22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/1

1.

expresses its deep sorrow at the deaths in recent months of thousands of migrants trying to enter the European Union and therefore welcomes the debate on a new European Agenda on Migration and strongly argues that this issue concerns and must involve all the countries belonging to the European Union, and must constitute a responsibility for the entire European Union;

2.

believes that the EU’s approach to migration must be sustainable in the long term, solidarity based and respect human rights. It must take account of all aspects of migration, which include humanitarian obligations, asylum seekers, economic migrants; emphasises the importance of tackling smuggling and human trafficking, development and stability in non-EU countries, effective returns policy and Europe’s demographic challenges. The Committee underlines that regular migration can be an essential element of development. In addition to the benefits that successful immigration policy brings for the individuals concerned, it also provides significant benefits for society in general by contributing to the workforce and to the financing of welfare. The Committee therefore calls on all those holding political responsibility, the European institutions, national, regional and local authorities, the media and civil society not to stigmatise migrants or migration and to provide citizens with objective information on migration and its causes and effects; the Committee rejects all forms of discrimination and racist behaviour towards migrants as incompatible with the founding principles of the European Union. In this context, takes note of the results of the 25 and 26 June European Council meeting and calls on the European Commission and the Member States to work within the context of the agreement reached to address the migration emergency effectively, involving local and regional authorities;

3.

considers that the existing tools and channels for the policy dialogue between the EU, the Member States and civil society organisations do work, but notes that the policy dialogue between the local/regional authorities and the European level is fragmented or occurs on an ad hoc basis. The Committee therefore suggests actively involving and using the experience of local and regional authorities to improve standards with regard to reception conditions and asylum procedures, and that training and assistance with networking be provided for reception authorities. The local and regional authorities in the Member States responsible for the reception of refugees often do not have sufficient resources for performing this task. Moreover, the number of asylum applications is increasing steadily. In this regard, the Committee considers it a priority to boost the capacities of local and regional authorities to identify and protect vulnerable groups, in particular unaccompanied minors, who are frequently exploited by criminal gangs for the purposes of sexual slavery, forced labour or even organ trafficking. Asylum procedures must also be shortened and negative decisions implemented faster and more efficiently, as not only the dialogue between the political levels but also citizens’ confidence in the European and national asylum systems must be further strengthened;

4.

welcomes the Commission’s commitment to make proposals for a revision of the so-called Dublin regulation, which has clearly proven impracticable; calls on the Commission to start the debate on these proposals as soon as possible, ensuring that they move the focus away from coercion towards more sustainable ways of distributing responsibility between Member States while respecting migrants’ fundamental rights;

5.

strongly encourages the improvement of intelligence gathering in order to enable a proactive and preventive approach to avoid loss of human life, including cooperation between EU and national intelligence agencies and with maritime intelligence companies;

6.

emphasises that relocation and resettlement policies should involve all the European countries through the quota system and take into account geographical and demographical criteria, the size of a region or Member State, the population, the economic situation, the labour market needs and the available infrastructure and services, as well as other relevant factors such as family reunification. The Committee therefore welcomes the specification of such criteria for European relocation and resettlement schemes in the European Agenda on Migration in order to move towards a more sustainable policy response. Notes that the European Commission has finally invoked the emergency clause (Art. 78(3) TFEU), which seems fully justified under the present circumstances; underlines, however, that further measures should be adopted with full involvement of the European Parliament to ensure their transparency and legitimacy;

7.

points out that the uneven distribution of asylum-seekers and refugees among states and between and within regions is a major challenge for local and regional authorities, as is the lack of forward planning and the inability to prepare for reception sufficiently in advance. Improvised solutions make it harder to ensure that the integration process is swift and successful. Local and regional authorities must be guaranteed resources at state and EU level so that they can provide sustainable reception of asylum-seekers and refugees in the long term and can manage the unpredictable variations that the reception of asylum-seekers and refugees inevitably entails. The Committee urges all Member States to implement the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, as contained in Art. 80 TFEU and to cooperate with local and regional authorities in the implementation and operation of both the emergency relocation mechanism and the proposals for a redistribution mechanism made at the end of May; looks forward to further proposals for a mandatory and automatically triggered relocation system;

8.

believes that one crucial aspect that will facilitate agreement in Europe is the level of public confidence in our ability to successfully prevent further loss of life, disrupt trafficking networks and integrate refugees seeking genuine protection. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to engage with the European Committee of the Regions as a matter of urgency, in order to identify successful integration policies, raise awareness about them and facilitate their adoption throughout Europe. The Committee calls on the European Commission to remind Member States and local and regional authorities of the role that European Structural and Investment Funds can play in supporting integration policies;

9.

points out that the local and regional authorities are in the front line but are not equipped with sufficient resources. They often bear the human, financial and technical burden of saving human life, and provide support for the economic and social integration of migrants. In practice, they are obliged to manage, with their own resources, a migration crisis that affects all of Europe, not only the Mediterranean. Greater support is urged for the regions hosting most migrants, so they can be received under decent conditions;

10.

strongly argues that greater attention should be given to the security aspect by stepping up checks on migrants so as to help combat incentives to irregular immigration and the possible entry of criminals, protecting and distinguishing those identified as refugees escaping from real humanitarian emergencies from simple irregular migrants;

11.

welcomes the budget increase for the EU’s Triton and Poseidon operations and the commitment from 15 Member States to provide additional resources, which should enable the EU to react to emergencies more effectively, and underlines the need to adapt the geographical scope of both operations to the problems at hand. The Committee highlights the need for all Member States to assume their responsibilities, and calls for a mechanism that will provide for a further increase in this budget, in line with the changing requirements for effective rescue operations for as long as they are needed. It also emphasises that funds and resources should be released as swiftly as possible without being delayed by unnecessary bureaucratic procedures; encourages the Commission to produce swiftly the proposals for a review of the mandate of Frontex in order to give it a sound legal basis to carry out search and rescue operations;

12.

suggests that, in the near future, EU-LISA, the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, develop a comprehensive data-sharing system on the subject of migration and local authorities, based on the VIS system, while safeguarding the protection of personal data. Such a system could be very helpful in sharing expertise and pooling experience in terms of managing accommodation, processing the claims of asylum-seekers and refugees, developing integration policies and tackling irregular migration. It would also offer practical solutions for promoting cooperation in this area between national, local and regional authorities;

13.

believes that the EU’s response to the challenges and opportunities of migration will be incomplete if the economic and especially the political situations in the countries of origin are dealt with in isolation. The Committee therefore welcomes the European Commission recommendation to engage with third countries and reach agreements in order to manage migration and to strengthen their capacity to intervene and save the lives of migrants in distress. The Committee suggests that this engagement should also be pursued at the sub-national level, also involving law enforcement authorities, to achieve tangible results on the ground in the fight against smuggling networks, and in establishing legal migration paths and implementing return policies. Calls for the EU, Member States and local and regional authorities to intensify efforts to help develop the capacity of third countries to function in the global economy, in particular via trade, and the development of local entrepreneurship; in this context, calls on the Member States to honour their commitment to dedicate at least 0,7 % of their GNI to development cooperation and support, in particular decentralised development cooperation;

14.

notes that cooperation with stable governments in north Africa reduces departures from their coasts and hence the risk of deaths at sea. It is necessary, not to say crucial, for the EU to earmark further funds for the governments of the Member States with Mediterranean coasts, so that they can work with the relevant countries of north Africa on (i) maritime rescue; (ii) the establishment of areas equipped for reception, if necessary, on the north African coast; (iii) the modernisation of control instruments to reduce the number of departures and the ensuing risk of deaths at sea;

15.

reiterates its call for ‘migration and integration partnerships’ to be set up between cities and regions in the countries of origin and destination in order to enhance cooperation and mutual trust. These partnerships would include preparatory measures (such as language lessons and cultural and civic training), individual immigration projects, including workers’ training programmes, and setting up programmes for circular migration, voluntary return and the reintegration of migrants. These partnerships will complement the work of the European migration liaison officers seconded to EU delegations in key non-EU countries;

16.

considers that the creation of channels and opportunities for non-EU nationals to come to Europe to work or study should play a central role in the development of future migration policies. The Committee underlines that it is consequently essential to develop deeper cooperation with other countries concerned, and to provide information campaigns with local media in those countries on the opportunities for legal migration to Europe, the significant dangers linked to irregular migration and the EU’s return policy;

17.

reiterates the importance of addressing the root causes of the current irregular flow of people into Europe and therefore the importance of developing local democracy and economies in non-EU countries as a key aspect of their political stability, and calls on the European Commission and the Member States to further develop the existing cooperation with the European Committee of the Regions and Europe’s local and regional authorities in order to help build local administration capacity in those countries. The Committee therefore draws attention to the role played by the CoR’s Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) and the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities of the Eastern Partnership (Corleap), as well as by the Intermediterranean Commission of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR); underlines that ARLEM and Corleap can be used as platforms to help engage in a local and regional dialogue on how to prevent human trafficking, human smuggling and criminal groups, as well as being used as platforms for encouraging good governance, stability and peace;

18.

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

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/5

1.

welcomes the fact that the Expo 2015 on ‘Feeding the planet. Energy for Life’ coincides with the European Year of Development, and the target implementation date of the eight Millennium Development Goals on eradicating poverty and hunger and ensuring environmental sustainability;

2.

highlights the role of the European Union as a major global player in addressing the challenges of food and nutrition security and sustainability, and encourages it to invest in science and innovation as key factors for ensuring that all have access to healthy, nutritious and sustainably produced food; points out that the concept of a shared common agricultural policy designed to secure access to affordable food resources for all EU citizens and an adequate standard of living for farmers dates back as far as the Treaty of Rome; points out that food security, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises as a fundamental human right, is a prerequisite for poverty reduction; draws attention to the 122,6 million people (24,5 % of the population) living below the poverty line in the European Union and to the 9,6 % of the population living in conditions of severe material deprivation; reiterates that it is important for the European Union to secure access to sufficient healthy, suitable and nutritious food for its citizens, especially the most deprived;

3.

highlights that the EU should maintain its high standards in terms of food safety and food security as qualities which help to distinguish EU products globally; in this context, recalls its demand not to lower under any circumstances the level of legal norms in force in the EU Member States on food safety and animal welfare in bilateral trade agreements and its belief that, on the contrary, we must endeavour to further enhance this level;

4.

notes that the world is currently facing a diverse and significant set of challenges: continued population growth, middle class growth and growth in spending capacity, triggering changes in dietary demands (variety, primary products and high-quality products) combined with threats to global agricultural production capacity as a result of climate change;

5.

welcomes the fact that sustainable development has become the sine qua non of any socio-economic growth policy and calls for more political commitment at all levels of governance involving resources in all sectors;

6.

