9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/1

—

the European Commission communication on its work programme for 2017 of 25 October 2016;

—

its resolutions of 4 June 2015 on its priorities for 2015-2020 and of 15 June 2016 on the contribution to the European Commission work programme for 2017;

—

the Protocol of cooperation with the European Commission of February 2012;

1.

notes with concern that, 60 years after it was founded, the European Union is in the midst of a deep crisis, with continuing low levels of confidence in the European project and needs to reform; at the same time highlights that, year after year, the local and regional levels are considered by EU citizens to be the most trustworthy of all levels of governance in the EU. The CoR is therefore engaging in citizens’ dialogues, with the active participation of local and regional leaders, on topics arising from local needs and characteristics, and is thus contributing to the reflection on Europe;

2.

agrees with the Commission that the general challenges facing the EU are:

3.

while sharing the Commission’s conviction that these challenges require a bottom-up, citizen-led and multilevel governance approach, underlines that EU action must focus on empowering citizens;

4.

stresses the need to involve local and regional government in the preparations for the White Paper on the Future of Europe and urges the Commission to consider the CoR opinions on this topic and to involve the CoR in the consultation phase;

5.

regrets that the work programme pays scant attention to the essential role played by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) in reaching all citizens and regions in Europe, strengthening cohesion, promoting innovation and expressing genuine European solidarity for the harmonious development of the EU as a whole. Calls on the Commission to prepare the future of cohesion policy beyond 2020 as this is the EU’s main investment policy and must be based on a place-based approach and an updated territorial vision; in parallel, the CoR encourages the Commission to continue its efforts to improve and simplify ESIF procedures in order to cut red tape and help increase absorption;

6.

reiterates its request not to consider public spending by Member States and local and national bodies arising from co-financing under the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds as part of structural expenditure defined by the Stability and Growth Pact, since investments of this kind contribute to European priorities, with an additional leverage effect on economic growth in Europe;

7.

welcomes the proposed extension of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in terms of both duration and financial capacity, but notes that this announcement has been made without a comprehensive impact assessment or an independent evaluation prior to the Commission’s proposal; underlines the need to continue building on synergies between EFSI and other EU funds, in particular ESIF, and simplifying procedures so as to cut red-tape and help increase the absorption of EU funds; stresses that the third pillar of the Investment Plan should also be strengthened; calls on the Commission and the European Investment Bank to step up their efforts to raise awareness on the ground, to address the geographical imbalances of EFSI in order to optimise investment integration and synergy with a view to single programming of cohesion policy interventions, and to make more detailed information publicly available regarding EFSI-financed projects, specifically highlighting their additionality;

8.

undertakes to contribute at an early stage to the discussion on the proposal for the future Multiannual Financial Framework beyond 2020, including the reform of own resources;

9.

calls for the speedy adoption of the ‘Omnibus Regulation’, with a view to boosting the impact and ensuring improved use of ESIF programmes already included in the current programming period;

10.

stresses the need to follow up on the implementation of the Urban Agenda for the EU and underlines the importance of mainstreaming the urban dimension into other EU policies; in this regard, reiterates its request for a White Paper on the Urban Agenda for the EU;

11.

reiterates its call for setting a European agenda on housing, which would address in a horizontal manner the up until now fragmented approach towards housing through sectoral policies such as the Urban Agenda, sustainable development, cohesion policy, competition policy or social initiatives such as the European Pillar on Social Rights;

12.

underlines the need for a code of conduct for local and regional authority involvement in the 2017 European Semester and calls for the Annual Growth Survey to be complemented by a territorial analysis, including a specific territorial chapter in the country reports, and for guidelines to be issued for Member States on the involvement of local and regional authorities in the National Reform Programmes;

13.

supports the Commission’s continued focus on investment, particularly by identifying measures to boost investment in the European Semester; in this respect, points to the Committee’s Bratislava Declaration ‘Invest and Connect’, which emphasises that local and regional growth driven by investment must be grounded in territorial development strategies, and stresses the importance of ensuring that public budgets supporting quality investments act in synergy with other financial sources at regional, local, national and European level;

14.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to continue working to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and stresses that Europe needs a long-term strategy to ensure smart, sustainable and inclusive growth providing direction for the European Semester; such a strategy should be built on the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy;

15.

welcomes the Commission’s focus on youth unemployment through the strengthening of the EU Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative and the launch of a European Solidarity Corps which should benefit from early, pro-active and credible involvement of local and regional authorities, youth organisations and civil society in general;

16.

is disappointed by the lack of initiatives to tackle long-term unemployment, including assessing forms of European-level unemployment insurance to supplement national systems in the event of an economic downturn and prevent an asymmetrical shock from turning into a structural handicap for the whole of Europe;

17.

asks that local and regional strengths and challenges, including divergent local and regional labour market needs, be taken into consideration in the new Skills Agenda for Europe and looks forward to working on a quality framework for apprenticeships and a proposal on increased mobility for apprentices;

18.

awaits the Commission’s proposal to better address the challenges of work-life balance, particularly in relation to the participation of women in the labour market;

19.

in the run up to the European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018, intends to focus on culture and cultural heritage as well as on the EU’s international cultural relations, which are crucial components for strengthening European identity and promoting Europe’s fundamental values, social inclusion, innovation and intercultural dialogue as well as cultural and heritage tourism;

20.

underlines the need to see the Horizon 2020 mid-term review and the forthcoming consultation on the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation as one organic process, which needs to address the innovation divide in Europe; announces that the CoR will be making a timely contribution to the revision of the bio-economy action plan scheduled for 2017;

21.

notes that the White Paper on the Future of Europe will also include proposals on the future of EMU and would welcome reforms that enhance the democratic legitimacy of EMU governance;

22.

stresses that, in order to improve the social dimension of EMU, it is crucial to tackle social and also regional disparities; welcomes the Commission’s intention to propose a European Pillar of Social Rights setting out principles for a Union which is built on social justice and upholds the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

23.

welcomes the proposed review of the Stability and Growth Pact, but urges the Commission to take into account the need to make the Pact more growth-friendly, particularly with regard to investments conducive to growth; reiterates its earlier call for a full assessment of the territorial impact of the European statistical rules on public investment;

24.

welcomes the Commission’s commitment to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy within the framework of a comprehensive Energy Union policy, in conjunction with sound governance rules, appropriate innovation support measures and a review of electricity market design and further improvement of energy infrastructure in order to ensure interregional and cross-border connections and support for the decentralisation of energy systems as a step towards a sustainable and flexible internal market for energy;

25.

specifically recommends that EU policies in the area of electricity market design and renewable energy should be coordinated and balanced, paying due attention to local and regional concerns such as access to the grid for small-scale energy providers at the level of distribution grids;

26.

supports the implementation of the Paris Agreement and points out that bridging the gap between national commitments and the effort needed to limit global warming to well below 2 oC will require integrating the efforts of cities and regions into national commitments, as well as both horizontal and vertical coordination, including at EU and UNFCCC levels. The CoR therefore asks the Commission to support the CoR’s request to include this aspect in the Nationally Determined Commitments, to improve institutionalisation of NAZCA and the work of Climate Champions within the UNFCCC Secretariat, and to facilitate the sharing of experiences at local and regional level. The CoR also calls on the Commission to encourage research projects on cities, regions and climate change to contribute to the future work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

27.

calls on the European Commission to work with the CoR to develop the concept of Regionally and Locally Determined Contributions to encourage action at the local and regional level to achieve targets agreed at COP21 in Paris;

28.

calls on the Commission to update its climate and energy objectives to reach a 50 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, and to mainstream adaptation into policies and financing at all levels. The Commission should support voluntary initiatives promoting low carbon and resilient transition in cities and across regions. A clarification regarding the empowerment of regions and cities is needed in the Commission’s evaluation report on the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change;

29.

encourages the Commission to support the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies in cities and regions, particularly in cross-border regions, and to ensure that EU investments uphold disaster risk reduction standards;

30.

welcomes the launch of the EU Platform for food waste and losses and calls on the Commission to take action in the field of food waste by setting an ambitious target for reducing food waste; this should be embedded into an EU-wide sustainable food systems strategy, including biodiversity protection, the environment, health, trade, resource and land management aspects, as well as the social and cultural values of food;

31.

calls on the Commission to take into consideration the CoR’s recommendations when implementing the Action Plan for a Circular Economy, and to present early in 2017 the planned revision of the Drinking Water Directive, the proposal for a regulation on minimum quality requirements for reused water, and the strategy on the use, reuse and recycling of plastic, which should set clear and ambitious targets for plastic littering and leaching; calls on the Commission to propose additional initiatives relating to the construction and demolition sector, eco-design provisions and the use of secondary raw materials, substances and components;

32.

is ready and willing to step up its cooperation with the Commission on the long-awaited actions on priority objective 4 of the European Union 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) 2014-2020 through the Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment; regrets that the initiatives planned for 2017 are non-legislative, and reiterates its calls for a proposal for an EU directive that would establish compliance assurance provisions across the EU environmental acquis, and for a new directive on access to justice in environment matters;

33.

in line with the recent Cork 2.0 declaration, reiterates its request for a White Paper on rural areas to serve as a starting point for a post-2020 rural development policy, and calls for practical measures for the ‘rural proofing’ of EU policies given that rural areas are often neglected and disconnected from main policy developments;

34.

in the context of the preparations of the CAP beyond 2020, highlights the strong interconnection between rural development and agriculture, and calls therefore for supportive measures for family farms, in particular to tackle price volatility of agricultural products;

35.

will continue to work towards sustainable ocean governance for the benefit of European coastal and maritime regions and their marine and maritime economies; with the aim of inducing blue growth and jobs, the CoR will work closely with the regions and all stakeholders regarding governance and capacity building, meeting challenges in the food production chain, reducing pressure on the environment caused by illegal fishing practices and pollution, and marine knowledge, science and innovation;

36.

regrets that the Commission work programme for 2017 pays insufficient attention to health, when the Commission should support the Member States and their regions in their efforts to increase prevention, reform and optimise their health systems, particularly through eHealth solutions, and develop comprehensive strategies on demography;

37.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to bring forward measures to strengthen the Single Market in goods, particularly concerning mutual recognition and non-compliant products, and underlines the need to continue work on completing the single market for services, which is rightly an important focus of the Single Market Strategy;

38.

reiterates its call for the Single Market pillar to be included in the European Semester with a system of regular monitoring and evaluation;

39.

notes the Commission’ intention to stand up for Europe’s industry and highlights that European industrial competitiveness also depends on a competitive supply chain and that trade policy plays an important role in that regard;

40.

underlines the importance of creating smart regulation and reducing the administrative burden on SMEs, notably by further strengthening the REFIT programme and ensuring that the impact on SMEs is systematically taken into account when new rules are shaped;

41.

expresses its support for the establishment of a ‘Forum of collaborative economy cities’ with the CoR as a key interested party; by the same token, notes with regret the lack of any proposal to safeguard the rights in new forms of employment resulting from digitalisation;

42.

highlights the need for a review of the Decision and Framework on Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) and calls on the Commission to launch a public consultation in 2017 in order to enable regional and local authorities to present their point of view on the difficulties they face with State aid control when financing SGEI;

43.

stresses the key role played by an efficient procurement system in terms of the capacity of regional and local authorities to deliver on EU investment objectives and calls on the Commission to provide assistance to ensure full implementation of the Public Procurement Directives, and to assess the difficulties that regional and local authorities face when applying the Public Procurement Directives;

44.

reiterates its call for a renewed European tourism strategy under a dedicated budget line for tourism in the EU and urges both the Commission and the Member States to facilitate access to funding for small and medium-sized tourism enterprises;

45.

welcomes the Commission’s efforts to complete the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy, including through e-Procurement, and will provide its input through the newly established joint Participatory Broadband Platform; stresses the need for all European areas to benefit from the Digital Single Market, by having access to high-speed broadband connections;

46.

emphasises that migration is a complex, multilevel process, in which the countries, regions and cities of destination and of origin play important roles. It is important to promote enhanced dialogue and closer cooperation between the Member States and the institutions of both the EU and of the countries of origin and transit of migrants and their respective regional and local levels;

47.

therefore calls on the Commission to take into account the CoR’s recommendations on protecting refugees in their countries of origin and on the new framework for partnership agreements;

48.

calls for local and regional authorities to be supported when implementing the reform of the Common European Asylum System and the other EU instruments developed on the basis of the European Agenda on Migration, such as the revised provisions on legal migration and the action plan on integration; asks the Commission to include the CoR recommendations on integrating migrants in its mid-term review of the European Agenda on Migration; recalls that integration is a process based on both rights and duties;

49.

is concerned by the difficulties involved in monitoring the presence of unaccompanied minors and the risk of their falling prey to trafficking and exploitation; calls strongly for the implementation of inclusion and training programmes, both for the minors themselves and for the local and regional administrations dealing with their reception, and for the communities of origin of minors already established in the host country to be involved in ensuring that minors are able to live temporarily with host families or in properly equipped facilities where their social, emotional, and cognitive development can be supported;

50.

