.

recalls that future EU membership is one of the key incentives which the EU has to induce partner countries to embark on reforms. It is therefore of crucial importance that this instrument is used in an appropriate, transparent and realistic manner, depending on the specific situation in the country in question;

18.

points out that LRAs play a key role in promoting and shaping democratic processes. They are strategic partners in good governance and achieving beneficial development, and they also have a key role to play in the EU’s external policy;

19.

at the same time, emphasises the need to also evaluate ENP implementation in future based on the extent to which LRAs and their representatives are involved at supranational level — something which is lacking in the Communication under review;

20.

emphasises the need to enrich the bilateral ENP with regional and multilateral cooperation initiatives, based on the introduction of a mechanism to support cooperation between the EU and neighbouring countries, and also between individual countries. This could take place by upgrading and increasing cooperation arrangements in the context of existing EU initiatives, between regions and networks of European regions both inside and outside the EU;

21.

notes that the European Neighbourhood Policy is an interactive initiative, effective implementation of which requires involvement of and collaboration between all stakeholders at different levels of governance. Only then will ENP countries which are willing to carry out domestic reforms be able to work together effectively with the EU, opening the door to EU political support, comprehensive trade agreements, visa facilitation measures as well as technical and financial assistance;

22.

notes that differences between approaches in neighbouring countries to carrying out reforms and building close relationships with the EU as well as the diverse nature of challenges recently faced by individual ENP countries have meant that the EU has had to adopt a customised, ‘tailor-made’ approach to the ENP not only in relation to its geographical dimension (southern and eastern) but also, above all, expectations, possibilities and tasks for specific partner countries;

23.

agrees that the EU should invest in sectoral, thematically structured financial instruments. Such an approach is conducive to broader exchanges of best practices and definition of development strategies in selected key policy areas, such as reforming public administration, fiscal decentralisation and territorial cooperation;

24.

would like to emphasise the importance of supporting efforts to build stronger democracy and achieve political reforms in partner countries. There can be no doubt that a neighbourhood policy implemented in and by regions can be an effective means of promoting EU fundamental values: human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of people who belong to minorities;

25.

calls for particular attention to be paid to the importance and benefits of involving local and regional authorities in concrete projects of cooperation by the EU and ENP countries. Indeed, success in achieving the policy’s objectives closely depends on the level of regional development and the capacity of individual countries to govern effectively at central, regional and local levels;

26.

calls on the European Commission and Member States to take into account the recommendations and experience of the CoR members in support of the processes of political and economic change in partner countries and more effective collaboration at all levels of government;

27.

emphasises that the multilevel nature of individual countries’ foreign policies is also relevant. A basic challenge here is to generate synergies between national and subnational foreign policy dimensions in individual countries. In this connection, CORLEAP and ARLEM are ideal forums enabling the identification of needs and exchange of experience;

28.

would like to point out that, thanks to their international contacts and active involvement in economic life, local and regional authorities are helping to stimulate economic and social development, which is one of the fundamental goals of European integration. Bearing this in mind, local and regional authorities should participate in ENP planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation processes, especially in fields where they have direct competences and experience;

29.

is aware that building institutional and administrative capacity is of key importance for the majority of ENP countries. A key aspect of this dimension of the policy concerns local and regional authorities. The CoR and LRAs should therefore play an active role in framing and implementing Comprehensive Institution-Building programmes (CIB) initiated by the European Commission and Member States to support institutional and administrative capacity building in Eastern Partnership countries;

30.

encourages local and regional authorities to participate together with central governments in drawing up and applying association agreements, strategy documents and action plans agreed between the EU and partner countries;

31.

emphasises the importance of well-coordinated bottom-up initiatives and of support for cooperation between local and regional authorities from EU and ENP countries, thus helping to support the process of developing the structures of local democracy and civil society;

32.

feels that it makes sense to support initiatives in areas of practical concern to ENP cities and regions which can be implemented by subnational authorities, e.g. cooperation between partner cities, as well as cross-border, cultural, economic, etc. cooperation;

33.

believes that democratic administrative reforms at the level of central government should be complemented by measures at local and regional level. This is of great relevance to institutional capacity building and applying agreements with the EU, for example agreements on association or the development of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas;

34.

emphasises that regional development in partner countries should be a key goal for EU funding, with clearly defined criteria for its use based on defined and agreed regional development strategies, specific objectives and results. LRAs and civil society should be appropriately represented in bodies monitoring the use of such funding;

35.

calls for the introduction in both ENP dimensions of mechanisms encouraging direct dialogue, the exchange of information and the transfer of expertise, benefiting local and regional levels in ENP countries (e.g. based on the existing Local Administration Facility);

36.

wants to see more effective use of support instruments such as Twinning and TAIEX between EU local and regional authorities and their counterparts in ENP countries, with a view to helping ENP countries to develop modern, efficient administrative structures, for example through close cooperation between administrations that includes as a key feature the secondment of officials from a Member State public administration to that of an ENP country. EU regions could also step up their role in supporting potential participants in EU programmes for the 2014-2020 period focusing on third countries such as IPA II (Instrument for pre-accession assistance), the international relations strand of Horizon 2020 and EU programmes involving the participation of EU and non-EU countries, such as the 2007-2013 ENPI CBCMED programme, which will also continue to finance cross-border cooperation during the 2014-2020 ENPI CBCMED programme;

