22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/1

1.

welcomes the Third Report on Social and Economic Cohesion. This, like the Second Report, is a complete document providing detailed information above all on the policies followed by the EU;

2.

judges as positive the results attained in recent years with cohesion and the positive impact of the regional policy of the European Union with respect to strengthening the Community's social and economic cohesion as a whole; it also reiterates that the cohesion policy endorsed by the Treaties is the most powerful and important instrument used to implement principles of solidarity and cooperation, thus representing one of the main cornerstones of integration between the people and territories of the Union;

3.

takes account of the fact that with EU enlargement the European Union will increase its population from 380 million (EU-15) to 454 million (EU-25) or 485 million (EU-27) inhabitants. But compared with this increase in population of around 20 %, EU GNP will increase by only 5 %! The average GDP per capita will decrease by 12.5 %. Instead of currently 84 million inhabitants, in future 123 million EU citizens will live in regions lagging behind;

4.

welcomes the priority given by European cohesion policy to the new Member States, confirming the commitment of the European Union to reduce the socio-economic disparities in an enlarged European Union. This approach has been supported by the Committee of the Regions from the beginning as an act of solidarity with the new Member States;

5.

takes note of the fact that despite the progress achieved, many socio-economic problems in the regions of the former EU-15 will remain, as is clearly shown in the Third Cohesion Report. This relates inter alia to the lag in terms of GDP/per capita, high unemployment, low economic growth, lack of R&D expenditure and foreign direct investment;

6.

points out that in a Europe of 25 or even 27 Member States the socio-economic unbalance will be even greater, making it necessary to follow a policy of territorial, social and economic cohesion that takes into account the effects of globalisation on the economy and its consequences in terms of the progressive liberalisation of international trade;

7.

affirms that the regional dimension of cohesion policy, in terms of the harmonious development of the Union as a whole by strengthening social and economic cohesion as provided for in Article 158 of the European Community Treaty, is today more than ever valid and appropriate; Moreover, the CoR would stress the importance of making systematic allowance for the regional dimension in Community and national policymaking;

8.

supports the proposals for strengthening partnership and cooperation between local, regional, national and Community authorities in the whole programming, implementation and evaluation process for the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund; and calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to make use of the possibility for concluding tripartite agreements, where necessary;

9.

notes further that the work on achieving the Lisbon strategy's objective is behind schedule;

10.

considers that the Commission's financial proposal to allocate 0.41 of Gross National Income (increasable to 0.46 with the inclusion of aid for rural development and fishing) and earmarking EUR 336.3 billion for financing the three Objectives (78 % Convergence Objective; 18 % Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective and 4 % Territorial Cooperation) is an acceptable compromise for future cohesion policy;

11.

believes, moreover, that if a cohesion policy matching the Union's ambitions for the Lisbon Strategy is to be achieved, no less than 0.46 % of GNI may be allocated for this purpose, as occurred in 1999 with an EU of 15;

12.

agrees with the European Commission that the budget proposed by the latter is sufficient to maintain support for the regions in the current European Union and at the same time to assist the new Member States on an equal basis if it can be guaranteed that the resources are shared out fairly and are concentrated on the most serious problems;

13.

welcomes the fact that for the financial transfers to the new Member States an absorption ceiling of 4 % of national GDP is maintained and that the resources transferred as part of the rural development policy and fisheries policy are recognised in that calculation;

14.

welcomes the proposal in the Cohesion Report that the new Convergence Objective should include besides regions (at NUTS II level) with a GDP/per capita below 75 % of EU average (EU-25), those regions affected by the so-called statistical effect;

15.

also welcomes the fact that the regulations for the current Objective 1 will be kept and will be applied throughout the enlarged Union;

16.

supports the proposal for the inclusion of the Cohesion Fund in the new Convergence Objective. This applies to both the application of the 90 %-criteria for selecting the Member States eligible for aid from the Cohesion Fund as well as the linking of the Objective 1 programmes with the Cohesion Fund measures in the field of infrastructure. Because the Cohesion Fund is financed from Objective 1 funds, payments from this Fund must be taken into account when sharing out the rest of the Objective 1 resources; for those Member States which will no longer be eligible in future as a result of enlargement a political solution can only be found between the Member States;

17.

demands that the distribution of the resources in the new Objective 1 continue to be carried out by taking into account objective and transparent criteria based on the problems and needs of the assisted regions. The formulas defined in Berlin and Copenhagen for the current funding period should in principle continue to be used. However, regional wealth and unemployment should be taken into account more than now;

18.

takes note of the current data of the European Commission according to which 17 regions with around 19 million inhabitants would lose the ‘traditional’ Objective 1 support solely because the EU average of GDP/per capita will fall as an effect of enlargement (so-called statistical effect);

19.

welcomes the proposal of the Commission to find a solution for these regions within the new Convergence Objective;

20.

notes the proposal of the Commission that the transitional arrangement for lagging regions affected by the statistical effect will end in 2013. The Committee would, however, stress that on grounds of equal treatment the regions affected should not be automatically excluded from possible phasing-in support under the new Competitiveness and Employment Objective in the funding period after 2013. Any future phasing-in support should be determined by the socio-economic situation of these regions at the end of the next funding period;

21.

sees as an acceptable compromise the proposal made by Commissioner Barnier that these regions would be entitled at the beginning of the next funding period to 85 % of the allocation for ‘classic’ Objective 1 regions, reducing by the end of the funding period to 60 % if this entails allocating adequate budgetary resources, in accordance with the Commission's proposals for the 2007-2013 financial perspective. At the same time it also endorses the Commission's intention of including in its future proposal for a regulation a provision whereby these regions might obtain 100 % funding if the funds earmarked for the Objective 1 regions were not fully utilised; such unused funds would be placed on reserve which could be redistributed within each Member State half way through the 2007-2013 programming period;

22.

takes note of the proposal of the European Commission that those regions in the old and new Member States which fall under the new Convergence Objective will be eligible for state aid in accordance with Article 87(3)(a) of the EU-Treaty in the future too;

23.

calls for all the regions affected by the statistical effect to fall under Article 87(3)(a) for the whole aid period;

24.

calls for all the regions affected by natural effect (the ‘phasing-in’ regions) to have a transition from Article 87.3(a) to Article 87.3(c) over the course of the aid period;

25.

approves the Commission's proposal to create an Objective for all the regions that do not fall under the Convergence Objective typologies and points out that special attention could be given to regions with significant socio-economic problems and major and structural adjustment requirements, defined according to uniform criteria; it also approves the fact that this new objective is to apply to the regional level as a whole;

26.

supports the choice of the Commission to base the intervention of the new Competitiveness and Employment Objective on an approach involving the entire regional territory and issues related to the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies without overlooking services of general interest; however, the range of possible measures must be broad enough to accommodate the variety and diversity of European regions in an integrated approach to regional policy;

27.

in pursuit of the Lisbon strategies, calls on the Commission to identify and apply good practice learned in previous Innovative Actions programmes as guidance for ‘innovation and the knowledge economy’ interventions, to avoid costly and wasteful reinventing the wheel;

28.

approves the fact that the regions no longer eligible for support under the (new Convergence Objective) because of their positive development will now be incorporated into the new Competitiveness and Employment Objective, under the heading ‘phasing in’, The Committee asks that a procedure similar to that established in the same circumstances for the period 2000-2006 be applied to regions which naturally exceed the threshold of 75 % of the average per capita GDP of the EU 15. This would allow for a more flexible use of funds, so as to consolidate the economic development achieved by regions no longer eligible owing to natural effect;

29.

approves the link between the European employment strategy and ESF measures; affirms, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the need for greater and better involvement of regions and local authorities in programming and implementing ESF measures. These interventions should be consistent with the European Employment Strategy and its national component, the National Plan for Employment. They should also be consistent with other regional plans impacting on regional labour markets and include initiatives currently being implemented under the Equal programme;

30.

demands that the resources of the new competitiveness strand be distributed among the Member States on the basis of objective and transparent social, economic and territorial criteria according to the problems and needs in the assisted regions; calls for the Member States' distribution of the resources of the competitiveness and employment strand among their regions to take account of territorial development, regional competitiveness and EU wide social and economic indicators;

31.

asks the European Commission to submit proposals urgently for the future of the state aids provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty and to consider how territorial differentiation can be worked into the rules and regulations by using appropriate reliable indicators, because it is necessary to maintain territorial differentiation as a part of state aid policy, which allows for targeted public investment where this can correct market failure in order to achieve the territorial cohesion objective care should be taken to avoid excessive discrepancies between the permissible aid ceilings fixed for neighbouring regions;