calls on the Commission to provide local and regional authorities with specific and practical information on funding possibilities for the reception and integration of migrants and reiterates its call for the promotion of direct access by local and regional authorities to relevant EU financing instruments;

51.

calls on the Commission to support local and regional authorities in developing prevention strategies to counter radicalisation, to continue to collect and publicise best practices on how to prevent radicalisation through policy-making at regional and local level, and to support city-to-city cooperation in addressing radicalisation;

52.

notes that the Commission intends to continue trade negotiations with the US, Japan, Mercosur, Mexico, Tunisia and the ASEAN countries as well as to seek new mandates to open negotiations with Turkey, Australia, New Zealand and Chile, but considers that the Commission should make further efforts to demonstrate their added value;

53.

reiterates, specifically in view of the ambitious future trade agenda, that the Commission should accompany every significant initiative in the field of trade policy with territorial impact assessments;

54.

welcomes the fact that the EU Global Strategy explicitly calls for renewed external partnerships and states that the EU will support different paths to resilience in its neighbourhood, targeting the most acute cases of governmental, economic, societal and climate/energy fragility, as well as developing more effective migration policies for Europe and its partners;

55.

stresses the CoR’s contribution, through its joint consultative committees and working groups and the organisation of Enlargement Days with partners from the accession countries, to the Commission’s enlargement policy goal of fostering shared stability and prosperity with candidate and potential candidate countries;

56.

underlines that the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) can only have an enduring impact if it brings practical benefits to all beneficiaries, and emphasises that a balance must be maintained between the eastern and the southern neighbourhood; emphasises the role of local and regional authorities in entrenching democracy and the rule of law in society, urging that more support be provided for decentralisation reforms in the neighbourhood countries;

57.

emphasises that regional cooperation makes a significant contribution to global stability and urges the Commission to step up cooperation with the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (CORLEAP) and the CoR’s Ukraine Task Force, especially when implementing regional programmes and new initiatives;

58.

stresses the need, when implementing the reviewed ENP, to give high priority to initiatives supporting decentralisation processes, twinning and administrative capacity building at sub-national level; draws attention to the Nicosia Initiative launched by the CoR in support of Libyan cities, and which has helped match needs with technical support to restore the capacity of Libyan municipalities as service providers; calls on the Commission to further support such forms of bottom-up cooperation and provide sufficient administrative and financial resources; reiterates the need to roll out new tools for capacity building in the accession and ENP countries to replace the former Local Administration Facility;

59.

supports the recent developments following the merger between the EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and the Compact of Mayors to create the largest coalition of cities committed to climate action, and is prepared to use its international channels, contacts, counterparts and partnerships (ARLEM for Covenant South and Covenant Africa, CORLEAP for Covenant East, ICLEI and EU-China Urbanisation partnership for North America and South-East Asia, etc.) to further amplify efforts towards mitigation, adaptation and resilience to climate change and sustainable development challenges;

60.

asks the Commission to cooperate closely with the CoR in order to promote the specific concerns, experience and contributions of European cities in the new governance structure of the Global Covenant;

61.

welcomes the proposed New Partnership Framework with third countries and the new European External Investment Plan and calls for regional and local authorities to be involved in this process;

62.

urges the Commission to promote the active involvement of local and regional authorities in development cooperation during the negotiations on the reviewed European Consensus on Development and the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and on the post-Cotonou Agreement, which will be the focus of the CoR’s Assises of Decentralised Cooperation in March 2017;

63.

calls on the Commission to revise the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) regulation in order to simplify and improve the legal framework of this tool;

64.

welcomes the Commission’s REFIT initiative and in particular the proposal to assess transparency and democratic control of the procedures for delegated and implementing acts and for certain secondary acts;

65.

reiterates its call to include Territorial Impact Assessments in the impact assessment stage of new EU legislation where appropriate; suggests closer cooperation between the CoR and the Joint Research Centre’s newly-established Competence Centre of Territorial Policies when assessing the implementation of EU legislation;

66.

calls for increased transparency, cooperation and efficiency by the EU institutions and welcomes their shared commitment under the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making to jointly set out broad objectives and priorities, particularly for legislative proposals; calls for the CoR to be included in all stages of the legislative process in order to fully harness its potential in the legislative cycle;

67.

expects ever closer cooperation with the Commission and the European Parliament in monitoring subsidiarity and on its 2017 Subsidiarity Conference;

68.

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

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/8

1.

supports the European Commission’s efforts to ensure that European policies better reflect the concerns of national, regional and local governments and reiterates that this must be a joint responsibility of all levels of governance;

2.

supports the view that better regulation is not simply about having less legislation at EU level, but also about determining the level where the intended objectives can be best achieved, and stresses that the effective application of the principle of subsidiarity is a key element of better regulation;

3.

stresses that all regulation has to strike a balance between equally valid concerns and expectations for ‘security’ on the one hand (individual, legal, administrative, financial) and for ‘effectiveness’, ‘freedom’ or flexibility on the other hand; to balance these concerns in concrete contexts is the task of the democratic process and it is the responsibility of democratically elected representatives at all levels to explain the inevitable trade-offs and compromises to the citizens;

4.

is mindful of the work of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens (Stoiber Group), its final report and dissenting opinions;

5.

takes note of the signature of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making by the Council, the Commission and the Parliament on 13 April 2016 and hopes that this new agreement will contribute to improving EU decision-making at all stages — planning, drafting, adoption, implementation and evaluation; is concerned, however, that the specific roles of democratically elected representatives of the local and regional levels, and of the CoR are not mentioned in the IIA on Better Law-Making in any context other than that of ‘stakeholders’, despite the weight and mandate conferred on them by the Treaty of Lisbon;

6.

wishes to be involved in further initiatives on the interpretation and implementation of the new agreement so that its potential as an advisory body in the legislative cycle can be fully used; points out that many CoR members play a role in applying EU policies;

7.

welcomes the request from the European Commission for a ‘broader outlook opinion’ that provides ‘additional suggestions on the requirements imposed by EU regulation and simpler ways to achieve the same or even better results’;

8.

welcomes the European Commission’s policy-specific requests for the Committee’s outlook opinions in areas such as, but not only, the environment, energy, financial services and agriculture, where local and regional authorities can identify burdens and give suggestions for improvement corresponding to their needs;

9.

notes that this broader outlook opinion is an overview of the effects of regulation on local and regional authorities and encourages specific policy and sector-oriented analysis to identify bottlenecks and burdens;

10.

welcomes the general approach of involving specifically regional and local actors in consultation related to better regulation; in this regard, welcomes, among other things, the ‘Dutch provinces for better EU regulation’ report and draws attention to the bottlenecks that are identified and the specific solutions suggested;

11.

welcomes, in this context, the adoption of the Pact of Amsterdam with a view to the concrete implementation of the Urban Agenda for the EU, as better regulation plays an important role in the thematic partnerships. It was in this context that the report entitled Bridge! Better EU regulation for local and regional authorities was drawn up, which contained examples of specific situations where local or regional practices collide with European regulation;

12.

urges the European Commission to examine the proposed solutions related to sectoral regulations, proportionality, cross-border bottlenecks, state aid and audit pressure and to take them into account when developing new regulations;

13.

recognises the specific role played by local and regional authorities in a range of areas affected substantially by EU regulation and their role as authorities that implement EU legislation in practice and manage EU funds and stresses that their specific responsibilities provide them with good opportunities to evaluate which areas of regulatory frameworks are problematic and should be changed if necessary;

14.

believes that all levels of governance must ensure that legislation is appropriate, effective and efficient and does not create unnecessary costs and burdens, while also protecting citizens, consumers, sustainability and the environment;

15.

understands that the EU institutions must demonstrate the value of regulatory frameworks as well as the added value of EU legislation to all citizens while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

16.

recognises that the recent economic difficulties have created a climate in which additional costs caused by over-regulation have, for many local and regional authorities, exacerbated budgetary cuts. This in a situation where there has been a reduction in available resources. This has proved burdensome and led to greater pressure on those authorities to try to reduce administrative costs at the same time as being faced with increased demand for action. The CoR reiterates its view that there needs to be a simplification in and reduction of red tape, where this impacts on key tasks that local and regional authorities are required to undertake;

17.

appreciates that the reports and opinions previously adopted by the European Parliament, the EESC and the CoR have confirmed the importance of coordinated action by the EU in a spirit of partnership with national and EU institutions as well as local and regional authorities;

18.

emphasises that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in supporting citizens to overcome distress caused by long-standing economic problems, not least by making use of EU programmes, and points out that legal certainty and straightforward access to EU programmes, while recognising the need for structural reforms, are key conditions for ensuring that they are able to fulfil this role;

19.

notes that EU funding is important for many local and regional authorities to implement EU laws, and in particular to implement cohesion policy that is differentiated according to economic strength;

20.

recognises that the accessibility of EU programmes and the required regulatory regimes can cause significant difficulties in relation to interpretation of legal frameworks, rules of implementation, auditing and reporting and highlights that audit arrangements in particular often cause problems for project sponsors in connection with long-term record keeping, as pointed out in the CoR opinion on simplifying the ESIF;

21.

welcomes the European Parliament Resolution on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook (1) in which the important role played by the CoR as a political institution was endorsed and agrees that the REFIT Programme must not be used to undermine standards;

22.

while supporting the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, stresses that REFIT must not be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition, in particular in fields such as the environment, food safety, health and consumer rights;

23.

supports the goal of implementing EU legislation at national level ‘as is’ wherever possible, only exceeding the standards set out in EU provisions when required to do so for objective and technical reasons. Nonetheless, the Member States and regions must continue to be able to decide what is necessary for proper implementation on a case-by-case basis. The Commission’s proposal that each instance of ‘gold-plating’ should be justified could help to increase transparency. However, increased accountability requirements in terms of national and regional implementation must not lead to interference in domestic administrative organisation and domestic administrative procedures;

24.

stresses the importance of taking into account, when evaluating legislation, both costs, benefits and drawbacks — societal, environmental and others — for citizens and the economy, as well as the so-called ‘cost of non-Europe’ (2), i.e. the cost entailed by the absence of common action at European level in a given sector;

25.

in this context, reiterates its call on the European Commission to elaborate an EU wide standard definition of gold-plating for the purpose of legal certainty in the implementation and application of the EU law and for limiting excessive red tape (3);

26.

urges the Commission and Member States to promote the development of digital methods and ICT tools, including under the EU eGovernment Action Plan, to provide a common format and process for collecting the data required for monitoring and reporting needs, so as to reduce administrative red tape in the form of reporting to both national and EU databases;

27.

highlights the importance of ‘fitness checks’ that can identify overlaps and inconsistencies that have arisen over time from a range of objectives and new policy initiatives, in particular as regards reporting and compliance requirements;

28.

underlines the need for a better understanding of the range of reporting obligations introduced to comply with EU law; proposes that reporting requirements for local and regional authorities be listed and standardised as much as possible and that the reporting methodologies used should aim at reducing the administrative burden for citizens and SMEs as well as for local and regional authorities;

29.

recognises that language and its use can be either a barrier or an invitation to participation; easily accessible and comprehensible language is a key component of legislative and regulatory change;

30.

believes that inclusivity demands simple and clear language, structures and regulations to ensure that the EU, its purpose, programmes, policies, legislation and practical help are accessible to all;

31.

urges the European Commission to therefore simplify the language it uses, making it widely understandable, and suggests that the use of technical language be kept to a minimum, in compliance with legal requirements;

32.

believes that a more ‘user friendly’ and consistent interpretation of EU rules and regulations including, for example, proportional audit requirements, more use of fixed rates, simplified applications, claims and reporting, and clearer interpretation of regulations (for example state aid and procurement legislation) is required;

33.

understands that the EU needs to devote appropriate attention to an active communication strategy designed to engage partners, sustain activity, and attract investment;

34.

highlights the role being developed by both local and regional authorities in providing training and information on EU policies and programmes in order to bring them closer to local people;

35.

highlights the role of the EDICs in informing local people about EU legislation and programmes using content and language that is accessible to them;

36.

notes that knowledge centres, such as Europa Decentraal in the Netherlands, play an important role in facilitating the correct implementation and interpretation of EU legislation. Their experts play an important role in providing free information and advice to local and regional authorities and their associations. On the other hand the high demand for the work of knowledge centres proves the need for simplification of EU legislation;

37.

appreciates that current practice invites citizens to participate in consultations. However contributions by individual citizens are rare as most of the consultations are limited due to language accessibility and use of technical terms and contexts, and are therefore largely unwelcoming. As such, they are closed off from all but a few citizens with the skills and language that enable them to take part. It is important to ensure that all relevant parties, and above all civil society, have equal access to the texts of the consultations, which must be translated into all the official EU languages and be drawn up in the simplest, clearest and most comprehensible way possible, so as to provide maximum information about the regulations advocated;

38.

is of the view that citizen-based consultations should complement, not replace, structured public consultation, nor should they diminish the role of the relevant institutional bodies that are recognised in the Lisbon Treaty;

39.

reiterates the importance of holding a specific consultation with regional and local legislative assemblies during the legislative initiative stage, to take place through the CoR, as these bodies — which represent the territories — democratically embody the real needs of the people, including those who are not individually able to make their voices heard;