37.

is convinced that closer CoR involvement in the work of the thematic platforms will enable local and regional authorities to achieve more effective action and higher-quality results. Indeed, the CoR has a key role to play in this respect, thanks to its complementary nature and its support for decisions taken by CORLEAP and ARLEM;

38.

stresses the CoR’s commitment to advising the European Commission and its services in designing the criteria for EU funding and application procedures, to ensure that such funding is accessible and useful to local and regional authorities from European Neighbourhood Policy countries. However, these criteria must not overlook the need for ENP local authorities to take greater responsibility for both organisation and outcomes;

39.

feels that EU efforts to create lasting political and administrative structures should also include training programmes (on-site or distance learning) for representatives of local and regional administration to upgrade their professional skills and enable effective use of funding;

40.

recalls the projects already under way in the CoR to monitor and evaluate the devolution of powers in the neighbourhood countries. These tools, including an online platform could be used in the future not just as an information source but also as a basis for developing new priorities or amending existing ones;

41.

believes that information on available funding programmes and application procedures for EU funding should be provided to all those concerned in ENP countries. For their part, LRAs should communicate their needs for training and other measures in support of ‘good governance’ at local and regional level to the appropriate national and supranational partners. Effective communication and dialogue between partners should be what holds the European Neighbourhood Policy together;

42.

recommends drawing up an e-guide to ENP countries and to available funding instruments which are targeted at and available to local and regional authorities in ENP countries, based on the existing Inforegio regional policy website. This guide could be used to provide local and regional authorities in both the EU and partner countries with clear and up-to-date information;

43.

finally, calls on the European External Action Service (EEAS) to appoint ‘contact persons’ in each EU representation office in ENP countries. On the one hand, such contact persons could provide information to host country territorial organisations and LRAs on planned and existing initiatives at subnational level, and on the other they could pass on messages from the CoR to partners in ENP countries.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/50

1.

points out that restructuring and structural change are generally seen as an integral part of natural economic development;

2.

points out that the effects of restructuring are clearly felt at regional level. They can influence a region’s structural development and its competitiveness in the medium or even long term. In view of this, regional approaches are needed (decentralised policies taking local needs into account and implemented with the involvement of key partners) (1);

3.

points out that restructuring hits the less developed regions particularly hard, as they usually have a less competitive and innovative industrial fabric and high levels of unemployment, making it necessary to give special attention to this type of region;

4.

is therefore pleased that the Quality Framework acknowledges the shared responsibility of all stakeholders, including regional authorities. The Committee argues that this is also an issue of concern for local authorities, large cities in particular, which have the main concentrations of employers and play a key role in determining the economic situation of smaller urban centres in their catchment areas;

5.

notes that shared management is an essential prerequisite for the success of the proposed approaches. The EU, too, should support the strengthening of partnerships between all the important players. The State and regional/local authorities also have a key coordinating role to play, given that employees and employers often have different perspectives on restructuring processes;

6.

feels that in order to successfully implement the Europe 2020 strategy, it is essential in the current socioeconomic climate to focus all efforts on boosting employment (creating and maintaining jobs);

7.

attaches great importance to anticipating change and the adaptability of all stakeholders. There are three issues here:

8.

welcomes Commission-led initiatives such as the European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) or the European Restructuring Monitor (ERM) (2) and proposes these be further strengthened with, for example, tailor-made consultancy for local and regional authorities in specific situations;

9.

also appreciates the focus in Eurofound research activity on the regional consequences of restructuring, thus effectively addressing the lack of information in this field over the last few years;

10.

welcomes the fact that the Commission lists in its communication the best practices that it suggests should be adopted on a voluntary basis. It further recommends that the Commission address the calls by the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions (3) to revise the legislative framework on the information and consultation of workers in relation to anticipation and management of restructuring, the shortcomings of which the Commission discusses itself in this communication;

11.

recommends that the Commission cooperates with all interested stakeholders when evaluating Quality Framework implementation, while ensuring that this process also takes into account existing procedures or agreements between partners in each of the Member States;

12.

points out that the Commission’s proposed Quality Framework, comprising a set of recommendations and best practices, that the Commission recommends be adopted on a voluntary basis, makes no reference to a specific legal basis in the treaties and constitutes a sui generis legal instrument that is also not explicitly provided for in the treaties. As a result, the Commission’s approach does not allow the European Parliament to express a useful position. However, given that the Commission’s proposal is within the scope of the competences shared between the EU and the Member States regarding social policy, as set out in Articles 151 and 153 TFEU, and that exchanges of experience and best practices at EU level offer clear added value, the proposal appears to be consistent with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;

13.

highlights the role that LRAs play in forecasting skills needs and matching them with labour market needs (4) through measures in the areas of education, training and support for young entrepreneurs in particular. The Member States should be aware of this role and provide LRAs with the right resources to facilitate the transition of young people from education into employment, since local authorities in particular often have a role as service providers in education, training and employment (5);

14.