notes that food democracy is a bottom-up process that has to start at local level, with regions and cities, so that policies are adopted that contribute to food security and sustainability, and calls on local and regional authorities to recognise the right to a healthy and sustainable diet in their area;

7.

highlights the need to reinforce the links between different sectors related to food such as energy, forestry, marine resources, water, waste, agriculture, climate change, science and research and land use aspects, as all of them play a crucial part in delivering green economy;

8.

in this context calls for agriculture and the food supply chain to be more sparing in their use of water and fossil fuels, use less fertiliser and phytosanitary products, be more diversified and smarter in making the most of synergies between arable farming, livestock farming, organic waste management, residue streams and use various sources of energy;

9.

notes that farming is very important for the development of balanced and more cohesive territorial areas, especially rural areas, as it provides employment for almost 30 million people; notes that rural areas account for 90 % of the Union's territory and are home to 60 % of its citizens but are often less developed economically than urban territories; highlights that in order to foster competitiveness, increase resilience and create new jobs, rural areas should focus on diversified economic and environmental aspects of rural development and not exclusively on agriculture;

10.

recalls the objectives for the future set out by the Common Agriculture Policy in the areas of sustainable management of natural resources, food security, agricultural activity across Europe, balanced regional development, the competitiveness of European farming, support for young farmers and the continuous simplification of the CAP; reiterates its critical position on the insufficient measures introducing greater competition for small and medium farms; regrets that the CAP continues to favour larger productions to the detriment of small and medium farms;

11.

considers that rural areas are among the most vulnerable areas affected by climate change; therefore calls for the inclusion of climate mitigation and adaptation measures to territorial planning, management and budgetary instruments so that participatory mechanisms and farming practices can be used to facilitate sustainable development;

12.

in view of current lifestyle trends present in urban communities, proposes to promote the benefits of living in rural areas. Initiatives forging close links between farmers and food consumers can significantly contribute to the development of peri-urban areas and another kind of rural-urban relations including territorial partnerships in functional areas;

13.

underlines, moreover, the importance of a holistic repopulation project for abandoned and depopulated rural areas (remote or mountain regions, etc.) that ensures area-wide recovery and makes the most of local micro-farming, thus protecting biodiversity;

14.

calls for short supply chains for agricultural products as they help to develop sustainable production and responsible consumption. They meet a growing demand from consumers for authentic, seasonal, locally and community-produced products. This is also a socially conscious model of consumption that is respectful of the environment, cuts down on packaging and food waste, limits CO2 emissions and supports sustainable production practices;

15.

believes that the creation of an European logo to identify these products is long overdue and looks forward to an operational proposal;

16.

notes that local food production — especially agri-food production covered by PDO and PGI quality certification, whose standards of excellence are defined by strict production specifications — is not only an essential objective that creates new jobs locally and new skills but can also contribute to the economic and social development of our regions, preventing depopulation flows or excessive urban demographic pressure;

17.

emphasises that disadvantaged areas — especially mountain regions, whose products are valued for their quality — have to contend with additional costs that make food production more difficult and onerous;

18.

calls for non-GMO food to form a significant part of a sustainable diet; recalls that many regional and local authorities have opposed genetically modified (GM) crops in their territories, declaring themselves to be ‘GM-free areas’, and formed networks;

19.

recommends that the various stakeholders in sustainable production and responsible consumption, such as universities, schools and hospitals, should be informed of the possibilities of including sustainability criteria in their invitations to tender (for example, locally produced and organic products) so that they can make use of them in actual practice.

20.

calls, therefore, for the facilitation and promotion of permanent cooperation and coordination channels linking the different legislative levels of the European Union, Member States and European regions with a view to the speedy adoption of revised rules on product traceability and labelling that provide precise indications to enable consumers to decide on their informed use, including through the recognition of GM-free supply chains;

21.

recommends improving the aid scheme for the distribution of fruit and vegetables and milk in schools; given the degree of processing of products eligible for aid under this scheme and given the importance of the principle of establishing a healthy diet at an early age, suggests that financial support under the aid scheme should be limited to products which contain only small quantities of sweetening agents or salt and no harmful additives and flavour enhancers;

22.

reiterates its request to the European Commission to promote reduction of food waste (1) and to re-table a proposal for a food waste reduction objective of at least 30 % by 2025, based on its withdrawn proposal from 2014 amending the Waste Framework Directive to promote a circular economy and, to this end, to consider extending the positive governance model of the Covenant of Mayors; in this context, supports the European Parliament's call for 2016 to be dedicated to the European Year against Food Waste;

23.

notes that more than a third of tourist spending is devoted to food; underlines that food tourism has the potential to deliver job sustainability across the year and can lead to the creation of job opportunities; underlines that this can play a key role in local and regional growth and cohesion as well as the preservation of cultural heritage;

24.

calls for an awareness raising campaign for citizens on the value of genetic resources and the importance of conservation, research and sustainable use where these are concerned as well as training programmes which are tailored to market demands for engineers and farmers, along with coordination, monitoring and assessment measures to safeguard biodiversity in the agricultural sector;

25.

highlights the role that local and regional authorities play in adapting educational and professional skills of young people to the job market in rural areas; is committed to supporting and communicating regional and local best practices of innovative processes in food production, distribution and consumption methods; calls for increased awareness and societal acceptance by providing dietary education and encouraging good habits for health and wellbeing, using food and other resources more efficiently;

26.

reiterates its support for effective monitoring of compliance with and the simplification of the rules of food and feed law and other rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material and plant protection products that serve to build a stable market which is based on public confidence in these products; reiterates that EU delegated acts must be avoided in this area so as to enable regulatory costs to be fully explored and evaluated by the various tiers of government, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

27.

recalls the contribution of the Common Fisheries Policy to EU sustainable food production; calls for better promotion of the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy internationally. To this end, the Union should strive to improve the performance of regional and international organisations in conservation and management of international fish stocks by promoting decision-making based on science and improved compliance, increased transparency and stakeholder participation, especially fishermen, and by combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities;

28.

emphasises the need to work closely with the fishing industry via public-private partnerships as well as to connect businesses and research to ensure that the fishing industry is not only sustainable, but also competitive and innovative;

29.

stresses that domestic aquaculture production must be treated as a strategic sector (on a par with other primary sector production areas) when it comes to responding to future challenges in the areas of food resources, job creation, natural resources and regional development, bearing in mind that 70 % of seafood consumed in the European Union is imported;

30.

takes the view that the EU should lead the way in the development of ecological and sustainable fish farming methods, pioneering the ‘blue revolution’ by applying technology and innovation to fish production, feeding, hatching and harvesting within the EU.

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/9

1.

considers that the legitimacy and future development of the EU are crucially dependent on the Union's capacity to act effectively to meet the economic, political and social challenges before us and to better engage with citizens at all levels; recalls that this requires the active participation of the local, regional and subnational levels in EU governance; insists, therefore, that the Committee of the Regions must take part in the debates on the future of Europe, including its full involvement in a future Convention;

2.

welcomes the European Parliament's decision to launch this debate now and to consult the CoR, thus strengthening the reinforced political relationship between both institutions; welcomes the opportunity to contribute to making the EU more transparent, accountable, inclusive and effective; reiterates the need to rebuild citizens' confidence in the EU's capacity to act to improve their lives and protect and promote European values with due respect for national and regional competencies and identities;

3.

considers it important to create opportunities for discussion in close cooperation with the European Parliament on the possible changes, developments and adjustments of the current institutional structure of the European Union that will allow the CoR to be not only a consultative organ, but more integrated as a key player in the European legislative process;

4.

underlines the importance of citizenship and the fundamental rights on which the EU is based, and of working towards a stronger European representative and participatory democracy in Europe and at the various legislative levels of the European Union, the Member States and the regions in accordance with multilevel governance; calls for a revision and simplification of the European Citizens Initiative to make it more user-friendly and accessible to citizens; highlights the need to introduce a legal obligation for the European Commission not only to examine but to open a debate followed by a vote in the Council of the EU and the European Parliament on a successful ECI which gathers 1 million signatures, and suggests exploring other means of facilitating the exercise of participating in the EU decision-making;

5.

reiterates that it is essential to make the EU budget less dependent on direct contributions from the Member States and to review the EU's own resources without introducing additional levies;

6.

stresses its commitment to a European Union which is capable of acting in foreign and security matters as a force to promote security, stability, democracy and the rule of law; underlines the key role which local, regional and subnational authorities play not least via the platforms CORLEAP and ARLEM, in their contacts with non-EU countries on crucial policy issues such as: migration challenges and opportunities, employment policies, enlargement, the sustainable use of natural resources, energy, promoting innovation, culture, global environmental challenges, promoting development, an effective neighbourhood policy and sustainable urban policies;

The Committee of the Regions therefore, within the current Treaty framework:

7.

considers that the existing instruments provided for by the Lisbon Treaty and its protocols still have a lot of untapped potential that can improve the functioning of the EU on behalf of its citizens, including the use of the subsidiarity and proportionality monitoring provisions, the ECI and the ‘passerelle clauses’, and where necessary, the use of enhanced cooperation;

8.

welcomes the publication of the Better Regulation Package on 19 May 2015, but emphasises that the ‘better regulation’ agenda must not become a pretext for avoiding or abolishing necessary legislation; demands that a clear reference to the CoR be included in the draft Inter-institutional Agreement on better law making in recognition of the increased competence of the CoR under the Lisbon Treaty;

9.

calls for determined strengthening of the role of the Committee of the Regions in order to be able to directly exploit the knowledge and experience of the regional and local representatives in the legislative cycle and in the EU decision-making process, and in particular:

10.

believes that the CoR should in particular be actively involved in all discussions relating to economic, social and territorial cohesion. It therefore proposes:

11.

recalls that the task of monitoring compliance of EU legislation with the subsidiarity principle has been extended to include a role for the CoR and for regional parliaments with legislative powers, in close cooperation with national parliaments; in order for the CoR to contribute more effectively to the monitoring of subsidiarity and the overall quality of EU legislation, the CoR calls for further efforts in:

12.

recommends that all levels of government work together to achieve a lasting solution to the European sovereign debt and the ensuing economic and social crises and to attract investments in order to enhance competitiveness and job creation; recalls that local and regional authorities have suffered greatly during the crisis and demands respect for the Multilevel Governance model to ensure that this does not happen in the future; agrees in this context that the obligation to move those elements of economic governance which have been concluded outside the Treaties into the EU Treaty framework by 2016 provides an opportunity to address a limited number of other questions related to the future of the EU;

In the context of a future revision of the EU Treaties, the CoR therefore:

13.

calls to be given full membership in the future convention as the current institutions;

14.

proposes to consider a gradual institutionalisation of the CoR and its transformation into an European Senate of the regions and local autonomies as a Chamber of sober second thought; the European Senate would enhance the coordination among national and subnational institutions carrying out the subsidiarity scrutiny vis-à-vis the EU institutions, would be requested to give its consent on EU legislative dossiers in the field of cohesion policy and would be entitled to put forward to the European Commission proposals to adopt or amend EU legislation in the field of EU non-exclusive competence;

15.

suggests that legislative proposals relating to territorial cohesion be subject to the consent of the CoR; furthermore, would like to see its remit for mandatory consultation strengthened, by making the consultation of the CoR an integral part of the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ (Art. 294 TFEU);

16.

proposes that a horizontal clause be introduced in the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union that would require the CoR to be consulted in areas of shared competence on measures coordinating economic and employment policies and in areas of support, coordination and ancillary action; recalls that the territorial dimension must be better considered in any future proposals on deepening the EMU and major dossiers must be subject to an ex-ante assessment of their territorial impact;

17.

in any case, calls for a mandatory consultation of the Committee of the Regions on issues relevant to local and regional authorities concerning measures that affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market (Art 115 TFEU) and in other policy areas which have a direct relevance to the local and regional level, such as:

18.

suggests also reviewing the ‘minimum one month’ deadline for consultations of the CoR by the EP, Council or Commission (Art 307.2) which has proven impractical;

19.