40.

regional and local authorities must therefore be considered to have priority over private corporations, both due to the role that they are recognised as playing by the Lisbon Treaty, and because they are an expression of democracy and political representation;

41.

calls on the Commission to create a ‘one-stop-shop’ for advice on regulation to ensure that applicants for EU funds are given timely, appropriate, unambiguous and clear advice;

42.

suggests that the views of practitioners should be sought during the course of a programme period, so that improvements to the legislative and regulatory framework can be based on practical experience;

43.

proposes a specific mechanism to use technical assistance funding to establish programme related legal teams to which all applicants would have free access and that can provide robust and consistent advice based on adopted, uniform interpretation of legal regulations as advised by the European Commission, and based on existing practice regarding EU funding regulations so as to remove much of the uncertainty and liability currently placed on the final beneficiary;

44.

proposes that management arrangements must create a clear separation between programme administration and project/programme delivery so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest and appraisal bias;

45.

suggests maximising the size of ‘funding pots’, within the current budget ceiling, allowing for a programme-based approach to delivery, whereby a number of related projects are combined and success is measured by headline outcomes rather than individual project outputs — in areas such as energy, to take just one potential example;

46.

proposes exploring opportunities to develop and improve financial engineering models, including specialist VC funds for key sectors, more effective alignment of grant funding with JESSICA to stimulate the property investment market, and the possibility of a JASMINE-based microcredit scheme to support start-ups and small businesses;

47.

suggests enhancing opportunities for match funding, in particular from the private sector, to ensure that financing is available to enable local and regional authorities to address local needs;

48.

asks the Commission to propose a mechanism whereby unused and de-committed funding is returned to the EU budget as allocated to the appropriate Member State, as assigned revenue, in order to guarantee that these funds will be allocated and spent to support the sectoral policies within that Member State, for which they had been earmarked by means of a vote;

49.

at present, failure to make use of available funding is due, in particular, to a poor, complex and overly defined implementation system, together with inadequate definition of priorities. It is essential to ensure proper communication with local and regional authorities as well as national bodies to redefine and clarify priorities, so that beneficiaries are not disadvantaged;

50.

it is vital therefore to ensure that multi-annual funded programmes in particular, have planning security and reliability in-built to achieve their goals. Greater flexibility in the multi-annual financial framework therefore must not lead to funds being redeployed or new political initiatives being financed at the expense of programmes that have already been approved;

51.

proposes clearly assigning roles for partners in reporting and monitoring EU-funded programmes within the municipality or region, including a review of spending and outcomes and design of remedial action and calls on the Commission to provide assistance, including funding, for local and regional authorities in cases where simplification, whether legislative or non-legislative, involves an increase in the public cost of providing their services;

52.

asks the European Commission to take further steps to simplify cohesion policy by taking into account the proposals of local and regional authorities as expressed in its opinion on Simplification of ESIF from the perspective of Local and Regional Authorities, rapporteur: Petr Osvald (CZ/PES) (4);

53.

recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU’s main tools for promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in all Member States and that their simplification is fundamental to achieving the policy objectives; immediate improvements in the current programming period, as well as long-term simplification potentially leading to a substantial revision of the existing delivery mechanism and legislation, should be envisaged;

54.

draws particular attention to the necessity of simplification, including legislative and non-legislative changes, in areas relating to auditing, reporting requirements and guidance, state aid, public procurement and gold-plating;

55.

notes that simplification efforts require targeted cooperation between all relevant Commission services, notably DG REGIO, DG EMPL, DG COMP and DG GROW;

56.

urges the European Commission to provide more information on and support for training regional and local authorities on the synergies between European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI);

57.

calls for simplification of application and reporting processes for the research and innovation funds, including through greater use of standard costs, in particular as regards auditing;

58.

stresses the recommendations of its opinion on The simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) adopted in October 2015 (5);

59.

reiterates the need to strengthen the principle of trust towards the final recipients, by easing the requirement to produce documentary evidence of expenditure during the final reporting stage and intervening in the audit stage, focusing on the results of the funded projects;

60.

is concerned that, in spite of the stated aims of the new CAP to reduce EU-level legislation, the Commission’s regulatory output via delegated legislation has increased;

61.

reiterates its call for more consistency and complementarity between the CAP and other EU policies, such as the environmental policy (and funds); greater consistency is most needed between the Rural Development Fund and the rest of the European Structural and Investment Funds jointly delivering a Common Strategic Framework based on the broad policy objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

62.

believes that the CAP should be made consistent with the goal of territorial cohesion enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, and a situation should be avoided whereby EU measures increase territorial imbalances or, for example, put public services in rural areas at risk;

63.

considers it to be very important to fully take the actual needs of actors in the regional and local business environment into account in the ongoing working process on better regulation for SMEs;

64.

points out that the REFIT Platform should also pay sufficient attention to the burden of regulation on public authorities. It is important to prevent the regulatory burden being passed from the private sector to public authorities and back again;

65.

notes that following a consultation of the winners of its ‘European Entrepreneurial Region’ scheme, priority areas for simplification, or areas where the degree of simplification introduced through existing regulation is not yet sufficient, include the participation of SMEs in ERDF-funded projects, SMEs’ access to public procurement, consumer rights and REACH. Reporting requirements for trade statistics (Intrastat) have also been identified as a priority for further action;

66.

believes that action is needed in the area of administrative simplification for SMEs, especially concerning VAT;

67.

calls for measures to be adopted to simplify access to public procurement for SMEs; is apprehensive that the degree of simplification that will be introduced through the new directives and the European Single Procurement Document may not yet be sufficient to ensure SME-friendly procurement rules;

68.

warns that the simplification measures mentioned should not undermine local and regional authorities’ ability to adopt more stringent standards to suit their specific circumstances and the needs of local people, particularly in areas such as equality and social, industrial or environmental policy;

69.

emphasises that EU law governing state aid in relation to services of general economic interest (SGEIs) has become too detailed and too complex because of the multiplicity of secondary legislation and ‘soft law’ texts relating to state aid. Further simplification will increase legal certainty, speed up the implementation of investment projects, ensure the timely provision of SGEIs, and boost growth and employment;

70.

stresses the need to raise awareness among innovative small companies about the new procedures for public procurement, their benefits and limitations, and available support. EU rules on public procurement need to undergo an impact assessment in 3 years’ time to check if they have resulted in facilitating the access to tenders for SMEs, reduced bureaucratic barriers and helped to develop long-term partnerships for supplies and services that are currently not on the market;

71.

reiterates its call for the de minimis thresholds in the case of state aid to SGEIs, as well as for the threshold for exemption from the obligation (under Article 108(3) TFEU) to declare state aid in the form of a public service compensation granted to certain entities entrusted with the operation of SGEIs, to be increased, since these measures will lead to further simplification for local and regional authorities as well as for entities receiving compensation;

72.

draws attention to its opinion on EU environment law: improving reporting and compliance adopted in April 2016 (6) and asks the European Commission and Member States to follow its recommendations in its fitness check of monitoring and reporting obligations in environment policy;

73.

draws particular attention to the specific recommendations made in the opinion related to excessively burdensome audit and reporting requirements, and calls in particular for reporting tools to be automated and synergies across reporting obligations under different directives to be found; reiterates its suggestion to establish ‘implementation scoreboards’ for additional directives in the area of environment law;

74.

supports the option of a horizontal EU directive, which would establish compliance assurance provisions across the EU environmental acquis, based on principles as mentioned in the CoR opinion referred to above;

75.

notes that in 2013 the European Union had an extensive set of 63 binding and 68 non-binding targets, with the majority to be achieved by 2015 and 2020. The impact of these targets on sub-national government as well as business needs to be measured and taken into account when targets are being proposed and amended. Unhelpful targets already in place should be removed so that local government leaders are provided with enough autonomy to be able to adapt measures to local economic and environmental conditions;

76.

reiterates that appropriate allocation of responsibilities and resources, and clear information flows between municipalities, regions and the national level with regard to Member States’ environmental monitoring and reporting requirements, are needed in order to ensure that reports and indicators relating to the state of the environment are consistent, effective and reliable.

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/15

1.

supports the EU’s policy to maintain Europe’s leading position as most frequently visited region in the world accounting in 2015 for 51,4 % of all international tourist arrivals equivalent to some 609 million persons (1) and to maximise this sector’s contribution to sustainability, innovation, economic growth and employment;

2.

highlights the fact that, under Article 195 TFEU, tourism comes under the responsibility of the Member States and that the EU shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, and thus also of regional and local authorities, in this field. Regional and local authorities have a key role to play here given their competences, with many regions having exclusive competences in this sector. Given the importance of tourism for the internal market, cooperation between Member States and the regional and local levels of government in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity and multi-level governance is necessary, as are common European principles, criteria and measures with European added value;

3.

calls on the European Commission (EC) to revise the 2010 tourism strategy, to launch an integrated EU tourism policy relating to all relevant EU policies, to improve tourist confidence in the tourism sector as a whole, to strengthen the EC’s approach towards seasonality and to propose a multiannual work programme with clear goals, indicators and measures for tourism;

4.

asks the EU Member States, based on the EU tourism strategy, to develop national tourism policies in consultation with local and regional authorities;

5.

asks that a section on tourism be added to all macro-regional strategies  (2). The EC is urged to draw up, together with the CoR, a catalogue of topics with possible tourism objectives for macro-regions;

6.

underlines that tourism is today one of the fastest growing economic sectors in Europe; a sector that drives global growth and development, creates millions of jobs, spurs exports and investment and transforms peoples’ lives; a sector that supports the sharing of cultural diversity and values and actively contributes to gradual consolidation of a European identity among the younger generations;

7.

calls on regions and cities to subsequently devise strategies for tourism which are in line with European and macro-regional strategies, and also calls for public-public cooperation and public-private partnerships to develop, promote and implement new tourism infrastructure bearing in mind the needs of an ageing European population and enabling senior citizens to travel barrier-free across the Union. These strategies must be combined with plans to reinvigorate tourist destinations, by improving both public and private resources and facilities, that make them more competitive. Improvements must also be made in mature destinations where over time, the capacity of existing resources to attract tourist flows has declined;

8.

calls on the Member States and the European Commission to enable and actively support cross-border cooperation of local and regional authorities in the field of tourism;

9.

calls for cross-sectoral local as well as regional platforms  (3) to link, strategically develop and market destinations (4), to pursue the dialogue and exchange of good practices and of the know-how about the use of the EU financial instruments;;

10.

points out that tourism is one of the most important policy areas for cross-border cooperation in Europe. Cross-border cooperation structures including EGTCs and Euroregions are urged to facilitate cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation by means of cross-border tourism strategies (e.g. transport or marketing strategies), thus creating wealth, boosting employment and ensuring regions can offer more to consumers. In so doing they should make use of all possible European funds (e.g. EFSI, ESIF, Interreg, Horizon 2020) involving highly experienced organisations, groupings or networks related to the sector;

11.

calls for public and private funds to be used for long-term improvements to travel and tourist infrastructure (5) in outlying regions, mountainous regions, islands and coastal areas, which in many domains also provides services of general interest, so as to secure the accessibility, supply and competitiveness of tourist regions, and calls for

12.

calls for issues related to combating terrorism, security, particularly in public places, and civil protection to be included in European, national and regional tourism strategies; in particular emergency communication and management in national, regional and local emergency plans and procedures;

13.

calls on the European Commission, when conducting the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework, to radically rethink its approach to tourism in the ESI Funds, since at present it has in effect excluded support for tourism from these funds in some countries, even though many of their regions have poorly developed areas where tourism is virtually the only possible means of development (national parks, protected areas, and so on);

14.

stresses that investments must be made in the competitiveness of European tourism. SMEs, in particular, need to make better use of the digital single market strategy and its stimulus packages (EFSI, ESI, EMFF, Interreg, URBACT, LIFE, Horizon, COSME, Creative Europe, Erasmus+, EaSI) (9). In this regard, support and training initiatives for SMEs with regard to making more effective use of funding would be welcome;

15.

supports the call to introduce a budget heading for promoting European tourism into the annual EU budget to finance innovative, competitive, sustainable, cross-regional and cross-border projects, and also supports more consideration of investments with relevance to tourism in post-2020 EU regional policy. EU funding must ease the strain on SMEs and the bureaucratic burden that managing funding entails must be significantly reduced;

16.

calls on the Member States and their regional authorities to include tourism priorities in their operational programmes post 2020, to enable public authorities and the private sector to access funds to finance their projects; aware of the rapid pace of the demographic change, recommends to favour initiatives aimed to adapt tourism infrastructure and transport means to the needs of an ageing population;

17.

calls on Member States to

18.