reiterates the fact that issues such as professional mobility or balancing supply and demand on the labour market at local level have a critical impact on the effectiveness of restructuring mechanisms. Workers’ mobility should be fostered through the provision of personalised job-seeking services, work experience and training courses so they can adapt their skill set to the requirements of the labour market (6). This particularly applies to specific groups facing long-term unemployment (young people, low-skilled workers, older people, migrants and the disabled);

15.

for border regions, stresses the importance of promoting true cross-border labour mobility by removing barriers in labour law and social security (eradicating tax barriers, exporting unemployment benefits and making pension rights transferable) (7). LRAs can also play an important role in the field of advice for commuters using the EURES services or existing cross-border structures (8);

16.

encourages local authorities to cooperate more closely on exchanging information on job opportunities in a given local or regional labour market. Joint action to promote individual mobility and exchange labour market information could boost employment in occupations where there is high demand and a lack of training at local or regional level;

17.

welcomes the European Commission’s communication on a European Industrial Renaissance (COM(2014) 14) presented in January 2014 and invites the Commission to incorporate the anticipation of change and the management of restructuring as active measures to support broader European industrial policy. Structural changes have an impact on industry in regions and cities. We therefore think that any discussion of structural change must also tackle the role of industrial and regional policies in the anticipation of these changes;

18.

stresses the role of LRAs in the use of EU Structural Funds such as the ESF and the ERDF, as well as the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in relevant regions, to promote job creation and inclusive transitions. Funding for measures relating to the anticipation of change and restructuring should come from several different sources, in order to ensure continuity;

19.

underlines the importance of research and innovation strategies based on smart specialisation (RIS3) for enabling the changes prioritised by regions. By its very nature, an RIS3 is a process intended to achieve changes to the business environment first and foremost, helping regions to gain access to the best innovation skills and the best partners. The European cooperation emphasised in RIS3 processes adds considerable value to the implementation of structural changes;

20.

feels that the most important role for LRAs in restructuring is coordinating all the stakeholders. In practice, permanent coordination structures have proven crucial in ensuring rapid and effective responses at regional level;

21.

endorses the EESC’s call for closer coordination and cooperation at EU level between Commission policies and services, agencies and the numerous observatories, so that companies that are restructuring receive clear, consistent support in their decision-making. In particular, suitable and specific support and mentoring systems should be available to SMEs and micro businesses to help them with planning ahead for restructuring (9).

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/54

1.

stresses that a stronger focus on the EU’s commitment to guaranteeing the principles of solidarity and responsibility-sharing is needed to create a fully-fledged migration policy addressing all the issues facing local and regional authorities. In this respect, the CoR welcomes the priority placed by the Italian Presidency on an over-arching migration strategy and the emphasis on promoting genuine solidarity on a real European migration policy for migrants, third countries of origin and countries of transit, as well as countries, regions and cities of destination, and between the different levels of governance;

2.

welcomes the fact that the Italian Presidency is setting as a clear priority the development of a Common European Migration Policy based on the full respect for human rights, solidarity, mutual trust, international obligations and shared responsibility between Member States and local and regional authorities, capable of contributing to the EU’s Growth Agenda and matched with a strategy for promoting economic growth in migrants’ countries of origin;

3.

believes that multilevel governance is a key instrument and a prerequisite to achieving optimum results in integrating migrants and second generations. All levels of government through the Union should share responsibility for the reception and integration of refugees and migrants, and for improving inter-regional cooperation, coordination and solidarity through the introduction of a responsibility-sharing mechanism between the European Union, Member States, regions and local authorities that takes account of structural constraints, resources, labour market needs, demographic situations and other relevant factors (such as family reunification). In this framework, it is crucial that the EU, national and sub-national authorities work in close cooperation with civil society, migrants’ associations, home and transit countries of migrants outside the EU and local communities and be receptive to their input;

4.

wishes to congratulate Italy on its activities in the context of the Mare Nostrum operation to save lives in the Mediterranean Sea; deplores, therefore, the decision of the EU to replace it with an operation of Frontex which does not have a clear focus on saving lives and rescuing people in distress; calls urgently on the European Union and the Member States to provide the necessary means to avoid deaths at sea;

5.

considers that, in such a sensitive and strategic area, the European Union and its chief institutions should shape a genuine migration policy and assume the political responsibility for its implementation. This task should not be left up to individual states, particularly border states; instead, states and local authorities should be included in a common migration strategy flanked by suitable operational measures;

6.

recalls that 15 years after the first attempts to draw up a common migration policy, there is still a wide gap between practice and the principles and stated values. There has been insufficient recourse to Article 80 TFEU for adopting measures implementing solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility with regard to mobility, including its financial implications, between the Member States. Commitments concerning migration and repatriation have been entirely voluntary, and in some cases it has been local authorities that have taken the lead in making these commitments a reality;

7.

welcomes the European Council’s Strategic Guidelines for legislative and policy planning in the area of freedom, security and justice of June 2014 which makes the full and effective transposition and implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) an absolute priority;

8.

recalls that the European Union needs migration both for the freedom of movement of its citizens between Member States, and as immigration from third countries, to respond to demographic change and potential labour market shortfalls; encourages the European Council to continue its action, also taking into account the need to address the issues of a lack of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility. However; the focus in the next legislative phase should not be solely on consolidating and implementing the existing rules while there is still no precise definition of how the solidarity principle might be encouraged and while there is no real comprehensive EU migration policy;

9.

emphasises that, to ensure an effective implementation of the Strategic Guidelines at all levels, the involvement of local and regional authorities is key. The Committee of the Regions is ready to cooperate closely in drafting an action plan. As of 2015, the scope of the European Integration Forum, established by the Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee, will be broadened to encompass the area of immigration and asylum policy. This action plan could benefit from the expertise of an enlarged forum to which the CoR contributes. Therefore, the CoR reiterates the call to become a member of the Bureau of the future European Migration Forum alongside the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee;

10.

Local and regional authorities currently shoulder a considerable financial burden as regards the reception of migrants. However, reception is unevenly spread both within and between Member States, with some local and regional authorities taking a far greater share of the responsibility by processing a large proportion of new arrivals which often exceeds the capacities of individual regions;

11.

sees the uneven distribution of asylum-seekers and refugees between states, and between and within regions, as a major challenge for local and regional authorities. Another issue is the lack of forward planning and inability to prepare for reception sufficiently in advance. Improvised solutions can have negative social consequences, making it harder for new arrivals to adequately equip themselves for starting the integration process;

12.

therefore believes that it is time to establish more clearly and realistically what solidarity in the EU and within the Member States might entail when it comes to asylum and migration issues. It is clear that different countries, regions and local authorities have different ideas about what constitutes reasonable sharing of responsibility or solidarity, based on their specific circumstances and wishes;

13.

points out that solidarity is a principle which is a driving force in the decisions taken by local authorities that receive large numbers of migrants. Places such as Lampedusa in Italy, Ceuta and Melilla in Spain and Calais in France are only a few of the entry and transit points for asylum seekers and migrants within the EU, however they are illustrative of the considerable difficulties that some local authorities have to cope with in terms of reception of migrants, management of migrants fleeing their countries and humanitarian responses;

14.

feels that effective cooperation and trust between local, regional, national and EU levels with regard to the sharing of resources and responsibilities are absolutely essential for sustainable and fair reception of asylum-seekers and migrants;

15.

considers that existing structures provide tools and a channel for the policy dialogue between the EU level, Member States at national level and civil society organisations, but the policy dialogue between the local/regional and European levels is fragmented or carried out on an ad hoc basis;

16.

suggests a review of the accessibility of financial resources designed to allow local and regional authorities to fulfil their obligations regarding migration and integration, ensuring they have access to national and EU Funds (such as the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Neighbourhood Policy Instrument, the European Social Fund and the External Borders Fund);

17.

stresses that the strengthening of border controls and measures to tackle irregular migration is essential, but cannot take precedence over international obligations (under UNCLOS, SOLAS and SAR, for example) to save lives and respect human rights, or over the right to seek asylum in the EU, which must remain a place of refuge for people in need of international protection. The CoR also wishes to underline the importance of always observing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to the reception of minor asylum-seekers, refugees, migrants and unaccompanied child refugees;

18.

calls for the strengthening of Frontex for more effective and efficiently reinforced and streamlined cooperation between national border authorities and for protecting migrants as well as the EU’s external borders and cooperating in combating human trafficking;

19.

supports the efforts to continue monitoring and implementing the strategies outlined in the ‘EU action on migratory pressures’, calling on the European Union to focus its attention on the need to coordinate the action taken by the Member States with the central role played by the relevant EU Agencies, such as the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex), EUROPOL and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO);

20.

considers it essential to continue efforts towards the further development of an integrated and balanced border management in order to improve external border control and deal more effectively with irregular immigration, the smuggling of migrants, human trafficking and other forms of cross-border crime and transnational crime linked to human trafficking;

21.

supports the ‘smart border package’ aimed at speeding-up, facilitating and reinforcing border checking procedures for foreigners travelling to the EU, including the Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and the Entry/Exit System (EES), but recalls some of the concerns regarding the protection of privacy and the cost-effectiveness of the proposals it expressed in 2013. The CoR takes note of the results of the technical study by the European Commission and eu-LISA which proposes a long-term solution for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, which are essential instruments for implementing the EU’s asylum, border management and migration policies;

22.

suggests paying particular attention to increasing the synergies between the various bodies and systems set up to date, on the basis of their specific remit and scope: for example Frontex, SIS II and EUROSUR, operating within the framework of migration and the movement of persons and, in terms of security, EUROPOL and EUROJUST, working to prevent and eradicate the criminal offences associated with illegal transits;

23.

promotes, with special regard to EUROSUR, the full implementation of the recently- adopted Regulation in order to reduce the risk of loss of lives at sea;

24.

encourages efforts to look into measures for preventing irregular migration, to create safe and legal alternative routes into Europe, in order to avoid further loss of human lives during dangerous journeys. These could include establishing a ‘humanitarian corridor’, issuing more visas on humanitarian grounds, increasing resettlement quotas and setting up reception centres in countries of transit for processing asylum applications or determining eligibility for legal entry into EU countries (1). The local and regional authorities could play a very useful role in this respect;

25.

welcomes the Task Force Mediterranean (2), that was set up following the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 7—8 October 2013 to provide a European Union response to the situation. Its primary aim is to identify the appropriate tools to avoid a repetition of the tragic events that have occurred off the coast of Lampedusa and to develop a more strategic, holistic and long term approach to the migration situation in the Mediterranean area. The CoR recalls, in this context, its own work in ARLEM and in particular the recommendations contained in the report on ‘the role of local and regional authorities in managing migration in the Mediterranean’, recently adopted by the ARLEM ECOTER commission;

26.

wishes to highlight that the ‘Frontex Plus’ operation, launched on 27 August 2014 and scheduled to take the place of Mare Nostrum, does not cover the activities currently carried out by Mare Nostrum. The Frontex budget has been limited under the multi-annual financial framework. Frontex Plus will have to rely on Member States’ contributions. Leaving aside the financial considerations, the spirit of the two operations is also different — Mare Nostrum follows a humanitarian approach while Frontex responds to a primary concern for border control;

27.

encourages the further development of dialogue and cooperation with third countries of origin and transit of migratory flows, in line with the EU Global Approach on Migration and Mobility, via the Mobility Partnerships instrument and via regional dialogues and processes, such as the Rabat Process;

28.

supports Frontex efforts aimed at concluding operational cooperation agreements with third countries on border control and irregular immigration, which should promote ownership by the third countries concerned;

29.

welcomes the initiative launched by the Italian Presidency to establish a similar dialogue with the countries of Eastern Africa. The promotion of legal migration is intended to help the EU’s efforts for growth and thereby prevent the possible abuse of legal migratory channels which may lead to the credibility of the entire European migration system being undermined;

30.

stresses the importance of the concept of circular migration which would help to balance the impact of migration on both home and host regions, contributing to the development of both. This includes the need for an effective and sustainable return policy, which fully respects the rights of migrants and takes into account the specific features of the countries of origin. For this purpose, practical cooperation between the local authorities and the relevant third countries must be improved in order to encourage and create the most efficient voluntary return systems;

31.

believes that the authorities at all levels must be actively committed to protecting and promoting dialogue and cooperation with third countries to give concrete support to legal channels of entry at political and economic levels, as well as to prevent and deal with irregular immigration and all related forms of crime by improving the institutional and operational capacities of the competent authorities of those countries;

32.

emphasises that local and regional authorities can play a role in the joint effort with the EU and national level and with the third countries to address and prevent irregular migration through activities in the countries of origin (e.g. awareness-raising campaigns, information about the risks of illegal border crossing, measures preparing people for integration, training, assistance with family reunification, language courses and measures to improve intercultural dialogue) and in the countries of destination (e.g. setting up local selection systems in line with local needs, reception and support measures, etc.). They can also help to identify and protect the victims of human trafficking and help with the re-integration of irregular migrants who return to their countries. At the same time, effective legal migration and integration policies at local and regional level are a means of combating racism and xenophobia;

33.

suggests that stepping up the resettlement of refugees in the EU must be an integral part of EU efforts to support the countries in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean receiving large numbers of refugees (3). This is an area in which European cities and regions have played a major role, promoting the integration of refugees into local communities and taking steps to boost social cohesion;

34.

calls for ‘Migration and Integration Partnerships’ between cities and regions of the countries of origin and destination to be promoted, in order to increase cooperation and mutual trust and thereby ensure a more decentralised management of migration. The Committee of the Regions also reiterates its suggestion (4) that local and regional authorities should be involved in the development of ‘Migration and Integration Partnerships’ with third countries;

35.

emphasises that the Commission communication on the renewed European Agenda for Integration (5) called for more action to be taken at the local level and points to the need for a genuine ‘bottom-up’ approach for the development of integration policies;

36.

argues that local and regional authorities should play a more significant role in establishing the broader context when it comes to tackling migration policy;

37.

underlines the need for the sharing of best practice among local and regional authorities and Member States in processing the claims of asylum-seekers and refugees, integration policies and tackling irregular migration. The Committee of the Regions can help in this process to achieve more effective involvement of local and regional authorities in designing and implementing immigration and integration policies, in line with multilevel governance and the subsidiarity principle; this could also help to address disparities among Member States and regions in the conditions in which asylum-seekers, refugees or migrants are received and hosted;

38.

suggests that the Agency for Large Scale IT Systems, eu-LISA, develop in the near future a complete data sharing system on the subject of migration and local authorities, based on the VIS system. Such a system could be very helpful in sharing expertise and pooling experience in terms of housing management, processing the claims of asylum-seekers and refugees, integration policies and tackling irregular migration and would offer practical solutions for encouraging the principle of solidarity between local authorities;

39.

the Committee proposes that a database be developed to help track migration flows between Member States. This database would include information on flows of people from countries of origin to countries of destination. Knowledge of these flows would facilitate decision-making at local, regional and European levels;

40.

believes that cooperation and solidarity would be considerably easier if more were done as regards practical and pragmatic solutions. Local and regional authorities’ expertise must not be overlooked when attempting to identify the main issues;

41.

believes that the EU should seize every opportunity to cooperate with institutional partners and to foster the debate in all relevant frameworks. Organisations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and assemblies such as the CoR’s Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) are important partners in this respect;

42.

welcomes the fact that the next ministerial conference of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to be held in October 2015 will focus on how cities can contribute to migration management and will serve as an excellent platform for global dialogue between cities. Wishes to be involved in this conference and looks forward to contributing to the discussions.