32.

asks for the non-convergence regions to be provided with aid rules so that these regions can also further their structural development and reduce inter-regional differences in line with the subsidiarity principle. This would require retaining the provisions of Article 87 III c) for regions with structural adjustment requirements, defined according to uniform criteria;

33.

urges that regions with structural disadvantages arising from their geographical or demographic situation should eventually benefit from the provision under Art. 87 (3) c of the EU-Treaty;

34.

expresses appreciation for the creation of a specific Objective for transnational, cross-border and interregional cooperation and for the share of the appropriations proposed for territorial cooperation;

35.

supports the recognition of the maritime borders within the framework of cross-border cooperation and considers that the regions should participate, along with the Member States, in the process of defining and selecting the maritime borders eligible for assistance;

36.

demands that interregional cooperation continue to be supported in the EU. It is worrying that the Cohesion Report provides for support for interregional cooperation only in the framework of the regional programmes. The reference to aid possibilities under the regional programmes is of little help as the promotion of complex cooperation programmes is then dependent on the definition of internal regional policy strategies. In addition steps must be taken to ensure that cross-border cooperation can also occur at external and internal borders, including the ‘old’ borders;

37.

requests that, notwithstanding point 36, regions which so wish should be able to integrate the management of programmes serving the cooperation objective with their regular programmes;

38.

welcomes the proposal to set up a ‘new legal instrument’ for cross-border cooperation and invites the European Commission to better define its tasks and importance and also to ensure that this does not lead to any delay in launching and implementing the new programmes and that existing cooperative efforts continue;

39.

judges as positive the creation of a ‘new neighbourhood instrument’ and emphasises the importance of activating this new instrument rapidly in order to use it in the new programming period, based on the experience currently being garnered under the Interreg programme;

40.

calls upon the European Commission to propose a new legal instrument to facilitate decentralised, inter-regional cooperation, decided at regional and local level;

41.

recommends that the various territorial cooperation instruments promote the establishment and strengthening of networks of towns and the extension initiatives establishing decentralised cooperation between local authorities;

42.

welcomes the fact that as in the past the European Commission proposes in accordance with Article 299(2) of the Treaty (a) the inclusion in the new Convergence Objective of a specific programme to compensate for the handicaps of all outermost regions and (b) the creation of a Grand Voisinage Action for these regions in the new ‘European territorial cooperation’ programmes, with the objective of providing them with the economic resources needed to play their role effectively as an active EU border and thus contribute to European integration. However, invites the European Commission to make clear proposals for the coordination of such provisions with the newly proposed Grand Voisinage Initiative and the objective of territorial cooperation;

43.

expresses appreciation for the effort made to consider urban problems within the framework of a broader regional and national strategy, but invites the European Commission to better define the criteria of urban areas eligibility, bearing in mind the role that second and third tier towns play in ensuring balanced development within regions;

44.

believes that the urban dimension of regional policy should not only address urban regeneration but also the role of urban areas as economic drivers for the region, and the urban-rural relationship;

45.

supports the proposals of the European Commission to step up the participation of the cities in the implementation of the urban dimension, in accordance with the principle of subsidiary;

46.

welcomes the Commission view of the regions with structural handicaps, linked to their geographical or demographic situation, such as upland, underpopulated and island regions. The Committee would also urge that, where justified and with due regard for the seriousness of the prevailing conditions, specific measures be adopted with the aim of integrating these regions into the internal market under fair conditions. The high cost of guaranteeing essential services to the population of some regions owing to their territorial and demographic features should be taken into account as a criterion;

47.

affirms that cohesion policy must be considered as a horizontal policy in support of economic and social cohesion based on sustainable development, and plays an essential role in the process of integration between the people and territories of the Union. All Community policies must play a part in achieving this cohesion objective;

48.

notes the European Commission's intention to integrate the Leader + initiative into the mainstream, but expresses concern for the inclusion of rural development in the second pillar of the PAC due to its modest level of regionalisation and the predominate role of agricultural production and urges the European Commission to ensure that wider rural areas are given maximum encouragement to participate in measures under the Accessibility and Services of General Interest heading of the Competitiveness strand;

49.

thinks that the programming must be coordinated between rural development expenditure under the second pillar of the common agricultural policy and expenditure under the new Objective 2 (regional competitiveness and employment), and that this coordination should take place at regional level;

50.

welcomes the fact that a single instrument is to be created for developing rural and fishing areas; the Committee calls on the Commission to clarify how this instrument is to operate outside the convergence objective and believes that the instrument should give priority to measures tackling the most harmful aspects of rural areas, such as depopulation, an ageing population and the lack of potential for locally-generated development;

51.

calls for the measures under the EU Regulation on rural development to be extended to agricultural and agriculture-related areas, including agricultural services. When resources are distributed, steps must be taken to ensure that account is also taken of convergence objectives and the need for resources to pay for the measures arising from the tasks assigned under the CAP reform;

52.

welcomes the proposal of the European Commission to maintain central elements of the programming and management system for future Structural Funds implementation, such as a multi-annual framework, a strategic approach within a single coherent framework and the promotion of public-private-partnerships at regional level and the strengthening of partnership between the different spheres of government: local, regional, national and European;

53.

requests that regions be involved more closely in an effective and transparent system for monitoring the allocation, distribution and use of Structural Funds' monies;

54.

notes that the Commission has taken on board many proposals from local and regional authorities to simplify the administration of the Funds by:

55.

stresses that simplifying the programming procedure for the Commission should not lead to difficulties for regional and local authorities or for project owners. Thus the creation of single fund programmes in the new Objective 1 for example could lead to the creation of more programmes, which would not facilitate the task of the regions. It would be better for the current rules for operational programmes to be kept and only give up the requirement for integration of the Funds in the case of the priority themes and programme measures. Furthermore, operational programmes should continue to be allowed to cover neighbouring regions, including joint financial planning;

56.

urges the Commission, in simplifying regional policy, to take account of the ‘user viewpoint’;

57.

asks the European Commission to clarify what role the proposed political framework document will play in relation to the programming phase at national/regional level, and what consequences the yearly drafting of national progress reports will have; the CoR assumes that the constitutional situation of the Member States will be taken into consideration and asks for assurance that the preparation of these political framework documents will be based on an equal partnership in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;

58.

considers it sufficient for the European institutions to address priorities and results at most every two years. This examination could take place at the Spring European Summit, which is to focus on the Lisbon and Gothenburg Agenda. In this way the implementation of the programmes at regional level will not be delayed and their structure will not be changed;

59.

notes that the European Commission has not taken on board the CoR proposal to modify the n+2 rule with an n+3 rule as it would reduce the problems linked to the implementation of large-scale projects and calls on the Commission to reconsider these proposals (of local and regional authorities) and provide a full explanation should it decide to reject them.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/7

1)

The exponential development of low-cost carriers in Europe has allowed for the development of a network of services that provide point-to-point inter-regional air connections, as well as connections from the regions to international hub airports.

2)

The continued development of this network has a clear and undisputed regional dimension; it facilitates region-to-region connection; supports citizens' mobility, encourages economic development and employment growth, promotes tourism, aids the regeneration of peripheral and less-developed regions in particular and thereby has a positive impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion in Europe.

3)

The recent decision of the European Commission in the Ryanair/Charleroi (Belgium) case confirms the support of the Commission for the further development of the low-cost airline sector; however it has highlighted the uncertainty that exists with regard to the future development of inter-regional air connections for the regions, their airports and the airlines providing low-cost services, as well for the business community and the ordinary citizen.

4)

The soundness of investments made by the regions in their airport infrastructure and by the airlines in low-cost air services has been called into question by the Commission's application of European competition and State aid rules.

5)

This situation substantially weakens the opportunity for public authorities to target public-sector investment in airport infrastructure and air services where that is consistent with the need to improve economic, social and territorial cohesion across the European Union.