regrets that SMEs’ lack of knowledge means that they do not make sufficient use of the EFSI and supports the establishment of regional investment platforms under the EFSI to enable SMEs to have access to information and know-how, following the example of regional development (e.g. ‘the ALPS’ (10)). As part of the implementation of the ‘Invest and Connect’ declaration (11), adopted at the seventh European Summit of Regions and Cities in Bratislava, the CoR thus recommends to the EC and the EIB that they collectively set up a Europe-wide investment platform for tourism-related SMEs and jointly hold local tourism investment forums under the EFSI. Specifically, five pilot projects should be carried out in model regions by 2018 (rural/remote or outermost, mountainous, border, island/coastal regions, and cities), possibly also involving networks such as NECSTouR, the Association of European Border Regions, European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation or Euroregions;

19.

calls on regions and EGTCs, together with the EFSI steering board and the EIB, to motivate banks in their regions to bring in investment programmes facilitating cross-border investment and making it easier for tourism-related SMEs to access EU funding and private sector funds (PPP models);

20.

calls on the EC to support cross-border small and micro-projects in the field of tourism as well as ‘people-to-people’ projects, which make a major contribution to a sense of European identity, especially in border regions;

21.

reiterates its call for the de minimis thresholds in the case of state aid for SGEIs, which often also benefit tourism-related, to be increased to EUR 1 million per case per three tax years. In regions whose economic and social stability depends substantially on tourism and where unemployment is high, these thresholds should also apply to public investment in tourism-related infrastructure, inasmuch as this is also regularly used by the local population. Recalls at the same time that the current General Block Exemption Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 applicable until 31 December 2020 already covers aid for culture and heritage conservation and aid for sport and multifunctional recreational infrastructures;

22.

underlines that tourism is a key strategic element for many less developed regions with significant economic and environmental potential that has not yet been fully harnessed;

23.

draws attention to difficulties with the regulatory framework and recommends that the Member States to avoid unnecessary tightening of EU legislation by means of national regulations (gold plating). Under REFIT, the CoR recommends that the EC should take the following tourism-specific initiatives:

24.

calls for town centre regeneration strategies, when scoping future needs of investment in regeneration or infrastructure, to give careful consideration to the potential impact of such investments in terms of protecting or increasing local attractiveness for tourism activities and improving accessibility for citizens and visitors with reduced mobility;

25.

proposes the promotion of thematic tourism projects  (13) in the sense of smart specialisation (smart regions/cities) so as to counteract the negative effects of mass tourism, and also suggests introducing the title of ‘European Capital of Smart Tourism’, to be awarded to up to three EU cities/regions per year by representatives of the tourism industry, the EC, the EP and the CoR. In so doing particular attention should be given to the promotion of sustainable and competitive tourist destinations as an added value to the European Destinations of Excellence (EDEN). Outside city centres and well established urban magnets should be taken into consideration so that urban nodes at peripheries of metropolitan areas or small and medium sized towns also benefit;

26.

emphasises that city tourism creates spatial dynamics for transforming the urban landscape through the rejuvenation of public space, infrastructure and connectivity, development of local amenities and recreational facilities. This benefits not only tourists but also local communities and citizens;

27.

calls for cultural, natural, historical and religious tourism to be supported, which contributes to employment, multicultural understanding and local, regional and rural development, and calls for tourist attractions to be linked so as to create European, national and local thematic trails, like the Unesco-declared World Heritage cities and sites. To this end, a European Network of World Heritage Cities should be set up, and specific measures taken to preserve them and make them better known;

28.

reiterates that health and wellness tourism is one of the fastest growing tourism branches, attracting elderly Europeans and visitors from third countries and recommends strengthening the connection between tourism and the silver economy agenda;

29.

emphasises that rural tourism preserves local communities by creating jobs, stimulating development, protecting the environment, supporting rural culture, arts and handicrafts, and calls

30.

flags up the major role played by culinary tourism in creating new, sustainable jobs and points out that the development of this sector of tourism aims to promote high-quality traditional and local products. Given that more than one third of tourist spending is devoted to food consumption, the culinary arts are a safe and vital source of revenue;

31.

reiterates its support for the European Capitals of Culture (ECOC) and the European Heritage Label (EHL) initiatives, as well as for the European Heritage Days and the European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage;

32.

recalls that tourism safeguards economic growth, incomes and employment in many regions. The CoR calls on the regions to consider sustainability  (14) in their tourism strategies  (15) including innovative tools to monitor and increase the sustainability of tourism in terms of its environmental, social and economic aspects (ETIS), so as to provide a holistic approach that anticipates and deals with increased environmental pressures as a result of tourism-related activities. EU cohesion policy should provide targeted support to the development of these strategies;

33.

calls for a European legislative solution to the collaborative economy trend, which, in addition to positive effects, also carries risks such as a lack of social protection for workers, a lack of provisions in respect of the accommodation of customers/tourists, the transfer of risk from employers to employees and negative fiscal effects and lack of quality control of destinations;

34.

supports development of sustainable cultural tourism in cities which can be a vital catalyst for revenue generation for innovative practices in heritage conservation and management. Tourism in cities also stimulates innovation. Use of information, communication technologies and the smart city concept which not only creates a quality visitor experience but also improves the quality of life of the local population;

35.

invites tourist regions, in the light of climate change, to diversify their economic focus — in particular, conditions in mountain and coastal regions are favourable for renewable energy production (water/wind, solar, geothermal, biomass power) and to invest together with the sector in climate-friendly projects using tools such as the Hotel Energy Solutions (HES) (16) and the Nearly Zero Energy Hotels (neZEH) (17);

36.

calls on the EC to support campaigns to raise awareness in the sector about sustainable management of natural resources (in terms of reducing water consumption, food waste and the use of detergents and hygiene products);

37.

calls for further EC and Member State measures to ensure formal cross-border recognition of tourism qualifications, as well as multi-faceted training to reduce seasonality. The recognition of qualifications must comply with a stringent standard (18);

38.

underlines the need to fight the use of undeclared or under-declared work, which is particularly widespread in the tourism sector (19);

39.

calls on the Commission, under the aegis of the EURES network with national employment agencies, to develop tourism-specific programmes for the Europe-wide placement of qualified workers in tourism-intensive regions;

40.

calls on local and regional authorities and employment agencies to set up qualification partnerships with the tourism industry so as to provide training in the context of lifelong learning, in order to develop quality (sustainability, support, safety, etc.) and marketing (digitalisation) in the tourism sector;

41.

welcomes the adoption of the new Sustainable Development Goals (20) (SDGs) by the United Nations General Assembly at its 70th Session and highlights that among the 17 SDGs tourism explicitly featured in Goals 8, 12 and 14 for its capacity to foster economic growth, inclusiveness and decent work for all, promote sustainable consumption and production and advance conservation and sustainable development of aquatic resources — noting the key lines of action — advocacy and awareness raising, knowledge creation and dissemination, policy making, and capacity building and education;

42.

proposes, in the context of the European education offensive, that

43.

calls on the Member States, regions and cities to integrate migrants and asylum-seekers more rapidly into the labour market, and to make use of the language and specialist skills of migrants and develop them through courses;

44.

underlines that European citizens engaging in tourism in the EU are consumers protected by EU law and are able to move freely throughout the EU internal market and the Schengen area. Tourism therefore has a very important role to play in forging a sense of European citizenship and promoting mutual understanding. Therefore, incentives should be created to encourage European citizens to take more holidays in Europe. The CoR urges the EC and the Member States to reflect on the following ideas while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and applying multilevel governance:

45.

underlines that tourism makes an important contribution to promoting understanding between peoples and knowledge of different cultures;

46.

proposes a media prize (‘tourism Oscar’), awarded by the EC, EP and CoR, to recognise (print and audiovisual) documentation that transmits knowledge about the European cultural and natural heritage, as well as about regional and local tourist attractions in Europe, and contributes to a sense of European citizenship;

47.

emphasises the role of the internal market and the Schengen area for cross-border tourism and local markets. The CoR urgently appeals to the EU Member States to safeguard the border-free Schengen area;

48.

welcomes the ‘visa package’ (23) adopted by the EC in April 2014 and stresses that visa facilitation is a crucial prerequisite for encouraging tourists to visit Europe (24). Security concerns must be carefully weighed up against the economic contribution made by tourism; the Committee welcomes in this context the introduction of a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) (25) strengthening security of travel to the Schengen area under visa-free agreements;

49.

suggests that issues relating to tourism, and especially measures to improve the safety of European tourists in non-EU states, be addressed in a report by the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM);

50.

supports newly established platforms for cooperation between the EU and international partners like China through initiatives such as the Europe-China One Belt, One Road (OBOR) Culture and Tourism Development Committee (26);

51.

fully supports the decision to make 2018 the ‘European Year of Cultural Heritage’ considering that tourism will be a key enabler of all relevant initiatives and calls for a European Year of Tourism;

52.

calls for the joint promotion of tourism in third countries to be coordinated between the umbrella organisation for tourism advertising at national level and the European Travel Commission;

53.

calls for tourism services to be strengthened and targeted both at specific countries and at interest groups, professional groups, etc. while ensuring that information is distributed worldwide in an appropriate and understandable way using the most innovative channels possible. Making information about European tourism products more accessible can boost European tourist flows, as well as those from geographically distant countries;

54.

calls on the Commission to focus more closely on the interferences between tourism and migration/refugee flows, to study their cultural, economic and social impacts and, together with the CoR, to identify opportunities for the affected regions (labour market, etc.);

55.

recommends that the European Commission

56.

calls on the EC to include the CoR in the annual European Tourism Forum and the European Tourism Day;

57.

calls for an annual discussion on tourism between the relevant EP and CoR committees and bodies; the discussion could include a joint hearing of sector-related stakeholders;

58.

calls on future EU Council presidencies to put topics relating to European tourism on the agenda and to involve representatives of the CoR;

59.

supports the Tourism for Growth and Jobs Manifesto (29), an initiative by Europe’s public and private tourism actors, and proposes to sign it in order to join the forces to keep Europe as an attractive destination and to ensure that the tourism sector continues to contribute to the economic, social, and territorial cohesion in Europe;

60.

calls on the UNWTO to support its initiative to develop European tourism;

61.

calls for the promotion of responsible tourism policies and practices by governments and the private sector in line with the principles of the UNWTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, a comprehensive framework for the development of sustainable, responsible and universally accessible tourism that takes into account all its economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions;

62.

places a special emphasis on the social accountability of tourism, and calls upon European and non-European citizens to be informed and responsible tourists and travellers and to respect local customs and cultures;

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/24

1.

notes that in its choice of title for its 2 June 2016 communication, ‘A European agenda for the collaborative economy’, the European Commission has reaffirmed its preference for the term ‘collaborative economy’ as opposed to the more all-encompassing ‘sharing economy’;

2.

finds that the communication’s reference to the ‘not-for-profit’ aspect of the collaborative economy — ‘[c]ollaborative economy transactions generally do not involve a change of ownership and can be carried out for profit or not-for-profit’ — is not sufficient insofar as the changes and innovations that are driven by the collaborative economy go beyond the effects that stem from the interplay of service supply and demand;

3.

underscores its appreciation of the openness displayed by the Commission towards the collaborative economy in this document. A common regulatory ‘framework’, as a model and guide, is needed for the Member States and local and regional authorities;

4.

given that the collaborative economy has an impact upon so many areas, reiterates the importance of a multi-level approach with close and continuous interaction and cooperation between the different institutional levels;

5.

regrets that the Commission Work Programme for 2017 does not contain any proposal for a follow-up to the European Agenda for the collaborative economy. Indeed the relevant European legislation does not seem to be consolidated and the frame for the contractual relations between the platforms and their contributors appears uncertain;

6.

considering that this new economy relies in many aspects on the empowerment of citizens and consumers, is of the view that a regulatory approach based on multi-level governance, participation, proportionality and avoidance of red-tape is required;

7.

calls for rigorous territorial impact assessments to be carried out by the Commission on future initiatives in this field, a need highlighted by the expert seminar on urban impact assessment organised by the CoR (1); notes the strong local and regional dimension of the phenomenon, since many collaborative economy initiatives have a major impact at the level of cities in particular, and are often framed, regulated, and sometimes taxed at the local and regional level;

8.

shares the European Commission’s opinion on avoiding regulatory fragmentation and calls for this objective to be pursued in the interest of ensuring that local and regional economies reap the benefits of the collaborative economy; therefore also calls for the Commission to take into consideration the local and regional dimension of ‘overriding reasons relating to the public interest’ as defined by Article 4(8) of the Services Directive;

9.

stresses the need to tackle a cross-cutting question such as the collaborative economy in the framework of the Urban Agenda for the EU, in particular in relation to the digital transition, one of the Pact of Amsterdam’s priority themes;

10.

considers it indispensable to adopt a holistic approach that can embrace the economic, social and environmental assets of existing systems for managing/sharing/exchanging goods and services, now driven by new technologies;

11.

stresses that despite its complexity, early action to prevent fragmentation in the first place would still be far less difficult than ex-post harmonisation of 28 national frameworks and countless local and regional regulations;

12.

notes that excessive regulatory measures may suppress innovation; highlights on the other hand that the absence of regulatory measures can create uncertainty that may inhibit investments and development of the sector;

13.

points out that this issue is also important in view of the need to reduce the digital divide. A piecemeal approach to these economies could risk exacerbating the divide between rural and urban areas;

14.