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

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/12

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 June 2015 on its priorities for the sixth term of office 2015-20; its resolution of 8 July 2015 on the future institutional set-up of the EU and the Protocol of cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions signed on 16 February 2012;

—

having regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

1.

reiterates its firm conviction that the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) is complementary to cohesion policy and that strong synergies between the new EFSI and the operational programmes of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) will be crucial in order to ensure coherence between investment projects and regional and local development strategies; recommends the involvement of local and regional authorities in the process of project selection and implementation as well as the organisation of decentralised investment fora;

2.

urges the Commission to closely engage local and regional authorities and the CoR in the efforts to simplify and accelerate the implementation of the ESIF funds, notably on the basis of the first conclusions of the high level group of experts monitoring simplification for beneficiaries to be presented in 2016;

3.

reiterates its call to the Commission to present a White Paper on Territorial Cohesion, based on the work of the Luxemburg Presidency in analysing the interplay between the Territorial Agenda 2020 and the Europe 2020 strategy;

4.

calls on the European Commission to support exchange and cooperation between regions regarding a better use of smart specialisation strategies in implementing the Structural Funds in order to foster innovation-driven growth;

5.

encourages the Commission to relaunch the debate on ‘Beyond GDP’ and the development of alternative or complementary indicators for well-being and sustainable development;

6.

urges the Commission to present a White Paper on an integrated EU Urban Agenda based on the declaration adopted in Riga, i.e. through the rapid application of urban impact assessment as part of the new Commission guidelines on impact assessments and the production of urban indicators to monitor the progress achieved;

7.

reiterates the need for recognition of rural areas as development and innovation hubs which contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy in the framework of a balanced relationship with urban hubs in order to achieve the goal of territorial cohesion as enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon;

8.

calls on the Commission to take greater account, in future proposals related to cohesion policy, of the influence of regional culture and traditions, which are invaluable owing to their capacity to integrate rural and urban communities, and are a factor in the promotion of rural initiatives;

9.

urges the Commission to address the growing disparities between European regions by ensuring that sufficient commitment and payment appropriations in support of growth and research across Europe are made available within the framework of the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, due to be completed by the end of 2016;

10.

encourages the Commission to continue supporting the cross-border cooperation and the implementation and development of macro regional strategies, as an integrated framework 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 and stresses the importance to more strictly involve in this process the regional and local authorities, also represented in the CoR, and the economic, social subjects of territories involved in the macro regional strategy process;

11.

calls for the use of genuine EU own resources to be extended and expresses its desire to participate in the 2016 interinstitutional conference following up the results of the High Level Group on Own Resources.

12.

urges the Commission to publish the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy, which should be followed up as swiftly as possible in 2016 to ensure that the revised strategy includes a territorial dimension, thereby ensuring effective coordination of the relevant strands of EU policies, including cohesion policy, the Investment Plan for Europe and other EU programmes;

13.

asks the Commission to endorse the Committee’s call for Member States to actively involve local and regional authorities in the European Semester, in particular in the design and implementation of their National Reform Programmes;

14.

urges the Commission to follow up on the ‘Five Presidents’ report’ and present all measures necessary to make the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) more resilient and turn it into a framework for better coordination and structural convergence, capable of achieving the objectives set out in Article 3 TEU, including an EMU-level fiscal capacity;

15.

considers that flexibility in the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact with regards to investment should be extended to all Member States; therefore calls on the Commission to make proposals to this end and also to assess the impact of the new ESA 2010 rules on the ability of local and regional authorities to invest.

16.

reminds the Commission of its commitment to propose a revised and strengthened Small Business Act (SBA) and suggests a more prominent role for local and regional authorities in implementing the SBA principles;

17.

calls on the Commission to complete work for the establishment of an European area of skills and qualifications, which would anticipate labour market skills needs and better match them with available skills, through education, vocational training and lifelong learning, in order to stimulate the creation of jobs and fight unemployment, especially youth unemployment;

18.

reminds the Commission of its commitment to support an EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work, strengthening the role of the LRAs and promoting a new governance also by a European central steering committee responsible for defining, coordinating and developing health and safety at work issues;

19.

expects the Labour Mobility Package to be published soon and also expects it to include a proposal for the possible revision of the Posting of Workers directive;

20.

calls for the European Accessibility Act to be finalised;

21.

urges the Commission to step up its efforts for presenting measures aimed at reconciling professional and private lives by reviewing the 2010 directive on parental leave, by unblocking the institutional deadlock with regard to the Maternity Leave Directive and by presenting a concrete strategy for achieving gender equality in the EU;

22.

requests that further work be carried out on intermodal transport, and notably in the form of a legislative proposal on a European scheme for passenger rights in intermodal travel;

23.

reiterates its call to the Commission to publish a Green Paper on mobility in geographically and demographically challenged regions;

24.

calls on the Commission, in the framework of the 2016 review of the EU VAT Directive, to clarify the conditions under which the non-taxation of intermunicipal cooperation arranged under public law and outside the scope of public procurement law can be regarded as consistent with EU law;

25.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to relaunch the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in 2016, with the aim of introducing long-term reforms on profit attribution to create a fairer corporation tax environment in Europe;

26.

expects the Digital Single Market to create the right conditions for digital networks and eCommerce to maximise the growth potential of the digital economy by investing in high-speed, trustworthy ICT infrastructure, supporting eGovernment, public services and digital skills and proposes that an e-residency scheme be developed across the EU in order to simplify access to the digital single market for digital investors from outside the EU;

27.

expects a proposal to ban geoblocking in the digital single market;

28.

calls on the Commission to come forward with proposals for a coordinated approach to the rules applicable to the sharing economy, giving due consideration to the difference between commercial and non-commercial activities;

29.

calls for the review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) in the light of technological developments and highlights the need to pursue policies which encourage the pluralism of news media in all Member States;

30.

looks forward to concrete measures on the part of the Commission to advance the aims outlined in the Council conclusions of 28-29 May 2015 on the European Research Area and on Science 2.0, with the support of the CoR and local and regional authorities;

31.

expects a follow-up of the Commission Green Paper on the possible extension of geographical indication protection of the EU to non-agricultural products.

32.

calls for full and ambitious implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) 2014-2020; consequently urges the Commission to present in 2016 the overdue Communication on Land as a Resource, a new proposal for a directive on access to justice in environment matters, and a legislative proposal on environmental inspections and enforcement;

33.

reiterates its call for the Commission to incorporate into EU legislation the objective of preventing any net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and consequently expects the Commission to present in 2016 an appropriate initiative under the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020;

34.

hence, asks that a review of the legislation on traceability and labelling of foodstuffs should be approved as soon as possible, in collaboration and constant connection with the different levels of legislation of the European Union, Member States and European regions, in order to let consumers decide about their conscious usage also due to the recognition of completely GMO free production chains;

35.

underlines the key role of the future legislative proposals on the circular economy, and of consistent, EU-wide implementation of the current laws, in particular a reduction in the landfilling of recyclable waste, and repeats its request for ambitious further development of the waste and recycling targets and points out the large potential of the circular economy for innovative SMEs;

36.

requests that it would be involved in the process of preparing the new legislation provided for under the Energy Union package, in particular the review of the renewable energy directive and the review of energy performance of buildings and energy efficiency directives;

37.

expects the Commission to put forward an action plan to strengthen the role of the Covenant of Mayors in energy and climate policies, to prolong the initiative beyond 2020 and support its expansion worldwide; calls on the European Commission to fully integrate the Mayors Adapt initiative within the Covenant of Mayors, and to use the Covenant of Mayors, in coordination with Smart Cities solutions, as a vehicle for the implementation of energy and climate policies;

38.

encourages the Commission to put forward a Communication on Smart Cities to provide additional support for intelligent solutions with regard to energy efficiency, urban mobility and innovation by closely cooperating with the CoR in mapping existing initiatives and better coordinating them; urges in this context that the role of local and regional authorities be recognised in a range of other areas beyond energy efficiency in buildings, and reiterates its call for the Commission to support small and medium scale production of renewable energy as it can serve both to alleviate energy poverty and ensure security of energy supply;

39.

calls on the Commission to take measures to promote the modernisation and innovation of rural economy and to present regulatory mechanisms in the dairy sector anticipating and cushioning the volatility of the markets, in order to maintain agriculture in all regions and preserve rural communities;

40.

reiterates its request to the European Commission to promote reduction of food waste and to retable a proposal for a food waste reduction objective of at least 30 % by 2025, based on its withdrawn proposal from 2014 amending the Waste Framework Directive. In this context, it supports the European Parliament’s call for 2016 to be dedicated to the European Year against Food Waste;

41.

notes that six of the seven greatest risk factors for premature death relate to how we eat, drink and move, and calls on the Commission to examine coordinated action at EU level to better address rising levels of overweight and obesity across Europe;

42.

supports the European Parliament vote in favour of the aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational establishments and calls on the Commission to present concrete proposals in 2016.