1.

stresses that the preparation of a communication from the European Commission on regional airports and the preparation of revised guidelines on the role of State aid in support of the development of regional airports and air services, presents the opportunity to provide the clarity required to ensure that the positive role played by low-cost services in encouraging regional development is realised;

2.

welcomes the opportunity to take a position in advance of the preparation of the Commission's work so that the Committee's views can inform the Commission's documents;

3.

confirms that the Committee's outlook opinion on the Capacity of regional airports (CdR 393/2002), adopted on 2 July 2003, represents a fundamental background for these views;

4.

reiterates its view that regional airports must be considered as an asset, one that is particularly important for the development of regional and local economies;

5.

draws to the attention of the Commission that the social and economic importance of air transport will grow with the enlargement of the Union and that air services operating from regional airports, including those provided by low-cost carriers, enable a region to have faster and easier access to the major centres in the EU and the rest of the world;

6.

stresses that regional airports are another element of a region's access infrastructure, which also includes roads, rail, etc. and just as public sector investment in these access modes is supported, so too should public sector investment in regional airport infrastructure be facilitated and encouraged; the Committee further welcomes European Commission acceptance for public-sector investment to support the start-up of regional air services operating from them, including those provided by low-cost carriers;

7.

stresses to the European Commission that the key issues to be taken into account are:

1.

Transport is a key factor in the economic and social integration of Europe. With the enlargement of the European Union there will be greater mobility of labour, resulting in greater social interchange. This will, in turn, heighten the importance of the network of regional air services, including those provided by low-cost carriers, providing connections between regions. The importance of air travel for the development of the social fabric of the EU will increase. The existence of regional airports and inter-regional air services is therefore intrinsically linked to the economic and social development of the regions.

2.

Regional airports enable faster and easier access to a region. Air services operating from regional airports provide point-to-point connections between regions, as well as links from the region to international hub airports. Such services enable citizens in island communities, regions in Central and Eastern Europe and countries on the periphery of the EU to participate more fully in Europe, thus promoting social inclusion.

3.

Further development of the network of regional air services would enable a citizen to make a return trip from any region in the EU to the major economic, political and research centres within the Member State and the European Union in one day's travelling time.

4.

The development of regional airports and air services, including those provided by low-cost carriers, must take place as part of the development of an inter-modal transport system serving the economic, environmental and social objectives of the Commission's regional framework for territorial cohesion.

5.

The development of regional airports and regional air services must be planned in accordance with the principles of sustainable development, where development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

6.

Regional airports have surplus capacity in terminal space and runway slots that can be utilised to provide point-to-point inter-regional air services that are in addition to, and complement, feeder air services operating from the regional airport to international hub airports. The development of the network of inter-regional air services can therefore help relieve pressure on international hub and national airports. Congestion at such hubs can further be relieved by the development of a number of regional airports to serve as gateway airports, based on their location, capacity, facilities and current operations. The provision of low-cost inter-regional air services has a significant role to play as part of the development of this broader network of regional air services.

7.

In providing a planning framework within which the development of regional airports and inter-regional air services can take place, public-sector authorities must seek an appropriate balance between inter-regional and region-to-hub air services. This balance will in part be a function of the economic and social objectives of individual regions.

8.

The formulation of EU-wide air travel agreements (such as Open Skies) should not be at the expense of regional airports. Any such agreements or policies must take the wider regional territorial considerations into account and be counterbalanced to ensure that regional competitiveness is maintained.

9.

Regional airports are critical access points to the regions. Air services operating from regional airports, including those provided by low-cost carriers, have the potential to play a key role in contributing to territorial cohesion. In order to realise this potential there is a need to provide a greater degree of certainty within which investment by the public and private sectors can take place. This is particularly the case with regard to investment in airport infrastructure, investment that is made for the longer term. The Commission should give greater prominence to the significant role of regional airports and regional air services as part of the multi-modal approach to the development of the Trans-European Transport Networks. In particular, the Commission should give consideration to the potential for investment in point-to-point inter-regional air services to complement the development of high-speed rail networks.

10.

The availability of regional air services, and in particular low-cost air services, operating from regional airports improves access to the global economy. This, coupled with the lower labour costs and facilities costs associated with the more remote regions, can encourage the business community to locate new economic investment within the region. Existing businesses in the region could develop their market share by being able to reach other parts of the Member State, the EU and the rest of the world.

11.

The overall economic impact that can be realised through the development of regional air services operating out of regional airports should be considered under the following four headings:

12.

The improved access to European and international markets that a regional airport is capable of providing can assist in the retention of a skilled labour force within a region. The development of low cost inter-regional air services when based at a regional airport can provide additional employment and training opportunities locally and within the region as a whole. In particular, the basing of engineering and support services at a regional airport will increase the requirement within the region for well-trained engineers and technicians capable of supporting the aviation industry. The resulting increase in employment opportunities within the region reduces the need for welfare support whilst at the same time increasing wealth creation. In addition, low-cost airlines can help to diversify, de-seasonalise and boost tourism products, which in turn will improve the quality of these products and therefore the attractiveness of a region for tourists.

13.

The development of low-cost air services providing point-to-point inter-regional air services from regional airports can act as an effective catalyst for regional economic development in accordance with the economic and social objectives of the Commission's regional framework for territorial cohesion. The development of the network of low-cost point-to-point inter-regional air services operating from regional airports can be a major factor in raising the economic competitiveness of the regions, and therefore the EU.

14.

The smaller regional airports are likely to require funds from the public sector in order to cover operating costs and investment in new infrastructure. In return they offer the potential to act as the base for regional air services that improve overall levels of accessibility to the more remote regions that in turn gives rise to significant economic and social benefits within the region they serve.

15.

There is a need to give greater weight to the public service function of low-cost point-to-point inter-regional air services operating from such airports that provide a link for the region with the rest of the EU and the world.

16.

Public-sector investment should be applied using a targeted approach to provide infrastructure and services that afford citizens the opportunity to fulfil their capabilities by improving the economic competitiveness of the regions.

17.

The use of public-sector investment to secure a more balanced spread of economic activity across the EU is consistent with the Commission's regional policy objectives of achieving a more sustainable pattern of development by reducing the pressures of over-concentration, congestion and bottlenecks within the transport system.

18.

Any consideration of the role for public-sector investment must be sufficiently flexible to reflect the diverse degree of development within individual regions across the EU, and the specific economic and spatial priorities for an individual region as identified by the relevant regional and local authorities.

19.

There is a need to recognise that it is in the public interest to maintain and develop the network of regional air services, including those provided by low-cost carriers, operating from regional airports. Carefully targeted public-sector investment can provide modest pump-priming investment that can lead to substantial benefits to the local and regional economy. The removal of public-sector investment in these circumstances can result in the loss of opportunities for low-cost inter-regional air services to act as a catalyst for delivering territorial cohesion and improved economic competitiveness. The framework for the use of public-sector investment must therefore be capable of taking due account of the wider employment creation, regeneration, social inclusion, environmental and regional and local economic development programmes within a region.

20.

The guidelines should provide sufficient clarity on how the Commission will interpret European competition and State aid rules in order to provide regional and local authorities with the necessary guidance to positively use public-sector investment to support the realisation of the potential for regional airports and low-cost air services to contribute to delivery of the Commission's regional policy objectives.

21.

The guidelines must be developed by the Commission in full consultation with representatives of regional and local authorities.

22.

The guidelines must acknowledge and respect the principle of regional diversity. They must reflect the diverse degree of development of the different regions across the European Union. They must take account of the existence of natural handicaps in the region in question, as well as the degree of development of other means of transport in the region and the peripheral and dependent nature of major airports. They should allow regional and local authorities to identify certain airport infrastructure and regional air services as being of regional significance, where these are consistent with the specific economic and spatial priorities identified by the authorities concerned.

23.

The guidelines should not contain strict or rigidly applied thresholds, instead allowing regional and local authorities to consider the merits of public-sector investment on a case-by-case basis.

24.

They should clearly state that public-sector investment is permitted to support the provision of regional air services, conditional only on open access to the investment by all carriers and allocated by prior stated criteria. These criteria should include the particular benefit to regional economies arising from the development of low-cost inter-regional air services acting as a catalyst for investment in the regions.

25.

They should allow public-sector investment to make a substantial contribution towards the start-up costs, including regionally targeted marketing campaigns funded through local tax revenues, associated with the establishment of such services.

26.

The guidelines should allow consideration of public-sector investment in the development or provision of additional airport infrastructure where that is necessary in order to support the development of new regional air services.

27.

The guidelines should not be limited in their application to pure principles of the market economy but should take into account the wider social, environmental and territorial development aspects arising from the development of new regional air services, including those provided by low-cost carriers.

28.

The guidelines must promote the development of regional airports and inter-regional air services as part of the broader Trans-European Transport Networks.

29.

The guidelines must have embedded within them the requirement for investment to be planned in accordance with the principles of sustainable development, where development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/12

1.1

the Committee of the Regions has consistently, including in recent opinions, endorsed the process launched at Lisbon, which recognised the close links between economic policy, employment policy and social policy;

1.2

the Commission Communication represents a key development in the process launched with the Lisbon Summit of safeguarding the social dimension of European policies;

1.3

the document reveals the Commission's intention to pursue the objectives set out in the Social Policy Agenda, which the Committee has already endorsed, not least in the context of the annual Scoreboard on Implementing the Social Policy Agenda;

1.4

the CoR welcomes the detailed nature of the Commission document, which takes a comprehensive approach to the issue in question;

1.5

the CoR welcomes the Commission's endeavours to address the various aspects of social policy and to draw up proposals dealing with all the countless aspects of the different areas; these are measures which must be adopted at all levels — European, national, regional and local — to give all European citizens a good quality of life;

1.6

the CoR is convinced of the need — moreover, indicated in many Commission documents — to develop the most appropriate structures for exploiting and realising European employment potential, which is extremely high;

1.7

the CoR recognises and stresses the value added to the quality of life of each person by the opportunity to find a job which is satisfactory from both a financial and a professional point of view;

1.8

the CoR welcomes, in particular, the Communication's conception of social protection not as a system which replaces each person's ability to take responsibility for the quality of their life but as a measure which can support individuals by giving them new self-confidence and creating the necessary social conditions for them to be able to undertake their full roles as Europeans, so that they do not have to remain in a state of poverty and social exclusion;

1.9

the CoR joins with the Commission in stressing the need to introduce effective pre-emptive and rehabilitation measures to prevent poverty and social exclusion in the most vulnerable population groups;

1.10

the CoR joins with the Commission in pointing out that the public services provided by local and regional authorities, in particular, such as childcare and socio-educational training for children, and care and social protection for the elderly and people with disabilities, etc., are essential if European citizens are to be given the possibility of satisfactory employment;

1.11

the CoR welcomes, in particular, the emphasis given to the need to promote services for the elderly, and would also stress that these services should not just be conceived as facilities for caring for the elderly outside the family, but that, in the light of experience gained at local and regional level, the most valuable services, able to combine the well-being of both the elderly person and their family, appear to be those provided in a person's own home, where this is possible;

1.12

the CoR notes the reason why there is no information relating to the acceding countries in the document, namely that the Commission used special questionnaires to help it draw up the document, which were also sent to the acceding countries, but it did not receive full replies to the questionnaires from those countries and was therefore unable to include them in the assessment of the various strategies adopted to boost employment.

2.1

with reference to the rehabilitation measures mentioned by the Commission seeking to encourage the return to employment of social groups at risk such as people with disabilities, notes that genuine social measures are needed, not just medical measures as the Commission appears to advocate in its Communication. Indeed, in many cases, a return to work is hindered not just by medical factors, by practical physical impediments, but also by material, psychological, behavioural and social factors; the Commission should therefore place more emphasis, and not just in its conclusions, on the role of local and regional authorities in implementing a more comprehensive range of social and welfare measures in these cases. These measures must, of course, go hand in hand with genuine rehabilitation measures in the medical sense of the word, to be implemented, first and foremost, by means of national-level schemes;

2.2

expresses the need, as already pointed out in other opinions, to streamline the measures provided for in the field of social protection and synchronise them with economic and employment policy measures; provision must be made for local and regional authorities, which are best placed to liaise with the most vulnerable sections of society, to be consulted and, above all, involved in all cases;

2.3

calls on the Commission to place greater emphasis on the role of NGOs, which are not mentioned in the Communication but whose work alongside local and regional authorities is essential as they provide practical solutions to social issues, most importantly giving people at risk from exclusion opportunities to come into contact with the world of work, not least with local and regional authorities;

2.4

recommends that the Commission continue constantly to bear in mind, as it does in the document to which this opinion refers, the key points already made regarding the modernisation of social protection, which are objectives that were recognised by the Lisbon European Council: high-quality employment, secure pension schemes, social integration and protection of health;

2.5

bearing in mind the Third report on Social and Economic Cohesion, presented by the European Commission on the 18 February 2004 where it states that ‘particular geographical or natural handicaps may intensify development problems, particularly in the outermost regions of the Union and in many islands’, the Commission shall address these handicaps by supporting or creating measures such as education and incentives for islands and the outermost regions of the Union to modernize social protection for more and better jobs to their own citizens especially to those finding it hard to find jobs away from their native locality;

2.6

reiterates its belief that if, as it must, Europe is to move closer to its public and become more democratic and more transparent, local and regional authorities and civil society must be more closely involved, not least through NGOs, in the drawing-up, implementation and assessment of economic, social and employment policies;

2.7

reiterates, with regard to the communication in question, the points that the Committee of the Regions has already made in its Opinion (CdR 15/2003) on the Review of the European Employment Strategy and the Employment Guidelines for 2003 based on the Communication on Taking stock of five years of the European Employment Strategy (COM(2002) 416 final) and the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The future of the European Employment Strategy (EES): A strategy for full employment and better jobs for all (COM(2003) 6 final), namely that:

2.8

calls upon the Commission to stress consistently, in any communications which address issues related to the need for a more flexible labour market, the need to support workers who decide to take a new direction in their careers; the lack of adequate social protection measures is a threat to labour market flexibility, which is now vital given the nature of the global market;

2.9

believes that basic economic security is important both for low paid workers and workers who hold positions of medium or high responsibility. Furthermore, support should be focused on training and re-skilling;

2.10

notes that social protection schemes, particularly those of a financial nature, should involve employers who may be in a better position to monitor individual situations and therefore better placed to implement measures to encourage the return to work of people such as disabled workers, maybe helping them to find a new professional position in the same or another firm;

2.11

recommends that all the necessary measures be taken to ensure that, without prejudice to the full legislative autonomy of each Member State in the field of social policy, the EU Member States are made aware of the importance of the guidelines proposed by the Commission in the communication's conclusions and of the key role of local and regional authorities.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/15

1.1

considers that EQUAL is one of the most important instruments for generating and disseminating innovation in the field of employment and social policy;

1.2

stresses that local authorities have strongly supported EQUAL from its inception, as it presents a significant opportunity for the improvement and further development of social and employment policies at local and regional levels. Local and regional authorities also endorse the partnership approach of EQUAL which is in line with principles of good governance;

1.3

considers that the mainstreaming of innovative technologies, and the development of practical approaches and long-term competences should be key objectives; believes that results should not be isolated from mainstream practices, but should be linked to them in order to add new dimensions and enhance effectiveness. Local and regional authorities can help to embed new practices in the local systems of service provision and local policy networks;

1.4

stresses that the issue of the Roma people is of particular relevance and importance to local and regional authorities. With enlargement they will be the largest distinctive ethnic minority group on the European Union. Despite a 700 year history of living within the boundaries of the EU the Roma remain probably one of the most discriminated against group of all European citizens. Local and regional authorities have a crucial role to play in addressing the issues that face Roma people, a fact recognised by representatives of European Roma organisations themselves;

1.5

stresses also the important phenomenon of trafficking of children and women; believes that local and regional authorities have a vital role in promoting community wellbeing and must address the personal (e.g. victim support) and social (e.g. crime prevention) consequences of trafficking in human beings and this aspect of the sex industry, in this connection, stresses the need for local and regional authorities to be duly allocated the necessary funds and resources;

1.6

believes that local and regional authorities have to be seen as key partners in implementing EQUAL and mainstreaming its results.