notes the marked prevalence of US businesses in the collaborative economy, and emphasises that introducing clear EU-level rules respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality would give European start-ups the chance to grow and be more competitive on the world stage; also considers that account should be taken of the cost of non-Europe in the sharing or collaborative economy (2);

15.

considers that the strength of this new approach based on sharing/collaborating/participating/connecting lies not only in its use of the new technologies, but also in the values of trust and responsibility that are social and ‘experiential’ as well as economic;

16.

points out that sharing/collaborative economy business organisations with a long-term vision should play an active role in designing future policies in the field;

17.

considers it a priority to identify and establish parameters and values that we want to promote and defend, to prevent the new paradigm from turning into something that ‘does not belong to us’ and to make sure it is socially sustainable. This will be necessary in the hospitality sector, for example, where there is a risk of unfair competition between the services of the collaborative economy and traditional activity. It could also have an influence on the property market by increasing prices or changing the use of buildings. The question which is to be locally addressed is to what extent collaborative economy platforms are complementary with the existing housing stock and traditional hotel operator;

18.

in order to ensure that rights are protected, considers it indispensable to adopt wherever possible and in full respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles similar concepts and definitions, as this will guarantee uniformity and certainty at European level. Considers that the EU should define the notions of ‘service provider’, ‘employers’ and ‘workers’ more clearly, and find a solution to problems in consumer-to-consumer and trader-to-trader relations on online platforms, in order to establish which rights and laws should prevail;

19.

as already stated in its previous opinion, ‘[c]onsiders however that regulation of pre-existing markets should be subject to regular review in order to verify its ability to allow for continued innovation processes. The debate on the circular economy and the Digital Single Market could be some of the areas where the SE [sharing economy] should be taken into consideration’ (3);

20.

regrets, however, the fact that there is no reference to the aim of involving local and regional authorities in future assessments and that far too much discretion has been left to the Member States, running the risk of fragmentation, something to be avoided;

21.

finds that the Commission’s communication provides elements and criteria for assessment without giving a full response, which will inevitably result in differences in interpretation and further fragmentation of the single market; therefore calls on the Commission to come up with a clear legal framework that ensures that fair competition principles are upheld; regrets, here, that the Commission’s approach seems to be to let the European legislator only endorse a certain number of judicial decisions (4), including on the question of what exactly is covered by the exclusion of ‘transport’ from the scope of Article 2 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services;

22.

takes a positive view of the Commission’s approach which, thanks partly to the data collected in the staff working document, conveys the economic potential of the collaborative economy. At the same time, however, would recommend assessing and recognising not only the economic gain in monetary terms, but also the gains and savings that collaborative initiatives generate in environmental and social terms. The CoR would therefore suggest finding an optimum way of studying and monitoring the ‘assets’ generated by sharing so that they can come to be recognised as an integral and active part of the circular economy;

23.

notes that setting up one-stop-shops for sharing/collaborative economy entrepreneurs that would bring together all business support services could help the wider spread of sharing/collaborative economy activities;

24.

questions whether the Services Directive’s definition of ‘service provider’ is still appropriate, since its current wording captures any economic activity, including the many highly infrequent and non-professional activities provided by peers;

25.

believes it would be particularly useful to identify ‘thresholds’ for access, both ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’, to determine who would be subject to market access requirements but also to avoid the spread of activities which may use the cloak of the collaborative economy to circumvent laws and regulations;

26.

considers that the Commission’s guidance regarding the definition of the term ‘trader’ should be clarified, that a non-profit motive should exclude a provider from being classified as a trader, and that EU-level thresholds on the basis of the frequency of the service should be used;

27.

notes that reviews and ratings can be a major factor, together with legal requirements, in ensuring consumer trust and protection, and emphasises that platforms should do more to tackle fake reviews;

28.

notes, however, that many forms of work in the collaborative economy appear to lie mid-way between salaried employment and freelance work, a situation which raises important questions related to working conditions, health and safety, health care coverage, paid sick leave, unemployment benefits and retirement pensions; points out that this could give rise to a new category of precarious workers;

29.

points out that some collaborative economy business models have produced strong negative social and employment-related externalities, in particular by abusing the concept of ‘self-employment’, and rely on social disparities between workers depending on the national legislation that applies in the country where the service is provided; asks the Commission to provide a more specific framework to ensure coordination between Member States;

30.

calls on Member States, local and regional authorities and the Commission to encourage innovative solutions to the social and employment challenges raised by the collaborative economy, such as cooperative or mutual organisations providing a salaried status to individuals who would otherwise be forced into a self-employed status not of their choosing, thereby giving them access to a wide range of social protection measures;

31.

highlights, on the other hand, that any activity conducted via the intermediary of an online platform is fully traceable and that, with the right policy measures, the collaborative economy can actually be a tool for both increased tax compliance and reduced administrative burdens;

32.

calls on collaborative economy platforms to require all active providers to comply with applicable fiscal rules, and to cooperate with national, regional and local authorities in setting up the information transfer mechanisms to enforce these obligations in full respect of applicable data protection legislation; points out that examples of such systems already exist and should be widely deployed;

33.

underlines in particular the case of tourist taxes, which are a key concern for many local and regional authorities, since in many locations where such a tax applies, it is not collected on stays reserved through collaborative economy platforms; adds that this breach of regulation cannot be tolerated, that it creates unfair competition vis-à-vis traditional accommodation providers, and furthermore deprives local and regional authorities of revenue; welcomes at the same time that agreements between certain cities and platforms on the systematic collection of these taxes have been found;

34.

highlights the fact that the social responsibilities of platforms in all their various permutations need to be more precisely defined, in particular in relation to occupational health and safety, as well as training; Stresses that the workers’ right to information and consultation within the undertaking as well as the right of collective bargaining and action, as enshrined respectively in articles 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are to be guaranteed independently from the business model;

35.

considers the role of online platforms extremely important as a tool with a multiplier effect for the economic paradigm in question, and expects them to shoulder responsibility for guaranteeing respect of the rights of users, the community and the local area to ensure that the model does not automatically become a hindrance or obstacle;

36.

welcomes the Commission’s statement that its ‘free flow of data’ initiative will facilitate switching and portability of data among the various online platforms, since this is a key factor in ensuring fair competition and user protection in the single market;

37.

calls on the Commission to study the need for, and feasibility of, creating a legal requirement for platforms to provide simple, user-friendly summaries of their general terms and conditions in addition to the standard documents, since the length and complexity of the latter deters the majority of users from reading them, creating a highly asymmetric relationship;

38.

welcomes the Commission’s commitment to cooperate with major online platforms in introducing a code of conduct to combat online hate speech;

39.

calls on the Commission to adopt, as soon as possible, a holistic approach to the issue to avoid blocking the spread and impact of the sharing economy in the near future;

40.

supports the possibility to create, a specific European statute for collaborative platforms in the medium term which could be preceded by a labelling process initiated by the platforms themselves or, failing that, by the public authorities. Such a labelling process should enable the platforms to clarify their responsibilities and in particular lay down minimum standards concerning the rules and principles applicable to collaborative workers (remuneration, rules for grading and dereferencing, dispute settlement, etc.);

41.

underlines the need to find the right regulatory balance: policy-makers must not smother innovation and regulate the collaborative economy to death, and yet at the same time they must be sufficiently precise to avoid fragmentation and manage socioeconomic challenges;

42.

would ask the Commission to inform and involve all levels in order to publicise the ‘pilot project’ that it has approved, acting on the proposal of the European Parliament, comprising research, monitoring and training programmes on the collaborative economy;

43.

calls for the definition of EU-wide thresholds below which a provider shall remain a non-trader and a ‘peer’, and thus not be subject to any market access requirements to be explored and considered;

44.

considers that these thresholds should be relative and time-based (e.g. number of nights for accommodation, number of days/hours worked for other areas) rather than absolute and monetary, so as to ensure a level playing field for everyone; they should also be low, in order to prevent abuse and ensure the genuinely occasional and non-professional nature of the activity;

45.

requests that collaborative economy platforms in the accommodation sector require their providers to comply with the rules related to tourist taxes, and that it be mandatory to collect such taxes on all reservations which they facilitate in the cities and regions concerned, in order to remit them to the appropriate authorities; points out that several examples of such cooperation between authorities and platforms already exist;

46.

supports the establishment of a ‘forum of collaborative economy cities’ to share experience and exchange good practice, which besides the CoR should involve the European organisations and networks active in the local and regional dimension of the collaborative economy and liaise with the relevant thematic partnerships of the Urban Agenda for the EU; highlights that such a forum would be a key asset and partner in relation to the necessary territorial impact assessments in this field;

47.

urges all political levels to work on the current situation without losing sight of the fact that the real political challenge is to design the sharing economy of tomorrow.

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/29

1.

notes that a New Skills Agenda is critically important for Europe’s continuing development. Economic, social and cultural investments have a long-term effect and are of prime importance. The New Skills Agenda is therefore to be welcomed and every effort should be made to ensure it is implemented swiftly and effectively. These are issues that are highly relevant to local and regional interests in Europe;

2.

underlines that the labour market is becoming more and more fluid. People need to be versatile and flexible to be able to withstand unexpected changes and to take advantage of new opportunities. In addition to occupation-specific skills employers are increasingly looking for ‘transversal’ or ‘soft’ skills. This is in line with the requirement of modern life and society, making skilled, well-rounded people not only better performers in the labour market, but also better informed individuals, more engaged citizens, and smarter consumers;

3.

points to the need for upskilling measures to give people living in Europe who lack basic skills the means to be actively part of the world of work and enable them to support themselves. This is important both from the perspective of the individual and for society as a whole. Signs of social unrest have been apparent in Europe recently, indicating quite clearly that social inclusion is an indispensable objective for basic education and training measures as a means of combating exclusion. Active citizenship entails accepting democratic values and being aware of what it means to take active responsibility for upholding those values, and this must include everybody. It is therefore important for integration purposes that migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees, also benefit from a suitable form of skills guarantee;

4.

would stress, however, that it is important for basic skills to be imparted first and foremost at the earliest stages of schooling and, in any event, during the compulsory schooling phase;

5.

regards the New Skills Agenda as an important programme to tackle the skills gap in Europe covering the whole spectrum of skills needs, from basic to complex skills, and from transversal to sector-specific. While it is important to develop a broad set of skills from an early age, the skills agenda is also relevant for various categories of adult: people who need to improve their skills to enter the labour market or keep doing their job, those who need an opportunity to develop skills for employment in another field, people who want to be mobile across borders, and others who need a foundation for further studies and training. Also considers it important to ensure coherence and complementarity between and within education and training in general — and particularly vocational education — and work-based training in the delivery of upskilling measures;

6.

supports the Commission’s proposal for a Skills Guarantee aimed at improving employment opportunities and full participation in society for low-qualified adults in Europe. The offer of taking part in the Skills Guarantee should specify clear goals as regards the level of skills and qualifications to be acquired and set out the conditions that low-qualified adults must meet. It should take into consideration the level and nature of skills required by the labour market, and, where possible, make use of people’s existing vocational competences. These matters have considerable implications for local and regional levels of government, given that they have responsibility for education, training and employment;

7.

considers that there should be a clear link between efforts to identify skills and consequent educational measures in the form of personalised learning plans. A well thought-out personalised learning plan should be designed to contain specific information about the approach, objective and goals of study for each individual;

8.

also believes that life-long high-quality and effective information and career guidance services are needed for the implementation of personalised learning plans. These services will provide the person concerned with information regarding the learning opportunities that are tailored to their needs and will help them acquire the necessary skills for entering employment. They might also include guidance, study visits or ‘hands-on’ activities, advice on study financing and information about training opportunities, as well as information about access to various types of training and relevant contacts;

9.

stresses that the point of education and training should be to allow an individual to acquire the skills needed by an adult to secure or maintain their position in a work or social environment. It is important that participants also have the option to combine study at different levels in an education system and in different study environments suited to their individual needs, so that they can rapidly acquire the skills needed in the employment market and the society, especially when it comes to integration of asylum seekers and refugees. This could mean for instance basic language skills combined with study at primary, secondary and post-secondary level. Work-study programmes should also be facilitated;

10.

points out that members of target groups should be given opportunities to attend different forms of training that are accessible to them in terms of time and venue, depending for example on geographical or social factors, as well as the option of combining studies with other activities and taking into account people’s different ways of learning. It is important to take advantage of new learning approaches, subject to good guidance, through various forms of IT-based learning, e.g. distance learning (in real time) and blended learning or other forms of open education. It is likely that technology will develop very quickly during the next few years, posing challenges in terms of educational activity keeping pace with developments;

11.

emphasises that such a system should also include outreach activities for disadvantaged groups in need of upskilling where individuals do not seek training on their own initiative. Such efforts could usefully consist of a combination of measures at national or local/regional level. For example, local or regional authorities could be responsible for identifying target groups and incentivising those groups through outreach activities, after which people qualifying for training would have access to nationally determined forms of support, e.g. special study grants, tax breaks or study leave. Civil society players, such as youth organisations, can play an important role in such outreach efforts;

12.