21.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/59

1.

At the request of the Italian presidency of the EU Council, the Committee of the Regions is drawing up robust proposals on how an interconnected Europe can be the basis for harnessing the great potential offered by the ICT sector as a source of growth and new jobs, especially over the next five years.

2.

In the era of the new industrial revolution, Europe can use digitisation to drive social and economic growth in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. It is necessary to understand what type of service the client requires and know how to develop the relevant technology, and to realise that the customer does not want to buy just a product but rather productivity, job security and customer satisfaction. All this can be achieved by harnessing digitisation. The circular economy, digitisation and service design can be used to generate new, green jobs and revitalise traditional industry. According to Commission studies, by 2020 Europe could increase its GDP by 4 % by stimulating growth of the digital internal market, and public administration could cut its costs by 15-20 % by digitising public services (1). Even during a period of high unemployment the internet is creating five new jobs for every two that are lost. It has been estimated that joint EU measures under the digitisation strategy could create as many as 3,8 million new jobs over the long term across all economic sectors.

3.

However, Europe’s capacity to generate growth and create jobs through digitisation is not adequate in every respect. People’s ICT skills must be developed, since fully half of the population have low ICT skills or none at all. Since in a global environment services are developed using IT, it is important for Europe’s competitive position as a producer and developer of services to be improved. Businesses also operate in a challenging environment: no European ICT company is among the top ten ICT companies based on sales.

—

Synergies between the different funding mechanisms and between the public and private sector need to be encouraged and well-planned so as to put in place high-quality and affordable infrastructure capable of supporting cloud computing, big data and high-speed broadband connections.

—

EU, national, regional and local authorities should make it a priority to provide people with the digital and entrepreneurial skills that enable them to make full use of new technologies, analyse big data, understand issues of cybersecurity, increase their employability and create new business opportunities.

—

EU, national and subnational authorities should aim to establish a flexible regulatory framework that reduces the cost and facilitates the creation and operation of ICT-business while allowing easy access to financing and encouraging innovation, including evaluation and reward policies.

—

The key role and potential of local and regional authorities with respect to digital training of citizens, creation and management of digital infrastructure — often in cross-border or interregional collaboration — the innovation and entrepreneurial discovery process and implementation of eGovernment should be considered in all future legislation to complete the digital single market.

4.

has welcomed proposals for measures relating to the internal market for electronic communications that would promote dynamic and sustainable growth in all sectors of the economy and create jobs, also ensuring a high level of consumer protection. The key role and potential of local and regional authorities in the implementation of eGovernment should be considered in all future legislation to complete the digital single market;

5.

notes the crucial role of the flagship initiatives, including the Digital Agenda, as tools for growth. The flagship initiatives should serve as a lever to enhance policy coordination at all levels with a view to the Europe 2020 targets and should be used in the milestone documents. Local and regional authorities should also keep using the flagship initiatives as a reference framework, not only for their policy planning, but also when interacting with higher levels of government and other stakeholders. Moreover, LRAs (and public bodies such as libraries, hospitals, or schools) could play a greater role in publicising and using Horizon 2020 results;

6.

points out that economic growth and jobs cannot be achieved through partial optimisation: rather a holistic mindset, leadership and measures are needed. For example, local and regional authorities are better able to apply digitisation in their own activities if their budget practices and indicators require a good overall outcome and encourage cooperation between sectors. To allow new innovative administrative procedures to be developed, it is also important to maintain a balance between the role of public authorities and new innovative development. There have been positive experiences with experimental funding, used to preempt problems or to develop and trial new social innovations;

7.

advocates combining bottom-up measures with top-down strategic leadership. Local and regional players are a driving force in the development and application of digitisation. Local and regional decision-makers, workers and ordinary people are enabling resources, provided that they have the necessary knowledge and skills, as well as a positive attitude to digitisation. Local and regional players are responsible for securing these skills. The local and regional level should monitor itself to ensure that local and regional players do not become obstacles to their own development;

8.

points out that in a citizens’ Europe digitisation makes it possible for people to build networks and maintain contacts so that they can discuss, learn from each other, form shared opinions and bring their own hopes and objectives to bear on decision-making and the strengthening of a shared European identity. New jobs are based on markets, and markets will be created more easily if Europe has a strong digital identity and people want to use digitisation and indeed demand new digital solutions;

9.

points out that by changing working methods digitisation has inevitably rendered some jobs obsolete and this means that companies and the public sector must be able to enhance and deploy a well-educated workforce to create more added value. Digitisation also enables people to seek a livelihood based on micro-entrepreneurship. In addition, digitisation should be used to aspire to high-growth entrepreneurship, since it allows products and services to be created and delivered without time or locational constraints. Even operators in remote regions have the same opportunities to benefit from digitisation;

10.

emphasises that a growth strategy is needed at European Union and Member State level that takes account of the opportunities offered by a digital strategy to support the creation of better and more permanent jobs for young people in particular. Employability is not just the responsibility of the individual: all stakeholders — businesses, universities, schools and colleges, local authorities and young people — should be involved;

11.

notes that securing the supply of natural resources and reducing the carbon footprint are key aspects of sustainable development. Europe’s economic growth should thus be based on something other than increasing the production of consumer goods. Products and services that can be made and sold digitally can create growth with a lower burden on natural resources (2);

12.

calls on local and regional authorities to assess the scope for using ICT, information modelling and a PPP-based approach to enhance the lifecycle sustainability of publicly owned assets — particularly the built environment and buildings;

13.

notes that in addition to technology-based product development, it is important to focus on developing human-centric techniques, services and products, including user-centric design, co-creation and rapid piloting. The Committee supports the Connecting Europe Facility initiative, which can be used to develop new infrastructure for digital public services and to better match the problems of different regions with proposed solutions from different parts of Europe. These measures will ensure that digital products meet real market needs, including public sector needs, more promptly and effectively, and that the competitiveness of European products and businesses improves;

14.

recommends establishing whether the gap between ICT and ‘business activity’ could be bridged by managing information system services using Enterprise Architecture, i.e. not just information or operations management but a holistic approach. The key to the Enterprise Architecture model is to fit the desired information and technology environment in a well-managed systematic way to the strategic and operating needs of the core activity;

15.

notes to this effect that local and regional authorities have a key role in ensuring equal and affordable broadband access in areas where the market fails, and urges that digital development projects in rural and sparsely populated areas be recognised as services of general economic interest (3);

16.

points out that ICT can be used in innovation to address critical socioeconomic challenges, and proposes a new policy framework through which the European Union would encourage ICT-based business to move towards addressing major societal problems such as climate change, energy issues or ageing societies. Active and healthy ageing is one of the key European Innovation Partnerships, and digital services could be developed to support active ageing (‘digital active ageing’). Investing in digital services to promote the health and social integration of elderly people could make Europe a pioneer in this field, creating the foundation for a new global export market, while reducing the cost pressure linked to ageing;

17.

sees an opportunity to stimulate growth and employment by connecting digitisation with traditional strong European sectors such as tourism and culture in a new and innovative way. For instance, providers and users of services could come together through new innovative digital platforms and approaches. Local and regional operators can help providers of tourism and cultural services to find similar service providers in other parts of Europe so that they can network and jointly raise their profile using digital approaches. Consumers of tourism and culture can both use and produce content through crowd-sourcing. Public data repositories such as the digital resources of museums, archives and libraries can serve as sources of new tourism and cultural services;

18.

recommends that digitisation be promoted by adopting complementary business models which can be used for instance by social enterprises and third-sector operators to produce services not covered by the public sector and where the private sector does not yet see business opportunities;

19.

points to the finding that investment in ICT can contribute more to regional growth than other capital investment, and therefore recommends prioritising the completion of the Digital Single Market by 2015 and addressing the investment needs of telecoms infrastructure by making full use of the EU structural funds, facilitating the right mix of public and private investment, using other financing sources like the European Investment Bank and setting the right regulatory framework. Very densely populated regions could be supported by private investment in infrastructure, while other regions would need to access public funding to support their infrastructure;

20.

welcomes the European Commission’s Connected Communities initiative, which is designed to give municipalities, the members of local broadband partnerships and operators guidelines on how to obtain funding and develop tailored business models for providing high-speed broadband to their community. The Committee would encourage local and regional players to make use of new EU broadband funding and support;

21.

believes that deploying accessible high-speed networks and bringing down their cost will create jobs for European businesses, boost the development of modern services, promote e-commerce and provide business opportunities in the spheres of IoT (internet of things) and M2M (machine-to-machine) technologies. The Committee is concerned about the trend whereby next-generation technology (cloud computing, 3D-printing, e-health, e-government, smart cities, entertainment services, telepresence, big data, in-car internet, etc.) is demanding even greater bandwidth and seamless service across Europe and the business models developed to introduce this technology are creating unsustainable cost pressures for local and regional authorities. It is important for the total cost structure of broadband projects to take account not just of start-up costs but also of future costs that will be incurred as a result of rapid technological development;

22.

points out that the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Smart Cities and Communities (4) is a platform that effectively promotes digitisation-based sustainable growth. To work properly, product development and testing platforms also require a well-functioning innovation and business ecosystem. Cooperation between interconnected smart cities enables local and regional operators as effectively as possible to promote the scaling-up of solutions produced in companies and thus boost companies’ competitiveness in a global business environment;

23.

recommends that when devising a smart specialisation strategy (RIS3), the regions draw on digitisation in their chosen specialisation strategy in order to create more added value and thus faster growth in the region. The Committee encourages LRAs to create innovative and entrepreneurial discovery processes and governance mechanisms to optimise synergies between different public and private funding mechanisms, to orchestrate synergies among different regional and local project portfolios and to create a focus on building European Partnerships through Horizon 2020, INTERREG, macro-regions, etc.;

24.

urges the Commission to take action to ensure that regions receive clear guidelines on how to implement RIS3 strategies through multifunded, large-scale ‘mega endeavours’ and project portfolios that are organised by orchestrating synergistic cooperation rather than managing individual projects. Digital project management tools and virtual working environments will be key to this development in working culture;

25.

notes that it has previously endorsed the view that ‘Instruments for the connection between the 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’ (5). Indicators developed could be adapted to assess the benefits of research projects carried out with public funding. Evaluation should focus on outcomes and impacts such as benefit to local and regional authorities, new business opportunities and job creation, improving the design, functionality, usability and efficiency of service production, the overall quality of products and services or the contribution to innovation systems generally;

26.

has emphasised in previous opinions the active use of innovative public procurement and simplification of procedures, and encourages local and regional administrators to apply these principles with a view to accelerating the expansion of digital approaches;

27.

notes the importance for the functioning of the internal market and competitiveness of the digital economy of bringing together contributors to the value network — content creators, marketing players, distribution channels, e-commerce, software firms, telecoms operators and finance providers, and research and innovation, education and IPR specialists — to find digital solutions. The Committee recommends that local and regional players be more involved in putting together and orchestrating Europe-wide and interregional value networks;

28.

notes that growth and new jobs can be boosted by opening up knowledge, processes, public spaces and innovation produced as a by-product of publicly funded R & D projects. For example, by making public spaces with online access and equipment available for an individually agreed fee, municipalities can support micro-entrepreneurs and mobilise different population groups;

29.

notes that according to Commission studies, open access to data from the public sector and publicly funded entities boosts economic growth and creates new business opportunities, including for small businesses, regardless of their location. Open public data helps to improve the conditions for a functional digital internal market where consumers can be offered easy, safe and flexible access to legal digital content and services (6);

30.

points out that the technology needed to open up public data is already advanced, but that at local and regional level this technology may not necessarily be well enough mastered and there may not be the tools required to find information available for re-use (7). Meta-data is an important aspect of information re-use and publishing meta-data in a standardised format would in particular enhance the cross-border transfer, accessibility and commercialisation of knowledge;

31.

notes that the amount of information available on the internet is increasing apace. Use of ‘big data’, or large amounts of information, is expected to generate new business opportunities and jobs in the next few years, but such data is only just starting to be used in the public sector, for instance in healthcare, transport or employment services. Huge potential remains to be tapped from the integration of open data and big data, and public and private data repositories. European Union legislation should be framed in such a way as to allow the appropriate application of big data without violating individual data protection rights;

32.

advocates making the EU’s internet environment the safest in the world and recommends that Europe present itself on the global market as a safe and stable business environment with a good telecommunications infrastructure, based on which it could attract knowledge-intensive companies to invest and expand their activities in regions of Europe. Network breakdowns, attacks and crime should be contained as much as possible, since they harm a company’s image, reduce labour productivity and damage the knowledge that is vital to businesses;

33.

advocates the building of technological platforms in Europe and clarification as to whether for cybersecurity reasons a more restricted internet network needs to be developed alongside the current internet, which would give a competitive advantage to trust-based business, cloud-computing services and research. The European Union could also steer beneficiaries of EU funding towards these platforms and thus facilitate the commercial success of new solutions;

34.

points out that it is critically important for security requirements at every level to be met in order to ensure optimum levels of privacy and protection of personal data and prevent unauthorised tracking of any kind of personal information and profiling using that information, including shopping preferences, medical status, health records, etc. Privacy protection should also be looked at in terms of how data from different files can be automatically merged to create highly personal profiles of individuals (8);

35.

is aware that digitisation — including Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) — is bringing about the same kind of change in higher education that has already transformed for instance the media business environment. Higher education in Europe risks falling behind other parts of the world that are investing in ICT-based strategies to modernise education. On the other hand, local and regional players can also use digitisation to modernise the education sector in collaboration with universities. This would improve conditions for European operators to succeed in a growing global education market and would also provide an opportunity to create new jobs in the higher education sector. Universities that have embraced digitisation can more credibly modernise other sectors in their own region, based on the Knowledge Triangle principle (education, research and innovation), and thus help companies to create new jobs and the public sector to develop eGovernment and e-services;

36.

sees as positive the efforts in partnership with industry, through the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs (9), to promote the necessary skills for ICT practitioners. Both organisations and individuals increasingly frequently need to adapt — learn new skills, and learn more — in order to keep pace with developments. This makes it all the more necessary for businesses and public administration to develop innovative ways of safeguarding skills availability in the future. Lack of the right knowledge and skills is regarded as the greatest obstacle to this. The digital skills of unemployed people in particular should be improved and people with a vocational or university qualification should be given the opportunity to learn e-commerce skills. The Committee of the Regions supports initiatives to develop European web entrepreneurship;

37.

has endorsed the Commission’s proposal to use the new educational programmes Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 to support education providers in developing new business and educational models and launch activities to test innovative teaching methods, curriculum development and skills assessment (10). The Committee encourages local and regional players to make the educational establishments that they maintain and fund into environments for developing, testing and piloting new digital learning approaches (living labs);