2.1

welcomes the introduction of a confirmation step for Action 2; recommends that Action 3 activity (dissemination and mainstreaming) could be integrated in the same way in order to assist in addressing match-funding problems as Action 3 activity does not in itself have many of the types of outputs which funders are generally looking for (i.e. direct activity supporting beneficiaries);

2.2

welcomes the opportunity to broaden partnerships to work with accession states — financial regulations hindered some of the potential for this in the first round;

2.3

considers that in experimenting more in protection against unemployment, quality of employment, and direct job creation, Development Partnerships should be encouraged to look at experience and any best practice from round 1 — in particular any lessons learnt, where approaches have not been successful;

2.4

stresses the importance of retaining workers longer in employment — the Commission's acknowledgement of this is welcome in view of ageing populations generally, but also in relation to areas with a tradition of heavy industry where many older workers have had to, or still need to, re-train to secure work in service sector and other industries;

2.5

considers that it is important to acknowledge the difficulty of engaging employers to promote diversity, but encourages learning from best practice developed under round 1 across Member States;

2.6

welcomes the support that will be given to address the emerging challenges of the problems facing the Roma people and the victims of trafficking; considers that these and other emerging challenges EU-wide should be addressed within the appropriate context locally, regionally and nationally, and do not impact negatively where other groups need to be targeted;

2.7

believes that it is essential that all countries keep to the same timetable to facilitate the establishment of trans-national partnerships at the appropriate time, with delivery periods beginning at the same time to ensure they are effective partnerships. This was not the case in the first round. The Commission's re-statement of the importance of this is welcome;

2.8

welcomes the opportunity to build on the thematic network group activity at national and at European level in the 2nd round, and expects that the Commission will see increased benefit from this in the 2nd round, and increased impact. The concept of thematic network groups developed quite slowly during the first round. The CoR believes that there is a strong role for Managing Authorities in supporting Development Partnerships to participate, including being pro-active in identifying key people and policies to maximise the impact of the work piloted by the Partnerships. Greater integration would be useful between the thematic network groups, those responsible for producing Member State and European documents linked to European Employment Strategy and Social Inclusion policy. This would facilitate mainstreaming, which is identified as a challenge;

2.9

welcomes the proposals on mainstreaming, ensuring input from EQUAL to policy-makers and Objective 1, 2 and 3 programmes; recommends that thematic network groups should be formally linked into this;

2.10

considers it important not to lose the benefits of trans-national working post 2006 in employment field, and therefore recommends the inclusion of a trans-national element in the European Commission's proposals for ESF programmes to replace the current programmes (as well as within the regional ERDF programme).

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/17

1.1

welcomes the Commission Communication on the promotion of cooperative societies in Europe, which aims to foster greater use of cooperatives across Europe by raising their profile and increasing understanding of their characteristics. Better awareness of how cooperatives work, further development of cooperative legislation, the maintenance and improvement of cooperatives' position and input all contribute to the achievement of Community objectives;

1.2

endorses the Commission's views about cooperatives as a vehicle for SMEs to undertake joint activities and improve their market position and as a means of providing high quality services to customer-members, especially ‘proximity services’ such as health, social protection and welfare. Workers' cooperatives can make a positive contribution to building a knowledge-based society;

1.3

stresses the importance of the Commission's aim to find ways of increasing the willingness and ability of SMEs to use the cooperative form of enterprise as a vehicle for establishing joint business activities or groupings of businesses;

1.4

acknowledges the importance of organising a structured exchange of information, identification of best practices and publicising cooperative projects involving SMEs;

1.5

supports efforts to examine ways of collecting more accurate statistical data on cooperatives;

1.6

highlights the importance of participation by cooperatives in programmes for education, training, lifelong learning and e-learning and of encouraging universities and secondary school to organise cooperative management training;

1.7

considers it to be of the utmost importance to identify and disseminate good practices in the area of public provision of business support services for cooperatives;

1.8

underlines the importance of financing for cooperatives. It is necessary to assess the possibility of including a specific reference to cooperatives in financial instruments managed by the European Investment Fund, particularly the funds which form part of the Multi-Annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship and in particular for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Efforts should also be made to ensure that cooperatives have full access to Community programmes and information about these programmes;

1.9

supports the Commission's intention to study policies, good practices and regulations concerning social cooperative enterprises;

1.10

encourages the Commission to hold discussions with Member States on the application of the Regulation and Directive on a Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE);

1.11

supports the Commission's work with Member States to improve legislation on cooperative societies;

1.12

endorses efforts to draft ‘model laws’ for cooperative legislation;

1.13

feels it is important in the context of reviewing the SCE Regulation to consider the possibility of simplifying the Regulation by suggesting the adoption of common Europe-wide rules, where possible;

1.14

underlines the important contribution which cooperatives make to agricultural development in the new Member States by supporting cooperation between farms in purchasing, marketing of products and improving production;

2.1

urges the Commission and the Member States to make a rapid assessment of the scope for implementing and supporting initiatives by stakeholders aimed at raising awareness among public authorities and private economic operators about the possibility of using the cooperative form as a means of establishing a business or a grouping of small enterprises;

2.2

believes it important that the Commission explore the possibility of organising a structured exchange of information and experiences and identifying good practices in the area of doing business through cooperatives. The Commission should also examine with Member States and stakeholders the need for benchmarking of national policies and practices;

2.3

encourages experimentation with satellite techniques and other sampling methods for the collection of necessary statistical data on cooperatives in Europe;

2.4

considers it important that programmes for education, training, lifelong learning and e-learning take account of participation by cooperatives, particularly in international programmes and specialist networks that lead to the development of best practices in innovative areas;

2.5

highlights the importance of identifying and disseminating good practices in the public provision of business support services;

2.6

considers it important to quickly examine the possibility of including a specific reference to cooperatives in the financial instruments managed by the European Investment Fund which form part of the Multi-Annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship and in particular for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and to ensure that cooperatives are eligible to take part in Community programmes and that they have full access to information about these programmes;

2.7

encourages the Commission to study policies, good practices and regulations concerning social cooperative enterprises and the social and job-creation impact of cooperatives in Europe more widely and to report its findings to the Community institutions;

2.8

recommends that the Commission urgently launch discussions with officials in Member States who are responsible for implementation of Europe-wide rules on cooperatives. The discussions should focus, above all, on issues where national measures are required or national laws are applicable;

2.9

stresses the need to work actively with public authorities, especially in the new Member States, to ensure that cooperative legislation is improved. In addition, the Commission must require Member States to inform the Commission and each other of their intentions to amend cooperative legislation at the drafting stage and before adopting new legislation;

2.10

underlines the importance of the Commission's request to national and European stakeholder organisations to draft ‘model laws’ and the Commission's willingness to assist them in the drafting;

2.11

recommends that the Commission actively monitor application of the SCE Regulation and compile a register of areas where amendments are needed so that five years after the entry into force of the Regulation it can be simplified and reinforced, where necessary;

2.12

welcomes the fact that the Commission will seek to ensure that the contribution of cooperatives and other social economy enterprises to agricultural development is exploited through Community initiatives;

2.13

stresses that the Commission and Member State governments should examine the possibility of granting tax concessions to cooperatives on the basis of their usefulness in regional or social terms and of whether they essentially observe the main founding principles of cooperatives: democracy, the solidarity of members, both workers and consumers, and their direct management of entrepreneurial activities;

2.14

draws attention to the opportunities which cooperatives offer in terms of developing the local economy and new innovative forms of employment at local and regional level;

2.15

urges the Commission and Member States to actively promote the establishment of co-ops (particularly marketing co-ops) in the new forms of agriculture and rural activities, such as organic farming, aquaculture, etc. Actions might include training, facilitation, legal advice, identification of participants, etc.;

2.16

urges municipalities and regions to take better account of the cooperative form of enterprise in their industrial policy;

2.17

recalls that cooperatives offer new opportunities for improving employment, service provision and economic regeneration in remote areas which suffer from lack of capital.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/19

1.

increased end-use energy efficiency is essential to protect the environment, to reduce the demand for energy and to fulfil the objectives set out in Kyoto; the development of a market for end-use energy efficiency and energy services will make an important contribution towards achieving this objective;

2.

regional and local authorities in Europe have, for years, played a pioneering role in achieving energy savings, e.g. through the use of renewable sources of energy and by testing intelligent energy systems;

3.

many regional and local authorities in Europe have committed themselves to meeting the objectives set out in the Kyoto Protocol;

4.

there must first be popular awareness of the concept of energy saving; regional and local authorities, as the political bodies which are closest to the people, can play their part in achieving this objective and the European Union must provide the requisite freedom of action in this respect;

1.1

shares the view of the Commission of the European Communities that increased end-use energy efficiency is a key objective. It welcomes the Commission's intention of helping to develop a market for end-use energy efficiency and energy services. The CoR, too, believes that it is essential to bolster this market and thereby reduce emissions and promote sustainable development;

1.2

considers the proposal for a directive as representing, in principle, an appropriate first step towards achieving these objectives;

1.3

unreservedly supports the established goal of protecting the climate and respecting the attendant obligation to reduce energy consumption. In the EU Member States, regions and municipalities a variety of measures have already been introduced with a view to meeting this obligation (cf., inter alia, the Energy Saving Law adopted by the German Bunderstag on 1 April 2004). Such measures also include the efforts made to improve energy efficiency in all fields of energy consumption;

1.4

takes the view that implementation of energy efficiency measures, measures to achieve energy savings by end-users and the provision of energy services should be in line with the context of competition-orientated markets; it would at the same time underline the priority to be attached to enhancing the public service so that it can continue to assume its responsibilities in terms of quality, security and accessibility;

1.5

does not dispute the view that appropriate framework conditions are required in order to bring about a substantial increase in end-use energy efficiency. The best way to achieve this objective is to stimulate and increase demand for appropriate technologies and procedures. The proposal that enterprises should, rather, be obliged to provide such services appears problematic. Enterprises would thus have to have procedures and technologies available which no-one would be required to buy resulting in higher prices for end-users;

1.6

considers that the proposal for a directive runs counter to established practice in cases where it disregards fundamental structures of the internal energy market. The proposal for a directive obliges Member States to ensure that energy retailers and suppliers offer their customers, in all end-use sectors, energy services and energy efficiency measures, in some cases free of charge. In the open market it is, however, hardly possible to control supply. Furthermore, the market players concerned, such as unbundled energy distribution companies and energy sales companies new to the market, are too different for them to be subject to the same or comparable regulatory measures;

1.7

regards the obligation placed upon network operators to offer and provide energy services to final customers as an infringement of the internal market directive;

1.8

regards the establishment of new official structures with monitoring and verifying tasks — which are bound to involve considerable costs — as being of limited suitability as a means of increasing end-use energy efficiency and pressing ahead with the development of a market for end-use energy efficiency measures and energy services. Member States should be allowed to use existing bodies for carrying out these tasks. According to the proposal for a directive, the costs of the measures taken to achieve the required level of energy saving ‘should’ not exceed their benefits. As it is, however, not clear how this cost-benefit analysis is to be carried out, this obligation represents nothing more than a proposal, devoid of all practical meaning, with the result that costs may rise out of all proportion to the benefits. There is therefore a danger that the provision of Article 10b of the proposal for a directive, whereby particular costs may be included in distribution tariffs, will place the burden on final consumers;

1.9

urges that the setting up of a uniform rate for increased efficiency of 1 % for all Member States must not lead to distortions in competition, since Member States which have already attained a high level of efficiency could achieve further efficiency gains only at comparatively high cost. It must be guaranteed that the efforts made by the Member States in the past will be duly taken into account. The taking into account of energy saving measures made by Member States since 1991 foreseen in Annex 1 to the proposal must be made in such a way that distortions in competition are excluded; moreover, the CoR rejects the placing of an disproportionate burden on the public authorities and asks for an equal treatment of the public and the private sector;

1.10

regards the proposed measures, such as the establishment of a uniform energy saving target, the creation of new inspection bureaucracies and the establishment of mandatory markets for energy services, as constituting, by virtue of their scope and intensity, a very far-reaching encroachment upon the energy policies of the Member States.

2.1

calls on the Commission to revise key points in the proposal for a directive, the objective of which is very welcome. The aim of this revision should be, above all, to further develop and strengthen demand for energy services by providing information, advice and support. It suggests in this respect a European wide information campaign to increase the awareness of environmental benefits of energy savings;

2.2

requests the Commission to respect the subsidiarity principle by continuing, to leave it up to the Member States, regions and municipalities, to authorise, certify and accredit energy service enterprises, monitor energy audit schemes and the market for energy services, draw up energy efficiency programmes and establish publicly overseen financing arrangements;

2.3

proposes that the degree of detail of the provisions be limited to a level compatible with the Commission's commitment to deregulation, less bureaucracy and simplification of procedures;

2.4

calls on the Commission not to place an disproportionate burden on the public sector regarding the energy saving target. The public and the private sector should both be made responsible to the same degree to contribute to the overall goal of enhanced energy-efficiency;

2.5

points out that, in order to comply with the obligations set out in the proposal for a directive, it will be necessary to introduce supervisory measures, collect data and draw up reports for the Commission. This, in turn, will require public administrations and also enterprises to take on new staff — who were not hitherto needed — e.g. for the purposes of (a) collecting and passing on information concerning final consumers which was previously not relevant (e.g. with regard to heating oil) and (b) for the marketing of energy services. This should be taken into account and incorporated into the proposal;

2.6

reminds the Commission of the need to bring the new proposal for a directive fully into line with the objectives of all legal provisions in the energy field and, in particular, with the objectives of the Directive on the internal energy market.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/22

1)

eGovernment not only contributes to the efficiency of the public administration but to democracy in improving governance and citizens' participation in public life,

2)

there is a need for top-political commitment to put in place eGovernment structures and services and that most legal barriers are not at European level but at national, regional and local one,

3)

the different traditions and legal basis in the current and future Member States which makes it difficult to define common standards on the delivery of public services,

1.1

welcomes the importance which the Commission is attributing to the role of eGovernment for the achievement of the Lisbon goals, and places particular emphasis on the role and contribution of regional and local government in promoting and exploiting its potential, due to the range and importance of the services and regulation they provide for both citizens and businesses;

1.2

highlights the essential characteristics of local and regional government, in respect of scale and closeness to communities which enables speed of innovation, knowledge and understanding of the needs of services and users which are paramount, and direct engagement at individual and community level which enables them to promote the acquisition of new skills and to influence behavioural changes required to make eGovernment a practical, beneficial reality;

1.3

endorses the description of eGovernment as essentially the combination of use of ICT in the area of government and administration, with organisational change, and the development of new skills;

1.4

highlights the paramount importance of creating and investing in training and development opportunities to enable the widest possible spectrum of individuals to participate in eGovernment developments;

1.5

emphasises that the value of eGovernment will be demonstrated in the transformation of public service delivery, and the enhancement of citizen involvement in democratic processes and public policy development, in other words the comprehensive modernisation of government service delivery and interaction with citizens;

1.6

cautions that such transformation at all levels of government is not cheap, but will require significant and sustained commitment of resources, redoubled by the need to maintain existing systems through periods of transition, which is a distinctive requirement upon government not present in commercial environments;

1.7

notes that to enable a high level of adoption and interactivity, transition to broadband is essential, so welcomes the Commission's call for connection of all public administrations by 2005, and believes that funding support is required to resource such transformation, particularly for those areas where current level and rate of development of access is relatively low;

1.8

appreciates the distinction made in the Communication between eGovernance and eGovernment, and considers that the wider concept of the former encompassing major social services is highly relevant to the interests of local and regional government;

1.9

commends the application of a common framework of research standards to ensure that qualitative and quantitative assessment of all significant programmes and projects is published thus sharing both success to be emulated and frank analysis of failures to improve learning and future practice;

1.10

believes that partnership-working, the creation of consortia and joint venture developments at all levels among public agencies, and where feasible private organisations, both national and EU wide, is fundamental to exploiting innovation and avoiding obsolescence, to transferring existing and future good practice, and to achieving best value from public expenditure;

1.11

recognises the potential of eGovernment to sustain and promote cultural distinctions and equity of access to services and its contribution to policy and process among the diverse populations of the Regions, and in this respect, recognises the unique roles played by local and regional authorities, all of which makes quality research work important in informing inclusive practices;

1.12

is aware of the importance of privacy and security enhancing technologies to give confidence among service users, but considers that this must balance against adopting protocols which could unreasonably inhibit electronic transfer of information concerning identified individuals;

1.13

observes that this Communication is part of a wider suite of modernisation innovations, the collective impact of which has the capacity to transform citizen/government interaction for the better in respect of social inclusion, but nevertheless considers that there are potential dangers for social cohesion from isolation resulting from reducing interpersonal human interaction which must be guarded against.

2.1

recommends that the European Commission in promoting eGovernment, gives priority to ensuring common standards, frameworks for information exchange and effective interoperability, to promote awareness of pan-European services, and ease of access to information on national and regional services for all citizens across the EU. Priority must also be given to security of all transactions and data. Public confidence and usage are directly correlated with security issues;

2.1 a)

recommends that the European Commission redouble its efforts for real and effective coordination of action under eGovernment-related programmes, especially IDA, eTEN and eGov research activities under the Sixth Framework Programme, in order to optimise the results and make best use of the efforts and resources that the European Union is putting into developing eGovernment;

2.1 b)

recommends that the European Commission examines in detail the regional and local dimension of actions under eGovernment-related programmes;

2.2

recommends funding provision from governments and from EU Structural Fund allocations for the provision of broadband technology in areas where it may not be commercially viable, thus ensuring the availability of eGovernment in all areas of the European Union focussing on those areas where access and/or rate of development of access is low. The specific features of the regions, especially their size and population, must be taken into account when determining the infrastructure funding needed to ensure access throughout the EU;

2.3

insists that at least in the transitional stage, training courses should be provided regarding access to eGovernment, with facilities for those with disabilities, older people and those who are less highly trained, in order to encourage e-inclusion and eliminate any danger of discrimination;

2.4

welcomes the observation that provision is no guarantee of usage of online services and strongly encourages research on demand-side preferences and barriers, both in relation to service type and access methods, as well as on supply-side innovation, to identify channels which will attract the widest spectrum of users, across differing geographic locations and among different age, gender and socio-economic groups;

2.5

stresses that the potential of IT should be exploited to the full when improving the quality and productivity of public services provided through traditional channels;

2.6

recommends the adoption of a protocol that eGovernment programmes and projects supported with public funding are required to share outcomes, and to report the benefits accrued from the initiative and lessons for improvement;

2.7

urges the Commission to encourage support for local and regional authorities to provide eGovernment in different languages with a special focus on regional and lesser used languages;

2.8

acknowledges the complexity of evaluation of major initiatives in new fields of activity, but urges the setting of clear targets at inception and full open critical assessment of outcomes (both successes and failures) on criteria including relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and functionality, with the goal of future improvement.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/24

1)

Unsolicited commercial communications by e-mail, otherwise known as ‘spam’, have reached worrying proportions, rising from an estimated 7 % of global e-mail traffic in 2001 to 50 % at the present time.

2)

Spam is a problem not only on grounds of privacy, deception of customers, protection of minors and human dignity, it also represents a commercial threat. It represents extra costs for businesses and lost productivity, and threatens to undermine consumer confidence.

3)

The EU adopted in July 2002 Directive 2002/58/EC on Privacy and Electronic Communications, introducing the principle of ‘opt-in’ for electronic mail, and the deadline for its implementation was 31 October 2003.

4)

While it is a first step, legislation alone will not be enough to combat the problem of spam. Further action is needed to ensure that the Directive has the desired effect.

1.1

agrees with the Commission's conclusion that spam is one of the most significant challenges facing the internet today, requiring not only effective enforcement and international co-operation, but also self regulatory and technical solutions by industry, and community awareness;

1.2

welcomes the Commission's continued efforts in encouraging Member States to transpose the Directive 2002/58/EC on Privacy and Electronic Communications and the assistance offered to Member States by the Commission and hopes that this assistance will also be extended to candidate countries post enlargement in May 2004;

1.3

notes that unsolicited email is causing a lack of confidence in information networks and that the volume of email traffic is causing systems to slow down. This is a cross-border and international issue and CoR has concerns that the Community's policy will only succeed with the agreement and cooperation of international organisations and other world powers;

1.4

regrets that the Commission does not recognise the ability of regional and local authorities to interface with their communities and the public at large and urges the Commission to take proper account of how much assistance regional and local authorities can give in combating unsolicited mail;

1.5

emphasises that regional and local authorities can be involved in tackling spam in a variety of different ways. They have a role in terms of raising awareness and disseminating information, and in a more general sense by virtue of their closeness to citizens, organisations and businesses;

1.6

notes that it has already proposed that measures should be taken to inform schoolchildren of both the security aspects of the information society and the consequences of computer-related crime;

1.7

notes that regional and local authorities have a public protection role in the widest sense;

1.8

recognises that regional and local authorities have an important role in ensuring a balanced development of the knowledge and information society in the European Union, particularly post enlargement, in order to enhance economic and social cohesion in regions, cities and districts throughout Europe. Regional and local authorities are in a unique position to ensure that the widest possible access to Community actions is achieved, with a particular focus on disadvantaged groups;

1.9

recognises that local and regional government has the responsibility to develop not only online public services, but also information and communication technologies (ICT) in lifelong learning (given that digital literacy is considered a new basic skill) and health care. Local and regional government is also active in promoting information security, in developing online culture and tourism-content services, in improving access to online services and, of course, in developing the interoperability of processes both within government and between organisations in general. It believes therefore that it is vital that effective and unfettered electronic communication is achieved.

2.1

calls for the active involvement of candidate countries to be stressed. The Internet does not recognise traditional borders between states and therefore actions taken at the European level should not limit themselves to the participation of the EU Member States. The effects of the lack of information system and network security in the less developed regions of Europe may widen the digital gap between them and the most developed and secure regions;

2.2

proposes that efforts should be made to secure a greater commitment on the part of the main world software manufacturers to undertake research on network and information safety and its immediate practical application. Security should be a priority issue among the telecommunications service and access providers operating in Europe, and more links to activities and organisations outside the EU should also be developed;

2.3

urges the Commission to use the ability of Regional and Local Authorities to communicate with citizens at a local level. For example, Libraries, Community Centres and other Municipal buildings offer great opportunities to raise awareness and offer public access to information. These facilities offer direct contact with the public including disadvantaged groups;

2.4

proposes that many of the problems associated with a safe use of the Internet could be resolved at a local level, in particular by an intensive education drive designed to raise awareness on this matter. Regional and local authorities can signpost information regarding combating unsolicited mail;

2.5

proposes that schools, given their responsibility for education, should adopt measures to inform young people of the security aspects of the information society;

2.6

proposes that regional and local authorities use their existing relationships with business organisations to encourage them to take positive action against spam;

2.7

wishes also to emphasise the importance of cooperation within the EU, and in particular the role of regional and local government in ensuring that cooperation.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/27

1.1

acknowledges the central role of the audiovisual media in the growth of a pluralistic society in Europe, the safeguarding of regional and local identity and the development of democratically enshrined civil rights;

1.2

underlines the objective of adapting the legal framework for the audiovisual media in a way that is conducive to — and encourages — their positive development, as befits their key remit;

1.3

recognises the need also to give consideration to other paramount objectives of general interest connected with the regulation of the audiovisual sector, such as competition, consumer protection and telecommunication law, and welcomes the fact that the Commission has taken this opportunity to draw up a communication on the further development of European regulatory policy in the entire audiovisual sector;

1.4

considers it is useful, particularly with EU enlargement in the offing, to clarify the legal framework governing audiovisual policy and to set out the timetable for its further development, so that, inter alia, the accession countries have the greatest possible legal certainty at an early stage;

1.5

sees major opportunities for the continued development of the audiovisual sector in ongoing technical innovations (e.g. flat-screen televisions), and stresses the need to reflect that in the future framework;

1.6

endorses — and underscores — in essence the Commission's principles for a regulatory framework in the audiovisual sector;

1.7

shares in essence the positive assessment of the Television without Frontiers directive (TVWF directive) as a sound and secure legal framework for television services within the Community that has, essentially, ensured the free movement of television broadcasting services within the Community, and draws attention to its opinion on the subject (CdR 90/2003 fin);

1.8

stresses the importance of the country of origin principle as a basic tenet of the single market in the audiovisual sector, but also shares the concerns expressed during the consultation exercise that, given the diversity of national laws, broadcasters might seek out whichever Member State has the least stringent legislation;

1.9

shares the Commission's view that a thorough revision of the TVWF directive might be necessary in order to take account of changes;

1.10

in the light of the developments and changes that have taken place on the audiovisual market in the meantime, would have welcomed therefore a Commission initiative for a speedy and comprehensive reworking of the TVWF directive into a coherent European legal framework for the dissemination of audiovisual content, which could provide for differing degrees of regulation for the services subject to the TVWF directive and for information society services;

1.11

considers that further issues relating to the application of TVWF directive must not be addressed through interpretative communications but through a speedy reworking of the directive itself in order to achieve the requisite legal certainty;

1.12

stresses the importance of safeguarding competition rules in audiovisual policy;

1.13

underscores the responsibility for the maintenance and further development of media pluralism in Europe, the EU Member States and the European regions;

1.14

stresses the need for a legal framework for information society services such as e-commerce and access to new services and, since differing degrees of regulation are required, is pleased that the Commission has no intention of calling the distinction between information society services and services subject to the TVWF directive into question;

1.15

stresses the need for a consumer-friendly switch-over from analogue to digital broadcasting and draws attention to its opinion on the subject (CdR 308/2003 fin);

1.16

stresses the tremendous importance of the right to information as a personal right enjoyed by European citizens, and is pleased that, as part of the consultation exercise, the Commission addresses the question of the right to information on events of major importance for society and considers that the issue needs further attention;

1.17

underscores the key role of regional film support, and firmly believes that regional and local audiovisual production is becoming more important, and, together with national output, provides a counterbalance to non-European productions;

1.18

underscores the need for action to promote European works, and considers that support for the inclusion of such works by independent producers in the programme schedules does much to promote a diverse European audiovisual landscape and is also a particularly appropriate way of safeguarding and highlighting Europe's diverse regional and local heritage; it does not feel, however, that the quota rule in place up to now does adequate justice to this objective;

1.19

underscores the need for balanced qualitative and quantitative rules on advertising;

1.20

welcomes the Commission's readiness to review the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity;

1.21

considers that the right of reply is a key element in protecting human rights and freedom of expression, and welcomes the plan to extend that right to all media;

1.22

welcomes the Commission's intention to update the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity, with the focus on media literacy, right of reply, and measures against discrimination or incitement to hatred in all online media;

1.23

recognises the need for co- and self-regulation models in the individual Member States, which provide scope for reflecting distinctive national and regional features; at the same time, however, it also backs the plan to draw up a study of co-regulatory models in the media sector in order to examine their effect and compatibility with the European legal framework;

1.24

underscores the need for the Community to continue to comprehensively safeguard the European audiovisual model at international level too, not least in the WTO negotiations.

2.1

recommends the rapid revision and reworking of the TVWF directive in order to put in place the requisite legal certainty, particularly for the accession countries, and to adapt the directive to ongoing technical developments;

2.2

recommends that, in the reworking of the TVWF directive and the other general conditions governing the audiovisual sector, account should be taken of – and support given to – the key role of the audiovisual media and productions in the development and growth of regional and local identity. Accordingly, the heavy concentration of this industry must also be contained and/or compensated for at national and international level;

2.3

recommends that, in the light of increasing media convergence, the legal framework should be divided up according to production content, regardless of the technical platform involved;

2.4

advocates maintaining the current qualitative rules on advertising, particularly in relation to the protection of children and minors and the distinction between advertising and editorial content;

2.5

would recommend, however, that, bearing in mind increasing user choice and control, further consideration be given to making the quantative rules on advertising more flexible, not least against the backdrop of EU enlargement, in order to send out a signal calling for less red tape;

2.6

recommends that the advertising rules should also apply to the new techniques such as split-screen, virtual and interactive advertising, and that appropriate provisions should be introduced to maintain the clear distinction between editorial content and advertising, thereby clarifying the legal position regarding the use of advertising techniques of this kind;

2.7

welcomes the fact that more and more related regulatory areas such as competition policy, copyright protection and consumer protection are also being considered within the purview of audiovisual policy and the TVWF directive, and recommends that future legislation should increasingly reflect these interrelations;

2.8

stresses that, particularly with ten new Member States joining the Union, action must be taken to ensure that the rules on the protection of minors and human rights are consistently applied across the entire audiovisual sector;

2.9

recommends therefore that, in the proposal announced in the communication to update the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity, greater efforts should be made to put in place efficient self- and co-regulation tools, including making greater use of exchange of best practice and network cooperation, particularly in the digital and online environment;

2.10

recommends that the proposal announced in the communication should attach particular importance to promoting media literacy since, as the Commission rightly notes, ‘to know where to find information and how to interpret it nowadays represents an essential skill’, and that this necessary proposal promoting media literacy should cover all the languages of the European Union, ensuring a minimum level of representation and information content for each of them;

2.11

supports safeguarding the right to information, including information in relation to events that are subject to exclusive rights and events of major importance for society; the CoR underscores its view that the rules for the broadcasting of major events on free-to-air television should be flexible, bearing in mind the specific linguistic features of each individual country, and that consideration should be given to drawing up a European list of major events; the CoR also recommends establishing, at European level, a right to short television reports on information of general interest;

2.12

recommends, that, given the healthy development of the European market in audiovisual content, further consideration should be given to promoting European cinema and television films not, as now, under the quota arrangements set out in Articles 4 und 5 of the TVWF directive, but rather by providing more backing to production and distribution through support programmes; it stresses its view that, when assessing these works, particular consideration should be given to preserving European culture and to the impact on regional policy and the economy; to this end a specific support programme should be developed for production and distribution of a regional nature and/or using different European languages;

2.13

reiterates its recommendation that, given the investments required for the transition to digital production and dissemination, and the fact that local and regional television broadcasting produces much of its own material, possibilities for supporting regional and local television services should be encouraged or permitted so as to ensure cultural and regional diversity when television goes digital; to this end it is proposed that priority be given to supporting investment in the digitalisation of regional audiovisual services;

2.14

advocates that the review of the TVWF directive should also ensure that public service broadcasting is able to fulfil its remit in line with Member State rules; it also advocates support for public-service operators providing regional coverage.

22.12.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/30

1)

Whereas the second phase of the European Refugee Fund should be a more effective and important instrument for achieving the main objectives set for it, i.e. the sharing of responsibilities between Member States and the implementation of a common asylum policy in all the Member States,

2)

Whereas, in order to achieve the stated objectives, it is necessary that the Fund be guaranteed adequate appropriations throughout its period of operation, taking special account of EU enlargement and the needs of all the new Member States,

1.1

approves the Commission proposal as amended below;

1.2

appreciates the work done by the Commission, Member States, local and regional authorities, organisations, refugees themselves and other parties to achieve the goals set for the first phase of the European Refugee Fund;

1.3

appreciates the Commission's work to draw up a new proposal and believes the Commission has succeeded in taking into account a substantial part of the results of the evaluation of the first phase and the assessments of the various parties concerned;

1.4

thinks that the principle of shared responsibility between Member States and the arrangements proposed for implementing it are fair;

1.5

considers that the proposed fixed amount of appropriations which is to be earmarked for implementing actions in Member States and the amount to be set aside for technical and administrative assistance are the absolute minimum levels needed to ensure that all Member States can participate in the programme and develop their national systems to bring them into line with the general European level; stresses that particularly local players in the Member States that took part in the first phase of the European Refugee Fund need further training and guidance in order to be able to implement high-quality projects;

1.6

feels that it is important to ensure that all people enjoying international protection in the Member States are covered by the Fund's activities, regardless of the national procedure under which they entered the Member State; also believes it is important to take special account of the needs of the most vulnerable refugees in implementing the programme. The most vulnerable groups include, for example, unaccompanied minors, single mothers or single women (women at risk), victims of torture, abuse or other inhuman and degrading treatment and people in need of special medical treatment;

1.7

endorses the comprehensive approach to asylum policy proposed by the Commission whereby the Fund can be used to support the improvement of the conditions of asylum seekers and promote integration and returns, whilst taking into consideration local, regional and national circumstances;

1.8

considers it important to fund Community actions and emergency measures, in addition to national measures. Community actions could become an important instrument for strategic planning and development at European level if they are used to foster wide-ranging practical projects at political level and local and regional level in such a way that they complement each other. An adequate proportion of the Fund's resources must be earmarked for Community actions, with due regard for their complementarity and transparency in their implementation;

1.9

emphasises that the effects of the reception of asylum seekers and refugees are most evident at local level in the communities which receive these groups and urges that local and regional authorities be involved in such decisions on reception and integration in their communities;

1.10

draws attention to the fact that promoting integration is a key issue for a European refugee and asylum policy based on respect for human rights and success is this regard is crucial for the continued balanced development of local communities;

1.11

stresses the right of everyone to voluntary repatriation in safety and dignity;

1.12

supports the Commission's efforts to improve the strategic planning of the programme through multiannual programming;

1.13

emphasises that strategic planning must take place openly in a genuine partnership between the Commission and Member States, regardless of whether it concerns national measures, Community actions or emergency measures;

1.14

draws particular attention to the key role of local and regional players as regards the responsibility they bear in the reception of asylum seekers and refugees and in actions promoting integration; consequently regrets that the Commission proposal does not provide for sufficiently wide consultation of local and regional authorities in planning the implementation of the programme and taking decisions on its funding. The proposal does not do enough to ensure that local and regional players have an opportunity to participate in developing good practice in connection with Community actions.