agrees with the observation in the communication that employers are not seeking occupation-specific skills as much as they used to, but are more interested in transferable skills, such as such as the ability to work in a team, creative thinking and problem-solving, as well as the ability to work across different fields. These new fundamentals should be taken into account when designing and implementing education measures. However, believes it necessary to develop specific training content aimed at the new economic sectors such as the green and blue economies;

13.

would like to see cooperation developed on the basis of partnerships between national, regional and local authorities, companies, employees and employee associations, as well as civil society players, with the aim of taking more account of skills and qualifications acquired through non-formal and informal learning. Recognition of skills acquired outside the formal education system can significantly improve awareness of what new skills and qualifications are needed;

14.

believes that, while the content and organisation of education and training systems are Member State competence, the Skills Guarantee should be designed with reference to national, regional and local conditions and available resources, while also considering that investment in human capital should be seen as social investment. The possibility of EU co-financing — through existing or future funding programmes — is very important for the implementation of a skills guarantee in the Member States;

15.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to continue its efforts to achieve a consensus about key competences, so that these are: (1) clearly laid out in national guidance documents, (2) reflected in teaching, and (3) evaluated at the various levels of policy-making within the education system. The significance of key competences, whose aim is also to empower people to meet rapidly changing labour market demands, must be discussed in different arenas at EU, national, regional and local level. Therefore, this should preferably involve close dialogue between representatives of community organisations, the labour market, education, research and civil society;

16.

thinks it is appropriate for local and regional authorities — for example, in their role as education and training providers — as well as teacher-training bodies to be involved in these efforts as soon as work has begun on developing the activities envisaged, so as to ensure that the skills are deployed as soon as conceivably possible. The reference frameworks for digital and entrepreneurial skills developed by the Commission are a very useful step in this direction, and it might therefore be a good idea to develop equivalent frameworks for other key competences, such as the competence of financial literacy, together with supporting material for implementation, assessment and evaluation;

17.

believes it would make sense for the Commission to continue organising themed weeks and cooperating with the World Skills Organisation. This would in turn stimulate and support national, regional and local efforts to promote vocational training through information days and skills competitions, including ‘hands-on’ activities;

18.

welcomes EU action to address skill shortages which are often particularly problematic for smaller, rural local and regional authorities. Awaits in this respect the implementation of the new proposal for a Blueprint for Sectoral Cooperation on Skills to see if this new scheme can contribute to cross-sectoral cooperation for regional and local government. Such cross-sectoral cooperation platform could be of benefit for local economies, workforce and public services;

19.

endorses the Commission’s idea of urging the Member States to design their education systems so as to allow transition from general training programmes to targeted programmes geared to different occupational skills;

20.

supports the idea of calling on the Member States to guarantee that recently arrived migrants who have been able to find work quickly thanks to targeted measures have opportunities to access continuing training so as to avoid them later being excluded from the labour market;

21.

supports the Commission’s intention to promote a wider range of higher vocational training with the aim of ensuring that the level of vocational training is further improved. A well-developed partnership between training providers, researchers, businesses, and local and regional authorities should be the mainstay of such training approaches;

22.

notes that the Commission must also continue efforts to ensure that vocational training still supports lifelong learning and provides the opportunity for further learning to continue at a higher level of qualification;

23.

backs the Commission’s proposal to urge the Member States to draw up comprehensive national strategies for digital skills;

24.

points out that high-quality and innovative teaching methods and forms of learning with digital content require:

25.

sees digitalisation as an opportunity to address many educational challenges, for example:

26.

underscores that for investment in digital skills to be effective, strong pedagogical leadership is needed from teachers at different educational levels. Investment in digital skills in school can help to create more attractive jobs in which teachers become more willing and able to develop their skills;

27.

points out that a distinction must be made between basic digital skills, which everybody has to acquire, and more specific digital competences that are linked to specific subject and skills areas;

28.

expects the review of the European Qualifications Framework to ensure that national qualifications frameworks are updated where appropriate and that reporting follows a standardised format. Repeats, however, that the Member States are those responsible for formulating principles to ensure quality within national qualifications frameworks;

29.

underlines the importance of maintaining quality assurance coordination between the Member States and agrees with the European Commission that a step-by-step approach is needed for cooperation between the EU and third countries over the comparability of qualifications;

30.

notes that the majority of occupations and occupational spheres are undergoing considerable change, with new occupations emerging and others becoming obsolete. It is therefore important for skills descriptions and skills profiles for the future to be able to reflect a labour market that is in a state of rapid flux and renewal. Particular importance should be attached to key competences in this context;

31.

notes that, as stated by the European Parliament in 2016 (1), it is of the utmost importance to support the inclusion and integration of refugees, asylum seekers and people in equivalent circumstances. Thus it is also important to provide support as promptly as possible to the Member States in ensuring access to skills identification, language introduction, upskilling efforts and other measures to promote integration at work and in society. It should also be possible for people with training/qualifications acquired in their country of origin to have those skills assessed without delay;

32.

welcomes the Commission’s promise to pay particular attention in the skills agenda to innovation in the sphere of education and expects that this will also facilitate the acquisition of key competences, which is a vital component of education and training systems in Europe;

33.

believes that the Commission should promote further development of student-centred learning based on the aspects of digital learning mentioned in the CoR opinion on the Commission Communication on Opening up Education (2014) (2);

34.

points out that the delivery of the New Skills Agenda will depend on the upskilling of all teachers, in particular those involved in adult education and community learning. Support for teaching staff should be properly considered in Member States’ implementation plans and steps could be taken to raise awareness about the Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE);

35.

shares the Commission’s view about the need for the Member States to reinforce education and continuing training of teachers and others involved in implementing the skills guarantee;

36.

appreciates the Commission’s intention to work together with various relevant parties in their efforts to modernise higher education, with specific reference to issues of skills assessment. Such work should take into consideration the national education frameworks of the Member States as well as local and regional strengths and challenges, including divergent local and regional labour market needs. Insists in this context on the need to draw lessons from previous successes and failures of similar exercises so as to ensure the necessary commitment to reach a consensus in taking forward the modernisation of higher education;

37.

would underline, in respect of the initiative announced by the Commission on graduate tracking to improve information on how graduates progress in the labour market, that no additional red tape should be created for national and regional authorities and higher education establishments, nor should this create an additional burden for students; moreover it would point out the need to comply with data protection provisions. For this reason, the idea of using tax and social security information for these plans is questionable;

38.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to revise the current Europass framework. To ensure accurate and real-time information about skills demand and supply, the revised Europass framework must draw on current local and regional experience. Therefore, local and regional authorities can usefully contribute to skills intelligence and the work of the proposed online service platform.

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/36

1.

notes that the action plan to counter this volatility adopted at the June 2011 G20 Summit has made little progress so far, and therefore calls for resumption of the negotiations on this subject under the German G20 presidency in 2017;

2.

notes that, despite the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) conducted over recent years, risk management tools that enable farmers to protect themselves against the negative effects of variations in yield and price and against health- or environment-related damages are still the poor relation of the CAP, representing less than 2 % of funds from the second pillar of the CAP and 0,4 % of the total agricultural budget. The Member States are free to decide to what extent they want to make use of the instruments in the EAFRD Regulation;

3.

believes that mechanisms to safeguard farmers’ incomes need to be strengthened significantly to reduce the negative impact of the high volatility of prices of agricultural products and inputs, in order to make European agri-food sectors more competitive, maintain agriculture throughout the EU, encourage modernisation and innovation, and preserve vibrant rural communities;

4.

considers this objective to be achievable, provided that a package of measures is jointly implemented with a view to: (i) boosting the role of private agri-food operators in regulating agricultural markets, in order to compensate in part for the deregulation of the CAP; (ii) expanding and simplifying access to the range of risk management tools available to farmers, as the instruments existing under the EAFRD cannot be brought to bear owing to the lack of resources available under the second pillar, which should be increased without jeopardising the funds available under the first pillar; (iii) as part of the next CAP reform and at local and regional level, promoting an increase in the added value of European farms to reduce their vulnerability to fluctuations in world agricultural prices;

5.

points out that contracts ensure that farmers can dispose of their produce and processors can purchase their inputs at prices that are known in advance. They therefore help to balance supply and demand and enable better product quality control, which may result in higher prices for producers and a more equitable distribution throughout the supply chain;

6.

suggests that in Member States where there are no advanced forms of vertical cooperation contractualisation be strengthened throughout the food chain (not just between farmers and processors of agricultural products), and enabling Member States to make it mandatory, and encouraging the signing of multi-party contracts between, for example, producer organisations (POs), processors and distributors;

7.

as part of a more flexible interpretation of the competition rules that is consistent throughout the Union, suggests empowering agricultural businesses, producer organisations and recognised inter-branch organisations, as well as the operators of agri-food markets and centres which are recognised as structures designed to safeguard the public interest, in order to avoid crises. To this end, inter-branch organisations, which bring together the various links in value chains, and these operators of agri-food markets and centres, need to be able to provide businesses with market forecasts in order to help them make appropriate decisions, but without setting reference prices. This practice already exists in some Member States and it is therefore also appropriate to reflect on it in the exchange of best practices;

8.

suggests that, in the event of a market imbalance or a confirmed risk of such an imbalance assessed on the basis of certain indicators, agricultural enterprises (including POs and their associations) should be able to make use of their scope for action and to reduce their production in a coordinated manner, even before being authorised to do so by the European Commission under Article 222 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets (CMO). The CMO should therefore explicitly allow agricultural enterprises, including producer organisations and their associations, to take preventive action to rebalance the market, in order to avoid abuse of dominant positions, communicating this in advance to the competent authorities;

9.

notes that there is a close link between regulating the price volatility of agricultural products and combating unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain, because market fluctuations exacerbate power imbalances with regard to the sharing of added value within sectors, and the resulting trade-offs are usually unfavourable to producers, who have limited bargaining power due to the increasing concentration of agri-food industries and, in particular, of large-scale retail and to the fragmentation of producers and the lack of organisation thereof;

10.

recommends adopting specific European rules against UTPs in the food supply chain, as proposed in the European Parliament’s resolution of 7 June 2016 [2015/2065 (INI)], on the grounds that: while contracts do lead to a degree of risk sharing, they do not fundamentally correct the inequality between the parties; anti-monopoly provisions are not sufficient to address UTPs and the asymmetries of power that characterise the agri-food industry; the industry’s self-regulation mechanisms are not effective, not least because farmers and processors are often afraid to complain lest they be excluded from the market; EU-level framework legislation is needed to harmonise conditions for competition and ensure that European farmers and consumers enjoy fair buying and selling conditions;

11.

recommends that the right to negotiate contracts collectively should be extended to all agricultural products, in order to strengthen farmers’ bargaining power within the food industry;

12.

recognises that bringing together the supply side can prevent small producers suffering the heavier contractual weight of large industry in particular, while guaranteeing greater transparency for consumers with regard to prices and product traceability;

13.

notes that strengthening the role of private operators in the regulation of agricultural markets requires greater market transparency;

14.

to this end, suggests setting up a European Agricultural Markets Observatory, drawing on a network of national observatories for each product sector, taking advantage of the experience of the Milk Market Observatory and the agricultural markets dashboard published regularly by the European Commission. This new observatory would provide in a clear and timely manner the data necessary to understand the markets, both in cyclical terms (in particular anticipating crises) and in structural terms (allowing for an analysis of changes in the prices and margins of the players within the industry);

15.

stresses that the implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID 2), scheduled for 2018, should encourage greater knowledge and regular monitoring of the positions held by the various categories of operators in agricultural financial markets, in order to reduce the risk of excessive speculation and allow commercial stakeholders in the industry to manage price risks effectively;

16.

notes that efforts to implement and strengthen existing risk and crisis management tools within the CAP face many obstacles, including competition between second-pillar funds, which cover most of these tools, the inadequate resources of the crisis reserve which, since it is necessary, should not be established on the basis of annual reductions in direct payments, the lack of current and forecast data on the economic performance of agricultural holdings, etc., and highlights the need to reduce these obstacles in order to implement an ambitious and effective agricultural risk management strategy;

17.

feels that the next reform of the CAP should encourage Member States to develop and implement a wide range of complementary risk management tools that are affordable for farmers, based on a segmented approach to risks, classified in terms of their severity (1): (i) ‘normal’ risks that can largely be absorbed by farmers by putting in place precautionary savings and through tax measures; (ii) ‘medium’ risks that farmers can transfer to the financial markets (futures, options and over-the-counter (OTC) contracts), insurers (to manage risks relating to yield, turnover and gross margin) and mutual funds (to manage health and environmental risks and stabilise farm incomes); and (iii) ‘catastrophic’ risks, which are largely borne by the public authorities via price safety nets and exceptional crisis measures; However, care should be taken to ensure that greater segmentation of risk does not lead to higher administrative costs;

18.

emphasises that the development of risk management tools must not significantly affect the stability of the CAP budget, which is currently achieved by decoupling aid from production and prices. A budget in which spending closely tracks fluctuations in the price of agricultural products and falls cyclically when the markets perform well would risk being reduced substantially during the debates on the European Union’s multi-annual financial perspectives. This would lead to a reduction in the protection offered by the CAP, which would be detrimental to farmers in the event of a market downturn;

19.

suggests that, in order to create precautionary savings to withstand market hiccups, one possibility could be that farmers could set aside a certain percentage of first-pillar payments in a special account. Setting aside this percentage of the basic payments would be mandatory when certain market indicators — such as the prices of agricultural products or the ratio of agricultural product prices to input prices — were rising. The money thus saved could be released and used by farmers when the indicators were falling. At all events, the creation of additional administrative costs should be prevented;

20.

recognises that, as well as improving farmers’ self-insurance capacity, this instrument would have a number of advantages: it would be a partial replacement for the crisis reserve currently in force, which is evidently failing; it would be cheap to administer; it would not affect the stability of the CAP budget; and finally, it would increase the legitimacy of decoupled aid in the eyes of the public in times of high agricultural prices;

21.

notes that other mechanisms to encourage farmers to develop precautionary savings could also be envisaged, based for example on the scheme in force in Canada, in which sums deposited by farmers in a savings account are matched by the public authorities;

22.

stresses the importance of encouraging the creation and adoption of new, more diverse and possibly cheaper products insuring against the economic risks incurred by agricultural holdings, inspired for example by insurance schemes available in the United States. These new products could, for example, comprise: (i) turnover insurance, guaranteeing the crop receipts forecast at the time of sowing based on the holding’s historic yield and the prices seen on the futures markets, but where only the yield component would be subsidised to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s green box rules; (ii) index insurance, based on the average yield, turnover or gross margin in the region where the holding is located (but where only the yield component would be subsidised), bearing in mind that such insurance is significantly cheaper to administer than insurance based on the individual farmer’s yield; (iii) insurance covering a holding’s overall revenue, which could be reserved for small and medium-sized diversified or mixed crops/livestock holdings, or those that produce fruit, vegetables or specialist crops for which there are few or no subsidies and no harvest insurance; and (iv) specific insurance for organic farmers, which would take account of the generally lower yields, higher production costs and higher market prices for organic products. These measures should be subject to a feasibility study assessing, in particular, their potential costs in terms of state reinsurance;

23.

calls on the European Commission to work closely with national, regional and local authorities and farming organisations to increase awareness and understanding of the risk management tools available within Pillar II of the CAP; in addition, calls on the Commission to increase the budget for these tools to above the current 2 % of the Pillar II funds;

24.

recommends developing mutual funds modelled on the income stabilisation tool (IST), which was introduced by the 2013 CAP reform to ensure a fair balance in redistribution between regions and sectors but has been incorporated into the 2014-2020 rural development plans of just two Member States (Hungary and Italy) and one region (Castile and Leon in Spain). These funds would provide protection against significant falls (more than 30 %) in a holding’s gross margin, measured against the previous 3 or 5 years. It would be difficult to offset losses of this magnitude just with farmers’ own precautionary savings. They also cannot be remedied by turnover insurance of the kind available in the United States, which provides a guarantee against falls in forecast revenue between sowing and harvest and does not, in itself, protect against low prices;

25.

calls for income stabilisation funds to be implemented at sectoral level, in order to boost the integration of the various branches of agriculture, and at national or even trans-national level in order to expand the pooling of risks and reduce costs. Thus, each Member State would have an arable fund, a dairy fund, a fruit and vegetables fund, etc.;

26.

recommends that the Member States undertake exploratory testing of income stabilisation funds before introducing them on a large scale, in view of the practical difficulties of implementing and operating such funds (gathering of accounting data on holdings, reinsurance needs, etc.);

27.

stresses that the three types of risk management tool set out above — precautionary savings, insurance and income stabilisation funds — are complementary and should, where possible, be implemented jointly so as to form a robust and coherent safety net against price volatility and help reduce the frequency and severity of crises suffered by farmers;

28.

believes that, to enable producers to cope with price volatility under comparable conditions, rates of direct payments should be harmonised among EU Member States;

29.

is convinced that direct payments should remain a CAP instrument beyond 2020 to help support and stabilise farm income and offset costs stemming from complying with the high standards in the European Union;

30.

suggests that, if it is decided, at the next CAP reform, to reduce direct first-pillar aid and to devote that money to risk management, farmers could be given ‘vouchers’ worth a certain percentage of their basic payments, which they could opt to use to subscribe to the tools of their choice: establishing precautionary savings, insurance or mutual funds. This system would increase funding for risk management tools without affecting the stability of the budget for the first pillar of the CAP (2);

31.

calls on the European Commission to undertake a detailed study into the various options currently available for expanding the range of risk management tools, including precautionary savings, insurance and mutual funds for the purpose of income stabilisation. This study would identify the consequences, advantages and limitations of each of these tools with respect to various criteria, and would also analyse various funding scenarios for a risk management development strategy, including the voucher system proposed in point 30;

32.

feels that public policy should promote an increase in the added value of European farms, while also improving the environmental sustainability of farming practices, in order to reduce their vulnerability to fluctuations in global prices and to set agriculture on the path of ecological transition that will be required in order to mitigate climate change, adapt to its effects and reduce pressure on ecosystems;

33.

underlines in this connection the need for special attention to be paid to the agricultural sector in the outermost regions, which needs particular, tailored and dedicated measures to cope with their unique, specific features as recognised in the TFEU;

34.

acknowledges that European agriculture is very diverse: most farms sell their produce on the Community market, but others export some or all of their produce to third countries, either directly or indirectly;

35.

considers it important to preserve this diversity, given that the outflow of a proportion of agricultural production to third countries helps to balance supply and demand on the Community market and that the European Union, as the world’s leading exporter of agri-food products, must be able to benefit from the increase — in quality and quantity — in global food demand;

36.

sees two main avenues for increasing the added value of agricultural holdings: (i) increasing agricultural productivity, which is showing worrying signs of slowing down in certain sectors, via the sustainable intensification of farming — this involves producing more with fewer inputs or reducing purchases of inputs to make farms more independent, which can be achieved by adopting more resilient, innovative production systems based on precision agriculture, simplification of tillage, crop rotation and diversification, improvement of grassland and other practices; or (ii) encouraging the development of regionalised food systems, which meet growing demand from European consumers and partially neutralise the volatility of global markets in agricultural raw materials — this involves developing local supply chains (school canteens, catering, direct sales), niche markets and high-quality products, focusing on more environmentally friendly production methods (organic farming and other approaches);

37.

recommends that the CAP and national policies encourage farmers to explore these two avenues, with the involvement of local and regional authorities.

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/41

1.

welcomes the review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the fact that the European Commission is interested in a number of proposals included in the Committee of the Regions’ opinion on this subject, adopted in 2015;

2.

welcomes the amendment on derogations from the country of origin principle, which allow, in the context of clearer and simpler procedures, the interests of the destination country to be taken into account;

3.

regrets, however, that the new directive does not take the regional dimension into consideration as recommended previously by the Committee of the Regions, as this would contribute towards enhancing European cultural identities, cross-border co-productions within the European Union and local creative innovation;

4.

insists, moreover, on the need to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the directive, as these bodies have a very important role to play in the area of audiovisual media services. In several Member States, some local and regional bodies own media services companies, which means that they may not therefore be included within the category of micro and small enterprises;

5.

reiterates that the independence of national regulatory authorities, both from public authorities, audiovisual actors and political parties, is a cornerstone of the European Audiovisual Media Regulation, which Member States are responsible for ensuring at all costs, and which is the primary guarantee of the diversity of information and a pluralistic media market at European, national, local and regional level;

6.

welcomes the fact that the revised directive extends its field of application to video sharing platform services, which play an increasingly important role among audiovisual media service providers;

7.

is concerned by the fact that the proposed regulation applicable to video sharing platforms does not clarify situations in which the provider has no interest in moving to European Union territory, but makes their service available to European citizens;

8.

points out that currently the resale of content outside of infrastructure (over-the-top services), which represents a growing segment of the audiovisual media services market, operates in an opaque legal framework and asks the Commission to agree — in future regulations on media and communications and particularly during the revision of provisions on electronic communication — to pay particular attention to clarifying the legal situation for this practice;

9.

again wishes to draw the European Commission’s attention to linguistic and cultural minorities who face obstacles when they want access to audiovisual media services in their own language;

10.

considers it appropriate, in the various ERGA procedures, to take account of the regional dimensions of certain regulatory issues and to reflect territorial principles;

11.

welcomes the fact that the revised directive bolsters and harmonises protection for minors, as it has previously recommended. Calls yet again for the introduction of further incentives to promote content specifically designed and adapted for children, and for the promotion of partnerships between audiovisual operators and the educational community in the digital environment;

12.

recalls the importance of further promoting content relating to media literacy, particularly regarding the new media;

13.

highlights the need to allocate more resources to developing media literacy to ensure that audiovisual media services offer not only a homogeneous service, but also reflect the organisation and distinctive features of the regions in economic, commercial and cultural terms;

14.

is concerned with the fact that the proposed regulation does not address transparency of media ownership, media concentration and conflicts of interest, all of which have a major impact upon media pluralism and media freedom;

15.

welcomes the fact that the amendment to the directive includes a relaxation of the rules on advertising time and, more precisely, that it extends the scope of the Regulation to non-linear audiovisual media services;

16.

agrees that micro and small enterprises should not be obliged to contribute financially to the production of European works; asks the Commission to note, however, that many local and regional television stations broadcasting on their website in the form of on-demand audiovisual media services do not fall within this category;

17.

welcomes the fact that, in the case of on-demand services, the revised directive ensures a level playing field for European works, which must constitute at least 20 % of the catalogue offered by providers of these services;

18.

stresses that, with regard to on-demand services, the 20 % minimum requirement applicable to service providers is not enough; it is also necessary to ensure that these works are easy to find and accessible to users;

19.

stresses that, while the proposal appears to comply with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, the minimum harmonisation approach and cooperation mechanisms must be preserved and therefore, the proposed rules on national regulatory authorities must leave enough room for manoeuvre for national and sub-national decision-making;

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/55

1.

welcomes the European Commission’s action plan on the integration of third country nationals (1) given the ever-increasing diversity of European society and the need to fully integrate them into that society; and emphasises the importance of integration, which is a two-way process involving both third country nationals and the host society;

2.

believes that integration should be viewed as a dynamic, interactive and temporary process that enables third country nationals to become fully part of the host society and to work towards self-reliance; and encourages interaction with and participation in the host society;

3.

stresses that integration is a competence of the Member States as laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (2), which enables measures to be established at the European level to provide incentives and support for the action of Member States with a view to promoting the integration of third-country nationals residing legally in their territories, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States; calls for continued efforts to monitor the subsidiarity principle and recalls that Member States’ actions in this sphere must be in accordance with the EU acquis including the common basic principles for immigrant integration in the EU;

4.

points out that the political level closest to citizens is where the real integration policy is carried out. This means that a multi-level governance approach is highly appropriate, clearly one with a special focus on local and regional authorities, since they are confronted most directly with the challenges and opportunities of integration;

5.

points to the importance of using the correct terminology in the political debate to describe the different categories of newcomers. The action plan concerns only newcomers (migrants, refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection) who are nationals of third countries and are residing in the EU legally. It does not therefore cover nationals of EU Member States who have a third-country migrant background through their parents or grandparents, or EU nationals who have exercised their right to free movement and their family members;

6.

stresses that integration as a policy area cannot stand in isolation and, by definition, runs through the various traditional policy areas such as education, employment, welfare, public health, housing, etc. Ideally, therefore, integration policy should be implemented horizontally, with the challenges and opportunities of integration taken into account in each policy domain;

7.

emphasises that integration is a two-way process that should form part of the framework of rights and obligations for the third country national and the host society, both of which have to shoulder their responsibilities;

8.

stresses that, ideally, integration should be the cornerstone of an asylum and migration policy, and that the action plan must not therefore be viewed as separate from, inter alia, the European Commission’s proposals on the Common European Asylum System (3) and the new partnership framework with non-EU countries under the European Agenda on Migration (4);

9.

recognising that employment plays a key role in the social integration of third country nationals, makes reference also to the ‘blue card’ in the Commission’s legal migration proposal, in connection with the revision of the directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly skilled employment (5);

10.

supports the Commission’s analysis that a failure to integrate third country nationals would entail an enormous loss both for the third country nationals and the host society; the social and economic costs of this failure may well exceed the investments needed in integration policy and the potential which results from this;

11.

is convinced that a successful integration policy is one of the key conditions for addressing the relatively lower achievements of third country nationals, with regard to the labour market, education, income, housing, health, civic engagement and social cohesion as shown by the OECD indicators (6);

12.

supports the Commission’s call for a more made-to-measure approach and is convinced that integration policy should focus more on the considerable diversity that exists within the various third country nationals’ groups and their different needs. A good integration policy is therefore based on tailor-made solutions, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Account must be taken, inter alia, of language skills, cultural background, level of education, expected duration of stay, reasons for migration, skills, work experience, possible traumas experienced, etc. Local and regional authorities are well placed to respond to the significant diversity that exists among third country nationals and their specific needs, and can provide a platform for the exchange of knowledge and experience in this field. In this connection, the Committee of the Regions refers to good practices based on the perspective of the individual, involving integration and civic integration courses that match third country nationals’ needs;

13.

welcomes the view of the Commission and the European Parliament (7) that integration policy in general, and the labour market integration of refugees in particular, should not be conducted at the expense of policies designed to help other vulnerable groups in the host society;

14.

stresses that European society is based on fundamental norms and values such as democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality between men and women, human rights, solidarity, tolerance, etc.; welcomes the fact that the links between integration and these norms and values were discussed during the rule of law dialogue at the General Affairs European Council meeting on 24 May 2016 (8) and calls on the future EU presidencies (Malta, Estonia) to continue this dialogue with a view to developing a deeper understanding among Member States, the EU institutions, local and regional authorities and civil society on the protection of these norms and values and how they can become an element for integration;

15.

is convinced that, if integration is to be successful, both third country nationals and the host society must understand and accept these European norms and values. This ties in with the idea that integration policy should also cover civic integration and community-building, and that therefore appropriate tools for building mutual understanding need to be developed and supported at the different levels with appropriate support from the European level, including civic education both through classical courses and innovative teaching formats;

16.

highlights the need to develop mechanisms that strengthen solidarity and cooperation among all EU regions on the one hand, and collaboration between the various administrations and specialist actors on the other. Raising awareness among Member State governments, which have jurisdiction with regard to asylum, is a vital challenge;

17.

refers in this respect to good practices of civic integration where third country nationals are offered social orientation courses to familiarise them interactively with European norms and values, and the way of living in the host society. The aim is to support them in acquiring the necessary tools to become fully participating members of society;

18.

suggests identifying initiatives in various EU Member States where third country nationals are asked to sign a commitment or participation declaration which includes, inter alia, fundamental norms and values, enquiring how these initiatives influence the society in question, and share the results and experiences with such schemes to allow local and regional authorities to benefit; and emphasises that not only third country nationals, but also the local population should actively commit to these fundamental norms and values;

19.

reiterates that integration is a two-way process in which the host country also has a part to play. In this connection, host societies must enable third country nationals to become active participants by removing barriers and ensuring they have access to basic services. They must also organise the integration process in such a way that third country nationals become familiar with the society in which they are living. Particularly in the case of the immigration of families, the host society has an important role to play in the integration process. We refer in this connection primarily to the Member States and local and regional authorities but non-governmental organisations, civil society, the private sector, religious communities and ethnic minority communities within the host society are also key partners in integration policy;

20.

points out that all of these different stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure that the host society is prepared for the arrival of third country nationals and to promote acceptance, and stresses in this connection the importance of providing correct information to the host community;

21.

is convinced that the integration process should — if possible — begin without delay, even when the third country national is still in their country of origin;

22.

points out that knowledge of the language of the host country is vital in order to be able to integrate successfully and that learning a new language often takes time. A number of EU Member States therefore already organise language lessons or tests prior to the arrival of the third country nationals in the host country. This means that the period spent by third country nationals in the host country without being able to express themselves in the local language is as short as possible, or even non-existent, thus facilitating interaction with the local host society. Of course, this cannot be a condition for granting protection to refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection;

23.

stresses that admission interviews with third country nationals are key tools for developing a tailor-made approach, providing a better overview of the expectations of third country nationals and the host society. Some of these admission interviews should, insofar as possible, be conducted in the country of origin so that the third country national can fully focus on the actual integration process once they have arrived in the host society;

24.

stresses the importance of accompanying measures to inform the host society prior to the arrival of the third country nationals, particularly in communities where refugees are resettled;

25.

welcomes the Commission’s focus on education as one of the key elements of a successful integration policy and calls in this connection for continued efforts to monitor the subsidiarity principle;

26.

stresses that learning the official languages of the host society should take priority so that third country nationals and their children can begin to interact with the host society as quickly as possible, assume their rights and fulfil their obligations. Here too, it is important to have a tailor-made approach to education, based on the profile of the third country national and their specific needs;

27.

refers to the good practices employed in primary and secondary education concerning reception education for third country nationals who are speakers of another language; schools are able to offer a tailor-made approach to third country nationals by placing them in a separate class, providing them with additional support in conventional classes, or using a mixture of the two (9);

28.

highlights the good practices employed to overcome language barriers. These include the use of community translators and interpreters in education who help teachers and mentors ensure that third country nationals not yet competent in the language of the host country can still actively interact with the educational establishments attended by their children;

29.

welcomes the Commission’s proposal to look further into the possibilities for civic education courses in secondary education, given the need to inform everybody about the law, culture, norms and values and standards of society; and suggests to do this also in adult education and vocational training;

30.

calls for more attention to be paid to the target group of 16-18 year-old third country nationals who are often at an age where education is no longer compulsory and in many cases still do not have the tools they need to enter vocational training or higher education or to succeed in the labour market;

31.

welcomes the fact that labour market integration is one of the Commission’s priorities in relation to third country nationals being able to become established in and be a part of society, given the challenges posed by the generally lower employment rate of third country nationals, particularly women, compared with that of people born in the host country (10);

32.

calls for systems to be set up, possibly based on internships, as well as advisory services and legal assistance, enabling third country nationals to gain access to the labour market as quickly as possible. This will open up opportunities for them to practise their language skills through contact with colleagues and so create networks that can lead to a job and means of supporting themselves;

33.

welcomes, in the context of training system and labour market integration, measures for third country nationals who are past school age giving them another chance to acquire basic vocational training and improving their readiness for training;

34.

is convinced that targeted economic labour migration can help meet the challenges posed by an ageing workforce, the need for workers with specific skills and the pressure on our welfare systems, but stresses that the reception and associated integration of refugees, and the principle of family reunification, should primarily be seen as being in the interest of both the host society and the migrant, as well as being based on fundamental rights and international obligations, and not be mistakenly depicted as the solution to our labour market problems;

35.

recognises the need to be able to assess and validate the skills and qualifications, whether academic or vocational, of third country nationals both quickly and accurately, as enabling third country nationals to participate in the labour market or preparing them for this through vocational training is a priority. The Committee therefore looks forward to, among other things, the Commission’s proposals in connection with its new skills agenda for Europe (11);

36.

stresses, in connection with the revision of the blue card directive (12), that European economies must attract highly-skilled workers to fill genuine vacancies;

37.

welcomes the meeting of the Tripartite Social Summit held on 16 March 2016 to discuss the refugee crisis, but calls for input from the world of education too, given that it is an important partner capable of furthering the debate on (labour market) integration;

38.

reiterates that a clear distinction must be drawn between (economic) migrants and refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, especially in the political debate about access to basic services, as each group can have different needs, thus requiring a fundamentally different approach; underlines, however, that the need to enable successful integration concerns all third country nationals residing legally in the EU;

39.

emphasises that it is for Member States to shape their own social security schemes and takes note of the political debate in several of them that highlights the principle of insurance and thereby leads to the decision to progressively open up certain social rights, including for third country nationals, on the basis of the contributions paid;

40.

calls, with regard to health care, for more attention to be paid to mental health, which can be particularly important in terms of the reception and integration of refugees — especially children and young people — who have lived through war or other trauma;

41.

is aware that Member States have the right to require migrants who have no right to protection under international law to be able to support themselves when they arrive in their host societies and thus not to claim social security benefits;

42.

states that sufficient attention should always be paid to social housing, notwithstanding the fact that tenants — whether they are third country nationals or not — should eventually become self-reliant which enables them to find accommodation on the private market;

43.

is pleased to note the Commission’s position that no integration policy must be implemented at the expense of policies aimed at other vulnerable groups within the host society;

44.

welcomes the fact that in this section of its action plan, the Commission puts forward a notion of active citizenship where third country nationals will not always be newcomers, but will become part of their host societies as quickly as possible, regardless of their nationality, and therefore calls not just for an integration policy, but also for civic integration and community-building;

45.

agrees with the Commission’s view that integration does not only mean speaking the language of the host country and finding a job, but also involves playing an active role in the community and civil society. This is the main reason why it is important that the integration of third country nationals is not suggested or requested by political figures alone, but that civil society is also involved;

46.

considers that, in addition to formally being taught the official languages of the host society, contacts with civil society offer third country nationals an informal environment, which they need in order to use and practise these new languages, thus enabling them to become more familiar with them in a very practical way;

47.

is convinced, as is the Commission, that third country nationals’ involvement in their host community’s civil society enhances their dialogue with that community and mutual understanding, ensures greater acceptance by the community, and counteracts discrimination and racism;

48.

supports the Commission’s call on Member States to guarantee that rights to protection against discrimination and racism are respected and urges an active policy of equal opportunities and non-discrimination in order to promote a shared citizenship;

49.

welcomes the efforts made by the Commission, which, in the context of transforming the current network of National Contact Points on Integration into a European Integration Network, wants to place more emphasis on sharing best practices, especially in terms of cooperation with civil society and local and regional authorities;

50.

calls on the Commission to ensure that the European Integration Network becomes a platform that encourages and supports cooperative and co-responsible action between the different levels of national, regional and local government in defining integration policy initiatives and in the coordination and distribution of powers (13);

51.

regrets — without denying that it is a matter that falls within their own competence — that in the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, Member States have allocated fewer resources to integration through their national programmes for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), even as need has increased, particularly in the light of the current migration, asylum and humanitarian crisis;

52.

welcomes the fact that in the 2017 draft budget, the Commission aims to use the AMIF to increase the EU’s financial support to Member States as regards integration policies;

53.

is of the view that synergies must be found between the various European funds that could support integration policy. Of course, this remark applies primarily to the AMIF, but some integration projects should also be possible under the Internal Security Fund (ISF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) (14);

54.

urges the European Commission to consider introducing a specific thematic objective on integration under post-2020 cohesion policy, in order to ensure more efficient and targeted concentration of ESIF resources on integration projects. With regard to the 2014-2020 programming period, further guidelines — as clear and detailed as possible — on integration-related activities that are eligible for the ESIF should be given to the management authorities;

55.

calls for it to be made as simple as possible for Member States, local and regional authorities and civil society to put forward proposals for national programmes under the various funds and therefore welcomes — among other things — the Commission’s proposal to rely more heavily on the use of partnership arrangements;

56.

calls for greater and more targeted use of Interreg to support integration projects. This could include adjusting the rules and priorities of the relevant operational programmes. It underlines the central role that European territorial cooperation can play in enhancing integration policies, especially at local level, by facilitating synergies and exchange of best practice;

57.

calls on the Commission to limit excessive administrative complexity and bureaucracy with regard to the monitoring mechanisms of the different European funds that are used for integration projects so that Member States and local and regional authorities can effectively focus all their energy on integration policy on the ground, but without sacrificing monitoring that is sufficiently strict to ensure that public funds are being used efficiently;

58.

calls on the Commission to ensure that the tailored approach required by integration policy should also be extended to the monitoring mechanisms of the different European funds that are used to support integration projects, without undermining the rigorous checks that must be carried out to ensure that public money is being spent properly;

59.

points out once again that integration policy itself is mainly implemented at local and regional authority level and that it is local and regional authorities that are most immediately confronted with the challenges and opportunities arising from integration;

60.

calls on the Commission to therefore take the specific needs of local and regional authorities into account, as well as to involve them more extensively than in the past in the integration policy drawn up, pursued or promoted at European level and to provide them with maximum support in this regard:

61.

calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States and the regions and provide them with financial support in implementing integration initiatives, especially in educational and vocational training courses and entry into the labour and housing markets, and to facilitate exchange of best practice already put in place by regions which have implemented integration measures, such as the distributed reception approach;

62.

asks the Commission, in this context, to view it as a privileged partner — being an EU advisory body made up of representatives of European local and regional authorities — but also to encourage other forms of cooperation with local and regional authorities, their associations, and other partnerships, networks and platforms, such as the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly, the Conference of the Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership, joint consultative committees, working groups, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, etc., with the aim of having local and regional authorities make the broadest possible contribution;

63.

calls on the Commission to actively involve it in its efforts — aimed at local and regional authorities — to enhance and share best practices specifically related to integration policy that is implemented prior to departure or arrival, as well as in relation to education, the labour market and vocational training, access to basic services, and active participation and social inclusion, and in this connection refers to the comparative study it conducted on integration policies (15);

64.

calls on the Commission to continue to make progress on the issue of unaccompanied minors in the migration process, the management of which is a competence of certain regions, and also calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to share the burdens and responsibilities between the European, national and regional levels. We therefore eagerly await the Commission’s new comprehensive strategy, which is to be implemented as a follow up to the Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010-2014), so that the situation of missing and unaccompanied children is taken into account;

65.

welcomes the Commission’s explicit reference to the SHARE Network, with its ‘Share City Curriculum’ project (16), giving local and regional authorities access to a toolkit that will help them with regard to measures aimed at the host society when refugees are being resettled;

66.

calls on the Commission to enable it to actively participate in the new European Integration Network, the European Migration Forum, the partnership for the integration of third-country nationals under the Urban Agenda for the EU (17), as well as in the assessment and subsequent follow-up of the ‘integration indicators’.

9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/62