43.

calls on the Commission to implement the European Agenda on Migration in cooperation with the local and regional authorities, particularly in the light of their experiences regarding reception conditions and relocation mechanisms and to put forward legislative proposals on a resettlement mechanism and a permanent relocation mechanism in order to achieve a fairer distribution of those in need of international protection within the EU; expects therefore an evaluation and a possible revision of the Dublin III Regulation; reiterates its proposal to set up ‘migration and integration partnerships’ between cities and regions in the countries of origin and destination, and highlights the role that the European Structural and Investment Funds can play in supporting migration policies and integration processes and the active inclusion of people coherently with principles of EU and social cohesion;

44.

supports the humanitarian mission currently in place and acting in accordance with shared EU values; encourages the Commission to use a broad approach in its action on migration taking into account the economic, social, environmental, security and sovereignty issues of Member States when implementing the strategy. The CoR could contribute to this work by promoting the exchange of views amongst local and regional authority representatives on this issue and propose potential solutions;

45.

invites the Commission to encourage dialogue at all levels of governance as an important element of the EU enlargement process and to systematically address in the annual enlargement report the state of decentralisation and the role of local and regional authorities;

46.

calls for an extensive review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), which should focus on three strategic priorities: proper democratic governance, sustainable territorial development and circular migration and mobility: asks in particular for initiatives supporting decentralisation processes to be stepped up; notes the importance of strengthening the institutions of local bodies and urges the Commission to continue the Local Administration Facility (LAF) and extend it to all neighbouring countries;

47.

believes it to be of particular importance that local and regional authorities are involved in the multi-lateral and bi-lateral track of the new ENP and that sufficient funding is granted to support reforms at their level, as requested by the Heads of State and Government at the Riga Summit;

48.

remains convinced that the TTIP could be an opportunity to boost growth and employment in the EU, in that it may provide reciprocal market access for trade in goods, services, investment and public procurement, cut red tape and remove non-tariff barriers to trade provided that the EU Member States’ existing legal standards, in particular in relation to social, environmental and consumer policy, are fully respected and that the democratic participation and powers of local and regional authorities are safeguarded;

49.

considers that the same prerequisites apply to the TiSA negotiations in their more restricted scope; calls on the Commission to involve the CoR in the TiSA negotiation process, in particular by granting the CoR similar access to negotiation documents as for TTIP;

50.

insists on the need to localise the new Universal Sustainable Development Goals to be achieved during the next 15 years, and therefore asks, with a particular focus on decentralised cooperation, for specific initiatives towards local and regional authorities to support their efforts in implementing them;

51.

invites the Commission to address the global urban agenda in view of the Habitat III Conference and to involve local and regional authorities in the shaping of the European Union’s position.

52.

calls for a revision and simplification of the European Citizens’ Initiative to make it more user-friendly and accessible to citizens;

53.

calls for renewed actions by the Commission to foster interinstitutional cooperation in communicating by also using the leverage potential of the CoR members to connect with citizens and to ‘go local’ across the European Union in its activities;

54.

calls on the Commission, as regards its proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) on a mandatory Transparency Register, to exempt democratically elected representatives of regional and local authorities and associations from the mandatory register;

55.

welcomes the fact that the Commission’s proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation mentions territorial impact assessment as one of the tools for conducting impact assessments and calls on the Commission to use this tool systematically for legislative proposals that could have a territorial impact; reiterates however its demand that the IIA should recognise the increased and specific role of the CoR under the Lisbon Treaty;

56.

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

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/17

1.

welcomes the initiative set out by the European Commission in the Green Paper — Building a Capital Markets Union, the key element of which is creating a single capital market;

2.

points out that the private initiative and entrepreneurship play an important role in the process of creating a competitive European Union economy;

3.

stresses the importance of creating a common, single capital market;

4.

calls on the Commission to speed up its work on the action plan and put forward legislative proposals as soon as possible to achieve the objective of a fully integrated single EU capital market by the end of 2018;

5.

welcomes the Commission’s efforts to bring down barriers to investment in business, which will particularly benefit small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); underlines that unlocking the potential of the capital market is an important dimension of obtaining sustainable local and regional growth and jobs;

6.

underlines the need to take further structural and anti-cyclical initiatives in the field of financial markets so as to impact all EU Member States and also benefit regions with less developed financial markets;

7.

recognises the need to diversify sources of financing the EU economy and for mechanisms which bring in new investments as factors which bring stability and promote development;

8.

is specifically interested in those elements within a capital markets union which could boost regional and local development;

9.

expresses particular interest in and strongly supports all actions aimed at:

10.

points out that a capital markets union must enable more diverse sources of financing for investment projects which require many financial entities to be involved due to their specific characteristics and scope;

11.

agrees that the creation of a capital markets union will require particularly extensive analyses and consultations to identify barriers and possibilities and then to undertake various regulatory, institutional and educational measures;

12.

welcomes the beginning of work on the process of creating a capital markets union;

13.

believes that a single, regulated capital market within the European Union will be another tool to improve resilience against asymmetric shocks resulting from varying speeds of development of the European Union’s individual regions. The Committee observes that deeply rooted factors of the lack of aggregate demand such as unevenness of regional development are also a source of weakness of capital markets;

14.

welcomes the preparation of a set of priorities for further work covering such things as: lowering barriers to accessing the capital market, making it easier for capital holders and SME-type entities to enter into relationships, security on the capital market, support and financing for long-term investments, development of non-public issuance and other forms of financing throughout the EU and decreasing administrative burdens;

15.

states that the capital markets union has the potential to integrate fragmented capital markets in Europe by supporting cross-border flows of capital which would consequently increase the scale of investment in European businesses and infrastructure projects;

16.

calls upon the Commission to consider also the supply side, in particular to analyse and address the root causes of why retail and institutional investors are not able to mobilise and transform sufficient capital to strengthen individual financial services and long-term investment in the real economy;

17.

fears that the current objectives are too general, which could lead to failure to achieve a satisfactory level of diversification of sources of financing for SMEs;

18.

considers that the emerging capital markets union should above all contribute to the development of SMEs but questions whether securitisation offers a long-term solution to SMEs’ financing problems, particularly in view of its proportionally higher cost for SMEs;

19.

welcomes the change of course towards increasing the involvement of individual investors in the capital market but points out that the Green Paper does not pay enough attention to private investors;

20.

considers that the adoption of broad capital market reform needs to be accompanied by strong EU-wide and national supervision, including by strengthening ESMA’s role in improving supervisory convergence, in order to avoid excessive risk taking and instability in financial markets;

21.

encourages carrying out more extensive consultations concerning securitisation processes, taking into account conclusions taken from the financial crisis. Securitisation must not give rise to systemic risk and should therefore avoid high-leverage instruments and dependence on short-term financing;

22.

points out the significant cultural, historical and legal variation of individual markets of Member States. The complexity of the task requires more extensive ex ante analysis of the establishment and impact of a capital markets union in each Member State;

23.

is convinced that many of the initiatives concerning the capital markets union will have to be implemented concurrently and then supported by multilevel education programmes due to social barriers resulting from factors such as traditions and customs;

24.

points out the low level of financial knowledge and investment culture among retail investors and owners of micro-enterprises and small businesses. These are structural factors which hinder development of a Europe-wide capital market;

25.

considers that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in developing the general public’s financial education. The Committee also highlights the role played by associations and educational establishments in disseminating knowledge of economics and finance among young Europeans;

26.

believes it is appropriate to consider financial and institutional participation of the public sector in areas that directly contribute to the development of the capital market where private sector initiatives will be insufficient. Before involving the public sector, it ought to be ascertained that public funding does actually generate private initiatives. In such cases, public sector involvement should be based on concomitant economic analysis and have a clear plan for divestment after the desired effect has been achieved, but also should things go awry;

27.

believes that in areas covered by the capital markets union plan, many countries have good practices that are worth promoting;

28.

emphasises that local and regional entities can play a significant and varied role in capital markets as investors offering long-term start-up capital and their liabilities could be traded on markets;

29.

agrees on the need to create a consistent set of rules on capital markets. These provisions should be respected in all Member States;

30.

considers it appropriate to assume that creating transparent frameworks for the functioning of a single capital market and unifying the collateral system should increase credibility among investors, leading to more effective allocation of capital;

31.

stresses that a consistent set of rules would be a major step towards eliminating barriers and creating the environment necessary for the establishment and operation of a single capital market throughout the European Union, which is more integrated with international markets;

32.

points out that regulatory proposals connected to the capital markets union should not lead to excessive regulatory burdens on SMEs or limiting the benefits this sector could reap as a result of creating a single capital market;

33.

considers it important to create new legal categories enabling investment and raising of capital within the European Union;

34.

is convinced that new market initiatives can be introduced by further increasing public transparency of available financial information and eliminating reasons why financial information might not be comparable between Member States;

35.

reiterates its call to increase comparability and availability of data on the risk of financing businesses from the SME sector throughout the EU, as expressed in previous Committee of the Regions opinions;

36.

considers it appropriate to establish simplified International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which could ensure comparability of businesses and increase their ratings. Using these kinds of standards could also encourage investors to invest funds in businesses that apply transparent and generally acknowledged principles;

37.

sees a need for systematic work on harmonising insolvency law and to reconcile financial restructuring process frameworks, and acknowledges how complicated this matter is, particularly the various ways in which social groups and certain groups of creditors are privileged;

38.

supports the review of legislative frameworks including prudential rules with the aim of investigating barriers to securitisation of assets invested in the SME sector and which hinder the functioning of non-bank entities offering financing and less restrictive treatment of long-term involvement in infrastructure projects;

39.

points out the potential problem of lack of harmonisation of financial markets because certain Member States are not part of the banking union;

40.

emphasises that the capital markets union must be open and competitive internationally and attract international investment by maintaining high standards in the EU through such things as ensuring the integrity of the market and financial stability of investors;

41.

would like to highlight the significance of the SME sector for the European economy and regional development. There were over 20 million SMEs in the EU-27, making up approximately 67 % of jobs and 58 % of gross value added. Furthermore, there were almost 19 million SMEs employing up to 10 people, which provided 1/5 of the jobs in the EU. During the crisis in 2008-2011, SMEs were better able to stabilise employment than large companies, but at the same time their share in GDP creation underwent a relative decrease (1);

42.

points out that it is more difficult for SMEs to access diversified sources to finance their activities. Over 80 % of external financing sources for SMEs in the EU are bank loans and 40 % of companies make use of leasing, usually offered by entities associated with banks;

43.

notes that SMEs have more problems accessing bank loans in periods of economic downturn, so intrabank processes are more pro-cyclical than anti-cyclical;

44.

notes that increased competition for the banking sector is a necessary step towards decreasing its domination in providing sources of financing in the EU, particularly for the SME sector. There should be strong support for eliminating the barriers that limit this competition on the part of non-banking entities and financial instruments, new players and innovation from outside the financial sector, as well as for legislative initiatives in this area;

45.

believes that the objective of the capital markets union is not to reduce the importance of banks in the European economy. The Committee considers it essential to maintain an appropriate balance between actions promoting investment banking and non-bank financing, on the one hand, and financing in the form of traditional bank loans, on the other;

46.

welcomes the actions Member States have taken so far, such as financial support programmes for SMEs (guarantees, grants, accelerating commercial payments, seed capital);

47.

points out key factors enabling SMEs to develop, such as a business-friendly environment, modern infrastructure, the existence of technologically advanced sectors of the economy and a highly qualified workforce. In light of the above, capital markets union initiatives should be prepared in such a way as to lower the transaction costs of raising capital and to reach the micro-enterprises group, which is both the largest and the one with the weakest links to capital markets; points out the need to minimise the administrative burden involved in the regulation;

48.

is concerned that new EU banking sector regulations (CRD IV/CRR) could also limit SMEs’ access to bank financing and therefore recommends cyclical studies of the impact of the abovementioned regulations on changes to SMEs’ access to bank financing in individual countries;

49.

stresses that regional and local banks have an important role to play in financing SMEs because they have better knowledge of the local and regional economies and unique methods of assessing credit risk of local businesses;

50.

hopes that the single capital market can contribute to the development and spread of alternatives to traditional forms of credit and investment intermediation. These forms have important potential to provide investment capital to local economic operators;

51.

encourages the European Commission to promote good practices in alternative forms of financing which are well developed in some EU Member States;

52.

considers it desirable, within discussions and work on the capital markets union, to ensure an environment, in particular a level of regulation and oversight, that is conducive to the development of the parallel banking system and crowdfunding. They are still relatively small in scale but have a significant growth rate (2);

53.

acknowledges that alternative offers of financing directed at SMEs, particularly high investment risk instruments, work out better in the case of innovative ventures;

54.

takes the view that the regulatory environment should be stimulating and not limit the accessibility of new instruments and forms of capital distribution;

55.

welcomes the EC’s increased interest in the problem of access to non-bank financing;

56.

acknowledges that the Green Paper — Building a Capital Markets Union is only the first step to creating a single capital market;

57.

is willing to take part in further work, acknowledging that a diverse regional and local perspective makes it possible to create provisions which take the needs of all parties into account;

58.

encourages discussion on a detailed work programme which should ensure the appropriate momentum needed to keep to the planned deadline for creating a single capital market;

59.

stresses the need to integrate different environments with the aim of drafting an entirely satisfactory document which takes into account needs which vary by area and sector;

60.

points out the need to step up programmes to improve knowledge of financial issues and educate the public on investment possibilities and needs. National initiatives and Europe-wide projects such as Consumer Classroom need to be amended and supported;

61.

encourages further public debate on the Green Paper — Building a Capital Markets Union and the accompanying review of the directive on the prospectus and securitisation.

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/22

1.

welcomes the fact that the Commission communication, together with the Investment Plan, reflects the priority given by the new Commission to boosting public and private investment, having observed the current significant under-investment, as the level of investment in the EU is currently EUR 230 to EUR 370 billion lower, in terms of GDP equivalence, than the annual average in 2007;

2.

supports the Commission’s aim of making the best possible use of flexibility in the interpretation of the existing provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) in order to ensure, not least, that it has the necessary counter-cyclical effects in the current context of sluggish growth, a very high average level of unemployment in the EU and a trend towards widening regional disparities resulting from the uneven nature of the collapse in investment, which has mainly affected the weakest countries. It considers that this should be a long-term objective, extending beyond the time scale of the Investment Plan that is the subject of this opinion;

3.

notes that the Commission has presented a text that has not been submitted to the other European institutions for prior consultation and that is not being handled via an interinstitutional procedure. Questions, moreover, the legal certainty provided by this ‘interpretative communication’, given the fact that it is non-binding and that the SGP does not explicitly provide for use of this kind of legal instrument, with the result that it is likely to give rise to appeals to the Court of Justice of the European Union;

4.

considers it necessary to clarify the share of expenditure on national co-financing that can be effectively excluded from the calculation of the structural budget balance for the purposes of complying with the preventative arm of the SGP;

5.

considers that the conditions imposed on the application of flexibility, including the fact that flexibility is essentially limited to the preventive arm of the SGP, are too restrictive to be applied consistently across the whole of the European Union and to have a real impact on Member States’ and local and regional authorities’ investment capacity and do not allow for the degree of underinvestment at national or regional level; therefore believes that flexibility in the area of investment should be extended to all the Member States, and calls on the Commission to make proposals to this end;

6.

welcomes the fact that, in the preventive arm of the SGP, the investment clause is broadened to take account of Member States’ investment programmes, not least under the structural and cohesion policies, the Youth Employment Initiative, trans-European networks and the Connecting Europe Facility, as well as co-financing under the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI). The Committee reiterates the will to tackle the economic crisis and the increasing distance between the centre of Europe and peripheral regions by using counter-cyclical measures designed to boost investment, once again placing trust at the heart of the EU agenda. It therefore reaffirms its own position, set out in its opinion of 17 April 2015 on the proposal for a regulation on the EFSI, that all national co-financing for the EFSI should be exempt from SGP calculations irrespective of the Member States’ situation with regard to the pact, so as to avoid the risk of countries with a greater need for new investment being unable to make even investments supported by European funding. It is necessary, in other words, to avoid curbing co-financing of investment projects and exacerbating the growth differential within the euro area;

7.

points out that the CoR has called consistently for public spending by Member States and local and regional authorities under Structural and Investment Fund co-financing not to be included among national or equivalent structural expenditure as defined in the SGP, without other conditions, given that this investment is by definition of general European interest and has a proven leverage effect when it comes to sustainable growth;

8.

notes that, even before the Commission assesses their compliance with the SGP, consideration of Member States’ contributions to the new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is dependent on their statistical classification by Eurostat, in accordance with the definitions set out in the European System of Accounts (ESA);

9.

believes that the structural reform clause applied under the preventive arm and the way structural reform plans are taken into account under the corrective arm can provide strong incentives, provided that the types of structural reform eligible under this new system are clearly defined. This definition must take into account the need for structural reforms to have positive socioeconomic impact, comply with the horizontal social clause set out in Article 9 TFEU and bolster administrative capacity, as well as the fact that structural reforms require an implementation or transition period and entail a certain short-term cost before bearing fruit and producing the desired positive effects, including budgetary effects;

10.

strongly regrets that the communication does not delineate more precisely the kind of ‘unusual event’ beyond the control of a Member State that would be grounds for it to temporarily deviate from the corrective path with regard to its medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) and thus leaves the European Commission very considerable political discretion, which could lead to preferential treatment for one or other Member State;

11.

reiterates (1) its call for the methods of calculating the structural deficit to be revised, in that in its current form the concept fails to take into account either the individual characteristics of national and regional economies, or structural differences in national and regional public spending, or the difference between current expenditure and investment expenditure. Furthermore, the concept is based on theoretical calculations of growth potential that are not empirically verifiable and therefore disputable, opening the door to discretionary implementation of the SGP;

12.

calls on the Commission to assess whether the current 1/20 debt reduction rule is still viable or whether it ought to be revised;

13.

suggests the use, under the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP), of auxiliary indicators covering regional disparities with the aim of taking account of any structural imbalances in terms of territorial cohesion that Member States might be facing and that might impact on the level and pace of budgetary adjustment and of possible structural reforms;

14.

stresses that the Investment Plan should be part of a broader European strategy that is closely linked to the review of the Europe 2020 Strategy, with the aim of facilitating sustainable and job-rich growth through stimulating public and private investment, improving the competitiveness of Europe’s economy and introducing structural reforms that have positive social and economic effects and help to improve administrative capacity; highlights, in this context, the role of local and regional authorities in boosting investment for jobs and growth, given that in 2013 around 55 % of all public investment was carried out by subnational authorities (2);

15.

would reiterate a number of proposals designed to promote quality investment at European level (3):

16.

reiterates its request that the Commission assess the impact of the ESA 2010 rules on public investment capacity and safeguard the principle of non-discrimination between public and private investment, in accordance with Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

17.

draws the attention of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, as well as the Member States and local and regional authorities, to the monitoring report on the Europe 2020 Strategy that is drawn up annually by the CoR 2020 Monitoring Platform, and, more specifically, the comments relating to economic governance and the European Semester made in the 5th Monitoring Report, issued in October 2014 (4);

18.

believes that, although there have been improvements, local and regional authorities are still not adequately involved or considered when it comes to economic policy coordination and that this poses a problem in terms of how representative, legitimate and comprehensive the national reform programmes and country-specific recommendations are. The Committee would therefore recommend that local and regional authorities be more closely involved in the framework of the European Semester, along the lines of the partnership principle governing the Structural Funds;

19.

reiterates its firm belief that, in accordance with Article 3 TEU, the credibility and legitimacy of EMU are based on the ability to prove that it helps to further social progress and that employment and social provisions are not seen as secondary to macroeconomic and budgetary concerns;

20.

therefore calls on the Commission to incorporate the measures proposed in the 2012 Commission communication on strengthening the social dimension of EMU and the 2013 Social Investment Package into the follow up to the June 2015 Five Presidents’ Report on the future of EMU. While meeting the need to maintain the existence and co-existence of the various social models within EMU, this follow up should, for instance, consider incentives for reforms to accelerate achievement of the social objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and coordination between the automatic stabilisers at EMU level (5).

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/25

1.

recalls that European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was developed in 2003 (1) to strengthen relations between the EU and its neighbouring countries. A cornerstone of this policy is progressive integration through the implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms, bearing in mind the commitment to shared values, foremost among those being democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, non-discrimination and gender equality;

2.

notes that, to date, ENP has revolved around three main pillars: (a) building democracy, (b) promoting economic development; and (c) strengthening the neighbourhood’s two regional dimensions (the Union for the Mediterranean (2) and the Eastern Partnership (3)). The multiannual implementation of ENP has made a positive contribution to promoting the objectives set. The EU’s relations with the ENP partners have developed significantly although to very different degrees. It is therefore essential to continue adapting the policy to the constantly changing international environment, so as to respond to the new needs that are continually arising;

3.

notes that, whilst the outermost regions (ORs) form the EU’s most remote sea borders, and the European Commission itself recognises their role as ‘outposts’ of Europe in other continents, the ENP has from the outset been designed in such a way which ignores this fact, reflecting it neither in its initial design nor in its subsequent updates;

4.

takes as a starting point the observation that although at first glance ENP may seem to fall almost exclusively within the competence of national governments, local and regional authorities (LRAs) and their cooperation networks (associations and networks of cities, European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation) do play an important role in this area. Consequently, ENP cannot simply be a process between governments and EU institutions, but should also provide for the participation of other players from the partner countries, and LRAs in particular. It also draws particular attention to city diplomacy as a mechanism for supporting dialogue between local and regional bodies on the international stage that contributes to creating a common area of stability, security and prosperity;

5.

would stress that LRAs need to be involved in all phases of ENP: in setting priorities, evaluating outcomes, and auditing the content of government policies. There are a number of reasons for which ENP cannot be based solely on cooperation with ENP partner governments:

6.

argues that it is very important to include local and regional levels of government in the EU’s actions with regard to the ENP region, since democracy-building and democratic transition begin first and foremost at grassroots level and cannot be imposed from above. For democracy to be stable and deeply rooted, it is vital that it be embraced by the local community as a whole. This task should involve all layers of governance, in a transparent manner, starting with municipalities and local authorities;

7.

believes that civil society institutions, business and researchers should also be involved in implementing ENP. The participation of these entities has a significant impact on identifying local needs, building strong partnerships and achieving common objectives;

8.

welcomes the EU’s efforts to support the establishment of lasting political and administrative structures and considers that these efforts should include supporting local institution-building by providing for effective technical assistance and training for local and regional administrations, with a view to making efficient use of humanitarian aid and existing and future financial instruments for fostering social, economic and territorial development;

9.

points out that the CoR is investing a lot of effort and resources in the development of the local and regional dimension of ENP. In 2010 it established the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), and in 2011 it set up the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (Corleap). The purpose of these institutions is first to disseminate the concepts that will bring the ENP partner countries closer to the EU and second to foster internal reform and capacity building at local and regional level;

10.

deems it essential that the EU continue to be the primary strategic partner for the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries. The EU must be capable of helping its neighbouring countries to set a clear path towards a prosperous future and to lay the foundations for better governance, whilst respecting their national sovereignty;

11.

considers the European Commission’s intention to promote sub-regional cooperation as a means of developing economic links to be very welcome and important, as this in itself would help significantly to increase prosperity in these regions. Both ARLEM and Corleap are initiatives that bring the EU into contact with the southern and eastern partners respectively, and thus help to improve regional cooperation;

12.

notes that it is widely agreed that the most successful neighbourhood policy has been enlargement policy. By offering ‘everything including institutions’ to countries in central and eastern Europe, the EU acted as a catalyst for change and a setter of standards. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the prospect of EU membership is not open to the Mediterranean partner countries of ENP;

13.

would stress that EU enlargement and ENP are two distinct policies with different objectives and should not be confused. Nevertheless, European countries that are ENP partners can seek membership providing they fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 49 of the EU Treaty;

14.

in this sense, believes it would be useful to begin a debate on relationship formats that would go beyond those currently offered by the ENP;

15.

considers that the principle of conditionality and, in particular, the ‘more for more’ principle, although emphasising the EU’s commitment to its core values, have not always made a positive contribution to creating the conditions for evenly balanced relations between the EU and its ENP partners. Furthermore, in many cases they have not helped to provide incentives for reform in the EU’s neighbourhood. As a result, a more flexible approach would facilitate not only the more effective implementation of ENP, but ultimately the promotion of the EU’s fundamental principles among ENP partners;

16.

considers that, in order for ENP to be more effective, the approach taken should be tailored to the specific nature of each partner country. Each ENP partner is distinct and should be treated as such, i.e. applying the principle of differentiation. The new ENP, without violating the general principles of the EU, should have the necessary flexibility to maximise the benefits of its implementation. Every partner country should be given the possibility to develop its relations with the EU it its own way, in accordance with its own needs and capacities. This does not imply the adoption of double standards, nor does it negate the unified nature of ENP, by which means the EU has succeeded in taking a coherent approach to all its ENP partners. This variable geometry approach to relations between the EU and its neighbours should be applied to ORs in a way that guarantees effective cooperation between these regions and their neighbours;

17.

recommends systematic analysis of EU visa policy which should make the visa process easier for citizens of ENP countries while taking into account the individual situations of the countries concerned. Flexible European visa policy will facilitate dialogue between societies and lay the groundwork for strong partnerships and developing different levels of cooperation in different areas;

18.

welcomes the idea of focusing the areas of cooperation set in the Action Plans to the ones with the strongest common interest in order to be more effective;

19.

considers that the new ENP should set specific objectives and offer its partners a clear time-frame for implementation of its policies. The new ENP will have little or no impact if there are no concrete benefits for particular stakeholders or if those benefits are only likely to emerge in the distant future;

20.

considers close cooperation on energy issues to be a significant part of the EU’s relations with its neighbours. Many ENP partners are significant suppliers of energy sources in the EU Member States. This cooperation should be established and encouraged still further to serve the mutual interests of all parties;

21.

considers that a better transport connectivity of these countries with the EU and among them could help the economic development of the whole region;

22.

is of the opinion that the development and support of independent civil society structures should be a key part of the ENP. Cooperation with partners such as the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum or the European Endowment for Democracy provide important instruments to also promote democratic civil society forces at local and regional level in the future;

23.

considers an important area of ENP to be close coordination of the measures taken by the EU and its neighbours on migration issues. When it takes place in an organised manner and is favourable to the younger generations, the mobility of students, workers and public officials alike from non-EU States to EU Member States has a positive impact, not only in areas such as education and cultural exchanges, but also on the public administration. On the other hand, irregular migratory flows, which have increased sharply in recent times, present new challenges and opportunities, which must be properly managed;

24.

considers it of great importance to increase the engagement of young people and empowerment of women as key factors to develop these countries;

25.

notes that the EU’s engagement with its neighbours on security is of paramount importance. Joining forces to counter terrorism and other asymmetric threats is essential in order to consolidate mutual trust and create an environment of peace and stability;

26.

considers public administration reform, with a view to creating a transparent system free from more or less hidden forms of corruption, to be a very important aspect of cooperation between local and regional bodies and ENP partners;

27.

in the context of the abovementioned areas of cooperation between the EU and its neighbours, believes that the special role of EU border regions on the sensitive southern and eastern borders of the EU should be strengthened and recommends that they receive special support under ENP;

28.

emphasises that supporting democratic processes, respecting human and civil rights, the rule of law and the process of systemic/economic transformation in individual countries is an important area for ENP. The CoR welcomes the support that EU regions have so far provided to countries covered by ENP and calls for further work to be carried out in this field;

29.

considers that the process of constitutional and public administration reform under way in ENP partner countries could pave the way for the gradual development of democracy, based on a legislative framework that recognises democratic principles, standards and values. This process should lead to decentralisation with a view to guaranteeing effective and appropriate governance to respond to local challenges and specific circumstances in the light of the principle of subsidiarity. The CoR therefore believes it to be particularly important that the ENP supports decentralisation processes actively and serves as a useful tool for promoting reform processes;

30.

to this end, it would be worthwhile providing for a detailed assessment to be made of the feasibility of incorporating the methodologies, concepts and instruments of European cohesion policy into the new ENP, and of including Mediterranean countries in European structural policies and programmes on a progressive basis following the example of what is being carried out for the Eastern Partnership countries. Initiatives such as the AMICI (the Southern Mediterranean Investment Coordination initiative) for Mediterranean countries and the Covenant of Mayors — East for Eastern Partnership countries will certainly contribute positively towards development and investment cooperation and for that reason it is crucial that it be made a priority;

31.

notes that as a complement to cohesion policy, it would be equally worthwhile applying to the Mediterranean basin the macro-regional approach that the EU has successfully implemented in other regions that share a common geography, such as the Baltic and Danube macro-regions, or that it is implementing in the Adriatic-Ionian region. This approach could be introduced gradually, through three separate macro-regions for the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic-Ionian strategy, a western Mediterranean strategy and an eastern Mediterranean strategy. An alternative approach would be to encourage the gradual involvement of the countries and territories of the whole area within one growing macro-region. This approach would avoid fragmentation of the region into sub-regions. The task of coordinating such a project could be given to European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation operating in the Mediterranean region, which are the optimum resource available for ensuring stable, long-term cooperation between local and regional authorities in EU and non-EU countries;

32.

considers that it could and should play a decisive role in the context of certain regional initiatives involving Russia and Turkey. The challenge for the Committee would be to push for tangible results that citizens could see. Practical and project-based involvement of Russia and Turkey in cross-border cooperation would make a major contribution to the ENP; in this sense, the review of the Black Sea Synergy initiative could also include LRAs;

33.

strongly believes that the local border traffic (LBT) mechanism provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council has been an effective tool for developing cooperation between the EU and its neighbouring countries and contributes positively to achieving the pursued objectives, such as bringing partners closer in economic, social and civic life. In light of the above, the LBT mechanism should be used on a greater scale to achieve the ENP objectives in the future;

34.

would underline that many of the challenges that need to be tackled by the EU and its neighbours together cannot be addressed without taking into account, or in some cases cooperating with, the neighbours of the neighbours. However, the EU’s relations with its ENP partners must not be adversely affected those countries’ relations with their neighbours;

35.

shows its surprise that the paper (4) makes no reference to the role of cities and regions in the neighbourhood policy;

36.

stresses that LRAs are crucial to the success of the ENP and especially in the case of border regions, the role of which should be recognised. Consequently, the inclusion of the concepts of decentralisation and the territorial dimension within the new ENP will make it more attractive and increase its effectiveness;

37.

points out that the role of LRAs in the action plans developed in the framework of the bilateral component of the southern and eastern ENP should be strengthened, in order to promote, within those national action plans, the distribution of assistance on the basis not only of a sectorial approach, but also a territorial approach;

38.

considers that regional ENP programmes and territorial cooperation should be reinforced and that LRAs should be given genuine opportunities to implement the programmes and priorities defined jointly with ARLEM and Corleap, and to participate in their planning and management;

39.

welcomes the reference in the Joint Declaration of the Eastern Partnership Summit (21-22 May 2015, Riga) to steps taken by Corleap at local and regional level and the appeal to the European Commission to ensure appropriate, targeted support to local and regional authorities to support their role in promoting Eastern Partnership objectives;

40.

is of the opinion that, as a rule, in the EU neighbourhood countries, LRAs do not play key roles in local decision-making or service delivery and do not have significant autonomy from central government powers. Nonetheless, they contribute additional knowledge, resources and expertise to central governments’ activities. LRAs can act as catalysts for change, conflict prevention, decentralisation and confidence-building in external relations. In this light, efforts should focus on a specific number of topics that are of real practical interest to cities and regions across the whole neighbourhood and then on ways to develop practical initiatives with authorities to take them forward;

41.

would stress that as a political institution, the CoR should facilitate and promote confidence-building and low-profile cooperation at grassroots level with politicians who share European values and respect freedom of speech and the rule of law. This is equally true in the east and the south;

42.

considers that against this backdrop, efforts should be made to link up and twin with cities and regions whose representatives are involved in ARLEM and, in future, in Corleap. It would also be worthwhile for the European Commission to cooperate jointly with ARLEM and Corleap and support their work, not least in terms of financing. To this end, the CoR would recommend extending twinning and TAIEX (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Programme) projects between LRAs in the EU and ENP states. This is of profound importance not only for improving governance across the ENP states, but also as a good way of inculcating a sense of the importance of EU multilevel governance structures in the ENP countries. Underlines the importance of the institutional reinforcement of local authorities, reiterating the call to the European Commission to extend the scope of the Local Administration Facility (LAF) to the neighbourhood;

43.

would stress that special attention must be given to improving the administrative capacity of government within ENP countries, placing a special emphasis on the local and regional dimensions. The CoR, its members and its associated authorities, along with national associations, are prepared to play a role in the comprehensive institution-building programme which is proposed by the European Commission and Member States to help build up local and regional administrative capacity within ENP countries;

44.

considers that the EU’s efforts to support the establishment of lasting political and administrative structures should include supporting local institution-building by providing for effective technical assistance and training for local and regional administrations, focusing particularly on new generations, with a view to making efficient use of existing and future financial instruments to foster social, economic and territorial development;

45.

as a practical measure, calls on the European External Action Service to strengthen cooperation efforts between, on the one hand EU delegations in the ENP countries, and on the other hand the existing and future public structures in the EU and partner countries, such as the national contact points and branch offices of the cross-border cooperation programmes, the experience of which should be optimised and expanded. Enhanced cooperation will facilitate the information process for territorial organisations and local and regional authorities in the EU and ENP countries on the one hand as regards the role of the ENP and how it works, and on the other with regard to funding opportunities. Moreover, those involved could also help to transmit important CoR messages to the relevant counterparts in the ENP countries;

46.

highlights the fact, lastly, that the CoR also has an important political mission as an observer of local and regional elections in the partner countries. The CoR is the only EU body that observes local and regional elections on a regular basis. Consequently, an enhanced role for the CoR in the new ENP is needed in order to promote the principles of democracy that are the cornerstone of our shared European values.

22.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/31

1.

stresses that the opinion aims at assessing the agreed Partnership Agreements (PAs) and Operational Programmes (OPs) from the perspective of beneficiaries from regional and local authorities (LRAs);

2.

underlines the crucial role of cohesion policy in achieving the Treaty objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion through ‘reducing disparities between levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions.’ In fact, the Structural and Investment Funds are, as a general rule, the European Union’s main tools for promoting harmonious overall development in all Member States;

3.

points out that, since its inception, cohesion policy has made progress in reducing disparities between and within European regions and, since the economic crisis began in 2008, has made it possible to contain its effects in terms of cohesion. However, significant imbalances, which are aggravated by the ongoing crisis, remain and the future cohesion policy must have the resources to reduce these disparities further. As envisaged by Article 96.2 (a) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), these policy objectives must be based on the social and economic development needs of regions, cities and municipalities;

4.

notes that cohesion policy changed significantly in character following its reform in 2013. The CoR is pleased that the reform has strengthened the connection with the EU’s priorities (greater synergies between cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 Strategy). New implementation methods, new tools and a stronger focus on effectiveness, efficiency and results in particular have been introduced in the new 2014-2020 programming period. The CoR is interested to see how the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) can be maximised in practice;

5.

draws attention, as the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy proceeds, to the importance of direct, effective links between the new strategy and cohesion policy and, in this connection, to the need for a robust territorial dimension and a real partnership as the main criteria for ownership of the reform process by all institutional levels and for selecting policies and support measures;

6.

already sees cause for concern, however, that the requirements laid down by the Commission still fail to set the objective of reducing the burden of administration and control. The CoR therefore urges the Commission when developing the administrative and control systems and carrying out audits to avoid further measures that would create even more red tape for beneficiaries and administrators in the Member States and which would reduce the potential contribution of the European Structural and Investment Funds to meeting the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy;

7.

observes that links between cohesion policy and other EU policies and initiatives (rural development policy, Horizon 2020, Connecting Europe Facility, etc.) have also been strengthened. The CoR believes that more should have been done to ensure further alignment of all EU policies and funds having a territorial impact, and hopes this can have a positive impact on the development of the regions;

8.

welcomes that, through the creation of the Common Strategic Framework, there has been an alignment between the priorities of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the EU funds for Rural Development and Maritime and Fisheries, expressed in each Member State through a Partnership Agreement common to all these funds. This is undoubtedly a very significant step to achieve more policy coherence. Thus the Committee regrets that these synergies have not been fully exploited further at the moment of drawing-up Operational Programmes at national, regional and local levels. The rural development programme above all must be more obviously coordinated with the European Regional Development Fund, since rural development is an integral part of regional development efforts;

9.

agrees that the investment strategy within PAs and OPs should also be comprehensive and consistent with the National Reform Programmes and should address the reforms described in the country-specific recommendations of the European Semester. In times of economic crisis and budgetary constraints, coordination between the EU budget and national budgets is essential for improving economic governance, transparency and the efficiency of public spending;

10.

reiterates that the Juncker Commission’s first new core initiative, the Investment Plan for Europe, highlights cohesion policy’s potential for promoting growth and jobs in Europe, but it should be emphasised that because the Investment Plan for Europe and European Structural and Investment Fund policies (cohesion, but also rural development, fisheries, etc.) target different policy and institutional levels, they need to strengthen each other, not least in terms of resources. The Investment Plan for Europe must be additional to existing EU programmes and traditional European Investment Bank activities, and it is important that the resources allocated to the Structural Funds are not automatically recycled into the Investment Plan;

11.

notes that strategic planning is crucial for the successful implementation of cohesion policy. In this respect, the most important strategic elements of cohesion policy are the PAs and OPs as they outline how the Structural and Investment Funds are to be spent in a particular Member State or region. Regrets that the late adoption of the cohesion policy legislative package and the curtailment and underestimation of the time Member States and LRAs need for highly complex programming (multi-instrument, multi-level and multi-actor) in the adoption of the PAs and OPs have led to purely superficial partnerships being established and have delayed the start of the new programming period. Regrets that no clear, common methodology or methodologies have been created for drafting Partnership Agreements that would help to meet the objectives. The absence of this methodology means that each Member State has taken its own entirely individual approach to drafting Partnership Agreements, so that they are not comparable with one another and their implementation will also be difficult to compare (particularly with regard to implementation of Integrated Territorial Investments, in terms of actual use and an appropriate implementation and management structure). For the 2014-2020 development policy period, the Committee proposes that a uniform methodology for the amendment of Partnership Agreements be drawn up;

12.

notes that the CoR has conducted an extensive online survey, which support the views expressed in this opinion (1);

13.

asks the European Commission to take into consideration the opinion of LRAs, expressed in the following paragraphs of this opinion, when drafting its report on the outcome of negotiations on the PAs and OPs by the end of 2015;

14.

recalls the shared principles and objectives set out in the Charter for Multilevel Governance in Europe, adopted by the Committee of the Regions on 3 April 2014, with a view to promoting innovative and efficient political and administrative cooperation between institutional actors and to developing broad democratic participation together with greater economic, social and territorial cohesion;

15.

is pleased that the reform of cohesion policy has strengthened the provisions on partnership. Article 5 of the Common Provisions Regulation now states: ‘For the Partnership Agreement and each programme, each Member State shall in accordance with its institutional and legal framework organise a partnership with the competent LRAs.’ Moreover, the Commission has passed a delegated act, the European Code of Conduct on Partnership, which outlines how the partnership principle should be applied and which the CoR particularly welcomes as the first ever piece of legally enforceable EU legislation dealing with Multi-Level Governance;

16.

the quality of partnership in European funds is of crucial importance and the CoR expects the real needs detected at regional and local level to be reflected in the PAs and OPs;

17.

underlines that effective and well-functioning partnership means better anchored and appropriate efforts that meet needs and requirements at different levels of society. Ultimately this will also lead to more effective use of funding. In countries where the partnership is not properly established and is purely superficial, the European Commission should also assist in examining mechanisms to put the partnership on the right track and avoid complexity and excessive and disproportionate administrative burdens that might further delay implementation of structural and investment funds across the EU;

18.

points out that the partnership principle is not an empty concept but a precondition for the success of cohesion policy, particularly as ‘de facto’ competences are distributed between at least three policy levels (EU, Member States and LRAs). In fact, good practice in the area of the partnership principle leads to:

19.

underlines that proper application of the partnership principle helps increase the effectiveness of EU spending and makes reference to the European Court of Auditors’ analysis whereby ‘the effectiveness of EU spending is reduced because there is inadequate assessment of needs, unclear objectives, contradictory or incompatible objectives and priorities, and inadequate selection procedures to prioritise projects that maximise impact.’ Genuine partnership can remedy all of these shortcomings;

20.

is concerned that the partnership principle cannot be applied appropriately in all Member States. The negotiations on the PAs and OPs showed that while LRAs were consulted in most cases, their involvement did not amount to full partnership as outlined in the European Code of Conduct on Partnership. In fact, the Committee regrets that LRAs have rarely been sufficiently involved in drafting the PAs and OPs as their role is often more that of a stakeholder rather than that of a partner (2). The European Commission should also consider partnership mechanisms and the time needed for talks with multi-level institutional structures to allow for more in-depth and informed discussion, matching the time needed for the procedure. This would strike a balance between the time needed for adoption at European level and that for presentation of the programmes at national level;

21.

regrets the fact that no methodology for using Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) was set out clearly before Partnership Agreements were drafted and adopted. As a result, each country takes a completely different approach to ITIs, if it takes any approach at all. In those cases where the ITI instrument has, however, been used in a Partnership Agreement, those drawing up the individual ITIs continue to encounter a lack of clarity at both national and Commission level. Added to this in many cases is a reluctance on the part of managing authorities to include ITIs in their Operational Programmes at all. The Committee of the Regions therefore calls on the European Commission to make sure that, in countries that have opted to use the ITI instrument, it will be possible to use it to the appropriate extent in all Operational Programmes and that appropriate implementation and management systems will be quickly created so that ITIs really can be used and effects of synergy generated;

22.

regrets the fact that no extent, purpose and methodology for the use of the territorial dimension was clearly set out before partnership agreements were drafted and adopted. This is the main reason why each country deals with the territorial dimension in very different ways and on radically different scales. This considerably reduces the impact a pan-European implementation of the territorial dimension could have not only for carrying out the Europe 2020 strategy, but also for the development of the EU in general;

23.

asks the European Commission to provide for the possibility for LRAs to elaborate their own ‘Regional’ PA as an integrated part of the general PA concluded at national level. Doing this, the Commission will give full recognition to Article 4 TEU respecting the internal constitutional order of the Member States, whilst giving maximum effect to the subsidiarity principle;

24.

asks the European Commission to speak with one voice during the negotiations on the PAs and OPs and notes in this respect that several LRAs have complained that during the negotiations different services of the European Commission had different, sometimes contradictory, demands which were not justified by real, practical requirements and/or existing legislation. Calls on the Commission to involve local and regional authorities, which develop and implement a significant part of the programmes, earlier in the negotiations, and to provide a clear, standard interpretation of the fundamental provisions of the Regulation right from the start of the process of developing operational programmes. The Commission’s late submission of comments to the programmes submitted, and the short deadline for updating the programmes, have undermined political ownership at local and regional level;

25.

underlines that good practice in the area of the partnership principle requires the right mind-set and administrative culture rather than force of law. The discrepancy between legislation and the context in which it must be applied leads to ‘ticking the box’ practices (3), jeopardising the objective of high-quality, effective programming and making it nothing more than an administrative burden that hinders implementation of the funds themselves across the EU;

26.

therefore, the CoR believes that the partnership principle can be strengthened by the Commission helping to examine the operating mechanisms and identifying best practices, including assessment of the time needed for discussion given the complexity of the institutions and the programme. Welcomes, in this respect, that the European Commission has launched a study on the partnership principle and plans to hold regular ‘structured dialogue’ meetings which aim to discuss the implementation of the partnership principle with stakeholders. Points out that the CoR, as the representative body of LRAs, needs to be the key strategic partner in this process;

27.

asks the Commission to consider in particular the extent to which the partnership principle and the territorial dimension are upheld in the national programmes framed under cohesion policy. There is a trend in the majority of Member States towards more explicit centralisation of cohesion policy implementation, with national programmes being introduced at the expense of regional ones. It is essential to defend the primary goal of cohesion policy, which is to reduce regional differences and imbalances, and to promote regional growth;

28.

points out that the subnational level was responsible for 55 % of total public investments in 2013 and thus plays a significant role in promoting economic growth in Europe. In some regions, ESIF funds are virtually the only source of public investment;

29.

draws attention to the fact that subnational finances are in a difficult situation as LRAs find themselves confronted with high levels of debt and austerity measures imposed by higher levels. The CoR notes in this respect that a lack of available subnational financial resources has a direct impact on the implementation of cohesion policy. The multilevel financing system should therefore be improved in the future. Calls, consequently, for Member States making use of the flexibility granted by the Commission to remove the compulsory share of national co-financing for interventions funded by the ESIF from the constraints of the internal stability pact;

30.

is therefore pleased that in the 2014-2020 programming period, cohesion policy allows financial instruments to play a stronger role, and notes that financial instruments, if implemented effectively, can significantly increase the impact of financing for local authorities and regions, provided that the economic and social dimension of the investment is taken into consideration;

31.

points out that difficulties arise when implementing Structural Funds through financial instruments. In many cases, implementation remains very complex, and even the relevant Commission departments do not always interpret these provisions identically or consistently, particularly during the verification and control phase. Despite efforts by the European Commission to provide guidance, in most cases setting up financial instruments still necessitates the use of external consultancy firms, which implies additional costs;

32.

welcomes the launch of fi-compass, a new information and advisory hub for the use of financial instruments under the ESIF. This tool should help to facilitate the implementation of financial instruments and make it more understandable;

33.

stresses the role of the EIB, whose Structural Programme Loans could be an excellent means of mobilising financial resources for viable projects which are of critical size under a given operational programme. Unfortunately, the possibilities that this source of financing offers are not recognised enough at all levels (4). Points out, moreover, that these possibilities cannot at present be fully exploited by local authorities, due to the extremely complex procedures for accessing and implementing such loans. Therefore calls for the rules governing loans for structural programmes to be simplified;

34.

notes that stronger thematic concentration is one of the key reforms of cohesion policy 2014-2020. Thematic concentration serves the purpose of concentrating funds on a limited number of thematic areas in order to reach critical mass and have real impact. As predefined thematic objectives determine what ESI funds can be spent on, provisions on thematic concentration have a significant impact on the structure of PAs and OPs;

35.

draws attention to the fact that owing to internal regional disparities, it may still be necessary even in more developed regions to invest in infrastructure providing basic services in the areas of environment, transport, information and communication technologies (ICT), social services, health and education;

36.

is pleased that additional flexibility has been introduced through new tools such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) and Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI), which allow for the use of multi-fund programmes and the implementation of innovative projects. Welcomes that on paper, many countries and regions are considering using these instruments, however the Committee is concerned that the regulatory differences across the funds, and the reticence by Managing Authorities to delegate at the local level, remain an issue that limits the potential on these new instruments for integrated territorial development;

37.

draws attention to the fact that combining different funding sources and different tools for a single project may offer significant advantages only if different funding sources and tools entail equivalent reporting and eligibility requirements, making this combination work by reducing implementation errors as well as costs incurred through dealing with additional administrative procedures;

38.

notes that in some Member States new tools have been met with scepticism and will not be widely implemented where they would be useful, and that in some cases the national level has impeded LRAs use of new tools; consequently, the European Commission is urged to provide more detailed background explanations in cases where this option has been ruled out;

39.

calls on the European Commission and the EIB to harmonise administrative and eligibility requirements when providing support to various cross-cutting projects;

40.

is pleased that the reformed cohesion policy puts a stronger emphasis on OP performance. Good performance can be considered to be achieving objectives efficiently and in accordance with the rules;

41.

underlines that good performance of cohesion policy is the primary concern of all LRAs as good results significantly improve the quality of life in regions, cities and municipalities;

42.

specifies that the most important elements of performance should be the long-term results, resulting in the achievement of predefined objectives. Results may include the employment rate, the level of unemployment, reduced congestion and less pollution, etc. In contrast, outputs such as number of training courses offered, kilometres of road built or number of buildings renovated, are only intermediate steps towards achieving results and are therefore a less important element of performance;

43.

regrets in particular that the reintroduced performance reserve might encourage the setting of unambitious objectives with a view to obtaining the additional resources from the performance reserve easily. However, it will only become clear whether the objectives are ambitious as implementation moves forward. In any case, holding back financial resources from operational programmes creates unnecessary uncertainty in financial planning and entails additional risk for project managers;

44.

moreover, given that cohesion policy is inherently long term, an overly strict emphasis on short-term or mid-term financial or output indicators undermines the achievement of all long-term objectives set when the operational programmes are being negotiated, indeed the CoR calls for a new performance framework based not on outputs but on outcomes to be developed for the next programming period;

45.

moreover, it is unfortunate that the performance framework makes financial indicators as well as output indicators mandatory, while results indicators are only optional. Nevertheless, the CoR believes that a focus on achieving results needs to be a mandatory element of the strategic planning of all Structural Funds, which should also be taken into account within the performance framework;

46.

welcomes in this respect that the European Commission will produce annual reports summarising the implementation reports of the Member States from 2016 onwards and invites the European Commission to discuss these reports with CoR members. The CoR suggests that these reports also include an analysis of progress in simplifying the implementation system;

47.

notes that financial indicators, such as the absorption rate of funds, are not a results-oriented performance indicator. The CoR therefore urges the European Commission to give less importance to financial indicators within the performance framework;

48.

notes that in the past, cohesion policy has received considerable criticism for its complex implementation system. Most of the managing authorities still see the new regulations as bureaucratic and complex. In this respect, simplifying eligibility rules, avoiding gold plating and focusing on results were considered as most essential by respondents of the CoR consultation;

49.

points out that gold-plating is still one of the main reasons for the administrative burden. This overly strict national interpretation of EU rules, coupled with the fact that in many Member States each Fund is subject to separate Ministerial and management lines, leads to unnecessary administrative requirements, silo approaches, and an additional bureaucratic burden on beneficiaries and managing authorities, as well as hampering the use of integrated territorial development instruments such as ITI or CLLD;

50.

asks the European Commission to monitor national application of EU rules and, in the event of gold-plating, to convince national authorities to apply EU rules in a less onerous way. Cases of gold-plating should be made publicly available for mutual learning processes;

51.

however, there is ample room for simplification within EU rules as well (regulations, implementing and delegated acts). The CoR therefore insists on further simplification in the management of EU-funded projects. This should include a reduction in the time period for reimbursement for beneficiaries, the creation of one set of common auditing rules for projects, simpler rules for projects which generate their own revenue, consistent rules concerning the eligibility of costs, the wider use of simplified costs, a closer connection between payments and results, E-cohesion, the ‘one-stop-shop’ principle for beneficiaries, and a proportionate and unified approach to supervision, the harmonisation of procedures as part of first-level monitoring of territorial cooperation programmes, and simplification of public procurement controls. The CoR stresses the importance of providing local and regional authorities, as well as companies, with appropriate expert assistance in their search for answers and advice relating to legislation (particularly in the area of public procurement) and its correct application. The CoR urges the European Commission to include representatives from the local and regional authorities in the high level group of experts monitoring simplification for beneficiaries, thus making use of the practitioners’ experience on implementation of projects with the aim of reducing the administrative burden, increasing funds absorption and improving the impact of programmes;

52.

draws attention to the excessive burden placed on local and regional authorities by the large number of uncoordinated controls, which could lead to a decrease in interest in implementing European projects. If necessary, combined controls should be carried out or controls should be mutually recognised by the relevant authorities. Proposes making use of the results of controls or audits to prevent errors, thus making implemented projects more successful;

53.

with this in mind, calls on the Commission to consistently apply to the European Structural and Investment Funds the approaches adopted under its REFIT programme, taking both delegating and implementing acts into account. It is also important to include the many internal Commission guidelines and the procedure for adopting these, since while not officially binding they considerably add to the complexity and red tape involved in implementing the Structural and Investment Funds at local level;

54.

The CoR firmly believes that specific measures are immediately required to simplify territorial cooperation programmes. The results of European territorial cooperation programmes and projects also need to be made more visible. Complexity is a source of delay and errors which hamper the effectiveness of EU cohesion policy. Rules that are clearer, more transparent and simpler to apply lead to fewer problems downstream, at the expenditure certification stage and during control and audit operations; ex-post controls by the European Commission should also be harmonised and in any case meet the criteria of consistency, subsidiarity and, most importantly, proportionality;

55.

notes that the administrative capacity of LRAs is key to implementing cohesion policy successfully, but unfortunately is still lacking in some LRAs;

56.

points out that there are many potential reasons for inadequate administrative capacity, including:

57.

calls for the Member States, not just less developed ones but all across the EU, to make greater use of the technical assistance available for operational programmes in order to improve the capacity of local and regional bodies and other participants to draw and manage EU funds as well as to support better statistical data being collected at local level;

58.

underlines that strengthening the administrative capacity at local and regional level will lead to more effective and result oriented implementation of the OPs. Benchmarking, exchange of experience and knowledge between regions and cities should be supported by EU and Member States, also by using instruments such as the European Territorial Cooperation programmes;

59.

welcomes the European Commission’s Lagging Regions Initiative whose objective is to identify key drivers and bottlenecks for growth and investment at regional level, in particular in less developed regions. Calls on the European Commission to use the knowledge of regional and local experts and take into account the specific needs of lagging regions when providing recommendations on how to unlock their growth potential;

60.

acknowledges that ex-ante conditionalities (Article 19 CPR) ensure that EU resources are invested in a legal environment that complies with European law and that they are geared to reducing competitive advantages derived from non-compliance with the rules, but draws attention to the following:

61.

would encourage the Member States taking part in cooperation programmes and on whose territory an European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) has its headquarters to entrust the EGTC with the role of managing authority for some or all territorial cooperation programmes relating to the territory covered by the EGTC, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal.