20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/1

1.

WHEREAS the key yardstick for the Committee's assessment continues to be the objective set out in Article 158 of the EC Treaty. Strengthening economic and social cohesion in order to promote the overall harmonious development of the Community and reducing differences between regions particularly in respect of reducing the development shortfalls of the most disadvantaged areas, will make a significant contribution to strengthening the role of regional and local authorities in Europe, and contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon and Goteborg agendas;

2.

WHEREAS Article III-220 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe strengthens the cohesion objective by introducing a territorial dimension, ‘In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its action leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion’;

3.

WHEREAS enlargement has produced additional demands for cohesion in Europe that will require long-term and persistent efforts.

1.

Holds that according to Art. 158 of the European Union Treaty the regional dimension of the cohesion policy is all important and it has to be strengthened after the enlargement in order to promote the harmonious development of the European Union.

2.

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

3.

Accepts the European Commission financial proposals allocating EUR 336.1 billion to cohesion policy and the distribution of this amount amongst the three objectives. It considers the Commission's funding proposal to be adequate for continuing to aid regions in the EU15 and at the same time supporting the new Member States on an equal footing, if the resources are distributed fairly and focused on solving the most serious problems. This proposal is accepted for the time being under the express condition that the Commission and the Member States will seek to secure a reasonable increase, in view of the new requirements due to the Enlargement.

4.

Considers that any reduction of the budget proposed by the E.C in whatever form will put in danger the basics of the Cohesion Policy and consequently undermine the principle of solidarity that represents after all a distinct and essential element of the identity of European integration.

5.

Consequently rejects any attempted budgetary adjustments of the amounts proposed by the Commission in terms of allocation of funds between objectives.

6.

Re-emphasises the inextricable linkage between an effective European-wide regional policy and the implementation of the Lisbon-Goteborg agenda. Future EU growth and competitiveness across all regions of Europe will be promoted by a continuation of EU cohesion policy involving all the regions, rather by a re-nationalisation of this policy; EU competitiveness depends on the competitiveness of each region.

7.

Warns that delays to the start of the programming period as a result of protracted negotiations on the financial perspectives will lead to financial disruption and instability across the local and regional authorities of the EU.

8.

Approves the concentration of resources and priorities on the three objectives (Convergence, regional Competitiveness and Employment and Territorial Cooperation). This will improve the internal coherence, in terms of coordination between the Structural Funds at Community level and coordination with specific sectoral European policies, and external coherence, in terms of link between the different action levels (local, regional, national and European).

9.

Welcomes the fact that the Cohesion Fund will apply to Member States with GNI lying bellow 90 % of the Community average. A political solution should be sought for Member States that will no longer be eligible as a result of enlargement.

10.

Welcomes the proposal that Structural Funds support under the ‘Convergence Objective’ be focused on sustainable regional and local economic development.

11.

Welcomes the proposal of the Commission to find a solution for the regions affected by the so-called statistical effect within the new Convergence Objective. However, the relevant provision in the draft regulation does not go far enough, as it offers no planning certainty with regard to the scale of the support and the application of the rules governing aid.

12.

Approves the Commission's proposal to create a ‘Competitiveness and Employment’ Objective for all the regions that do not fall under the Convergence Objective; special attention could be devoted to regions with serious socio-economic problems and significant need for structural adaptation: these regions should be defined according to unique criteria; it also approves the fact that this new objective is to apply to the regional level as a whole.

13.

Agrees that the regions totally covered by Objective 1 in 2006 and not eligible under the Convergence Objective, be classed as ‘phasing in’ regions and continue to benefit from the Structural Funds so that they are involved in the pursuit of the regional competitiveness and employment objective on fair and equitable terms.

14.

Expresses appreciation for the creation of a specific ‘Territorial Cooperation Objective’ and the mainstreaming of transnational, cross-border and network cooperation but also demands to include interregional co-operation as an independent strands in the new objective. This objective must place special emphasis on disseminating innovation and best practices in order to promote competitiveness in the EU.

15.

Agrees that the support of the Funds takes into account the territorial dimension of Europe, with a special emphasis on the reinvigoration of urban areas, regions dependent on fishing, regions that present particular geographical and natural handicaps (islands, sparsely populated areas, mountain and border regions) and the outermost regions.

16.

Welcomes the newly proposed Neighbourhood Instrument as an instrument that reinforces the vision for a Common European house and invites the European Commission to make clear proposals for the coordination between this instrument and the objective of territorial cooperation, in order to maximise mutual synergies.

17.

Points out that it is necessary to re-think certain trans-national spaces in order to take into account the new political geography of Europe in view of the future enlargement, and proposes retaining those transnational cooperation zones from the present 2000-2006 period which have met Community requirements of consistency and efficiency and have served to develop the common interests and opportunities of the regions covered by them.

18.

Welcomes the integration of the gender perspective during all the stages of the programming, implementation, and evaluation of the Funds.

19.

Appreciates the efforts made towards simplifying the administration, improving transparency and management of the Funds governed by the General Regulation and urges that the same approach be taken for the implementing provisions to be adopted by the Commission.

20.

Supports the proposals for strengthening partnership and cooperation between local, regional, national and Community authorities, as well as with private and social actors, in the whole programming, implementation and evaluation process for the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund.

21.

Is in favour of the introduction of the strategic approach in the programming system because it leads to a new political process that will have the capacity to raise both the quality of the planning and the effectiveness and efficiency of the management. At the same time, it offers the opportunity for better coordination between the national strategies and the strategic objectives of cohesion policy.

22.

Considers that the introduction of the national strategic reference frameworks will transfer management responsibilities to the managing authorities of the operational programmes and consequently estimates that the role of the regional and local authorities in all phases of the cohesion policy can be further strengthened.

23.

Recognises that the addition of new exceptions regarding the application of rule N+2 increases the flexibility and helps the regions especially those of the new Member States to absorb in a timely and orderly manner the cohesion policy funds although it considers that the Commission should undertake more efforts to attain greater flexibility.

24.

Points out that simplification is not only a matter of decentralisation, but also a question of greater accountability of the system as a whole. The Committee of the Regions underlines the importance for the partnership principle and the involvement of elected representatives from local and regional authorities and calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to make use of the possibility for concluding tripartite agreements, where necessary.

25.

Supports the Commission's effort to reinforce the principle of subsidiarity. In the efforts of simplification, the Committee of the Regions would therefore like to stress the importance not to increase the centralisation at the Member State level. It is important to secure the process of subsidiarity as well at local and regional level. The objective must not be to only hand over responsibility to the Member States, but to engage relevant actors at the appropriate stage of the implementation of the cohesion policy objectives. Therefore, wishes to see the subsidiarity principle applied within Member States and not just between the Member States and the European Union.

26.

Considers that the deeper involvement of regional and local authorities in all the phases of the next programming period will positively contribute to the resolution of the problems of absorption that appeared in the current programming period.

27.

Calls on the European Commission to provide a supportive framework for territorial differentiation in the State Aid rules and regulations, to allow for targeted public investment, especially where this can correct real market failure in order to achieve the territorial cohesion objective.

28.

Proposes that some very sparsely populated regions will be treated as a special case with due regard to the seriousness of the prevailing conditions, as stated in the Accession Treaties of Sweden and Finland.

29.

Considers that the proposal on the implementation of the European Territorial cooperation Objective should be expressed more clearly. Considerable efforts should be made to simplify administrative formalities especially in the case of support programmes, which are administered on both sides of borders, since highly complex EU legal and administrative provisions have considerably hampered cross-border cooperation thus far.

30.

Appreciates the inclusion of maritime borders for the purpose of territorial cooperation, and demands that the limit of 150 km should be interpreted in a flexible manner, in order to permit meaningful cooperation between regions that have common sea borders.

31.

Suggests that in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of interregional cooperation, the regional programmes cover a full range of strategic themes presenting added value at European level and sufficient financial resources.

32.

Welcomes the attention given by the Commission to strengthening social inclusion and calls for more measures able to respond to the needs of the people with disabilities.

33.

Considers that greater attention should be given to issues relating to the ageing population, which is one of the greatest challenges facing Europe over the coming decades.

34.

Strongly recommends that future programmes financed by the Structural Funds cover such issues as urban renewal, social deprivation, economic restructuring and public transport all of which tend to concentrate in metropolitan regions. The Structural Funds must support sustainable development in cities.

35.

Is concerned about establishing the rate of Community co-financing in relation to the total public expenditure, as this might discourage private sector participation in programmes. Therefore, it proposes to calculate the contribution from the Funds in relation to the total national expenditure, as an essential tool to reinforce private-public partnerships.

36.

Urges that the Committee of the Regions is actively consulted through participation at the Spring European Council's annual examination of competitiveness and cohesion agendas. This would provide local and regional authorities with opportunities to bring forward issues and good practice as required for improved functioning of the open method of coordination in the implementation of Lisbon and Goteborg agendas.

37.

Argues that the national strategic reference framework should be a concise strategic document, leaving sufficient scope for the operational programmes led by the regions to determine the specific objectives and actions for each region. In addition, it is important to ensure that the document does not delay the procedure for approving the operational programmes or create further constraints on their implementation.

38.

Asks the Commission to maintain the current system for the performance reserve.

39.

Proposes to look into a system where only reimbursable VAT would not be eligible for contribution within ERDF, similar to what the Commission has already proposed for the ESF. At present, this creates concrete costs for actions at local and regional level. As the VAT is an income for the State, a model should be identified in order to remove the negative impact on local and regional level.

40.

Considers that the N+2 rule continues to have a negative impact in the beginning of the programming period, especially in the case of the territorial cooperation objective, as well as significant investment projects that do not reach the threshold amount of major projects. This impact could be considerably reduced if an increase in the payment on account not subject to automatic decommitment were provided for.

41.

Demands that the operational programmes, priorities and measures make clear references to binding environmental commitments.

42.

Holds that cohesion policy should promote a spatial development policy able to take into account the existing transeuropean cooperation structures and the perspectives of cooperation under common territorial characteristics.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/19

1.

in response to the heightened regional imbalances in the Union stemming from enlargement in May 2004, a new and greater commitment has been made to meet the challenges of convergence, competitiveness and employment, and European territorial cooperation by means of both specific cohesion policy instruments, geared to the new cohesion policy objectives for 2007-2013, and a combination of all Community funds available for this purpose, based on those under the CAP and fisheries policies;

2.

these cohesion policies for the 2007-2013 period must be designed and pursued consistently and in line with the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies, which have the aim of building a knowledge-based society in the Union under the banner of sustainable development. Responsibility for these strategies has so far fallen primarily to the individual Member States and for this reason have not yet been systematically built into the procedures for the integrated implementation of other Union policies;

3.

to this end the National Strategic Framework and the operational programmes should be consistent with the strategic guidelines for cohesion adopted by the Council, thus ensuring that Community priorities are adequately taken into account;

4.

the demands of simplification have resulted in monofund programmes, with the exception of certain categories of action where both the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund may contribute to a single programme;

5.

in this way the requirement for integration between the various programmes and funds and for coordination between cohesion policy and other Union policies is both confirmed and, where possible, strengthened;

6.

within this architecture, determined by the general regulation, the role of the ERDF may be significantly boosted as a benchmark for linking the Union's different policies and programmes in pursuit of the objectives of convergence, competitiveness and employment, and territorial cooperation;

7.

the architecture, as reflected in the proposal for a general regulation and the proposal for a regulation on the ERDF, also assigns the task of ensuring that such links and simplifications are carried out mostly to the Member States and, where stipulated by the relevant constitutional provisions, to the regions;

8.

the Commission's proposals give greater importance than in the past to local communities, particularly urban ones, albeit within operational programmes on a regional scale. The possibility of delegating the global grant instrument to them is explicitly included, as has been successfully tried out in practice through the Urban Community initiative and as is laid down in Article 36(4)(b) and Article 41 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the funds;

9.

maintaining and reconciling multiple objectives (alignment of Member States' regional policies with European strategies, subsidiarity, simplification, optimisation of financial resources, etc.) entails a broader mobilisation of all official players, ranging from the European Commission down to local authorities within an environment increasingly geared to multilevel governance. It also entails the adoption of measures which can — potentially in advance-foster greater vision and programming capacity, together with enhanced management and monitoring skills of all the official players involved, commensurate with their respective roles. At the same time, the social partners must be encouraged to contribute actively to the proposal and to vigilance;

10.

it therefore essential that no part of the package of regulations governing cohesion policy for the 2007-2013 period, and in this particular case the regulation governing the ERDF, contain any scope for misinterpretation or any loopholes, and that it make a precise distinction between the roles of the different public players, accompanying the referral to national legislation with a strong reference to the third party principle which must be applied to each official player, starting with the Commission, with respect to the next link in the institutional chain;

1.1

expresses first and foremost its firm opposition to any residual attempts to renationalise European regional policy, in view of the added value which Community cohesion programmes bring to the pursuit of the Treaty's objectives;

1.2

reiterates its opinion that the Commission's funding proposal of 0.41 % of gross national income (including rural development and fisheries measures, 0.46 % of GNI) would be an acceptable compromise for future cohesion policy;

1.3

appreciates the consistency of choice demonstrated by confirming the priority of developing the less favoured regions of the enlarged EU and raising funding for operations in these sectors accordingly;

1.4

urges the Member States to adopt, on behalf of so-called ‘phasing in’ regions, and within the national strategic framework, adequately funded measures that effectively meet the challenges of competition and the process of convergence;

1.5

appreciates the efforts made to simplify the funds' administration and management, despite persistent doubts regarding their efficacy;

1.6

welcomes both the new architecture, one of the effects of which is to raise territorial cooperation to the status of third objective of cohesion policy, accompanied in practice by substantial financial resources, and the content of the actions to be financed under the draft ERDF regulation, these proposed actions being linked to the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. It wishes in particular to emphasise the relevance of the proposed options:

1.7

regrets that, as was also recommended in the European Parliament report on cohesion policy, interregional cooperation will not remain a separate financing strand under the territorial cooperation objective;

1.8

is impressed by the Commission's open-mindedness regarding the territorial dimension of cohesion, reflected in the case-by-case approach to territories with highly specific problems (urban and rural areas, islands and mountain areas, areas dependent on fisheries, the outermost regions, sparsely populated areas, (Nordic areas in particular) and regions bordering the new Member States and on the new external borders). It is particularly pleased that European economic and social cohesion is considered crucial to sustainable growth, since it believes that Europe's future cannot be planned while there are still abandoned rural areas or areas excluded from the opportunities provided by the internal market. The steps to provide appropriate support for these and the outermost regions natural handicap, as defined in the Treaty, to compensate them for the specific obstacles to their development and to secure full access to the internal market are welcomed regrets, however, that greater attention is not given to issues relating to the ageing population, which is one of the greatest challenges facing Europe over the coming decades;

1.9

notes, nevertheless, that recitals (1 and 10) of the proposal under consideration recognise only ‘certain islands’ as facing handicaps. This contradicts provisions under Declaration No. 30, annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty and sanctioned under Article III-220 of the Draft European Constitution. The Committee considers that the above-mentioned recitals should show greater consistency in law and of interpretation, particularly in the light of Article 52(1) a) of the proposal for a general regulation. Similar considerations apply to mountain and border regions, in the light of Article III-116 of the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and Article 52 of the proposal for a general regulation;

1.10

notes that under the new Community policy approach, there is a recognition that the regions and local authorities are not only the most appropriate level for taking regional and cohesion policy decisions but also the most efficient level for ensuring their delivery, as argued by the European associations of regions and local authorities at the Leipzig Conference (May 2003). Greater involvement of grassroots levels is essential to enhance the visibility of the Community's activities among its citizens and to ensure greater effectiveness and simplification of Community interventions;

1.11

believes however that the partnership between regional and local authorities must be strengthened, particularly with urban authorities, by focusing on joint objectives, and that this partnership must be deepened in appropriate ways according to national rules and existing practice;

1.12

welcomes the fact that greater resources may be earmarked for targeted, high quality actions in urban areas — which is where in practice the greatest capacity for innovation and opportunity for social inclusion is to be found — within the framework of operational programmes to be managed under sub-delegation procedures as set out in Article 36(4)(b) of the draft general regulation on the Structural Funds;

1.13

recommends that the process of adopting the entire Structural Funds package be completed with care before 1 January 2007, in order to provide the national implementing bodies with sufficient time to prepare the new operational programmes, and also to provide the appropriate Commission bodies with enough time to verify the management capacity of such bodies.

2.1

that the text of Article 1, second paragraph should also include areas with demographic handicaps;

2.2

that the text of Article 3 include types of investments for cultural assets (in line with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 8(1), investments for buildings and equipment for training activities and active employment policy, and types of operating expenditure for such training and active employment policy activities, insofar as they may be covered by the ERDF;

2.3

that consistency between regional policy goals and specific measures for some types of territories be improved;

2.4

adding to the introduction of Article 5 that, under the ‘regional competitiveness and employment objective’, assistance provided by the ERDF must allow for greater flexibility in setting priorities for the so-called ‘phasing in’ regions;

2.5

that in Article 5(3)(a) cabotage and cross connections by air between Class I and II airports be added; and in addition to regional, local and interregional inland waterways, maritime routes connecting islands and, in particular, smaller islands be added;

2.6

citing cooperation between maritime regions under Article 6(1) and (2), specifying in both cases that the maritime cooperation in question may be either bilateral or multilateral;

2.7

adding volcanic eruptions, and forest fires, together with the ensuing deforestation, to the natural disasters listed under Article 6(2)(c), without prejudice to the provisions of Article 33(1), of the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund — COM(2004) 492 final;

2.8

that the areas referred to in Article 4(3) be included among the priorities set out in Article 6;

2.9

that the term ‘VAT’ in Article 7(a) be replaced by ‘reimbursable VAT’ as in Article 11 of the draft regulation on the ESF and in the current programming cycle;

2.10

that the term ‘housing’ in Article 7(d) be replaced by ‘housing, with certain exceptions, restricted to the convergence objective, including categories of operations of social relevance such as residential homes for the vulnerable and temporary accommodation for non-EU immigrants’;

2.11

concerning the final paragraph of Article 9, that the general guidelines and criteria according to which the Member States and the regions are to ensure complementarity and coherence between actions co-financed by the ERDF and those co-financed by the ESF, EAFRD and EFF and ensure in itinere and ex post checks, be included within the national reference framework referred to in Article 25 of the draft general regulation;

2.12

that careful consideration to be given to the impact of including the ERDF in the more general framework of reform proposals concerning provisions on the Structural Funds in terms of social benefits and the promotion of actions on behalf of disadvantaged sectors of society (persons with a disability, persons at risk of social exclusion, etc.);

2.13

emphasis be given to the potential of structural funds to promote integration in multicultural and multilingual areas.

3.1

appreciates the decision to include European territorial cooperation as a priority of the EU's cohesion policy;

3.2

welcomes the recognition of the maritime borders within the framework of cross-border cooperation, as explicitly recommended in its earlier opinion CdR 120/2004 final; and emphasises, in particular, the importance of such cooperation to integrating the outermost regions in the surrounding area in a realistic way;

3.3

points out that since the European grouping of cross-border cooperation (EGCC) (COM(2004) 496 final) also addresses transnational, and not only cross-border, cooperation programmes, the instrument's title should be amended to reflect its all-embracing character: ‘European grouping of trans-European cooperation’.

4.1

enhancing the experience of existing regional, city and local authority networks that have proved successful and supporting the establishment of new networks for inter-regional cooperation and European territorial cooperation;

4.2

clarifying responsibilities, procedures and timetables for the preparation of programmes, especially cross-border and transnational ones, and for their submission to the European Commission;

4.3

also including Objective 3 in the national strategic framework and so reaffirming the Member States' commitment to supporting territorial cooperation programmes and ensuring procedures that adequately secure national co-financing and guarantee greater coherence for actions in the sphere of:

4.4

assessing how to strengthen — in compliance with the objectives of territorial cooperation, as defined in the relevant national strategic reference frameworks under Article 25 of the ERDF regulation, — the active participation of local and regional communities in the development and implementation of programmes;

4.5

determining the procedures, criteria and timetables under which the Commission is to allocate resources and adopt programmes;

4.6

clarifying the identity of the beneficiary (Articles 16 and 21) and the related requirements as well as the position and functions of the certification authority;

4.7

making provision for the operations covered by Article 19 may, on occasion, be carried out within a single Member State, provided they comply with at least of the four ways set out in the article.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/35

1.1

welcomes the framework proposal of the European Commission for the regulations of structural funds for the period 2007-2013;

1.2

is convinced that, taking into account the enlargement of the Union to 25 Member States and subsequently to 27, 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 the minimum compromise for future cohesion policy;

1.3

is pleased that the scope of assistance from the cohesion fund has considered the support of projects that present environmental benefits, namely energy efficiency and renewable energy and, in the transport sector outside the trans-European networks, rail, river and sea transport, intermodal transport systems and their interoperability, management of road and air traffic, clean urban transport and public transport;

1.4

welcomes the fact that the cohesion fund will apply to member States with GNP lying below 90 % of the Community average. A political solution should be sought for Member States that will no longer be eligible as a result of enlargement;

1.5

is of the view that the Member States beneficiaries of the Cohesion Fund should not be penalised with the suspension of the financial assistance of the Cohesion Fund when in accordance with Article 104 (6) of the Treaty the excessive public deficit exists in a beneficiary Member State;

1.6

trusts that the European Commission will clarify whether the suspension, if it exists, refers only to new projects to be approved after 1 January of the year following the decision;

1.7

is convinced that the European Commission has to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of considering the same general regulations for both the ERDF and the ESF and for the Cohesion Fund. The explanatory memorandum presented does not clarify this opinion of the Commission's proposal. The CoR considers that a cost-benefit analysis of this change on Cohesion Fund regulations should be provided;

1.8

trusts that the European Commission has a reason to change from a project-by-project (Article 1 paragraph 3 of EC No. 1164/ 94 — regulation of current Cohesion Fund) analysis to a program analysis (last paragraph of point 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum of document COM(2004) 492 final — regulation for structural funds) of the proposals of the Member States receiving support from the Cohesion Fund. This method is going to be completely different from the one that is being used now. The European Commission should justify this change according to the results of an evaluation, which should be carried out, for the current Cohesion Fund.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/38

1)

liberalisation of the transport sector has been one of the key objectives of the EU and its Member States, particularly since the adoption of the Lisbon Agenda in 2000;

2)

transport policy, in particular, is one of the priority areas of the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and also of the Committee of the Regions, as a whole, as has been demonstrated by a large number of its opinions on this subject, in particular the opinion prepared by Mr Lamberti on the initial draft of the Directive on port services. The CoR thus underlines the fundamental contribution made by EU transport policy to the achievement of cohesion in an enlarged and even more diverse European Union;

3)

in the next few years the EU will have to contend with a considerable growth in demand for transport services. This increase, arising, inter alia, as a result of economic growth, the enlargement of the EU and the stepping-up of trade relations, will, moreover, affect freight traffic to a considerable extent;

4)

in view of the fact that capacity is likely to be overloaded, above all as regards road transport infrastructure, it is therefore essential that considerable efforts be made to channel traffic flows and to extend transport infrastructure. The environmentally friendly maritime transport sector will play a key role in this respect as, in view of its potential capacity, it can help to transfer freight transport from the roads and to bring about more sustainable transport development. The establishment and extension of an effective intermodal transport network will have a decisive impact on coastal regions, port regions and hinterland areas and consequently also on port industries in these areas and the enterprises involved in maritime transport. It may be assumed that this positive impact on the internal market as a whole will also be clearly visible in areas such as the Baltic region;

5)

the establishment of efficient transport systems is a prerequisite for the achievement of the goal of making the EU competitive at international level. Reliable basic conditions have to be established in order to provide incentives for a further bolstering of investment in the transport sector. With this aim in view, EU law will have to comply with the principles of effective competition and free access to markets and also meet requirements in respect of security of investment, adequate safety provisions, socially acceptable working conditions and a high level of environmental standards;

6)

cargo handling costs in EU ports are substantially lower than the equivalent costs in North America and Asia; it is thus vital for the measures to be taken to help bring about an improvement in the competitiveness and the efficiency of EU ports to be discussed, on the basis of an analysis of the shortcomings of the current situation. No such analysis is however as yet available;

7)

attention should also be drawn to the fact that effective complex structures have been established in recent decades, particularly in ports but also in the field of maritime transport. This development has helped to ensure that many of the enterprises established or operating in the EU and its ports are already amongst the most profitable and most competitive in the world. Changes to the basic legal conditions should therefore take adequate account of their impact on structural interdependences within the transport sector and interdependence between this sector and the other branches of the economy. The Commission has also recognised the complex nature of these structures by making provision for considerable financial outlay in order to establish effective, competitive transport systems, such as ‘short sea shipping’ and the ‘motorways of the sea’;

8)

it is essential to adopt a sensitive approach when organising deregulation — which is indisputably necessary — in the field of maritime transport and port services. The requisite transitional provisions should — also on employment grounds — strive to avoid placing enterprises established in or operating in the EU at a disadvantage — however temporary — vis-à-vis other world market players and to avoid bringing about upheavals in the EU;

9)

a comparison of the situation at worldwide level demonstrates that, in respect of both maritime transport and port services, basic conditions with regard to competition policy and competition law differ to a very considerable extent. Industrial policy considerations should therefore play a role when determining the extent, scope and speed of market liberalisation within the EU. Such considerations have up to now been totally disregarded. Complementary employment policy measures should also be put in place to minimise possible negative, short-term impacts of liberalisation;

1.1

endorses the Commission's desire to establish a special Community framework for port services. This endorsement is all the stronger in view of the fact that ports are to be found in 20 of the now 25 EU Member States;

1.2

welcomes the fact that in the Proposal for a Directive, the Commission sets out its fundamental objectives of ensuring competition and efficiency in the port sector. Where inefficiencies exist, the instruments of liberalisation, freedom of access to the markets and transparency can help to achieve these objectives;

1.3

agrees with the Commission that, in addition to the application of the transparency Directive to port enterprises, it is also essential to adopt aid guidelines in respect of port investment which are clear and transparent, on the one hand, but also flexible, on the other hand, in order to ensure continuing fair and efficient competition in the port sector;

1.4

is pleased that the Commission is making it possible for publicly-owned ports to provide port services in the interests of promoting effective competition;

1.5

does, however, regret that only a short time after the failure of its initial attempt to secure approval of its proposals, the Commission is now submitting a further proposal for a Directive, setting out stricter provisions in a number of key regulatory areas, without having carried out the requisite analyses. The new proposal for a Directive contains a large number of amendments based, for the most part, on the initial draft, which was rejected by both the Council and the European Parliament; some of these amendments clearly fall short of the results of the conciliation process;

1.6

deplores the lack of adequate consideration of the prevailing market structure with regard to European ports and port services. There is, in reality, a high degree of competition between individual ports in the EU, with the result that only those ports which are efficient and provide good value for money are able to stand up to the competition in the EU;

1.7

concludes that, as a result of the intense competition between ports, the only services which will be able to operate successfully within ports are those which are based on efficient and inexpensive production methods. As inefficient providers of port services have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of the overall operation of individual ports, competition between ports will oblige such service providers to improve their productivity;

1.8

regrets the failure to take adequate account of the fact that competition is not confined solely to activities within ports; whole transport networks are also in competition with one another. Interventions in one component area of these transport networks — in this case ports — have an impact on the whole logistics chain in hinterland transport. The new proposal for a Directive therefore, in reality, regulates far more than simply access to port services. These proposals would have unforeseeable consequences in the field of logistics;

1.9

fears that there will be a drop in the number of active providers of port services in the EU if the proposal for a Directive is implemented in its current form. The possibility cannot be excluded that a small number of service providers from ports outside the EU, who earn high rates of return on their investments in their own monopolistic home markets, will step up their penetration of key ports in the EU and successfully take part in selection procedures by making high financial bids. This would be the case in particular, when the size of the bid was the only, or the decisive, selection criterion. This would significantly jeopardize the current structure of port industries in the EU, which is characterised by a large number of public and private terminal operators. Were it to be the case that a small number of terminal operators were able, in this way, to control a sizeable share of the market in cargo handling operations at ports, this would lead to the establishment, in the EU too, of monopolistic structures incompatible with the goal of achieving a higher level of competition;

1.10

fears, in addition, that there will be a drop in the level of investment by port-service providers. The proposal for a Directive creates uncertainties with regard to the duration of contracts and compensation which would lead to a considerable decrease in the expected level of amortisation revenue. These uncertainties will also put up the cost of refinancing investments as the banking sector will, in pursuance of the Basel II Requirements, pay greater attention to the risks concerned. Just these two consequences of the proposal for a Directive will result in a considerable reduction in investment incentives;

1.11

identifies an infringement of both the subsidiarity principle, set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, and the principle of proportionality as the proposal for a Directive pays only very scant attention to the fact that, at the level of the Member States, competition has already been liberalised between EU ports. With their existing form and scope, the provisions set out in the proposal for a Directive are therefore not necessary;

1.12

therefore expresses its concern that the measures put forward in the proposal for a Directive will not achieve the Commission's objectives, which are themselves to be explicitly welcomed; it fears that the current trend towards bringing about considerable increases in growth and efficiency at EU ports and in respect of port services is more likely to be damaged by these proposals;

1.13

regards it as appropriate that ports' scope to provide port services themselves is not confined to specific situations but extends across the board. Steps must be taken to ensure that fair and transparent conditions of competition are safeguarded in cases where port authorities themselves are competing with other — private — bidders in selection procedures;

1.14

would add that there are qualitative differences in the various language versions of the proposal for a Directive, thereby making it more difficult to carry out an appraisal of the document;

1.15

fears that the proposed requirements in connection with mandatory authorisation will involve port authorities in a vast amount of red tape, which flies in the face of the goals of a ‘liberalising’ Directive. The proposal for a Directive stipulates that all port services covered by the Directive (technical — nautical services such as pilotage, towing and mooring services, all activities linked to the handling of cargo and passenger services) will, in future, require authorisation. This requirement also covers port services which hitherto did not require authorisation. In future, port authorities would have to issue far more authorisations than had hitherto been the case as, for example, property owners, too, who operate port services on their own property would also need to have an authorisation. Parties carrying out self-handling in respect of cargo and passenger operations (‘self-handlers’) would also need to have an authorisation, although such authorisations could be provided for an unlimited period, albeit only for as long as self-handlers continue to comply with the criteria for issuing such authorisations. Port authorities would also be obliged to monitor authorisations. In addition to checking compliance with the criteria for issuing authorisations, it would also be necessary to carry out checks with regard to compliance with, for example, employment and social provisions, a task which is basically the responsibility of the social partners. In individual cases, these obligations taken overall, could also exceed the capacity of a given port authority;

1.16

believes that it is possible that the proposed mandatory authorisation in the case of property owners will infringe property rights and will also be incompatible with Article 295 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, under which Member States' rules governing the system of property ownership shall not be prejudiced. In the event that property owners see their bids in respect of their own port facilities rejected under a selection procedure and the contract awarded to a third party, such property owners would be unable to provide port facilities any more on their own property. As the port authorities are not the owners of the port areas in question, they would have no right of access to these areas and are therefore not in a position to conclude a contract of lease with a third party, without the agreement of the owner of the property. In particular, the port authority cannot compel the owner of the property to conclude a contract with the third party which has made the successful bid under the selection procedure. Authorisations awarded under such circumstances would therefore be ineffective;

1.17

points out that complications could arise in connection with the proposed selection process. In cases where limitations are imposed, the proposal for a Directive stipulates that the only authorisations which shall remain in force are those which are issued under a selection procedure. All authorisations which had, on the other hand, been properly issued in accordance with current legal provisions would cease to be valid. As the proposed new legislative act would have retroactive effect in this case, port authorities would therefore be required, once the Directive comes into force, to organise selection processes for re-issuing all authorisations, including existing authorisations;

1.18

considers that steps to give Member States sole responsibility for establishing rules on calculating compensation for the residual value of a company run the risk of distorting competition. For example, when calculating compensation it might be possible to provide for (hidden) additional deductions on property rent. Therefore the principle laid down in the Directive to set compensation on the basis of transparent rules established in advance, does not adequately formalise what is required of national rules on calculating compensation. At the same time any Community rules must take into account differences between the respective national depreciation provisions and tax systems so as to avoid causing distortions in competition. In line with these principles, European, rules could for instance make the application of generally applicable national depreciation provisions mandatory. Any divergence should only be allowed if there are suitable grounds for doing so. Moreover, rules on calculating compensation should be made public, or at least the Commission should be notified thereof, in order to promote transparency;

1.19

fears that various individual provisions set out in the proposal for a Directive will result in a reduction in investment; the provisions in question are as follows:

1.20

points to the fact that the lack of transitional provisions will produce considerable legal uncertainty in the case of port-service providers already providing such services. Enterprises which are already active on the market cannot rely on being able to continue their activities in future to the same extent. If a new port-service provider wishes to enter the market in future and if limitations are imposed, the port-service providers which are already active on the market will already have to take part in a selection procedure, thereby running the risk of losing their authorisations. On the one hand, this situation will undermine confidence in existing contracts and, on the other hand, uncertainty as to the continuing existence of authorisations will lead to a significant decrease in the readiness to invest. A one-sided infringement of current contracts will also give rise to the risk of sizeable demands for compensation;

1.21

predicts a decline in the level of attractiveness of EU ports to cruise ships as a result of the restrictions which are to be placed on self-handling operations. Under the proposal for a Directive, self-handling, using the ship's sea-faring crew, would be authorised only in the case of Short Sea Shipping and the Motorways of the Sea operations. International cruise ships would therefore no longer be entitled to carry out on-board checks using their own sea-faring crew;

1.22

fears that the proposed measure whereby self-handlers may use their own land-based personnel will lead to ‘social dumping’, a decline in both the quality and the productivity of port services and conflicts with technical and political safety requirements (ISPS). Moreover, the selection procedure system proposed by the Commission would be undermined if, for example, handling enterprises were to receive authorisations to carry out loading work but were, in reality, not able to use these authorisations because shipping companies carried out self-handling;

1.23

welcomes the flexible nature of the provisions governing pilotage services which enable the Member States to set proper criteria in respect of national conditions for granting authorisation and the selection of service providers. The Committee does, however, wonder whether it is advisable to make it obligatory for the Member States to report to the Commission on measures to improve the effectiveness of pilotage services as, in the case of these services — as is also underlined in the proposal for a Directive itself — the criteria of the safety of maritime transport and personal expertise are the decisive factors.

2.1

considers that the Directive should not be approved in its present form, because it does not promote competition in the port sector, but creates partly unnecessary or inadequate rules which are prejudicial to the interests of, in particular, small and medium-sized port service providers and which encourage social dumping; the Directive thus decreases efficiency of ports and restricts opportunities for them to engage in fair competition. The Commission's stated objectives will not be achieved via this Directive;

2.2

considers it essential to carry out a differentiated analysis of the current situation of the market for port services before organising further consultations. The only way effectively to tackle the danger of having an over-regulated market for port services, with the attendant decrease in competition and drop in the efficiency, is by having a detailed understanding of the existing weaknesses in the key market sectors of the EU port industry;

2.3

is convinced that it is essential to respect existing commitments and provide enterprises which are already active on the market with a guarantee as to their continued existence in order to reduce legal uncertainty. Enterprises which are already active on the market should therefore be exempted from mandatory authorisation for the duration of existing contracts or authorisations; alternatively existing authorisations should remain in force up to the maximum durations laid down in the proposal for a Directive. At the very least, however, appropriate transitional periods should be set, i.e. these periods should be prolonged in order to bring them into line with the objective requirements of the enterprises concerned;

2.4

takes the view that compensation provisions should be introduced in the Member States which would be aligned on the various national depreciation provisions, even after the due expiry of authorisations, and would, at the same time, be geared to the current value of an enterprise on the fictitious assumption that its authorisation is to remain in force. Such a provision would take account of both expenditure, of an investment nature, by the enterprises concerned on organisation, staff and the positioning of the enterprise in the transport network and also of the various basic institutional conditions;

2.5

believes that Community law should specify which factors may or must be taken into consideration in the rules on calculating compensation. However, such rules must take into account differences between the various national depreciation provisions and tax systems;

2.6

advocates that the duration of authorisations be geared to the term of the investments carried out. Furthermore, in the case of long-term investment carried out only in the course of the duration of an authorisation, options should be provided for extending the authorisation. The Committee recommends that at least the time-limit provisions set out in the proposal put forward by the Conciliation Committee of the European Parliament and the Council in respect of Port Package I should be incorporated into the present proposal for a Directive;

2.7

proposes that the mandatory authorisation requirement be replaced by an authorisation requirement which would take effect only in the case of the imposition of a limitation on the number of service providers. This would bring about a considerable saving of resources;

2.8

considers it essential that provision for self-handling be unreservedly restricted to sea-faring crew members of the vessels concerned. In order to avoid ‘social dumping’ and on grounds of safety, Member States should be allowed to restrict self-handling to port-users whose vessels sail under the flag of an EU Member State;

2.9

takes the view that the area of application of the proposal for a Directive should be extended to include access waterways to ports. Rivers and canals which are accessible to maritime transport should also be included in the scope of the Directive, even if they are not used exclusively as access waterways to ports. This proposal is, however, subject to the express proviso that the other recommendations put forward by the Committee of the Regions are implemented. Extending the area of application of the proposal for a Directive without taking account of the other recommendations would, on the other hand, aggravate the problems which have been described;

2.10

strongly supports the Commission's intention to draw up transparent guidelines in respect of the granting of aid to ports;

2.11

believes that the only way to make EU ports more efficient and to increase competitiveness is by taking account of the recommendations put forward by the Committee.

3.1

praises the Commission for its endeavours to carry out a review of Regulation 4056/86, applying the EC competition rules to maritime transport and for its desire, with that aim in view, to make intensive use of and to incorporate in its work the expertise of maritime transport operations and their associations;

3.2

agrees with the Commission that any future provisions will, at any rate after a transitional stage, have to comply, fully and without exception, with the standard conditions set out in Article 81(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

3.3

fully concurs with the Commission in its desire to fully abolish the exclusions in respect of pricing and supply agreements and additional agreements which serve to restrict competition;

3.4

agrees with the Commission that the exclusion of cabotage and tramp services from the competition implementing rules enshrined in Regulation 1/2003 may be repealed as there are actually no obvious valid reasons for maintaining this exclusion. A further reason for repealing these exclusions is the fact that this would be a way of tackling, from the outset, a case of unequal treatment of European operators in respect of competition law, however implausible this case may be;

3.5

welcomes the fact that the White Paper presented by the Commission closely examines the issue of the compatibility of existing provisions with EU competition law; the Committee does however have the impression that there is indeed strong circumstantial evidence that the current provisions are no longer compatible with the provisions of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty; it could, nonetheless be advisable to provide more sound underlying data to back up the conclusions in this regard set out by the Commission. This could provide the Commission with a way of accommodating the reservations expressed by maritime shipping enterprises and also of complying with the requirements of Article 253 of the EC Treaty;

3.6

takes the view that a comprehensive impact analysis has yet to be provided; the Committee is confident that such an analysis will play a key role, at the latest at the stage when concrete regulatory proposals are being drawn up; in this context greater consideration should be paid, in particular, to the impact on trade flows, investment, market shares and consumer prices. The objection that such an analysis would be made more difficult to carry out in view of the fact that, as liner conferences have been in existence for many years, there is a lack of data with regards to competitive market operations, is only partially applicable. The issue at stake here is an area in which any liberalisation drive will have to contend with a sector which was previously highly regulated;

3.7

wonders, in particular, whether any amendments should not also focus more strongly on employment aspects. The Commission points out that there is likely to be a higher level of concentration on the market which would give a boost to innovation. Whilst such a development should be endorsed from the research and industrial policy standpoints, it could, however, have a negative impact on employment in enterprises;

3.8

takes the view that the proposal put forward by the European Liner Affairs Association (ELAA), to continue to make provision for the exchange, on a non-discriminatory basis, of particular data not linked to named enterprises and aggregated with a delay should be examined in a favourable light. In the final analysis, freely available market information may lead to greater transparency and thus also promote competition. A price index accessible to all market participants would be a key component part of the system, the aim being to take over the guideline role played by existing conference tariffs. In this context it is, however, absolutely essential to ensure that effective monitoring takes place and that the measures are confined to the mere exchange of information;

3.9

wishes to stress, that the primary issue at stake here — in addition to the question of the continued existence of particular provisions, where necessary in modified form — is the need to meet the requirements of enterprises which are established and active on the EU market by introducing appropriate and differentiated transitional measures. Such measures should be aligned first and foremost, on the findings of a comprehensive impact analysis. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the fact that, from the outset, Regulation 4056/86 provided absolute exemption from EU competition provisions solely in the case of maritime transport; this sector therefore always had to reckon with the fact that these provisions would be reviewed at a later stage. A demand that the existing provisions continue to be applicable or that transitional measures be introduced can therefore not be based solely on grounds of ensuring legal certainty and protecting confidence. The legislative body should, nonetheless, take account of the fact that the liner conference system has been in existence for many years, that practices are deeply rooted and that business relations have been built around the conference system;

3.10

does not share the view that the provisions set out in Article 2 of Regulation 4056/86, concerning authorisation to conclude technical agreements, should actually be repealed. The objections raised by the Commission, namely that the provisions in question were ‘merely declaratory’, created confusion and were interpreted too broadly by shipowners, would not be resolved by repealing the provisions; this would rather have the effect of strengthening the objections since technical agreements would be authorised even if there were no legal provision to that effect. The absence of express provisions would more likely result in the creation of additional delimitation problems. The Committee is of the opinion that a provision which continues to define, in express terms, the agreements which are authorised may therefore maintain legal certainty and provide guidance. This is also subject to the proviso that Article 2, or the corresponding future provision, is adjusted accordingly, should the way in which the future competition regime is formulated render the hitherto existing provisions invalid. The future provision could be included in the block exemption for consortia (Regulation 823/2000);

3.11

takes the view that global standardisation of the basic legal conditions would appear to be desirable on competition and industrial policy grounds. This observation is all the more apposite in view of the fact that the EU market is henceforth to be liberalised and other shipping nations currently do, to some extent, regulate competition on their markets to a larger degree than is the case with current EU law in respect of the European market;

3.12

draws attention to the fact that the White Paper has, up to now, not paid sufficient attention to the impact which abolishing or amending Regulation 4056/86 would have on current international law, on the one hand, and the removal of possible conflicts of law, on the other hand;

3.13

considers that the planned repeal of Article 9 of Regulation 4056/86, which makes provision for negotiations in the event of conflicts of law between the EU and non-EU states, should be reviewed. Whilst it is recognised that this provision has up to now not yet been invoked, this situation could change, particularly if, as has been planned, current competition law governing maritime transport undergoes a thorough revision. Furthermore, there may be a need to hold negotiations not only in cases where one constitutional state requires something which another constitutional state prohibits but also in cases where a measure is permitted in one constitutional state but banned in another such state.

4.1

appeals to maritime transport enterprises and associations not to close their minds to the economic advantages which could be gained, in the general public interest, by increasing competition;

4.2

advocates shaping the substance and timing of the subsequent process in such a way to ensure that the reservations expressed by shipping enterprises and their associations can be addressed on an ongoing basis. Detailed explanations should be given regarding the extent to which these reservations can be taken into consideration or have to be rejected. This is the only way to ensure the establishment of a competition regime for maritime transport which is sustainable, ensures legal certainty and is, wherever possible, accepted by all the parties involved;

4.3

therefore calls for the implementation, wherever possible, of a comprehensive impact analysis which would examine more closely the impact on trade flows, investment, market shares and consumer prices. The Committee recommends that attention be paid, in particular, to employment and social-policy aspects when examining the impact of liberalisation;

4.4

takes the view that the proposal put forward by the European Liners Affairs Association (ELAA) provides an effective basis for future regulatory measures; in this context, the Committee regards it as absolutely imperative, for the purposes of ensuring effective monitoring, to involve the Commission — from the point of view of both personnel and organisation — in the operation of the body which the ELAA proposes to be set up for the purposes of gathering and passing on information not relating to named enterprises. Furthermore, the Committee takes the view that consideration should be given to the idea of also channelling all flows of information via the Commission, or an observer appointed by the Commission, and even to the idea of having the proposed body established directly within the Commission. This would make it possible for the Commission to analyse, on an ongoing basis the impact which the exchange of information had on the market and on competition on the market. As reliable results can only be expected after the scheme has been in operation for a relatively long period of time, it would be advisable to adopt a regulatory measure for a limited period and on a trial basis, with the option to extend it;

4.5

calls for consideration be given to whether the transitional arrangements could perhaps be aligned on amortisation periods or on the length of time the shipowners concerned are likely to need in order to make changes, with regard to the vessels which they have purchased or are leasing for long or short periods, in order to bring their operations into line with the new conditions;

4.6

urges that investigations be carried out to determine whether it would be possible for the duration of transitional periods to be geared also to geographical considerations, i.e. whether they could be aligned on the conditions prevailing on the regional markets concerned. This being the case, the transitional periods for the Baltic area could be rather short, as there are few liner conferences in this area, whereas the transitional period for the Atlantic routes could be rather longer, as liner conferences play a major role in this area;

4.7

wishes to draw attention to the fact that the establishment and duration of transitional periods could also be geared to ‘market-share thresholds’;

4.8

calls for the existing uncertainties with regard to Article 2 of Regulation 4056/86 not to be seen as grounds for repealing the provisions set out in this Article but rather as grounds for reviewing the substance of these provisions within the framework of Regulation 4056/86 and Regulation 823/2000. On the one hand, steps should be taken to ensure that these provisions are compatible with Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and are in line with the future competition regime and, on the other hand, it would be advisable to spell out more concretely those sections of the provisions which the Commission fears will be interpreted too broadly by maritime transport enterprises or in respect of which the Commission has established that such broad interpretations have already been made. The enterprises concerned should be advised to submit proposals on this matter of their own accord, if they wish to ensure that the provisions set out in Article 2 are retained;

4.9

takes the view, moreover, that both at bilateral and multilateral level and also in the context of cooperation within existing international organisations, further efforts might well be advisable with a view to achieving global conditions of competition which would be more uniform and therefore fairer. In this context checks should also be carried out to determine whether, and to what extent, provisions introduced by non-EU states could serve as an example for the EU;

4.10

recommends that Article 9 of Regulation 4056/86 be retained, at least on the basis of a limited-duration provision valid for several years, with the option of being extended.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/46

1.1

welcomes the Commission's first annual report on migration and integration as an important basis for the development of a comprehensive strategy for the integration of immigrants in the new enlarged European Union;

1.2

recognises the significance and scope of global migration, and its importance for diversity and development, particularly in the local community. The Committee fully endorses the importance of coordinating immigration, asylum and integration policy within the European Union. This is even more important now in the enlarged Community;

1.3

stresses that the national level is responsible for implementing legislation, while the task of facilitating immigrant reception, settlement and integration falls to the regional and local level. The Committee of the Regions would therefore particularly stress the important role of the local and regional authorities, whose responsibilities include planning, housing, education and the labour market, which impact directly on integration and can promote social cohesion, social integration and sustainable societies;

1.4

notes that the report focuses on the development of immigration policy at national and EU level. The EU's failure on the integration front is partly due to the fact that the local and regional authorities have not been involved in policy framing. The local and regional authorities are the tier of government that is closest to citizens, but the consequences of implementation at local level have most often been disregarded and not always taken into consideration;

1.5

regrets the lack of consultation with local and regional authorities on both statistics collection and analysis prior to drawing up the report. Various measures have been adopted in the Member States to cope with the increasing diversity in today's societies. Those experiences — both positive and negative — are of particular importance now that migratory flows are increasingly diverse and global, and the Member States need to take in immigrants and refugees from more and more countries, rather than just those with which they have had commercial or historical/cultural ties;

1.6

recalls that integration issues must be included in all policy areas if social cohesion is to be achieved. The Community's immigration and integration policy must be in harmony with the EU's more overarching objectives in social policy, economic policy, and foreign and development policy, and comply with such fundamental European values as equal opportunities, human rights, human dignity, tolerance, respect for diversity, measures to combat discrimination, and promotion of increased participation in the community;

1.7

would highlight the fact that integration is a duty for society as a whole, requiring input from both immigrants and the local population in order to achieve sustainable social cohesion and growth;

1.8

regrets the absence in this report of any details on integration and implementation of immigration policy, and stresses that the Commission should further promote exchanges of information and experience; The Handbook on Integration for policymakers and practitioners released by the European Commission (Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security) in November 2004 is a first encouraging step in this direction by providing concrete information on integration best practices and results.

1.9

acknowledges that, while labour market issues are of crucial importance for the integration of immigrants, they cannot be taken out of context since the degree of integration also depends on a number of other factors, such as social background, education and language skills, and participation in the life of the community. The successful integration of immigrants is a step towards achieving a society in which everyone has a stake, to the benefit of both the individual, the local community and society in the broader sense;

1.10

welcomes the increasing awareness within the EU of immigrants' creativity and entrepreneurship. The growth of entrepreneurship and new businesses are of crucial importance to successful integration processes and represents an important contribution towards achieving the Lisbon Strategy;

1.11

notes that the report is dominated by the case for immigrant labour. Nevertheless, it establishes that family reunification or some other form of humanitarian protection account for the bulk of immigration. There is an urgent need for strategies to deal with the large group of immigrants that are outside the labour market, for economic, social and political reasons. The importance of women for successful integration must not be underestimated since they often provide a direct link with children in the family;

1.12

deplores the fact that the report does not even mention the almost 500 000 asylum seekers in the European Union who are awaiting a decision on residence or similar permits, the vast majority of whom are outside the regular labour market;

1.13

would underline that the assertion that EU citizens have achieved high employment must be further clarified, since local and regional situations differ radically. It is, of course, legitimate to refer to the EU's high employment rate, but the irregular local and regional distribution should also be mentioned;

1.14

stresses that the disparity between the national level's focus on the need for immigrant labour, and the local level's efforts to combat exclusion, marginalisation and xenophobia, reinforces the need for dialogue and cooperation between all levels concerned.

1.15

highlights the fact that different levels of society debate immigration and integration policy in significantly different ways. This leads to different approaches and hampers the effectiveness of any measures. At the same time, it paves the way for mistrust in society, which can lead to contempt for the political system. This mistrust and contempt can be exploited by extreme political groups;

1.16

notes that the distance and lack of dialogue between the political levels has partly led to the emergence of parties with an isolationist xenophobic agenda. Several anti-EU and xenophobic parties have grown out of a local base;

1.17

welcomes the inclusion of equality perspectives in the report, despite the serious omission of any description of equality-focused integration measures. Measures that can release immigrant women's skills have a valuable social, economic and democratic impact;

1.18

considers that the formal right to vote, which will help to increase the involvement of immigrants in the democratic process, is a minimum standard which has not yet been achieved in all Member States. New citizens must, however, also be integrated more successfully. Voting rights tend to be ignored where there is a strong sense of exclusion. This right and the opportunity to influence changes in society are worth nothing to someone who is out of work or lacks social status;

1.19

stresses that the employment strategy and the social integration strategy only mention guidelines to cover labour needs. However, there is no mention of the bulk of immigrants who come to the European Union for family reunification or to seek humanitarian protection. The social integration strategy is incomplete without guidelines for this large group;

1.20

stresses that the report describes activities that are carried out locally. However, the information is inadequate, and there is no information about implementation practice and results. It is hard to say how the economic resources are deployed in integration efforts, since the report does not include the local and regional levels;

1.21

emphasises that in many parts of the European Union, tax revenues are collected at national level, while the economic burden of dealing with immigration-related exclusion falls on the local level. The lack of any consultation between the different levels is an obstacle to best use of economic resources.

2.1

calls upon the Commission to exploit the expertise local and regional authorities have acquired after decades of hands-on experience of integration efforts and implementing immigration policy. In order to facilitate and to improve integration-related exchanges of information, ideas and experience, the national contact points should be encouraged to consult with regional and local authorities and major towns and cities in order to benefit from their experience;

2.2

also calls on the Commission to maintain continuous contacts with the Committee of the Regions in connection with the adoption of the annual reports in order to discuss how local and regional experience of integration efforts can best be taken on board;

2.3

stresses that progress on integration will require that local authorities set clear objectives that can be followed up and evaluate their implementation. In addition, authorities at national and regional level should evaluate their own actions; and would remind the Commission of the need for evaluation of the various integration strategies that are currently applied;

2.4

emphasises that initiatives designed to ensure that economic support for a common immigration policy is effective must take account of regional differences. Support should encourage flexible solutions, and the local and regional levels must be given the freedom to choose their approach;

2.5

urges the Commission to consider, in the debate about future European cohesion policy, the initiatives carried out in certain regions where Structural Fund support might be reduced and where the immigrant population has increased significantly in recent years. This applies particularly in the major towns and cities;

2.6

stresses that the dialogue with immigrant organisations will be inadequate if it is only pursued at national and EU level. Integration policy and religious and cultural issues are essentially addressed in people's everyday lives, at local level. The importance of local cross-border dialogue cannot be overemphasised in the drive to bolster solidarity across ethnic, religious and cultural divides;

2.7

calls for the local and regional authorities to be able to contribute to the preparation of national action plans for integration and employment. This would make it easier to compare approaches and build on good practice, as well as analyse the actual impact and results of Member States' strategies;

2.8

emphasises that the report dwells on the horizontal and national level, while the measures discussed are implemented at local level. There is clearly a need for a vertical approach. If the objective of accurate, objective analysis is to be achieved, trends at all levels must be illustrated, including those levels where policy is implemented. The national integration contact points must be backed up by local and regional equivalents;

2.9

stresses that immigration is not sufficient to cover EU labour shortages in the long term, and would refer to its opinion on the contribution of older people to the labour market;

2.10

emphasises how important it is for immigrants, particularly women, to be seen as a resource and a generally valuable addition to the labour market, and for the workforce to be diverse. Equal treatment is a principle that must apply in the workplace;

2.11

emphasises that the sum of local and regional differences gives a better picture of employment rates than national averages. Analyses based on national averages provide an inadequate basis for regional diversity measures. Successful strategies must be devised from a bottom-up perspective;

2.12

calls for measures to address the large number of employees that have entered the EU illegally. Mechanisms must be introduced to enable immigrants in breach of current immigration legislation to legalise their position without delay, where appropriate. The ability to provide decent standards of reception should, however, be a factor here;

2.13

welcomes the report's recognition of the need to mainstream immigration issues throughout all policy areas and to step up cooperation between national, regional and local authorities and with civil society. In addition to the vertical dialogue, the debate regarding distribution of resources must also be addressed;

2.14

calls for the inclusion of references to immigrant health and emphasises the importance of cooperation between local healthcare services (primary healthcare) and other parties that are working to achieve successful integration;

2.15

stresses the importance of implementing financial instruments to enable decentralised cooperation on immigration, and of continued support for local and regional efforts to promote integration through the EU Structural Funds and initiatives such as Equal and Urban. In this connection, particular attention should be focused on ongoing efforts within the framework of the new INTI pilot project, which is designed to support integration-related dialogue, networks and cooperation at EU level;

2.16

stresses that the individual immigrant's need to work to support himself must be acknowledged and encouraged. In addition to the economic aspects, entrepreneurship and small businesses contribute to positive social development. The opportunity to own and run a company impacts on integration and it should therefore be given increased public support;

2.17

recalls that women are discriminated against both on grounds of gender and ethnic origin. If gender issues are taken into account, efforts for better integration of immigrants will be more target-oriented and effective;

2.18

emphasises that the achievement of a successful integration policy requires other values — in addition to economic ones — to be taken into account. Immigration opens up perspectives that can enrich individual citizen's lives, just as it can provide the EU with skills that are valuable in a global context;

2.19

stresses the importance of the work of non-governmental organisations in close cooperation with the local and regional authorities and supports their programmes to speed up immigrants' integration into the political and social life of the country (learning the language, getting to know the country's culture and democratic principles, social and political education, safeguarding immigrants' own national identity, etc.). It is always the absolute responsibility of the national level to work to achieve the smooth integration of immigrants into society, in close cooperation with local and regional authorities, and to maintain a dialogue with non-governmental organisations.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/50

1)

Whereas, the study concludes that ‘there is a link between legal and illegal migration but the relationship is complex and certainly not a direct one’;

2)

Whereas, the study outlines a number of policy initiatives in the development of a common migration;

3)

Whereas the study emphasises the need for more reliable and comparable statistics at an EU level;

4)

Whereas the ageing population and shrinking work-age population will lead to skill shortages in the EU labour market and cause a continued need for migration into the EU;

5)

Whereas the Hague Programme agreed by the European Council in November 2004 outlines a work programme in the development of a common migration policy,

1.1

welcomes the European Commission's study on the links between legal and illegal migration and feels that it makes a worthwhile contribution to the development of an EU immigration policy, particularly in the outline of policy initiatives contained in the study;

1.2

takes a keen interest in the study in view of the major role played by regional and local authorities in the reception, settlement and integration of migrants. Local and regional authorities play a leading role in the provision of public services to migrants and these services include housing, education, health and employment services;

1.3

wishes to view the study in the context of the development of an EU migration and asylum policy particularly the undertakings made at the Tampere European Council in October 1999 and the adoption by the European Council of the Hague Programme in November 2004 which emphasises the importance of migration policy;

1.4

is concerned at the slow progress made by the European Council in the development of an EU migration policy based on the conclusions agreed at the Tampere Council;

1.5

notes that the study concludes that ‘there is a link between legal and illegal migration but the relationship is complex and certainly not a direct one since a variety of different factors has to be taken into consideration;’ would stress however that illegal migration is a major concern in the EU as it can undermine policies designed to promote regular migration and can promote hostility in host communities. Therefore, effective prevention of the illegal migration is crucial for the internal security and safety within the EU. In addition, illegal migrants can be placed in personal danger and subject to the risk of exploitation. In view of these considerations, a balanced policy which will promote measures to ensure equable levels of regular migration together with measures to discourage illegal migrants is essential;

1.6

stresses its concern about the use of the term illegal migration, especially when many migrants in this category are not the subject of criminal proceedings and so we would prefer to use the phrase irregular migration where appropriate;

1.7

notes that the study outlines a significant number of gaps in research and calls upon the European Commission to construct a research programme to fill these gaps and so influence policy-making;

1.8

notes that the study refers to other EU policies which affect migrants such as development policy and the European Employment Strategy. In addition, is aware of a wide range of EU policies that have an influence on migration policy particularly in areas of social and economic policy and calls for the formation of a group in the European Commission across the Directorates General to coordinate activities which affects migrants;

1.9

agrees with the study's conclusions that there is a lack of reliable and comparable data at EU level and believes that the Commission's action plan for Community statistics in the field of immigration (COM(2003) 179 final) and the first annual report on migration and integration (COM(2004) 508 final) begins to address this issue;

1.10

emphasises the important role played by local and regional authorities in the collection of data and statistics and calls for the full involvement of local and regional authorities in consultations about the introduction of reliable and comparable data across the European Union after comparable data has been collected;

1.11

supports the study's call for ‘a more intensive and targeted use of consultation and information exchange’ and welcomes the establishment of an expert group known as the Committee on Immigration and Asylum and a network of National Contact Points for Integration;

1.12

agrees with the establishment of a European Migration Network and an Observatory and believes that local and regional authorities have an important role to play in this Network as they can contribute with concrete direct experience and best practices;

1.13

believes that there should be greater opportunities for the exchange of experience and best practice including activities such as peer-group review in terms of immigration policy and notes that this could be done through the adoption of the open method of coordination in the development of EU immigration policy and urges the European Council to adopt the European Commission's proposals in this area;

1.14

supports the European Commission's view that due to the demographic decline and ageing of the population, recruitment of third-country nationals and immigration into the EU is likely to continue and increase. This theme is mentioned in the Kok Report which states that ‘ageing will raise the demands for pensions and healthcare assistance at the same time as it reduces the number of people of working age to produce the necessary wealth.’ (6) In addition, Kok reminds us of European Commission projections that ‘estimate that the pure impact of ageing populations will be to reduce the potential growth rate of the EU from the present rate of between 2–2.25 % to around 1.2 % by 2040 (7) moreover, other positive economic and social externalities in the context of migration should be stressed i.e. new human capital, specialisation, human enrichment’;

1.15

emphasises the pivotal regional dimension in the EU immigration and integration policies and believes that this is an important area of debate. The regional dimension is a crucial one as some EU regions are losing population and suffering from severe skills shortages while other regions have rapidly growing populations with pressures on local services and affordable housing; believes that there is much work to be done in developing the regional and local dimension of migration particularly in the area of integration. Currently, this is being developed through the INTI programme. In 2004, the programme was allocated EUR 6 million but 158 grant applications were received requesting total grants of EUR 42.58 million. The Committee calls for a substantial increase in the funding of this programme for the period 2007-2013;

1.16

welcomes the European Commission's intention of launching a comprehensive consultation process on the admission of labour migrants The Green Paper on An EU approach to managing economic integration' (COM(2004) 811 final) was published in 2005 and feels that its involvement in the consultation process is essential given the potential effects of migration on regional labour markets and the services provided by local and regional authorities;

1.17

agrees with the study when it states that strengthening the integration of third-country nationals legally resident in Member States is ‘an essential objective of EU immigration policy’ and is achieved through integration into the labour market, facilitating the mobility of third-country nationals within the EU and the recognition of the qualifications of third-country nationals;

1.18

welcomes the principle of mobility established in the Directive on the status of long term residents (November 2003.) This introduced mobility rights for those resident in the EU for more than five years and mobility for third-country nationals has been facilitated by an extension of Regulation 1408/71; agrees a degree of mobility can be found in the Commission's proposals for the admission of foreign students and for researchers;

1.19

stresses the need to recruit more researchers in the EU so that the goals of Lisbon can be met. The Committee feels that this area of recruitment will be an important test for the development of a EU migration policy and its ability to fill skill shortages. In its Communication to the Council and European Parliament on the Admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research (COM(2004) 178 final), the European Commission estimated that 700,000 additional researchers were needed by 2010 if the EU was to meet its Lisbon targets;

1.20

notes that the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed a general approach to the Directive in November 2004. While this approach includes the recognition of qualifications, working conditions and tax benefits, it does not seem to include a relaxation of the conditions of entry for the families of short-term researchers. The Committee feels that this is a key factor in the recruitment of researchers and would bring the EU Member States into line with other countries such as the USA and Canada;

1.21

emphasises the important role of the European Employment Strategy and the European Social Fund in providing training and employment skills which are crucial in the integration of recent migrants. The integration into the labour market of disadvantaged groups has been a key theme of the European Employment Strategy to sustain labour supply, maximise adaptability, and respond to sectoral and regional shortages of labour. The new EU Employment Guidelines have the objective of reducing the employment gap between EU national and non-EU nationals which showed a difference of 11.7 % in 2002. The study makes no reference to activities under the European Social Fund to promote the integration of immigrants into the labour market and the innovative work done by local and regional government in this area;

1.22

notes the study's conclusions about the effectiveness of regularisation measures from both the point of the view of the migrant and of the Member States and believes that large scale regularisation measures are not usually the most appropriate way of solving the problems of irregular migration. Nevertheless, regularisation on a case-by-case basis can be a useful instrument when dealing with many examples of irregular migration;

1.23

agrees with the study's findings that ‘gives weight to the view that regularisations should not be considered as a way of managing migration flows as in reality they often appear as a negative consequence of immigration policy’ but regularisation may be necessary, on a case-by-case basis, when immigrants become embedded within local communities to bring people out of the hidden economy, increase tax revenues and promote social cohesion. The comments of a House of Lords' report is interesting in this context; (8)

1.24

agrees with the House of Lords' report which stated ‘some form of regularisation of long term illegal immigrants is unavoidable if a growing underclass of people in an irregular situation, who are vulnerable to exploitation, is not to be created.’ The House of Lords' report emphasises the need to minimise the ‘pull’ factors caused from regularisation and suggests that this can be to a large extent overcome by looking at individual cases rather than a large scale amnesty. Lastly, the House of Lords believes that amnesties can ‘provide a rare opportunity to obtain reliable information on the size and nature of the illegal immigrant population’; (9)

1.25

takes note of the many forms of illegal migration and the difficulties in conducting research in these areas. However, feels that there needs to be further research on the different types of illegal immigrant so that policies can be formulated more effectively. In this respect it should be important to differentiate between:

1.26

supports the views expressed in the study that the development of a Community return policy, the setting-up of key cooperation agreements with countries of origin, and transforming undeclared work into regular employment are key elements in the fight against irregular immigration;

1.27

welcomes the proposals in the study relating to the development of a Community return policy. A proposal for a Return Action Programme was agreed by the European Council in November 2002 and more rapid progress on its implementation now needs to be made;

1.28

agrees with the study when it states that ‘the cooperation of third countries is vital if illegal migration flows are to be reduced’ and recent conclusions from European Councils which have ‘underlined the need for a comprehensive approach to migration, addressing human rights, political and development issues in countries of origin and transit’;

1.29

endorses the synergy between migration and development policies which is outlined in the study and believes that development policy can improve the economic and social conditions in third countries and so reduce the ‘push’ factors which lead to migration to the EU;

1.30

emphasises the need for the European Union to be active in the promotion of joint initiatives with neighbouring countries through programmes such as the New Neighbourhood Instrument, Tacis, Meda, Encas and INTERREG. It is important that a ‘ring of friends’ is created so that peace and solidarity can be extended in the countries bordering the EU now that the Union has been enlarged. The European Union needs to work in partnership with these countries to improve their economic and social situation and reduce ‘push’ factors such as high unemployment, poor wages, lack of democracy and organised crime. One of the priority areas for cooperation will be the management of migration. Some neighbouring countries have developed action plans specifically targeted at irregular migration and the EU is ready to support their implementation, also actions against irregular migration of those countries which will prepare such plans;

1.31

stresses the key role played by local and regional authorities in programmes like Tacis, Meda, Encas and INTERREG and reminds the Commission and Member States that local and regional authorities should play a key role in the development of successor programmes;

1.32

broadly welcomes the proposals for the New Neighbourhood Instrument but is disappointed that the Instrument (which is the subject of a separate opinion of the Committee of the Regions) does not give a greater role for local and regional government especially as many policy areas covered by the Instrument cover local and regional government competencies;

1.33

agrees with the study when it emphasises the need to tackle the unregulated labour market and the shadow economy stating that ‘the shadow economy is estimated to be between 7-16 % of EU GDP although this is by no means entirely made up of illegal immigrants’. There is a need for the transformation of undeclared work into regular employment and this was included as one of the ten priorities of the 2003 employment guidelines. Several Member States outlined special measures for foreign workers and migrants in an irregular situation in their 2003 National Employment Action Plans (NAPs) and the Committee welcomes the call in the Hague programme for Member States to hit the targets for the reduction of the unregulated labour market which are set out in the European Employment Strategy;

1.34

points out the need for greater support of border regions as they are in comparison with other regions affected especially by irregular entry to a larger extent and supports the establishment of the European Corps of Border Guards together with the early warning system as the effective common management of the Union's external borders have to be achieved, moreover, judicial cooperation and cooperation among police corps on both central and regional/local level should be further promoted;

2.1

reminds the EU institutions of the important part that regional and local authorities play in the integration of migrants and, in view of this role, emphasis the key role that local and regional authorities play in a number of initiatives outlined in the study. These include the exchange of experience on integration measures, the development of programmes such as the New Neighbourhood Instrument and the successor programmes to Tacis and INTERREG etc., and therefore recommends the full involvement of local and regional government in these programmes;

2.2

argues that there should be greater opportunities for the exchange of experience and best practice including activities such as peer-group review in terms of immigration policy and notes that this could be done through the adoption of the open method of coordination in the development of EU immigration policy and urges the European Council to adopt the European Commission's proposals in this area;

2.3

calls upon the European Commission to form a Group involving staff Directorates General whose policies and actions affect third-country nationals so that existing activity can be more effectively integrated and coordinated;

2.4

calls for the publication of a research programme by the European Commission to fill the gaps in research noted in the study;

2.5

calls for a substantial increase in the INTI programme so that local and regional authorities can take part in a greater number of EU-funded transnational projects dealing with the integration of migrants;

2.6

emphasises the important role of migration in terms of filling skill shortages and calls upon the European Council to develop effective policy initiatives in these areas including the recruitment of third-country nationals for scientific research;

2.7

stresses the opportunity to devise suitable development policies in third countries. It is also important for studies on migration to take account of the new features of migration flows, such as the high proportion of women involved, as this is crucial to the formulation and implementation of immigration policies;

2.8

calls for the full involvement of local and regional government in the development of reliable and comparative data at EU level;

2.9

welcomes the European Commission's intention of launching a comprehensive consultation process on the Green Paper on An EU approach to managing economic integration (COM(2004) 811 final) and reminds the Commission of need to consult fully with it and local and regional government in this process;

2.10

believes that urgent action is necessary to develop further the European Migration Network and Observatory with, again, the full involvement of local and regional government;

2.11

expresses concern on the slow progress made by the European Council in the development of an EU immigration policy and actions resulting from the Tampere European Council in 1999. In view of these concerns emphasises the need to make prompt decisions on issues laid out in the Hague Programme.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/55

1)

Whereas, in order to achieve durable solutions, sharing of responsibilities among Member States concerning the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection should be improved, and the protection capacity of the countries of origin should be enhanced with a view to framing and implementing a common refugee policy in all Member States;

2)

Whereas, for this objective to be achieved, there is a need for the Member States and regions concerned — including countries or regions of origin or transit — to be provided with the requisite funding, taking EU enlargement and the needs of new Member States into special consideration;

1.1

endorses the European Commission's proposals on the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of origin ‘improving access to durable solutions’ and supports in particular the proposed EU Regional Protection Programmes improving the protection capacity of countries in the regions of origin (neighbouring and transit countries);

1.2

points to the need to follow the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding gender-related persecution as one of the grounds for recognising refugee status;

1.3

appreciates the European Commission's intention to involve transit countries in its approach to persons in need of international protection, but considers that there should be more emphasis on transit countries with regard to the role of the regions and the provision of appropriate support for them;

1.4

emphasises that the effects of the reception of persons in need of international protection are most evident at local level in the communities which receive these groups; it is therefore of vital importance to involve local and regional authorities in making decisions on the reception and integration of asylum seekers and refugees;

1.5

draws particular attention to the key role of local and regional players as regards the responsibility they bear in the reception of persons in need of international protection and in actions promoting integration; consequently regrets that the European Commission's 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;

1.6

believes it is important, in that respect, to secure greater coherence and integration between domestic and foreign policy objectives, instruments and procedures, especially regarding issues of a cross-border nature;

1.7

draws attention to the fact that cooperation and joint action by the local and regional authorities concerned, including local and regional authorities in Member States of reception, countries of origin and countries of transit, can make a substantial contribution to support for persons in need of international protection;

1.8

considers that further analysis and examination of the EU Resettlement Scheme is needed with regard to its likely social impact, particularly on labour markets, in less developed territories suffering from high unemployment in the Member States and regions concerned;

1.9

acknowledges the importance of EU policy supporting the population living in underdeveloped poor countries and regions, but on the other hand emphasises the importance of equitable treatment for all EU citizens, in order to give the opportunity for measures under the Resettlement Scheme enjoying wider support among citizens of Member States;

1.10

proposes that the European Commission, in cooperation with NGOs and other stakeholders, should engage in further study of the legal issues involved, with a view to establishing objective and uniform criteria enabling cases of persons requiring international protection for their settlement to be identified, and thus to ensure respect for human rights and the absence of discrimination, and to guarantee the requisite legal support for countries and regions of reception. It also feels that it is important to ensure integration into the labour market of refugees arriving in Member States under resettlement schemes, on the basis of which they should enjoy equal rights with all EU citizens.

2.1

supports the communication of the Commission as a good basis of the further evaluation works, but in particular with regard to the EU resettlement scheme, considers that further analysis and examination are needed, and therefore recommends extending the deadline for submission of the resettlement scheme proposal to the Council to enable drafting of a more carefully prepared document;

2.2

calls for greater involvement of local and regional authorities in framing and implementing the immigration and asylum policies, at the same time providing them with the requisite financial support;

2.3

proposes considering extension of the scope of funding under Regional Cooperation and the New Neighbourhood Policy, which are included in the third main objective of the Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 period, to cover these tasks; and hopes that the joint multilateral programmes conducted under that objective and the bilateral action plans that will be implemented as part of neighbourhood policy will be coordinated effectively;

2.4

given the scale of migration in the Mediterranean zone, it is proposed that in future calls under programmes for regulating migration flows, such as the AENEAS programme, priority be given to projects focusing on action in this area;

2.5

calls for an implementation of the EU resettlement schemes which ensures the equal treatment both of refugees to be resettled in Member States and of all EU citizens;

2.6

supports the implementation of the Presidency's Conclusion of the Hague Programme and considers it desirable to invite the local and regional authorities into the proposed intercultural dialogue between all members of society within common forums and activities in order to improve mutual understanding of all policy areas related to integration.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/58

1)

Whereas, in the light of the European Neighbourhood Policy, it should now look to extend its external relations activities, within the parameters of its resources and institutional mission, beyond the current accession states to include, but not exclusively, those countries detailed in the ENP;

2)

Whereas, its priority for external relations must remain with the local and regional authorities of the existing applicant countries;

3)

Whereas, it should also give high priority under the ENP to dialogue and cooperation with all the states on the EU's northern, eastern and southern borders;

1.1.1

welcomes this important and necessary document by the European Commission, providing as it does a real and genuine opportunity to define and improve relations between the European Union and its neighbouring countries;

1.1.2

acknowledges that with the recent enlargement of the European Union and subsequent changes to its external borders, this policy is a timely and welcome step forward designed to share the benefits of the EU's enlargement with neighbouring countries in strengthening stability, security and well-being for all concerned;

1.1.3

agrees that the European Neighbourhood Policy offers a means to reinforce relations between the European union and neighbouring countries and to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines between them;

1.1.4

stresses that the European Neighbourhood Policy whilst offering an improved relationship between the EU and its neighbouring countries is distinct from the process of enlargement itself and should be viewed in such a context;

1.1.5

stresses the importance that local and regional government has to play in this process and is concerned at the absence of any substantive mention and defined role for local and regional government within the Policy;

1.1.6

agrees that the policy will encourage neighbourhood countries to participate in various EU activities, through greater political, security, economic and cultural cooperation;

1.1.7

considers that the European Neighbourhood Policy seeks to support efforts to achieve greater respect for improved human rights, civil society and develop good governance in these countries;

1.1.8

welcomes, in this connection, the recent political developments in Ukraine and in Georgia. The European Neighbourhood Policy must actively support this country's progress towards greater democracy and a market economy;

1.1.9

agrees that the European Neighbourhood Policy seeks to improve trade relations and economic development between the EU and neighbourhood countries;

1.1.10

acknowledges that the European Neighbourhood Policy is important to promoting the closer cooperation between countries included in the ENP and the EU in combating terrorism, illegal immigration and cross-border crime such as drugs and human trafficking;

1.1.11

supports efforts, in ENP countries with different ethnic minorities, to find innovative solutions to promote co-existence and respect for universally recognised fundamental principles.

1.2.1

highlights that local and regional authorities in ENP countries should, wherever possible, play a greater role in the process of democratisation and devolution;

1.2.2

underlines that according to one of the Union's main principles — subsidiarity — which allows the most appropriate level of management to be chosen, local and regional authorities play a crucial and unique role in this context as they can ensure lasting and properly orientated relations;

1.2.3

notes the effectiveness of the bottom-up approach in encouraging the democratisation process;

1.2.4

adds that in practice local and regional authorities serve as good democratic apprenticeships for citizens, and hence are an important player in ensuring well-functioning democracies;

1.2.5

highlights the importance of developing and consolidating local government by means of cross-border cooperation and of making greater use of exchanges and shared knowledge with existing Euro-regions as a way of achieving the objectives set out in the Action Plan for each country;

1.2.6

notes the difficulties experienced by the local and regional authorities of those countries identified in the ENP in taking the necessary measures to adapt their administrative structures to European structures;

1.2.7

wishes to share with those countries outlined in the ENP the experienced gained by its members as a result of their contacts with local and regional authorities in the candidate countries during the enlargement process;

1.2.8

believes that local and regional authorities are the most appropriate level for decentralised cooperation with partner countries;

1.2.9

recalls the areas where the expertise of local and regional government has most to offer these countries:

1.2.10

recalls that there is scope for action by local and regional authorities that complements and goes beyond the traditional limits of cooperation at the level of central governments. Indeed, it is at this level that the ENP as proposed by the Commission can be really effective;

1.2.11

points out that the decentralised cooperation practices developed in recent years have highlighted the responsibility that local authorities bear in their role as a catalyst for new cooperation processes.

1.3.1

notes that those countries included in the ENP are diverse in their economic, social and political development and furthermore do not start from the same point in regard to their relations with the EU;

1.3.2

believes that strong regional and local institutions elected by and accountable to the people are necessary for truly democratic societies and anticipates the entry into force in 2006 of federal legislation on the remit of Russian regional and local authorities to be a step forward for potential cooperation between devolved authorities in the EU and Russia, notably by clarifying competencies with regard to cross-border cooperation;

1.3.3

is concerned that no direct mention is made within the ENP as to the ongoing problems in regard to Kaliningrad although accepts that the issue is adequately addressed in other documents and work of the Commission;

1.3.4

welcomes the decision to include the Southern Caucasus — Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia — in the European Neighbourhood Policy;

1.3.5

further welcomes the commitment of the EU to ‘support credible, concrete and sustained reform efforts, in particular in the above mentioned priority areas, by additional means of assistance’ (4).

1.4.1

supports the idea of an all encompassing Action Plan jointly agreed by partner countries and the EU as the most effective way to achieve the objectives of the European Neighbourhood Policy;

1.4.2

agrees that the ambition and pace of development of the EU's relationship with each partner country will be determined by its degree of commitment to common values as well as its will and capacity to implement the priorities agreed in the Action Plan;

1.4.3

emphasises the importance of a strong focus on poverty alleviation and the importance of tackling corruption, described as ‘a significant obstacle to reform in many ENP countries’;

1.4.4

believes that it would have been advantageous for each Action Plan to have contained a specific section on the role of local and regional government in the relevant partner country, detailing clear targets for both the role of local government and the ways by which the partner country intended to devolve powers and strengthen local and regional government. This desire should be commuted to the Commission with a view that such a specific section should be incorporated in the next tranche of Action Plans;

1.4.5

believes that its members have an important role in analysing and debating the funding made available to each partner country especially in light of the statement made in the ENP strategy paper, ‘The Commission has proposed that existing funds or their successors be increased significantly under the new financial perspectives, in keeping with the priority given by the EU to the ENP.’ The new simplified funding mechanism intended for adoption in 2007 additionally makes such analysis and debate a priority.

1.5.1

welcomes the proposed new simplified funding system, the European Neighbourhood Instrument;

1.5.2

believes that the Commission as a priority must provide greater information and technical details as to how the Instrument will work in practice, how it will be administered and how it will be scrutinised.

2.1

believes that the use of its members' experience could be used to develop local and regional democracy, which is indispensable to political stability in the countries identified;

2.2

recommends that in order to overcome the difficulties facing local and regional authorities in those countries identified in the ENP, the CoR develops suitable mechanisms to encourage direct dialogue and information transfers;

2.3

recommends that those countries carrying out the necessary reforms to place themselves on the road to democracy and free and fair elections should receive the full benefit of the ENP;

2.4

recommends that the European Neighbourhood Policy offers the prospect of new contractual agreements with partner countries which could take the form of European Neighbourhood Agreements. The scope of these would be defined in the light of progress in meeting the priorities set out in the Action Plans;

2.5

proposes that the Action Plans will be monitored using existing structures under the various Partnership and Cooperation/Association Agreements, with formal progress reports produced between two and five years after the Action Plans are adopted;

2.6

recommends to the European Commission that, like enlargement before, its members should play a leading role in the evaluation of the progress of the Action Plans focusing primary on the steps to empower and modernise local and regional government;

2.7

recommends that for the next tranche of Action Plans for each neighbourhood country a specific section on the role of local and regional government in each partner country should be included, detailing clear targets for both the role of local government and the ways by which the partner country intends to devolve such powers including a clear and transparent timeframe to achieve such an objective;

2.8

believes that any Action Plan must have joint ownership with the priorities based on clear and credible economic incentives for promoting positive change and thus assist the targeting of technical assistance;

2.9

believes that there is an urgent and fundamental need to improve and modernise local and regional government in those countries identified in the ENP including a dramatic improvement in regard to fair and free elections, democratic values and political freedoms at the local level and recommends that the Commission initiates a specific programme as part of the Action Plan for each neighbourhood country to achieve this objective (see appendix 1);

2.10

recommends that within the proposed new simplified funding system, the European Neighbourhood Instrument, serious thought should be given to a specific financial instrument that is tailor-made for decentralised cooperation and is intended for use by local and regional authorities to help modernise and reform their operations in the neighbourhood countries;

2.11

recommends that the European Commission gives to it and its members the possibility to play a leading and active role in assessing and discussing the new European Neighbourhood Instruments;

2.12

recommends, in order to facilitate this process, that a conference is held in 2006 that would seek to bring together representatives from local and regional government from all states as outlined in the ENP with the possibility of four separate conferences dealing in turn with the Mediterranean Region, the Baltic Sea Region and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/67

1)

Whereas, the draft regulation is dependent on an agreement between the Member States on the financial perspectives (see above);

1.1

welcomes this Instrument as a response to the demands for more flexibility and simplicity in the system for pre-accession assistance and as an improved tool for bridging the gap between pre-accession and accession;

1.2

recognises that lessons have been learnt from earlier accession instruments and therefore welcomes the creation of a single framework for pre-accession assistance to Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries as a means of streamlining support and enhancing co-ordination between the different components of support;

1.3

recognises the difference between pre-accession aid and traditional development aid, in that pre-accession aid is (a) directed towards the goal of accession in the short or medium term and (b) intended to prepare countries for the time after accession. The overall objective of pre-accession assistance is progressive alignment with the standards and policies of the European Union;

1.4

welcomes the decision to offer pre-accession assistance both to Candidate Countries and Potential Candidate Countries: both groups to have access to the components:

Candidate Countries to have access in addition to the components:

1.5

welcomes the reduction in the number of budget lines covering pre-accession assistance as this will enable greater flexibility to meet the needs of Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries;

1.6

believes that the proposal that management of assistance to Candidate Countries may include decentralised management whereas assistance to Potential Candidates Countries will continue to be centrally managed is a balanced one;

1.7

welcomes the merge of the budget lines provided by DG Regio and DG Enlargement for cross-border cooperation. This will enable a more flexible system with one management authority;

1.8

welcomes the streamlining and improved coordination of pre-accession support to Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries and to the democratic institutions in those countries, including local and regional government.

2.1

highlights the fact that the scope of the proposed assistance includes many areas in which local and regional government has experience and thus could take an important role, including:

2.2

recommends that local and regional government within the European Union should offer a wide range of expertise in the areas for assistance listed in paragraph 1.4 (above), which could be delivered for example by means of information exchange or technical assistance programmes or by assisting in conferences with the aim of familiarising local/regional government in the Candidate/Potential Candidate Countries with the Community acquis;

2.3

urges local and regional authorities to consider using the opportunity offered in Article 16 to participate in tenders and contracts for delivery of the programmes for assistance under this Instrument;

2.4

suggests conducting regular monitoring and evaluation of the IPA by the European Commission. Where regional and local matters are concerned, this should be in cooperation with the Committee of the Regions. This would improve the management of projects to cover the actual needs of both sides, the EU and candidate or potential candidate countries.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/69

1.1

welcomes the Commission initiative to amend the Working Time Directive at this stage as there is an urgent need to resolve a number of issues in respect of the interpretation and application of the Working Time Directive at member state level;

1.2

reminds the Commission, Parliament and Council that local and regional authorities are major employers within the European Union with a significant role in managing public services such as social care, health and civil protection services;

1.3

remains concerned that failure to find a satisfactory solution will add to the immediate problems of skilled labour shortages in the health and social care sector throughout the EU and that in the short term this will result in even greater economic migration in these sectors from the new Member States and poorer countries outside of the EU to the established Member States and that this will be to both the short and long term detriment of the health and social care sectors in the new Member States and poorer countries outside the EU;

1.4

believes that while there is a technical side to the issue of regulating working time, there are also implications for the type of society which Europe wishes to be; that when Europe is seeking to promote greater entrepreneurship, creativity, and active citizenship, while providing individuals with a better work-life balance, the regulation of working time has implications for all these aspirations, and therefore must be considered in this context;

1.5

recognises that the Commission proposal on the definition of working time attempts to remove the legal uncertainty created by the ECJ rulings in the Jaeger and SIMAP cases. The aim of European legislation must be to ensure that on-call provisions remain an important factor in the ability to provide quality and continuous health services and residential care, including care of vulnerable adults and children;

1.6

recognises that a possible negative effect of returning to the pre-SIMAP/Jaeger position is that there could be situations where patterns of work could exist in which workers may spend large amounts of time on-call at the workplace and that, if not effectively managed, this could potentially impact on the health and safety of such workers, and possibly others, such as customers and the public, and also on a worker's ability to balance work and family life;

1.7

points out, however, that the Working Time Directive is a health and safety measure designed to place limits on working hours to achieve a balance between work and rest. It is not a measure to define other terms and conditions of employment, such as the agreement to, or the financial compensation for working a particular pattern of hours. These are matters to be agreed on an individual or collective basis in accordance with the practices and procedures in individual Member States or work sectors as appropriate. In addition, whatever pattern of work is envisaged, the employer retains responsibility for the health and safety of workers and should have measures in place to ensure that their health and safety is not prejudiced;

1.8

accepts that currently the ability to extend the reference period, used for the calculation of the average hours worked per week, is only available in a limited number of workplaces covered by derogations or if a collective agreement can be reached to this effect; therefore favours the rapid introduction of an annualised approach to working hours, especially in industries which are subject to strong seasonal variations in demand for their products or services. This would be a useful contribution to the competitiveness agenda;

1.9

observes that the rule of application for the calculation of average working time for workers employed on shorter contracts is effectively the same as that which applies currently for workers who work less than the standard reference period of 4 months;

1.10

notes that the proposal on the provision of compensatory rest removes the obligation created by the ECJ ruling in the Jaeger case to grant compensatory rest immediately. This would remove the confusion created by the judgement. In most cases 72 hours will be a reasonable period within which to afford compensatory rest;

1.11

observes that the Commission's proposals would retain the right for workers to opt-out of the maximum average 48 hour week, in Member States which take up this option, but that in some workplaces this option would be dependent on collective agreements. This area of the proposal if pursued would require further clarification as under it, individuals may also agree to opt-out in workplaces where there is the absence of a collective agreement. Consequently it is not sufficiently clear exactly when this facility is to apply. It may for example only be intended to apply to small employers in Member States which do not traditionally have widespread collective bargaining structures, such as the UK. Although it may also be intended to be of relevance to any of the new Member States which do not have well developed social dialogue processes including collective agreements;

1.12

agrees that the decision to opt out of the 48 hour maximum average working week is a voluntary choice for an individual worker and that they must not be put under pressure by their employers to do so. There must be adequate protections to ensure that this does not occur, but also additional measures to ensure that their health and safety is protected where they do opt out;

1.13

observes that many of the conditions which are to apply to the 48 hour opt-out already apply to the individual opt-out as it exists now; but some do not provide any obvious further protection for workers and should be removed or reserved to Member States;

1.14

considers that the requirement that the opt-out must be for a maximum period of one year and then renewable would give the false impression that the duration of the opt-out is fixed for one year, whereas the true position is that individuals have the freedom to rescind the opt-out at any time;

1.15

acknowledges that the provision that any opt-out signed at the same time as the employment contract would be null and void would provide some protection for workers who otherwise may feel pressurised to opt-out. However, individuals may early in their working life with a new employer wish to work longer hours in order to earn additional income and so it must be clear at what stage of employment an employee has the right to opt-out. This would be particularly relevant where workers are engaged on short-term contracts in order to respond to a seasonal peak in workload. Also, given that there is no universal understanding of the definition of a probationary period, the additional requirement that an employee may not sign an opt-out whilst serving a probationary period will lead not only to questions of interpretation but also deny such an employee the ability to earn additional income;

1.16

draws attention to the unusual anomaly created by the new proposal that an employee who opts out, when authorised by a collective agreement, may not work in excess of 65 hours in any one week, while recognising that this is an unusually high number of hours to work and would not be the norm, it does mean that whilst an employee who opts-out cannot work more than 65 hours in any one week, an employee who has not opted-out and is therefore subject to the maximum average 48 hour working week, can. In addition, it appears that an employee who works in a workplace where there is no collective agreement or worker representation and who opts-out on an individual basis would also not be subject to the maximum limit of 65 hours in any one week;

1.17

considers that the additional requirement to keep detailed records of all of the hours worked by opted-out workers would add to bureaucracy and that a better solution might be for the Directive to place the responsibilities for prescribing an employer's obligations with the competent authorities within each member state. These authorities will have the ability to integrate such requirements within the overall Member State's health and safety strategy and the obligations placed on employers.

2.1

that the Commission, Parliament and Council endeavour to seek an urgent conclusion to the proposals in order that there is clarity and confidence in the Working Time Directive;

2.2

that the new definition of working time incorporating two new categories of time: ‘on-call time’ and ‘inactive part of on-call time’ be accepted, i.e. that during on-call time, which refers to time when a worker is required to be available at the workplace in order to commence performing his/her activities or duties at the employer's request, the inactive part of on-call time will not be counted as working time unless Member States decide otherwise, or a collective agreement is made to that effect. Periods during the on-call period when workers actually perform work will be classed as working time;

2.3

that the Commission proposal that Member States be given the ability, if they wish, to set a standard reference period of up to 12 months for all workers, subject to the provision that, in respect of fixed-term employees, the reference period cannot be longer than the length of the employment contract if this is less than one year, be accepted.

2.4

that, although the Commission proposal that where workers are denied their right to daily and weekly rest they must be provided with equivalent periods of compensatory rest within a reasonable period which can be no longer than 72 hours, is a significant improvement on the current situation resulting from the ECJ decision in the Jaeger case, in order to account for a wide range of sectors and working practices serious consideration must be given to providing for a longer period over which compensatory rest could be granted. In addition, Article 17 should allow the possibility to extend the time limit, in accordance with national practice, by law or collective agreement;

2.5

that if the EU and its Member States wish to promote greater entrepreneurship, creativity and active citizenship, and at the same time facilitate a better work-life balance for individuals, the current ability for Member States to utilise the possibility for workers to freely opt-out of the maximum average 48 hour working week on an individual basis should be gradually phased out, in favour of initiatives which promote these other aspirations;

2.6

that the Commission proposal that the ability to opt-out of the 48 hour maximum would only be available where this option is provided by a collective agreement or an agreement between the two sides of industry at national or regional level, or by means of collective agreements at the appropriate level be endorsed.

2.7

that the Commission's efforts to ensure that individuals who opt out do so out of a free choice in the knowledge that they may freely opt back in without fear of detriment, be strongly supported;

2.8

therefore that the following conditions be retained:

2.8.1.1

That the following conditions be removed:

2.8.1.2

That the following conditions be removed or be reserved to national Member States to implement as required in accordance with their national practices and procedures having regard to their relevance in respect of their own national legal and industrial relations systems:

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/72

1.1

shares the standpoint of the European Commission that the LIFE+ instrument cannot be considered in isolation from the overall redefinition of EU financial interventions and the conditions for implementing the different aspects of EU environmental policy; considers that it would, however, have been desirable to:

1.2

considers that the European Commission should have backed up the proposal for the Regulation on LIFE+ with an analysis of the funding requirements in respect of the implementation at local and regional level of the various EU environmental policy priorities and an appraisal of these interventions in respect of the principle of subsidiarity;

1.3

appreciates the European Commission's desire to pursue the goal of simplification by having recourse to a single instrument but highlights the current difficulties in understanding the real scope for financing environmental projects under the various financial instruments to be established in the period 2007-2013 and draws attention to the need to coordinate the various funding measures in order to encompass the various EU priorities and means of intervention;

1.4

notes that the projects hitherto funded under the LIFE Environment strand (projects in respect of the industrial environment) and the LIFE Third Countries strand will no longer be eligible for funding under LIFE+ and calls for the inclusion of an environmental strand in the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation’ and ‘Neighbourhood instrument’ programmes, under which the abovementioned projects could be funded over the period 2007-2013 to be specified and guaranteed;

1.5

considers that all of the abovementioned elements need to be spelled out before making proposals in respect of the contents and the means of financing projects which are in line with the key priorities of EU environmental policy (and with the work of the European Environment Agency (EEA)); if the abovementioned points are not underlined, the proposal for a Regulation on LIFE+ will be regarded more as a financial engineering measures, the rationale behind which is difficult to grasp, and project initiators will be unable to clearly identify EU priorities and the possibilities of giving the green light to their initiatives;

1.6

warns that only studies, conceptual work and planning activities are eligible for support under the draft LIFE+ programme and that specific implementing measures will no longer quality for funding from the LIFE programme's resources; the disadvantage of the Commission's drive to merge all priorities for support (Structural Funds and the Rural Development Fund) is that environmental projects will have to compete with other activities.

2.1

expresses it concern over the desire expressed by the European Commission to delegate a very substantial part of the programming and the budget (between 75 % and 80 %) of the LIFE+ instrument to the various Member States, without defining, in the proposal for a Regulation, the procedures and conditions in respect of these ‘decentralisation’ measures;

2.2

warns of the need for vigilance in order to ensure that the desire to achieve simplification and flexibility, which underlies the proposal for a Regulation, does not lead to a ‘renationalisation’ of EU environmental policy and points out that, for the first time, a key programme for supporting one of the major internal policies of the European Commission is being ‘nationalised’ for no good reason, as European funding is already available for taking action for the benefit of the environment at local level;

2.3

considers it inappropriate that all the criteria for defining the measures to be financed are set out in a multi-annual strategic programme and annual work programmes and draws attention, in this context, to the fact that the funding arrangements (rates of grant, actions and eligibility criteria) are not spelled out in the proposal for a Regulation;

2.4

calls for the concept of ‘European added value’ to be clarified and explanations to be provided as to the bearing which this objective is to have on the nature and selection of the projects and its bearing on the other sources of EU funding which could intervene; stresses, in this context, the need to draw up a number of objective criteria and to explore the possibility of modulation in respect of clear European added value;

2.5

draws attention to the desire, set out in section 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, to make LIFE+ a simplified and proportionate instrument and expresses the hope that vigilance will be demonstrated in applying this proportionality to the five main lines of intervention, bearing in mind that, irrespective of budgetary constraints, steps should be taken to ensure that the LIFE+ instrument does not become the tool of just part of EU environmental policy; this vigilance must be exercised when the two multi-annual programmes, which it is planned to formulate at EU level (2007-2009 and 2010-2013) are drawn up; vigilance should, however, also be shown in the event of the possible establishment of national programmes;

2.6

calls upon the Commission, in this context, to make an appraisal of the consequences and the feasibility of introducing minimum commitment thresholds in respect of each of the intervention priorities;

2.7

expresses its deep concern over the maintenance of priorities and the possibilities for funding certain projects, in particular the funding of the establishment and management of the NATURA 2000 network of sites, as well as projects to improve the environmental condition of surface waters; believes that the financial instruments provided for under the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 are not such as to ensure successful implementation of the network; and calls upon the European Commission to explain the links and shed light on the available (earmarked) budgets under each of the financial instruments (European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and ERDF), other than LIFE+, which should provide a source of funding for these projects;

2.8

requests the Commission in particular to significantly increase the EUR 300 million annual budget allocated to LIFE+ in order to cater for a variety of needs and to earmark a minimum percentage for implementation of the NATURA 2000 network;

2.9

has reservations about the area of intervention covered by the ‘Implementation and Governance’ strand, which seeks to improve the ‘knowledge base’ for the development and implementation of environmental policy; without wishing to call the need for such a measure into question, these interventions would appear to fall, first and foremost, within the remit of the European Environment Agency (EEA);

2.10

calls upon the European Commission, therefore, to improve the definition of the actions which it is planned to carry out under this heading and to improve the coordination between these measures and both the initiatives and the budgets of the EEA.

3.1

considers that the expenditure commitments in respect of improvements to the environment provided for under the forthcoming financial perspectives should ensure that efficient and effective back-up action is taken at EU level in such a way as to trigger, by means of the multiplier effect, actions at national, regional or local level and stresses that the bulk of expenditure in this field has to be met by regional and local bodies and that regional and local authorities are major players in the funding of these actions;

3.2

considers that LIFE+ must not, however, serve as a mere back-up instrument for these interventions; as is the case with the projects financed under the current LIFE instrument, LIFE+ should rather provide funding, geared to initiatives which provide a specific European added value in the field of EU environmental policies;

3.3

attaches great importance to the involvement of local and regional authorities in the establishment and implementation of funding programmes in the environmental field; does, however, express its concern over the fact that this role is not set out in clear and explicit terms in the proposal for a Regulation, despite the fact that the Commission wishes to decentralise, to a considerable extent, the programming and management of LIFE+;

3.4

takes the view that there is a need to clarify a number of the conditions relating to the implementation of the LIFE+ instrument, as regards the procedures for co-financing operations between the LIFE+ instrument, on the one hand, and the Member States, local and regional authorities and other public and private players, on the other hand, and draws attention, in this context, to the difficulties encountered by several players — in particular private sector players — in securing funding for environmental projects having a low level of cost effectiveness simply by pursuing a proactive approach;

3.5

urges that, in this context, steps be taken to explore flexible methods of partnership and to establish an approach based on a tripartite model, geared to the use of methods incorporating activities carried out under contract, thereby involving local and regional governments in the achievement of political objectives, with a view to giving a shot in the arm to the implementing mechanisms.

20.9.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/75

1.

the outermost regions, as recognised by Article 299(2) of the Treaty, have since 2001 been covered by a specific framework for Community intervention in the area of agriculture entitled ‘a programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature’ of these regions, stemming from a Council Decision of 1989;

2.

these programmes, which are part of the Community's policy in favour of the outermost regions, include measures intended to improve the conditions for producing and marketing agricultural products from these regions;

3.

in spite of the value and efficacy of the measures implemented, the permanent structural handicaps facing the outermost regions (especially dependence on a small number of economic sectors, distance from centres of supply and large markets, the ensuing additional costs, and the lack of food self-sufficiency) fully justify continuing and stepping up such programmes, in particular by means of support measures for the supply of raw materials for animal and human consumption, and for the expansion of the livestock and vegetable sectors, which are the building blocks of socio-economic development in these regions;

4.

in its May 2004 Communication on a stronger partnership for the outermost regions, the Commission expressed the view that ‘following the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy, there is still a need to ensure the stability of the resources allocated to maintaining support for the outermost regions and, as far as possible, to decentralise decision taking and simplify the management arrangements’ of these programmes;

5.

the proposed reform, which is to come into force before the 2007 deadline, in spite of the programming schedule for certain measures, is deemed not to affect the substance of the current programming and not to financially penalise the regions covered by the programme;

6.

by proposing to base the budget envelope allocated to the ‘supply’ part of the relevant programmes on the average of the 2001-2003 historical references, the Commission is in practice penalising the eligible regions and overlooking the fact that in 2001 the new legislative framework had not come into force; it also disregards any potential increase in supply needs, thereby failing to guarantee the flexibility needed for the development of the system;

7.

in addition to the management measures, the proposed reform also modifies the legal form of the programmes by merging the three Regulations 1452/2001, 1453/2001 and 1454/2001 into a single joint regulation;

8.

it is therefore essential to ensure that the Commission's proposal to reform the instrument's management methods does not compromise the basic principles and objectives of the Posei schemes, and specifically: