22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/1

1.1

welcomes the Commission's thematic strategy as this sets out an integrated and holistic approach to the waste issue that is conducive to further, necessary environmental improvements in this field;

1.2

stresses that waste policy is of fundamental importance for environment policy as a whole; hence a concerted, enhanced approach to waste policy will do much to benefit the environment;

1.3

stresses that, in most Member States, it is local and regional authorities that are responsible for implementing a major part of EU environment policy, of which waste management is a key aspect; notes, also, that local and regional authorities should play a key role in the process of developing new approaches and proposals for measures within the waste area;

1.4

notes that moving away from simple waste disposal to a sustainable policy skewed towards prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery requires a substantial effort as well as dialogue with the local level, and that local and regional authorities need additional human and financial resources to perform this task;

1.5

draws attention to the waste hierarchy, which should be the central, dominant principle of waste policy, but notes that this hierarchy is open to the incorporation of new aspects such as a proportionate use of the life cycle approach taking into account the whole life cycle of products should these prove effective and practicable to implement;

1.6

would caution, however, that, in a number of areas such as end-of-waste and the mixing of hazardous waste, the thematic strategy proposes relaxations of the rules that are unnecessary and inappropriate and may have an adverse impact on the environment;

1.7

notes the continued need for clear legislation, for instance in the definition of recycling and recovery;

1.8

endorses the aims of the thematic strategy and supports the view that EU waste policy does have the potential to reduce the overall negative environmental impact of resource use, and that the EU's goal must be to become a recycling society;

1.9

considers the waste hierarchy to be a focus of the goals set out in the thematic strategy;

1.10

feels it makes sense for the thematic strategy to focus on existing problems of implementation and adaptation of current legislation, taking into account the evolution of science and technology;

1.11

endorses the emphasis placed by the thematic strategy on the simplification and modernisation of existing legislation, provided this makes it easier to implement environmental protection measures;

1.12

is pleased to note the reference to the waste hierarchy, which is considered a key starting point for any moves to tackle the waste issue, providing the very foundation upon which any sound and successful waste policy is built;

1.13

laments the fact that the waste hierarchy is being levelled down to three aspects; placing reuse, recycling and recovery on the same footing runs counter to the spirit of a number of legal acts;

1.14

has its doubts as to whether, given the article's scope for interpretation, Member States will take the necessary measures and use the best possible tools to achieve the article's objectives;

1.15

regrets the deletion of the legal base for the adoption of legislation specifically dealing with waste streams;

1.16

notes that, under the definition given here, anyone treating waste is always considered to be a waste producer irrespective of any changes made to the nature or composition of the waste; this is not consistent with the Commission's own end-of-waste concept;

1.17

welcomes the clearer definition of recovery by incineration, but notes the considerable uncertainty that still persists in the definition of recovery by other forms of treatment;

1.18

regrets the deletion of the reference to the polluter pays principle, which is the basis for the application of producer responsibility;

1.19

is concerned that introducing and defining the end-of-waste concept may have a far-reaching and damaging impact, i.e. that:

1.20

notes that the end-of-waste concept is limited to waste streams where this provides genuine environmental benefits, but finds the scope of the concept very unclear as no details are given of what is actually meant by genuine ‘environmental benefits’;

1.21

is pleased that the directive on hazardous waste and the framework directive are being brought together into a single framework directive;

1.22

regrets that the rules on the separation of hazardous waste do not state clearly that mixing is forbidden to all actors (including producers, collectors and transporters) except for facilities that have received a permit in accordance with Article 19 (cf. points 1(a) and 1(d));

1.23

endorses the Commission's aim to set minimum standards for treatment permits that would ensure a high level of health and environmental protection; however, opposes the fact that the Commission would be allowed to set minimum standards via an undemocratic comitology process;

1.24

welcomes the rules on the registration of parties handling waste in its final stages;

1.25

backs the increased requirements for waste management plans, which are seen as useful, flexible tools that can also help promote the spread of good practice in this field;

1.26

endorses the call to use economic instruments in waste policy, such as charges levied on materials and treatment as well as in relation to waste prevention, and notes the successful experience that has been gained with such instruments in a number of countries; stresses, however, that existing differentiated use of economic instruments distorts competition and thus emphasises the need to maintain the smooth functioning of the internal market;

1.27

is concerned about the fact that the Commission is leaving it up to the individual Member States to develop indicators to measure the achieved results; urges therefore the Commission to establish quantitative and qualitative indicative targets and indicators at Community level;

1.28

endorses the new provisions on the inspection of collectors and transporters;

1.29

considers that correlation tables are a useful means of securing the directive's full implementation;

1.30

thinks that the introduction of life-cycle analyses under the thematic strategy is a useful approach, as it takes into account the environmental impact of products throughout their life-cycle, but is sorry to note that the strategy focuses only to a very limited degree on the early stage of this cycle, i.e. producers and the onus that is on them to design more environmentally friendly products; believes that the Directive should be explicitly linked to the REACH Directive with the aim of preventing the production of hazardous waste and reducing its harmfulness;

1.31

also questions how the analyses are actually drawn up. It is of crucial importance that clear guidelines be laid down to determine who is responsible for validating analyses of this kind, as, otherwise, their importance will be diminished and they will fail to fulfil their intended purpose;

1.32

supports the Commission in its desire to promote provision of information and research and development in the area of waste, since increased knowledge and information are key elements in improving the waste practice of producers and authorities, and in changing consumer behaviour with a view to producing less waste; notes, however, in the light of the division of responsibilities in most Member States, the need to build on the already solid knowledge base that exists at the local and regional level; feels that the waste strategy gives a fragmented picture of the information sources that exist at Community level: the European Environment Agency, Eurostat, the Joint Research Centre, the European Bureau in Seville and the Commission's new online service ‘Science for Environment Policy — DG Environment News Alert Service’. It is crucial for local and regional players that the Commission try to define more clearly the functions of each of these knowledge centres, that their analyses be coordinated and structured, and that existing knowledge be made available in a readily accessible form;

1.33

agrees on the need for more ambitious waste prevention policies in the Member States and thus feels that the obligation to develop waste prevention programmes is a sensible move;

1.34

emphasises that the creation of a level playing field among the Member States is of key importance in preventing environmentally unsound practices like standard dumping, and therefore supports the Commission's initiative in this field;

1.35

stresses the importance of including social elements in environmental policy and is pleased to note that the Commission recognise the high growth rate and labour intensiveness of the waste management and the recycling sector; calls, however, for a discussion on whether implementation of the strategy creates jobs at a European-wide level;

1.36

notes that in order to deliver on this aim of the strategy, legislation must provide a level of certainty that matches the planning and investment horizons of businesses engaged in the further development of recycling;

1.37

notes that the local and regional authorities play an important role in implementing the thematic strategy, and thus also have a key part to play in ensuring its monitoring and evaluation; calls therefore for these authorities to be given a proactive role as key agents in the application of waste management policies in the different EU Member States.

2.1

deplores the significant loosening of the mixing ban, its replacement by conditions under which mixing may be permitted and a narrowing of the definition of mixing — a move that must be seen as a substantial change involving major environmental risks; and thus recommends keeping the unrestricted ban on the mixing of hazardous waste;

2.2

asks that, in the 2010 evaluation and in any future evaluations, a discussion be held as to whether energy recovery rates for new plants should be increased from the proposed 65 % to reflect technological developments, and whether different requirements might be applied to recycling facilities, also to take account of technological developments.

—

to list under Article 3 the definitions that are spread throughout the text of the Commission proposal,

—

to add some missing definitions (e.g. the words ‘dealer’ and ‘broker’ are used in Article 25 without being defined) by replicating definitions that have already been adopted through co-decision in connection with the adoption of the new Regulation on Shipments of Waste,

—

to bring clarity to some of the definitions proposed.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/18

1.

Local and regional authorities are the decision-making and executive level which is closest to EU citizens. The measures needed to bring about cleaner air in Europe must be devised, accepted, implemented and monitored in dialogue with European Union citizens.

2.

In the EU's 25 Member States it is at local and regional level that the proposed measures to limit the environmental impact of vehicle traffic must be put into practice.

3.

Promoting use of environmental vehicles is in line with the local and regional authority objective to decrease energy consumption and, as a result, atmospheric pollution.

4.

The local and regional authorities should not carry the burden for promoting clean vehicles alone. Measures are urgently needed for the immediate involvement of the private sector and enterprises carrying out public-sector tasks.

5.

It is through the combined impact of measures implemented locally and regionally that the unsustainable trends that we see today can be reversed.

1.1

welcomes the Commission's aim to improve air quality through green public procurement;

1.2

calls for the measures, set out in the proposal for a directive, on the procurement of clean road transport vehicles by public bodies to take the form of a recommendation;

1.3

would stress that, if however a directive were to be adopted, the proposed measures must be taken forward in close cooperation with the EU's municipalities and regions. Consultation upstream of the current draft directive was primarily with the car and fuel industry and the Member States at national level;

1.4

assumes that, the municipalities and regions are to be involved in further efforts to frame, implement, follow up and evaluate the measures proposed in the directive should it be adopted; does not, however, consider it necessary expressly to set up a committee to advise the Commission in its work;

1.5

would stress the need to inform the public on the measures implemented and to explain the European legislative process and its effects by means of practical examples.. The local and regional level has an important role to play here, as — inter alia — the Commission's white paper on EU communication policy confirms;

1.6

endorses the essential grounds for and objectives of the Commission proposal; would, however, stress that laying down rules on the award of contracts which apply only to the public sector is unacceptable. As the European Commission correctly states in its proposal for a directive, the public sector's share of the market for vans and lorries is only 6 %, but around 30 % for buses. The Committee would therefore advocate an approach which also involves the private sector to a greater extent. The Committee would, as a matter of principle, draw attention to the importance of adopting ‘soft’, non-legislative measures in the field of green procurement if the requisite basic conditions are in place. Large cities, in particular, are ready voluntarily to achieve high environmental protection objectives;

1.7

points out that, if obligations are imposed one-sidedly on the public sector, less financially well endowed authorities in particular might be deterred from investing or forced to outsource services of general interest;

1.8

calls for a holistic approach to potential measures to promote clean road transport. The Committee has reservations about the mandatory requirement contained in the proposed Directive that public bodies should procure 25 % of heavy duty vehicles on the basis of clean vehicle standards. It would be preferable to apply engine standards for all vehicles and all customer groups. Additional measures are required in order to comply with existing limit values for atmospheric pollution;

1.9

welcomes the intention to promote the use of biofuels. Increasing the production of bioethanol and biodiesel in Europe in order to replace traditional road fuels (petrol and diesel) would bring several benefits. It would:

1.10

rejects the directive on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles; the following measures should instead be taken:

1.11

would stress that conditions for implementing the proposed directive on promoting clean road transport would vary across the different Member States:

Given these differing conditions, support to the local and regional level would need to vary across the EU;

1.12

would stress, in case of the adoption of a directive, the need for a follow-up and evaluation of its implementation in close cooperation with the municipal and regional level. It is important that the results of the directive be compiled and presented, both in terms of the number of clean vehicles produced and the impact this has had on air quality. Feedback to the municipal and regional level and to EU citizens is essential if the directive's intentions are to be pursued and developed. It is also important to the future implementation of additional measures for promoting clean road transport.

2.1

calls on EU lawmakers to include uniform measures for the public and private sector in ongoing efforts to promote clean road transport;

2.2

assumes that economic support for green public procurement is to be given to the municipal and regional level;

2.3

underlines the need for information and training initiatives to support and develop public sector procurement of clean vehicles;

2.4

calls for a holistic approach to potential measures to promote clean road transport;

2.5

suggests that the reporting system used to follow up a possible directive on promoting clean road transport be coordinated with other reporting systems. Coordination should be inter alia with the reporting system proposed in the draft directive on air quality and cleaner air in Europe;

2.6

assumes that the municipalities and regions are to be involved in further efforts to frame, implement, follow up and evaluate the measures proposed in a possible directive.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/21

1.1

The Committee of the Regions can endorse much of the European life-long learning strategy, which starts in early childhood and continues all through life, and welcomes the fact that it embraces learning acquired in various ways such as formal, non-formal and informal learning. The Committee of the Regions has on several occasions emphasised that the life-long learning strategy concerns the local and regional level closely, as it often shoulders political and economic responsibility for the education and training sector in the Member States. Frequently local and regional authorities act, alongside the social authorities, as coordinator for development and growth with responsibility for public welfare and infrastructure. They also exercise the role of employer, and are responsible for, as well as having an interest in, upgrading the skills of their workforce (9).

1.2

Education issues are crucial if Europe is to mobilise competitively in conditions that can safeguard welfare. Europe's biggest asset — its people — must be equipped for a working life and type of work that differ significantly from those of previous generations and that will continue to transform rapidly. Businesses and employees alike are facing changes that are hard to assess in advance.

1.3

Naturally, the circumstances and initial situation against which local and regional development takes place will differ, but it can on no account be regarded as happening in isolation from the surrounding environment. As old jobs disappear, regions and communities need jobs in new production sectors or risk facing stagnation, social exclusion in the form of unemployment, etc., high rates of sick leave and an unwelcome trend towards early withdrawal from the labour market.

1.4

People's skills and abilities therefore need to be developed in a way that corresponds to knowledge-based activity. Good language proficiency, communicative skills in general and the ability to be a team player are increasingly important qualities for the individual. The current trend towards faster trade flows, globalised markets and segmentation makes teamwork all the more necessary. This applies to different businesses/organisations locally and regionally and between regions. The different parts of Europe are increasingly mutually dependent, as are Europe and the rest of the world.

1.5

Interplay between working life, society and higher education is an important prerequisite for innovation and growth at local and regional level. An inclusive, non-discriminatory infrastructure is needed to encourage active citizenship and joint responsibility for social cohesion and sustainable development.

1.6

The Committee of the Regions has on previous occasions argued that it should play an active role in promoting lifelong learning at local and regional level (10). Logically, this includes issues relating to education objectives and key competences. The Committee of the Regions considers it vitally important that the issues addressed in the communication should penetrate through to the local and regional level.

1.7

The Committee of the Regions wishes to take this work forward in order to follow and support future development and suggests it should work with the Commission on these issues, for example on pilot projects and analyses.

1.8

The Committee of the Regions would stress the benefits of developing regional lifelong learning networks (corresponding to the R3L initiative) in order to strengthen networking amongst institutions and associations for compulsory, higher and vocational education and training and culture, as a key factor in enhancing employability and active citizenship.

2.1

Seen from the above perspectives, it is extremely important to focus on key competences for lifelong learning in current and future society and working life. This applies to development support at local and regional, national and EU level generally. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission's proposed recommendations to the Member States on key competences for lifelong learning.

2.2

The Committee of the Regions finds it particularly positive that the Commission's proposals highlight the role and importance of the regional and local level. This constitutes significant progress compared to earlier Commission proposals which were almost exclusively limited to the European and national level.

2.3

The Committee of the Regions sees the integrated programme for lifelong learning as an important way to promote the learning sector and to strengthen key competences for lifelong learning. Greater mobility for citizens leads to dissemination of knowledge and skills in the EU regions and municipalities and can help improve competitiveness and boost employment.

2.4

One of the cornerstones of the Commission's recommendations is to ensure that adults can update their key competences throughout their lives and that special focus is given to target groups that have been identified as priority groups in a national, regional or local context. Local and regional initiatives to motivate and inform the less well educated could make an important contribution here. It is a question of building on people's knowledge, experience and interests rather than starting with their shortcomings and failings.

2.5

The impact of the Commission recommendations on the changes in economic, social, cultural and other processes will depend on the concrete and immediate actions taken at national, regional and local level. The Committee of the Regions would therefore stress the need to reform formal and informal education systems. These programmes must cover all levels, with the aim of bringing these systems closer to the needs of the EU labour market and the requirements of the lifelong learning strategy.

2.6

Gender differences in educational participation and achievement are important factors to take on board and address nationally, regionally and locally. This could take the form of encouraging girls and women to study science and technology. In other contexts it is men that need support. In a number of regions and municipalities it is mostly men who abandon their studies and show less motivation and propensity for continuing education.

2.7

The Committee of the Regions considers that the Commission's suggested recommendations to the Member States will provide an important lever to steer educational systems in Europe towards a faster, more focused approach, with a view to achieving agreed objectives on competitiveness, welfare and participation. The Committee of the Regions endorses these and would make a number of comments as follows:

2.8.1

The Committee of the Regions stresses that it is important to provide even young children with effective support for their focused development, whilst ensuring they do not need to feel they have failed along the way. Moreover, compulsory education lays the ground for continuous learning throughout a lifetime through formal, non-formal and informal learning. It is important to take note that children and young people learn in different ways, mature at different rates and often need different timescales to achieve objectives. This is a big challenge in developing education systems and for teacher training.

2.8.2

Children and young people with special needs such as disabilities need particular support so that they can play an active part along with other children.

2.9.1

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that the Commission document addresses the need for special measures for those with shortcomings in their previous education. The Committee agrees that educational shortcomings are often a result of personal, social, cultural and economic factors, and these should be remedied in cooperation with the various sectors of society. It is essential to remove efficiently any obstacles to employment, education or other opportunities.

2.9.2

The Committee of the Regions stresses that it is essential that all students regardless of background are given the chance to achieve educational objectives and do not leave school early. Specific initiatives and special support that build on the individual student's abilities and needs are required here.

2.9.3

The EU will not be able to achieve the ambitious objectives it has set itself if a number of people are excluded from work and higher performance levels on the basis of gender, disability, cultural or ethnic background, age etc. The local and regional authorities have an important role to play in promoting inclusive, non-discriminatory strategies and in offering all people equal rights and equal opportunities.

2.9.4

The Committee of the Regions considers that cross-border networking between European regions in order to share experience and build knowledge, corresponding to the R3L initiative, would be welcome. This is a question of getting the issue onto the agenda, continuing to develop methodology, skills transfers and garnering support.

2.10.1

The CoR sees this proposal as important and notes that needs often vary considerably between different regions and communities, and that different approaches are needed if all are to be catered for. There is therefore good reason to stress that in many cases it is precisely at local and regional level that prioritised groups must be identified. For example, cooperation could be developed with organisations that have experience of adult education and with the social partners.

2.10.2

The CoR considers that, of the target groups identified as priorities, particular attention should be paid to the category of local and regional government employees, so that they can develop and update key competences throughout their working lives in line with the public duties they perform.

2.11.1

The CoR has previously (11) emphasised that it is essential to mobilise local and regional level resources to support lifelong learning and stressed the need for discussions to be launched at local and regional level. In its opinion, the CoR stressed that geographical access should also be seen in conjunction with other measures to improve access for the individual, both in terms of structure and organisation. This could be done by, for example, providing daytime/evening and weekend courses; courses during summer and traditional holiday periods; frequent course start dates, distance learning and guided flexible learning. It could also involve providing participants with the economic resources to take up their studies. It is also a question of capitalising on the various forms of learning that have taken place outside the formal school system.

2.11.2

With regard to infrastructure, the CoR sees no need for any standardised local learning centres to be rolled out across the board. As far as possible they should build on existing structures and in accordance with local conditions and requirements.

2.12.1

The Committee of the Regions would stress that this point is extremely important to successful local and regional development. It is particularly important for the local and regional level to be able to bring different policy areas together at local and regional level — economic policy, education policy, labour market policy, integration policy and social policy — in order to avoid any ‘tunnel vision’. It is therefore important that responsibilities and powers go hand in hand, as far as possible. Here the Committee of the Regions sees a need for economic resources and more flexible use of resources so that initiatives can be implemented within the framework of the integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning. Cooperation between society, the world of work and higher education is crucial to growth in regions and municipalities.

2.13.1

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the proposal for key competences for lifelong learning. This focuses on the basic qualifications an individual needs to be equipped with in a knowledge-intensive society. These key competences can serve as a starting point for future competence requirements in discussions at EU, national, and local and regional level. In Europe this is extremely relevant to efforts to achieve the Lisbon Strategy objectives. It is precisely at local and regional level that these competence issues are put into practice.

2.13.2

The Committee of the Regions takes the view that these competences need to be the subject of lively, continuous discussion and continuous dialogue and development. For example, social and civic competences involve a number of aspects that could eventually need to be developed further or divided up. Furthermore, several of the key competences are closely linked.

2.13.3

The Committee of the Regions accepts that the Commission has worked continuously to develop further the proposal on key competences. The Committee of the Regions endorses the proposal on key competences drafted by the Commission.

2.13.4

The Committee of the Regions makes more detailed comments on each of the proposed key competences in the following section.

—

Communication in the mother tongue.

—

Communication in foreign languages.

—

Mathematical competence and basic competence in science and technology.

—

Digital competence.

—

Learning to learn.

—

Social competence and civic competence.

—

Enterprise and entrepreneurship.

—

Cultural expression.

3.1.1

The Committee of the Regions agrees that it is necessary to be able to communicate in the mother tongue, both orally and in writing.

3.1.2

One's own language is the basis for continued learning, self-expression and identity. A good knowledge of and proficiency in the mother tongue are thus fundamental to the learning process. Language paves the way for accessing information and provides the basis for communication with others, for participation and responsibility.

3.1.3

The Committee would point out that the Commission and national agencies should work closely with local and regional authorities in areas with less widely spoken languages that have a lower profile in current education systems, to encourage more people to learn these languages (12).

3.2.1

In the Europe of the future it will be increasingly necessary to master several languages. It creates opportunities to establish closer contacts and to acquire a better understanding of other countries' cultures, customs and lifestyles. It is also an important requirement for accessing higher education and provides the basis for greater mobility in the labour market. There is already a mutual dependency between Europe's various language areas. Exchanges between countries will increase, economies are ever more intertwined and goods and services are increasingly being produced across national and language borders. The Committee of the Regions would stress that European language diversity must be seen as an asset.

3.3.1

The Committee of the Regions sees it as important that mathematical competence and competence in science and technology should be developed in such a way that the student feels it is meaningful and motivating. Mathematics can be a tool for other subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology and social studies. Knowledge in and about the subject can also be a natural part of a modern approach to education. Scientific competence is important inter alia to the ability to see and understand the connection between cause and effect, and to test propositions. Active citizenship requires a certain amount of competence in mathematics and science. Competence in technology should be built on the experience of both men and women. It is also important to show how conceptions and traditions shape perceptions of what is masculine and feminine in the field of technology.

3.3.2

In the framework of the European research area, a specific endeavour must be made to increase young people's and women's interest in scientific and technological careers. The confident and critical use of Information Society Technology must be accessible to all. The expansion of Science Parks is an interesting approach to making science and technology studies more attractive.

3.4.1

An inclusive, non-discriminatory information structure for digital competence must be created for the EU as a whole. The CoR attaches much importance to the promotion of a socially and geographically equitable information society ensuring that all citizens are equipped with the skills they need to live and work in this new digital age. The ability to handle large information flows and complex issues thus becomes an important quality that more and more people will need to possess.

3.5.1

‘Learning to learn’ involves an outlook and approach towards one's own education and a technique for acquiring new knowledge. For each individual it involves self-awareness, an awareness of how one reacts in various learning situations, of one's best learning strategies, strong points and areas for improvement. It is also a question of motivation and self-confidence. The ‘lifelong learning strategy’ largely builds, of course, on a learning perspective and on the fact that this learning takes place in various ways and in different contexts. It involves being able to relearn and being open to learning new things. It also involves being able to build on existing knowledge, skills and earlier experience and acquiring the ability to harness them in a number of different situations.

3.5.2

The Committee of the Regions sets great store by this attribute in the context of the knowledge society. It is particularly important that teacher training courses equip future teachers to work in this way. The nature of this issue is such that it differs from the other key competences and is connected with the ability to develop them all. The Committee of the Regions therefore considers that this key competence should be singled out and placed before the others.

3.6.1

The expressions ‘social competence’ and ‘civic competence’ cover a spectrum of issues which the Committee of the Regions considers should receive the utmost attention. It is partly to do with developing personal qualities and the ability to establish contacts with other people. A good communicative ability — in the broad sense — is becoming ever more important in the working and social life typical of the information society. It also involves inter-cultural understanding.

3.6.2

This field of competence includes social aspects in the sense that the individual sees himself as a resource for himself, his family and his environment.

3.6.3

It also includes medicinal aspects such as an insight into the importance of a healthy lifestyle, physical and mental health and an active lifestyle. As medicine advances, the health of children and young people is deteriorating in many societies, owing to poor dietary and exercise habits. This will become very serious unless something is done.

3.6.4

Another very important aspect is the role of civic citizenship. This involves understanding democracy, individual rights and responsibilities. All of these can be promoted at the local and regional level. The Committee proposes supplementing the definition so as to mention the need for citizens to know the history of the EU, its objectives, the essential facts relating to the Treaty on European Union and to the relations that the Union maintains with its Member States, the problems and progress made concerning the adoption of the European Constitution and the principles underpinning the various policy areas.

3.6.5

The importance of sustainable development and an understanding of our responsibility for our common environment is an aspect that the Committee of the Regions considers should be clearly stated in this context.

3.7.1

Enterprise and Entrepreneurship are essentially about being pro-active, turning ideas into action. It is therefore important that from an early age the school system supports and encourages this type of active approach and develops methodologies for this. The Committee of the Regions would highlight the importance of harnessing the potential of women and ethnic groups with good business acumen who wish to start a business. Women could also need active support from various authorities in order to gain access to new technologies. Such initiatives could, together with an active labour market policy, reduce the employment gap between men and women in many parts of Europe. The above is crucial to the future of the EU's economy and wellbeing (13).

3.8.1

The Committee of the Regions agrees that it is very important to understand the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe and to preserve it (14). This involves capitalising on various forms of expression such as music, art, literature and language as part of human learning and development. Generally speaking, it is important to capitalise on people's different perspectives and approaches.

3.8.2

In this context, the Committee of the Regions would stress the historical perspective, i.e. how contacts between different parts of Europe in different periods of time have affected development, and that for at least five decades there has been a well-founded idea of a European Community, which the European Union currently expresses.

3.9.1

The Committee of the Regions is keen to follow and support developments ensuing from the Commission's recommendations and proposes it should work with the Commission on these issues in the future.

3.9.2

The Committee of the Regions endorses the Commission's proposals on key competences for lifelong learning and considers that they should be subject to continuous dialogue and development.

3.9.3

The Committee of the Regions suggests that the ‘learning to learn’ key competence should be placed before the others as it involves an approach to one's own learning and various techniques for acquiring new knowledge. It thus highlights the requirements for all the other proposed key competences.

3.9.4

The ‘social competence and civic competence’ key competence should also include the importance of sustainable development and an appreciation of responsibility for our common environment.

3.9.5

The Committee of the Regions stresses the importance of becoming culturally aware; this is the very foundation of any receptiveness to the diversity of Europe's languages and cultures, and the key to understanding them and to the enrichment that these may bring to each and every European citizen.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/29

1)

A new, modern European industrial policy, geared towards enhancing the competitiveness of EU industry, is an absolute top priority for the ‘Growth and Jobs’ agenda. The underlying issues do, indeed, affect all of the regions of the EU and the dynamism of the respective processes is both considerable and compelling. The CoR therefore welcomes the ambitions expressed by the Commission and also its readiness to take robust action to facilitate the necessary reforms.

2)

In the light of the rapid changes occurring in the world economy, there is a need to take action as a matter of considerable urgency, since the competitive position of EU industry is under substantial pressure. This, in turn, places extra pressure on the tempo and the decisiveness of the process of renewing European industrial policy. The CoR appreciates the commitment which the Commission has asked for and obtained from many sectoral organisations but wonders whether this provides adequate starting points for action. Against the background of global economic competition, Europe is developing its future strengths above all in a number of competitive regions referred to in this opinion as ‘valleys’; these valleys are inspired by the concept of Silicon Valley and the philosophy of the World Economic Forum. These European ‘valleys’, which have been built on the foundations of old industries and industrial sectors, provide the future driving force for economic and social renewal.

3)

Examples of such ‘valleys’ are the following regions: Stockholm, Cambridge, Bavaria, Rhône-Alpes, south-east Netherlands, and emerging regions, such as Värmland, Riga and Saxony-Anhalt. The CoR calls upon the Commission to make the concept of ‘valleys’ the core of its ‘new agenda’ for European industrial policy and thereby to capitalise more effectively on the establishment of regional economic complexes in Europe. With this aim in view, there is a need to make the current proposals considerably more effective; these proposals go no further than proposing the establishment of ‘framework conditions’ and, in this respect, provide too little impulse for renewal. It is essential that, above all, measures to stimulate trans-sectoral developments, geared to new technology-product-marketing-combinations, be placed at the heart of the new European industrial policy.

4)

In this opinion, the CoR puts forward a number of concrete proposals for bringing about a considerable increase in the effectiveness of EU instruments and promoting more intensive integration of these instruments. A robust basis for action in this field needs to be established in the course of the forthcoming German presidency of the Council; the CoR calls upon the Commission and the European Parliament to put forward a forceful new policy.

1.1

In its outline of work, the European Commission sets out seven proposed cross-sectoral policy initiatives designed to address the common challenges across groupings of different industries and to reinforce the synergies between different policy areas. The proposed measures are as follows:

1.2

These proposals are, without exception, measures of outstanding importance with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of industries in the EU. The CoR therefore strongly supports the proposals from a general standpoint. In view of the CoR's own position, it calls for attention to be paid, in particular, to measures for managing structural change in industry, as well as parallel attention to the new simplification programme for legislation. This is the essential aspect in this context; the EU needs to move towards supporting and facilitating a new industrial policy deriving from the regions. In the debate on how to meet the challenges and the opportunities provided by globalisation, the competitiveness of the EU needs to be the central issue if we are to guarantee prosperity for our children. We reject a backward-looking protectionist approach, geared to preserving past achievements. Initiatives, such as the globalisation fund proposed by the Commission, must not be used for defensive purposes but rather to promote development, for example by providing training for new sectors which provide a wealth of opportunities.

1.3

The CoR calls for more vigorous efforts to be made to tie in with the European Commission's regional innovation policy, which also focuses on promoting the establishment of clusters and new forms of cooperation. Within the EU, there is already a number of good examples of cooperation between the European Commission and the regions; attention may be drawn in this context to the Noord-Brabant Innovation Act Programme 2005-2010 entitled ‘Connecting, creating and enabling winners’.

1.4

The formulation of cross-sectoral proposals, in particular, provides a possible means of establishing a modern, better integrated European industrial policy. With this aim in view, the CoR would like to briefly examine in the following paragraphs a number of the measures proposed by the European Commission, and would stress, above all, the need to exploit every opportunity to achieve a more integrated approach.

1.5

Over the next few years, energy and the environment will be global priority issues.

With the impetus being provided by the European Commission, a climate needs to be established in which threats can be transformed into opportunities. The fields of energy and the environment provide attractive new marketing opportunities and points of departure for both European industrial policy and research policy.

This approach will help to ensure that energy and sustainable development (‘greener’ products and production processes) are not addressed separately but rather as a really integral part of industrial policy and innovation policy. To this end, greater attention should be paid to developing alternative energy sources. Energy costs form a substantial component of the costs to be met by EU industry. The CoR calls upon the Member States to increase interconnection capacity so as to enable the liberalisation of the energy market to bring about a situation in which EU businesses can purchase gas and electricity throughout Europe. One way of making an active contribution towards the establishment of a level playing field in Europe is for local and regional authorities to be active shareholders in energy companies.

1.6

The CoR stresses that the new industrial policy must be seen in the framework of the Lisbon strategy and in the context of globalisation. Restructuring processes in regions and countries are consequences of this development. As stressed in the CoR's opinion on restructuring and delocalisation (CdR 148/2005 fin), it is necessary to ensure that restructuring is well-managed; in this context attention is also drawn to the observation made earlier in the present document to the effect that the proposed globalisation fund must be used for development purposes rather than defensive purposes. An essential prerequisite for commitment on the part of Brussels is that the action taken must promote economic and social cohesion; this must also provide the basis for a more effective and more flexible European labour market. It would be advisable to give a more central role to the priority issue at stake here, namely ‘social innovation’. The key issue is how we can better put employees in the EU, across the board, in a better position to go along with the sometimes radical restructuring measures, without falling victim to structural unemployment.

1.7

Increasing labour productivity, the employment rate and labour mobility are essential prerequisites if the EU is to be competitive. More attention needs to be paid to this point both in the policies pursued by the Member States and in the EU programmes and Structural Funds. Furthermore, there is a need for increased scope for giving (temporary) access to the EU labour market to highly trained workers from non-EU states; this type of liberalisation, too, helps to promote the competitiveness of the EU.

1.8

The CoR notes that some important European manufacturing sectors still have considerable advantages over their competitors, but globalisation may have negative effects on them as well. The provision of adequate protection for intellectual and industrial property is of vital importance for the maintenance of the competitive position of the EU. The existence of protection for intellectual property provides an incentive for innovative actions and the development of new business models. The regulatory framework needs to be adjusted to take account of rapidly changing technological and social developments. Legislation in this field needs to be more transparent and to provide more legal certainty. Rules need to be introduced and enforced at both European level (Community legislation) and global level (WTO, TRIPS). Many entrepreneurs in SMEs — which are the drivers of innovation — still do not know how precisely to deal with infringements of their intellectual property. A major problem with which many SMEs have to contend is that of the extremely high level of enforcement costs in Europe which are far higher than those applying in, for example, the USA. Furthermore, turning to the subject of the cost of submitting applications, it is of the utmost importance that, after 30 years discussing the issue, the Community patent is now introduced. Five years after the European Commission put forward a concrete proposal, this dossier still remains deadlocked at the Council as a result of a dispute over the question of language arrangements. The CoR calls upon the European Commission to put forward a harmonisation Directive, based on Article 95 of the TEC. Under this provision, national patent regimes may be maintained but would be subject to the principle of mutual recognition. By limiting the number of languages involved to the language of the Member State concerned, plus English, the cost of introducing the Community patent could be considerably reduced, which would benefit, above all, SMEs. In this way it would be possible to create an internationally competitive patent. Furthermore, it is essential to reduce to a minimum the charge for maintaining a patent, which is levied in many EU countries and acts as a disincentive to innovation.

1.9

In combination with the Structural Funds, the European framework programme KP7 and the Competitiveness Innovation Programme (CIP) play a very important role in respect of facilitating and guidance. Funding provided under the KP7 programme is essential if we are to enhance the competitiveness of the EU and to strengthen those regions which exploit leading-edge technology. When the Financial Perspectives are set out, the budget in question must not be reduced.

1.10

In this opinion, the CoR stresses the need for attention to be paid to stimulating the establishment of regional economic complexes in Europe (‘European valleys’). With this aim in view, it is essential that the use of the Structural Funds and the framework programmes, such as KP7 and CIP, in the regions can be pooled to a greater extent. The CoR calls upon the European Commission to put forward concrete proposals in this regard.

One aspect, amongst others, which is of particular importance is the concentration of resources on the most advanced research under the heading: measures to stimulate ‘open innovation’ culture and ‘clustering’ in the regions.

1.11

In order to develop a sustainable economic model for a region which exploits leading-edge technology, it is not simply a question of investing heavily in research. The experiences gained in, for example, the Eindhoven region's Brainport bring home this message. Promoting a great variety of applications of specific knowledge in several innovation chains creates new jobs at all levels and serves to firmly anchor knowledge in a given region. In this context, small and medium-sized enterprises are entitled to be provided with the same sort of incentive as those given to the parties who develop knowledge. The CoR calls upon the European Commission to target the European programmes and the Structural Funds more at stimulating the establishment of several innovation chains per region and urges it to exploit the multiplier effect to this end. This will make it possible to create a very large number of new jobs for persons in possession of higher education, higher vocational education and intermediate vocational education qualifications.

1.12

In connection with the last-mentioned point, the CoR calls for specific attention to be paid to the issue of the accessibility of EU framework programmes and funds to small- and medium sized enterprises. This is, in the CoR's view, a major problem; unless simplification measures are introduced, the ambition of promoting, above all, SMEs will have little chance of success. It is important to establish a greater degree of ‘open innovation culture’ under which resources and projects would be made more accessible to SMEs and made available to them under provisions allowing for a higher level of pooling.

1.13

Experience gained with regional innovation policy points to the fact that SMEs derive benefit, above all, from interaction with larger enterprises. The CoR therefore draws attention to the fact that European industrial policy should pay more explicit attention to interaction between large (1) and medium-sized or small enterprises. Interaction between SMEs and research centres is another aspect which is of major importance.

1.14

In conclusion, the CoR wishes to make just one further observation in respect of the possibilities of achieving a more integrated European industrial policy. Attention should be paid, in particular, to bringing about the integration of industrial policy with the policy in respect of sustainable development and social cohesion; this represents a key challenge for the EU. By pursuing this programme, the European Commission can help to ensure that, within the framework of the development of a sustainable knowledge-based society in Europe, a higher level of attention is paid to new forms of cooperation and product-market combinations in areas such as the health industry (medico-technical innovation), the environment and energy. This will provide European industries with interesting new markets.

1.15

Attention has already been drawn to the trend towards bundling and specialisation in respect of top-level economic activities in Europe. This trend may be strengthened in other policy areas, such as land-use policy and policy in respect of modern infrastructure. EU policy should be geared more towards creating effective conditions for (cross-frontier) top international locations, coupled with and opened up by modern European infrastructure. Furthermore, the idea put forward by the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, to set up an EU university (EIT) deserves support. The establishment of a top-level institute of technology in the EU may prevent a further braindrain of talent to other parts of the world. It is high time that the EU had an institute which was on a par with, for example, MIT in Boston.

1.16

The European Commission will put forward the following new initiatives:

1.17

The sectoral studies underpinning the European Commission's outline of work demonstrate that many European industries have the potential to remain competitive on the global level. The decisive factor in determining ‘world class performance’ is the extent to which industry is able to respond to demands in respect of both knowledge and innovation in connection with new products and production processes.

1.18

It is important that this process of change and reform continues to be strongly supported by both the EU and the individual Member States. As regards facilitation by the EU, the present EU framework programmes do, in our view, provide an effective set of instruments when taken together with the (new) EU Structural Funds.

1.19

In the case of sectors such as the machine and systems industries, the issues of focus and mass are of decisive importance in connection with the establishment of the European strategic agendas. The European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory Council (ENIAC) and Artemis strategic agendas are, in this connection, of key importance to European and national investment in this field.

1.20

In addition to the need to pay ongoing attention to the competitiveness of particular sectors, it is, however, important to note that Europe's future prosperity will be increasingly dependent upon inter-sectoral activities. Particular attention needs to be paid to this aspect in the European Commission's outline of work. Industrial policy can help to step up developments in this field by promoting ‘cross-sectoral interaction’. This can lead, by definition, to intermittent spectacular innovations in products and marketing. This is already beginning to happen in a number of sectors; examples which may be quoted are the food and pharmaceutical sectors (life sciences), biomedical technology, automotive and high-tech systems.

1.21

With the above aim in view, the four broad categories set out in the European Commission's outline of work do not constitute a sufficiently comprehensive list. In the case of life science industries, there is a need to refer also, for example, to the key area of ‘molecular medicine’. Furthermore, explicit reference should also be made, in particular, to nanoelectronics and embedded systems. In the light of current developments in the field in question, the category of ‘fashion and design industries’ also needs to be expanded by referring to ‘creative industry’.

1.22

It would therefore appear to be increasingly important to facilitate the development of coherent clusters of industrial activity and to promote new emerging industrial activities. The CoR urges the European Commission to make reference to this point in a more emphatic and explicit way in its outline of work.

1.23

The ‘cluster model’ — which involves intensive structural cooperation between governmental bodies, enterprises and universities and research bodies — represents, in this context, a crucial factor in ensuring the success of all the innovative regions in the EU. Examples of such areas are: the Stockholm region, Bavaria, Ile-de-France, Rhône-Alpes and South-East Netherlands. Such an approach based on the promotion of clusters should be robustly supported with a view to securing a renewed, better-integrated European industrial policy.

2.1

The European Commission's outline of work further fleshes out the Lisbon strategy and the Gothenborg objectives and is, in this respect, a consistently drafted document. As has already been pointed out at several points above, this document does, in our view, comprise many good and useful plans. Few people will disagree with this verdict. What the document lacks, however, is a clear vision of the future as regards how European industry can rise above its competitors, in the rest of the world.

2.2

The CoR recommends that a vision be set out which is both stimulating and promotes enthusiasm. What will the situation in Europe look like in 2027? How have industries in Europe responded to the tasks set out in 2006? How has the strategy of setting up ‘intelligent regions’ succeeded in bringing about economic and social renewal in all the EU Member States? In the drive to establish a sustainable knowledge-based society, how successful have we been in deriving new opportunities and markets in the fields of energy, the environment and the health industry? etc., etc.

2.3

The CoR recommends that greater emphasis be placed on the strategy of pursuing promising developments in the various regions, thereby bolstering the trend towards the concentration of economic activity and economic specialisation which will gather pace in Europe over the next few years. The starting point for such a strategy is that by facilitating the development of leading-edge regions, we will make a strong contribution towards wide-ranging economic and social renewal in all the Member States of the EU.

2.4

As part of the drive to bring about a renewal of EU industrial policy, the CoR recommends that criteria for identification of prospective leading competitive regions in Europe and within each Member State be approved, allowing channelling of European investment programme funds towards these competitive regions in order to supplement national and regional investments, but also support their physical and intellectual production.

In keeping with the ‘new solidarity’, the new European industrial policy, geared to promoting developments which provide a wealth of opportunity and the establishment of new regional-economic complexes, also needs to pay explicit attention to stimulating lagging regions. The CoR proposes that the European Commission make provision for a ‘leverage effect’; one example would be to set, as a condition for receiving contributions from the EU framework programmes and the Structural Funds, that beneficiaries must enter into inter-regional economic partnerships.

2.5

The task of stimulating those sectors of European industry which serve as a driving force for the economy so that they can achieve world-class level is, and will remain, one of the key objectives of EU industrial policy. The future prosperity of Europe will, however, become increasingly dependent upon inter-sectoral activities. It is recommended that the autonomous developments which are already taking place be given greater prominence in the ‘broad categories’ set out in the European Commission's outline of work.

2.6

The CoR therefore recommends that, in the new industrial policy for the EU, the European Commission pays greater attention to the strategic importance of adopting an inter-sectoral approach, recognising the powerful impact of ‘cross-sectoral interaction’. Structural cooperation between government bodies, industry and universities and research bodies, also known as the ‘Triple Helix’, is therefore an essential prerequisite. This cluster model is one of the key features of the new European industrial policy.

2.7

The promotion of ‘cross-sectoral interaction’ is geared towards innovation and completely new product-market combinations in industry. This interaction is however not confined solely to areas of industry; interaction with other, social fields produces a new dynamism. In this context, the CoR draws attention to interaction with art and culture (creative industry), interaction between cultures (new inter-cultural entrepreneurship) or interaction with vocational training (new expertise). In these areas, too, the EU can, and must, play an important role in providing a stimulus. The CoR calls upon the Commission to take account of these aspects in its programmes and in the new Structural Funds.

2.8

the cross-sectoral proposals, in particular, provide starting points for giving a strong boost to integration in EU policy. The CoR calls for additional emphasis to be given to the following areas:

2.9

In its outline of work the European Commission rightly acknowledges the considerable value of the innovative power of SMEs. The extent to which EU measures actually embrace these enterprises does, however, depend to a considerable degree — and above all — on whether EU provisions can be simplified. As the proposals in respect of SMEs stand at present, the possibilities for, for example, subsidising R and D carried out by SMEs will decrease considerably, which is at variance with the need to boost the global competitiveness of these enterprises. An average SME in the USA already spends more than seven times more on R and D than does its counterpart in the EU.

2.10

There is not a single enterprise which will in the near future be either willing or able to take on board all the administrative requirements of the EU in order to qualify for a grant of 15 %. The CoR therefore calls for a very intensive campaign to remove red tape with a view to making the EU framework programmes and the Structural Funds more accessible to SMEs. The CoR will give its full support to all proposals from the European Commission to achieve this goal.

In this context, the involvement of regional and local authorities, as the level of government closest to SMEs, will facilitate their access to Community aid.

2.11

Deregulation and a reduction in the administrative burden resulting from Community regulations, together with an intensive cost-benefit analysis of these regulations, are essential prerequisites for achieving the goals set out in Lisbon. In this context, it is important to carry out a ‘business impact assessment’ with regard to EU legislation. A prerequisite for ensuring the quality of such business impact assessments is that the assessments must be carried out objectively by an independent third party. The CoR calls upon the Commission to put forward proposals as soon as possible in this respect. The mechanism introduced in the Netherlands, involving the establishment of an independent audit body (the Advisory Board for Assessing Administrative Burdens [ACTAL]) could provide a starting point in this context.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/34

1.1

welcomes the new Framework Strategy as a positive contribution to the promotion of linguistic diversity and as a complement to the Commission's existing initiatives to improve communication between the European Commission and its citizens;

1.2

supports the three main aims of the Commission to: (1) encourage language learning and promote linguistic diversity in society; (2) promote a healthy multicultural economy; and (3) give citizens access to European Union legislation, procedures and information in their own languages;

1.3

however, feels that for such an important set of objectives the resources available are not sufficient;

1.4

accepts that the responsibility for making further progress with multilingualism mainly rests with Member States and their local and regional authorities but considers that the explicit support of the Commission is necessary to reinforce awareness and to improve the consistency of action at the different levels and across the EU;

1.5

highlights the important role played by local and regional authorities in implementing a policy to promote multilingualism and considers that references to this role should be more explicitly stated in the communication;

1.6

calls for greater recognition to be given to the role of town-twinning initiatives in language learning and cultural exchange and believes that such explicit involvement of people at local and regional level can narrow the distance between the EU and its citizens;

1.7

also believes that the recent amendment of Regulation 1/1958, under which Irish will be considered an official and working language of the European Union from 1 January 2007 onwards, and the Council conclusions of 13 June 2005, which permit administrative agreements between the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the Member States which allow for the official use of other languages that are recognised by the Constitution of a Member State in all or part of the territory and the use of which as a national language is authorised by law, are further important steps in closing the distance between the EU and a large number of its citizens;

1.8

recognises the important contribution of sectoral programmes such as Socrates, Youth and Leonardo and the integrated programme for Lifelong Learning in the promotion of language learning in the European Union. These provide good examples of actions that help to create a multilingual society and the CoR reiterates its view that the Commission can do more in this field;

1.9

In this connection, the Committee welcomes the fact that in its current proposal on the Integrated Programme for Lifelong Learning and Training, the European Commission has not discriminated between the different European languages and thus has not restricted inclusion in this programme to the official and working languages of the European Union only, as is the case now;

1.10

considers that the widest opportunities be made available for migrants to encourage the maintenance of their native languages and the learning of the language or languages of the host countries. The Committee considers that the rich cultural and linguistic diversity that migrant groups bring to the European Union should be more explicitly recognised and that provision should be made for the teaching of these languages as a minimum requirement. The Committee also emphasises the need for more specialised training for interpreters as a way of further facilitating communication between migrant and host communities.

1.11

agrees that curricula and structures for the teaching of a foreign language should reflect the changing demands that pupils and students face; therefore, looks forward to recommendations from the Commission on how to bring language teacher training and language-learning tools up to date;

1.12

supports the development of the academic field of multilingualism and interculturalism in European society and welcomes the Commission's proposal that research into linguistic diversity could be accompanied by networks of Chairs, along the lines of the successful Jean Monnet action;

1.13

is aware of the advantages of early language learning, provided teachers are trained specifically and therefore welcomes the Commission's forthcoming publication on a study of best practice in early language learning which the Committee considers should encompass a regional perspective and hopes that this study will take into consideration the many years of existing regional experience in this area;

1.14

emphasises that higher education institutions could be encouraged to play a more active role in promoting multilingualism amongst students and staff and would welcome more projects along the lines of The European Network for the promotion of Languages Among All Undergraduates (ENLU);

1.15

agrees that higher education institutions could also play a more active role in promoting multiculturalism in the wider local community by establishing links with local and regional authorities and local businesses;

1.16

agrees that the trend in non-English-speaking countries towards teaching through the medium of English, instead of through the national or regional language, may have unforeseen consequences for the vitality of those languages. The Committee emphasises the urgency in addressing this issue and welcomes the proposal to study the phenomenon in more detail;

1.17

supports the idea of encouraging Member States to establish national plans to give structure, coherence and direction to actions to promote multilingualism. The Committee considers that these plans should establish clear objectives for language teaching at the various stages of education and be accompanied by a sustained effort to raise awareness of the cultural importance of linguistic diversity. Local and regional authorities should be involved in the development and implementation of these national plans;

1.18

believes that regional identity is strengthened by the safeguarding and promotion of minority (lesser used) and regional languages. The Committee acknowledges existing support for these languages but considers that because of their minority and therefore more vulnerable position, special attention needs to be given to looking at further ways in which the future of these languages can be secured;

1.19

supports the European Commission's inclusion of ‘communication in foreign languages’ among the key competencies that all European citizens need throughout their lives and calls upon the Commission to draft the texts needed for its implementation in society.

1.20

considers that improved language skills will enhance the capacity for EU businesses to trade and welcomes the publication in 2006 of a study on the impact on the European economy of shortages of language skills. However, the Committee is of the view that the publication should particularly address the regional disparities in language skills and considers that the recommendations should be made widely available. The Committee also supports the forthcoming 2006 web-based publication of an inventory of language certification systems;

1.21

believes that, if the cross-border mobility of workers is to be boosted as a means of implementing Community employment policy, greater integration between multilingualism and vocational training is needed;

1.22

highlights that in English-speaking countries of the EU there has been a decline in the number of students studying languages. One of reasons for this decline relates to English native speakers' belief that knowledge of other languages is of little benefit or professional use in the labour market, whereby competence in a modern language is not always seen by students as an essential skill for either entry to higher education or into a career. Although the Commission addresses ways in which it will create a multilingual economy, the Committee reiterates that more needs to be done in building awareness of the economic benefits of language learning;

1.23

emphasises the importance of being able to access and use information in a number of languages and therefore welcomes the creation of a single European Information Space which can offer linguistically and culturally diverse content and digital services;

1.24

sees the potential in sub-titles in film and television programmes as a means of promoting language learning and favours further study on the potential for its greater use;

1.25

considers that training programmes in higher education and elsewhere need to be continuously updated and therefore considers the organisation of a conference on translator training in universities in 2006 to be worthwhile;

1.26

welcomes the launch under i2010 of a flagship initiative on digital libraries and supports initiatives to coordinate work of European research teams in the fields of human language technologies, machine translation and the creation of language resources.

1.27

acknowledges that over the past ten years, the Commission has developed several multilingual initiatives to help citizens understand how European legislation affects them and welcomes the proposals to build on such initiatives. However, the CoR deems it necessary that the Commission intensifies its information and awareness-raising campaigns informing EU citizens about its linguistic and cultural diversity and its literary and artistic heritage as core set of shared values. Awareness-raising initiatives are crucial for increasing the public's knowledge about their heritage and it is particularly important to target these at the younger generation of European citizens at all stages of formal and informal education;

1.28

favours the Commission's continued fostering of multilingualism on its Internet portal (Europa) and in its publications. The Committee welcomes the launch of a languages portal on Europa providing information about multilingualism in the EU and the accommodation of new portals dedicated to language learners and language teachers. The Committee also welcomes the setting up of an internal network by the Commission to ensure that all departments apply its multilingualism policy in a coherent way;

1.29

reminds all European Institutions of the need, in its policy for communicating with the public and especially in the internet portal dedicated to European languages, to bear in mind the existence in the Member States of European languages different to those considered the official and working languages of the EU institutions, and with a constitutionally recognised official status. In these cases, the Committee believes that the European Commission should add these languages to its policy for communicating with the public;

1.30

considers that giving a greater role to translation field offices in Member States in promoting multilingualism, particularly through the customisation of the Commission's messages for local target audiences as a positive initiative;

1.31

recognises the importance of stimulating an awareness of the value of linguistic diversity and therefore supports the organisation of high-level seminars on multilingualism in Member States, targeted at journalists and other opinion multipliers;

1.32

considers the organisation of an international translation competition between schools in Member States to be a positive and worthwhile initiative and would encourage the development of similar multilingual benchmarking and competition for local and regional authorities across the EU;

1.33

welcomes the Commission's proposal to set up a High Level Group on Multilingualism and supports the holding of a ministerial conference on multilingualism at which it considers that the Committee should be invited to participate.

2.1

given their role in promoting culture and language in their communities, the CoR recommends that references to the part played by local and regional authorities should be more explicitly stated;

2.2

calls for greater recognition to be given to the part played by initiatives such as Euroregion activities and town-twinning schemes in language learning and cultural exchange at the local level;

2.3

recommends the Commission to further reinforce awareness of multilingualism and to improve the consistency of action at different levels across the EU, utilising the inclusion of the ‘competence in foreign languages’ among the key competencies that every European citizen should have;

2.4

calls on the Commission to increase its contribution of sectoral programmes such as Socrates, Youth and Leonardo and the integrated programme for Lifelong Learning in the promotion of language learning in the European Union supporting in particular the student mobility promoted by the Erasmus programme;

2.5

proposes that other European Institutions consider the positive experience gained by the Committee of the Regions in the use of co-official languages, with a view to adopting the provisions in question;

2.6

recommends that initiatives promoting the learning, study and perfecting of foreign language skills by employees be aimed at local and regional authorities themselves, in relation to the tasks that their staff carry out in promoting European integration and in cooperation policies, and calls upon these bodies to include linguistic competence in their educational programmes and projects where this falls within their responsibilities;

2.7

recommends that more support be provided for migrant groups not only to learn the language of their host country but also to encourage the maintenance of the languages and cultures of these groups and calls for more explicit references to policy measures in relation to migrant languages, which could be implemented with the cooperation of and between local authorities, universities and businesses;

2.8

emphasises the need for more specialised training for interpreters as a way of further facilitating communication between migrant and host communities.

2.9

recommends that language teacher training be made a priority and calls on the Commission to outline more explicitly its action plan for language teacher training at all levels;

2.10

recommends that the Commission specify the distribution of Chairs in Multilingualism and Interculturalism across the Member States;

2.11

calls on the Commission to promote more projects which would encourage linkages between Higher Education institutions and the wider community including local and regional authorities and local businesses;

2.12

proposes that the Commission promote multilingualism in higher education through projects along the lines of The European Network for the Promotion of Language Among All Undergraduates (ENLU);

2.13

calls on Member States to act on the recommendation of the Commission to adopt National Plans for multilingualism and cultural diversity;

2.14

recommends that the Commission provide a clear set of guidelines on how National Plans for multilingualism can be adopted by Member States;

2.15

recommends that the role of regional and minority languages in creating a multilingual Europe should be more explicitly stated.

2.16

recommends that the study of language shortages in the EU should particularly address the regional disparities in language skills and considers that recommendations emerging from the study should be made widely available;

2.17

calls on the Commission to intensify its awareness-building campaigns on the economic and cultural benefits of language learning.

2.18

calls on the Commission to intensify its information and awareness-raising campaigns, informing EU citizens about its linguistic and cultural diversity, its literary and artistic heritage and its core set of shared values and to place particular emphasis on awareness-building amongst the younger generation of European citizens. It also recommends that EU citizens taking up employment in other European countries should be given more support in learning the language of the host country, including language for professional purposes;

2.19

reiterates the importance of stimulating an awareness of the value of linguistic diversity amongst opinion multipliers and therefore calls on the Commission to further strengthen its awareness campaigns on multilingualism amongst these groups.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/38

1)

the fact that substandard shipping still persists and that further action is needed to combat those flag States, classification societies, shipowners, ship managers, charterers, terminal operators and ship masters that continue to conduct their business in an irresponsible manner to further commercial gain and with disregard for international rules and safe practices;

2)

maritime accidents and incidents that resulted in loss of life and pollution of the oceans, regional and local coastal and maritime area, and thereby causing substantial economic losses, serious environmental damage and considerable public concern;

3)

the importance of a vibrant and competitive European maritime transport system for regions and cities — particularly those involved in maritime industries, exports and economic links;

4)

the need to ensure coordination with the maritime strategy of the EU, the requirement for mutual synergies and the potential for offering regional and local authorities realistic solutions.

5)

the subsidiarity and proportionality principles are of particular relevance to EU measures in the field of transport, as the EU, Member States and regions often share responsibility for legislation and implementation;

6)

the new framework of legislative proposals must:

1.1

thinks that increasing the responsibility of flag States and harmonising the interpretation of the IMO conventions including all their up-to-date assembly resolutions and amendments will be of substantial benefits to the European fleet;

1.2

is of the opinion that the specific proposals put forward to increase the pressure on sub-standard ships, rewarding well operated vessels, and increasing the pressure on the flag States to comply with their responsibilities under the IMO Conventions, are the correct way forward;

1.3

agrees revoking IMO Resolution A.847(20) and replacing it with IMO Resolution A.(…) (23) whereby Member States have to discharge effectively and consistently their obligations as flag States in accordance with IMO Conventions and taking account of IMO Resolution A.(…)(23);

1.4

believes that the economic and social distortions as well as the use of under qualified crews caused by the varying interpretation of IMO Conventions by flag States need to be corrected;

1.5

is of the opinion that the best way to harmonise the interpretation of IMO Conventions including all their up-to-date assembly resolutions and amendments, is to uniformly apply throughout the EU, IMO's own interpretation of these conventions;

1.6

argues that the syllabuses and training requirements leading to professional maritime qualifications should be harmonised throughout the EU, and that this should be made an integral part of the mutual recognition of certificates of competency;

1.7

is concerned about the possibility and practice of changing classification society and/or flag State in case of disagreement between shipowner/ship manager and the classification society and/or the flag State in matters relating to safety, manning, maintenance, equipment, and operation of the vessel;

1.8

suggests that classification societies and flag States should insist on full compliance of the vessel with IMO conventions prior to changing classification society and/or flag of registration of a vessel. Further, full compliance with IMO resolutions should be a prerequisite for acceptance of a vessel by a classification society and/or a flag State, and of the vessel's remaining in class and on the register;

1.9

expresses its agreement that the existing body of the maritime labour instruments will be embodied in this Directive;

1.10

highlights its concern over seafarers' working time, the fatigue resulting from constant overworking and the dangers of errors, accidents, damage, and possible pollution associated with overworking and inadequate rest periods may cause;

1.11

is of the opinion that leaving the right to exempt ships from the application of basic flag State rules to the sole and entire discretion of the individual administrations could and does result in different levels of safety being achieved in different Member States and distorts competition between flag States. For this reason, the right to exempt should be curtailed to, e.g. naval vessels exclusively;

1.12

recommends that the harmonised interpretations of technical safety standards, at present applicable to passenger vessels … as per Article 12 of Council Directive 98/18/EC of March 1998, should be applied to all merchant ships and fishing vessels;

1.13

advocates maximum cooperation between the maritime authorities and the local authorities in order to adopt an integrated approach towards tackling issues connected with maritime navigation and the impact on the region's economic and social development;

1.14

agrees that the maritime administrations of the Member States should be able to rely on appropriate resources for the implementation of their flag State obligations;

1.15

concurs with the Directives provision for the development of a database providing essential information on ships flying the flag of a Member State, as well as on ships which have left the register of a Member State;

1.16

agrees with the IMO proposed Member State Audit Scheme, however, requests for this audit scheme to be made compulsory, and be part of a quality certification scheme in accordance with ISO or equivalent standards as specified by the EC;

1.17

expresses concern at the criminalisation and vilification of ship masters. While there are occasions where criminal culpability may be evident, this is generally incorrect, inappropriate, and very damaging to a profession who is doing a rather difficult, stressful, and sometimes dangerous job very successfully;

1.18

identifies concern about the possible curtailment of ‘right of innocent passage’ and ‘freedom of navigation’ of ships passing through the waters of European States without calling at one of their ports. These rights ought to be respected as far as possible in the interests of safety. It should be made clear to the shipping industry that passing vessels have the obligation to navigate correctly within VTS schemes and follow reporting procedures;

1.19

is concerned about the possible additional administrative burden on senior officers if the ship has to report that it is due for inspections as well as providing a certificate of insurance. IMO's proposal to reduce the certificate inspections by streamlining the process with online electronic certification processes should be expanded to include insurance and be made compulsory. Comment 1.18 also applies to the proposed Directive on Port State Control.

—

Timber deck cargo is liable to shifting in heavy weather,

—

During winter time, in high latitudes, timber deck cargo is liable to icing.

2.1

believes that reinforcing and improving the effectiveness of port state control would be beneficial to the community;

2.2

agrees that the reinforcement of ship inspections will have a direct environmental impact and positive economic and social repercussions including fairer competition conditions for maritime transport;

2.3

expresses concern at the use of pilots in strengthening port state control through reporting of deficiencies and by supplementing port- and flag State inspections. Pilots are skilled in navigation and in conning a vessel. They are not trained as port- or flag State inspectors;

2.4

draws attention to the fact that the ship's age should not be taken as sole criteria for the need for expanded inspections. The management of the maintenance of the vessel, the cargoes it carried, and the sea areas it transited during its voyages, all affect the condition of the vessel. A relatively new, but badly built vessel suffering substandard or little maintenance and careless operation due to inadequate management and a less able, under qualified, but cheap crew, being over-stressed during loading, discharging, and ballasting operations and subjected to generally bad weather during its passages will be in a worse condition and presents a considerably larger risk for accidents and pollution than an older vessel that has been well built, well maintained, manned, and operated according to best practice;

2.5

calls for an inspection rate of 100 % of the vessels calling at EU ports in anyone year. However, it suggests that each ship will generally be inspected only once during anyone year, unless circumstances warrant more frequent inspections. The results of inspections will immediately be made available to EU port- and flag States upon completion of said inspection(s);

2.6

totally agrees with the intentions to tightening up provisions concerning the human element.

3.1

applauds the introduction of a ‘prevention’ component permitting the operational management of maritime risk at Community level as part of the EU's maritime safety policy;

3.2

recommends the introduction of AIS systems on all fishing vessels, inshore as well as off-shore, and not just on those above 15 m length. It is the smaller ones that are most at risk as they are difficult to identify visually as well as by radar if they are built from timber or GRP;

3.3

is in total agreement with catering for the need to improve the operational procedures designed to respond effectively to emergency situations in which ships may find themselves and of the importance of issues concerning guarantees for any economic damage related to the accommodation of ships in distress.

4.1

agrees with the general objective of the Commission's proposal to improve maritime safety by establishing clear Community-wide guidelines on the technical investigations to be carried out following maritime casualties and incidents and the importance of such investigations;

4.2

supports the provision that accident investigations should focus on risk prevention and be based on IMO's principles and recommendations, and be targeted at how legislation, the operation of vessels, preparedness for, and conducting emergency responses can be improved;

4.3

emphasises the need for extensive use of the relevant models and methods developed in the framework of the IMO to investigate maritime accidents.

5.1

agrees with the need for effective monitoring and an audit of classification societies, their subsidiaries and participating undertakings and to introduce penalties for failure to comply with their obligations and to establish, at international and Community level, exhaustive technical inspection mechanisms which provide reliable information about the real state of ships.

5.2

concurs with the suggestion that the recognised organisations should establish a joint body for quality system assessment and certification. The joint body must be independent, have all the necessary resources to enable work to be carried out in-depth and on a continuous basis, and be in a position to propose both individual and collective measures in order to improve the quality of the recognised organisations' work;

5.3

agrees that cooperation between the recognised organisations should be extended to ensure that their technical regulations are compatible and that these regulations and international conventions are interpreted and applied in a uniform manner to provide a common basis for evaluation and instruments which will enable corrective measures to be taken as required to achieve a uniform level of safety in the Community, technical cooperation between Classification Societies, compatibility between regulations, the application of IMO's interpretation of international conventions throughout the EU, and thus lead to genuine mutual recognition of class certificates and marine equipment;

5.4

requests that the last line in item (31) ‘and inform the flag State when necessary’ be changed to ‘and make this information immediately available to the flag State’.

6.1

agrees with the initiative to incorporate the Athens Convention into Community law for compulsory insurance rather than to leaving it to the discretion of the shipowner through P&I clubs;

6.2

welcomes the initiative to extend the application of the provisions of the Athens Convention to domestic traffic but feels that including all inland waterways may not be appropriate and asks the Commission to clarify the definition of inland waterway and advices it less extensive measures would suffice here;

6.3

expresses agreement that for shipping incidents, the 2002 Protocol to the Athens Convention introduces a strict liability regime. That strict liability is aimed at improving the position of claimants, that the liability is not dependent on an act of fault or negligence by the carrier and that therefore there is no need for the claimant to prove the liability of the carrier;

6.4

notes the reservation expressed by shipowners and P&I clubs regarding Article 3 (1) of the Athens Convention on the liability for incidents caused by terrorism;

6.5

stresses the need to find internationally acceptable proposals as the only solution in the impasse reached owing to the refusal of the insurance industry to accept the new liability limits and related insurance requirements provided for in the Commission's proposal for a regulation;

7.1

agrees with the call of the European Parliament for ‘a comprehensive and cohesive European maritime policy, which would have as its objective the creation of a European maritime safety area based on the introduction of a system of liability covering the entire maritime transport chain’

7.2

nevertheless considers that any arrangement regarding the issue of liability and compensation for maritime pollution must be international;

7.3

supports possible amendments to the applicable rules in order to render parties other than shipowners liable, as well as the introduction of unlimited liability of shipowners in the event of severe or deliberate infringement of their safety and anti-pollution obligations;

7.4

underlines the need for any amendment of the Civil Liability Convention to maintain the balance of participation between each side (shipowners and cargo operators) based on the arrangements promoted through the voluntary proposals/undertakings of ship operators;

7.5

requests that ‘parties other than shipowners’ is to include ship managers and charterers;

7.6

expresses concern that the compatibility with international law in the application of the Directive should be recognised;

7.7

suggests that ship masters should not be included in the definition of ‘parties other than shipowners’ unless they behaved grossly negligent in the execution of their duties;

7.8

expresses concern about the disparity between this Directive and the Hague/Hague–Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules, governing shipowners' liability under Bills of Lading, Sea Waybills and Charter parties as used in international maritime transport, which may give rise to confusion as to which liability regime would apply as it is felt that the wording of this Directive does not make it totally clear whether it applies to pollution damage only, or whether it includes other damage to third parties;

7.9

agrees with the Commission that establishing an obligatory insurance system will help tackle the problem of substandard ships;

7.10

requests that the wording of the insurance policy the ship is to carry, clearly states that it covers damage to places of refuge.

—

Ensure that charterers have an obligation not to use substandard vessels.

—

The commercial advantage gained by a charterer of using a substandard vessel, at a lower freight rate, is lost due to the increased costs of the financial guarantee as it involves the added risk of using a substandard vessel.

—

It becomes financially unattractive to charterers to use substandard vessels and fewer cargoes will be available to them.

—

The incentive to operate, charter, and use substandard vessels is therefore diminished, and the owners of such ships will be forced to either bring the ship, its manning and operation into full compliance with international regulations, or to scrap them.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/51

1.1

welcomes the proposal for an initiative to digitise Europe's cultural heritage and develop digital libraries and stresses that it is a key component of the Commission's initiative — i2010 — A European Information Society for Growth and Employment, the full implementation of which is a prerequisite for improving European competitiveness;

1.2

emphasises that the digitisation, online accessibility and preservation of cultural heritage should be promoted in all European countries, regions, cities and languages in such a way that it supports the preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity. The point of departure should be appreciation of culture — including minority cultures — and preserving cultural achievements for future generations;

1.3

recalls that the digitisation of cultural heritage is advancing rapidly in other parts of the world and stresses that making European cultural heritage and literature widely accessible in digital form is a precondition for the success of the European knowledge-based society and at the same time supports the development of Europe's regions and cities;

1.4

appreciates the fact that the Commission communication highlights the major challenges and many unresolved technical, legal and financial questions relating to the digitisation of cultural heritage, and notes that local and regional authorities support efforts to move forward in this matter;

1.5

stresses that local and regional authorities are the most important implementing bodies for all information society strategies and in many cases it is they who maintain libraries, so that adequate attention should also be paid to the local and regional dimension in the context of the digital libraries initiative;

1.6

considers it to be of the utmost importance that the digitisation of cultural heritage be promoted in Europe in all Member States and emphasises that the benefits of digitisation will only be achieved with the widespread promotion — including at local and regional level — of the online accessibility of cultural heritage and the development of intelligent information searches;

1.7

points out that digitisation is a long-term process which places heavy demands on resources, involving the ongoing maintenance, updating and conversion of material, and agrees about the benefits which digitisation brings for the accessibility and preservation of cultural heritage;

1.8

recalls that digital material comprises both digitised analogue material and new material which was originally created in digital format;

1.9

notes that digital library services in Member States comprise components constructed at national, regional and local level which are linked to each other by electronic means. For this to succeed there is a need for cooperation and coordination at European level;

1.10

believes that libraries has a vital role in making cultural heritage and literature accessible in an online environment as it is with their help that this material can best be delivered to the public, but at the same time notes that their cooperation with archives and museums and with other cultural establishments and relevant players in this field is absolutely essential.

2.1

stresses that the primary purpose of digitisation is not to replace traditional printed and other physical cultural material but rather to produce digitised material alongside analogue material and to promote the accessibility of information;

2.2

emphasises that as only a very small proportion of European cultural heritage is digitised and a vast amount of work remains to be done, new forms of funding also need to be developed, including collaboration with private sector players;

2.3

points out that in small countries and language areas commercial markets for digital material have, to date, been fairly small, even though the fixed costs associated with producing such material are of almost the same of order of magnitude as in the major language areas, and stresses that, thanks to technological advances, it is already possible and also important to take on board the needs of users in different language areas in developing digital libraries;

2.4

notes that, while a major part of Europe's older cultural heritage is already free of copyright restrictions and thus available on information networks, the Commission's proposal to reform copyright legislation relating to more recent cultural heritage is highly relevant;

2.5

points out that in some countries there are already signs that some sections of the public are being left behind by the advances in digital technology and feels that adequate opportunities to access the Internet and guidance on how to use it should also be made available to people in the least advantaged social groups;

2.6

stresses that local and regional authorities have a crucial role to play as producers and owners of cultural heritage and in taking responsibility for ensuring that all members of the public are given as equal access to information society services as possible;

2.7

emphasises that the opportunity which public libraries in many European countries provide to access traditional printed material is still very important, but that they must also offer members of the public the opportunity to use the Internet and online services. Taking account of the end users of online services and their local needs requires that the organisation of these services be carried out by local and regional players. It is essential that this also be taken into consideration in the national funding of library activities;

2.8

notes that where local and regional authorities participate in various kinds of library or other consortia which own a network server environment and offer a full range of services it must be ensured that they are given sufficient opportunity to influence decision-making in this context;

2.9

welcomes the fact that the Commission highlights the challenges relating to the choice of material to be digitised and considers that it is important, first of all, that adequate attention be paid to selection criteria that are based on local and regional considerations and, in addition, that a balance be struck between selection criteria based on public demand, on the one hand, and on ensuring preservation, on the other hand;

2.10

endorses the proposal to formulate strategies for the long-term preservation of digitised cultural material so that the resources used for the digitisation of cultural heritage are not wasted when changes occur in technical systems and software;

2.11

thinks that the proposal to set up centres of competence in Member States is interesting and stresses that an important task of the centres should be ensuring that the necessary skills and know-how also exist at local and regional level and the dissemination of good practice.

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/53

1.1

welcomes the Commission's communication on a Modern SME Policy for Growth and Employment as a means to give fresh impetus to SME policy, to re-focus policy on the most essential elements and to streamline Community action with a view to greater effectiveness;

1.2

supports the promotion of an inclusive SME policy that recognises the diversity of SMEs in terms of size, ownership structure and sector, that provides a range of tailored supports and a sensitive legislative environment to meet the diverse needs of the EU's SMEs;

1.3

acknowledges the reference to the role of local and regional authorities in the communication but considers that it could have been more explicit regarding the crucial role that local and regional authorities have in supporting SMEs, in providing an enabling environment for their development and transfer, and as large customers for the goods and services provided by SMEs;

1.4

recognises that the main competence in ensuring that SME policy is truly effective rests primarily with the Member States and encourages Member States to ensure that their National Reform Programmes deliver concrete measures to support the creation and development of SMEs;

1.5

draws attention to the analysis undertaken by the Committee on the preparation of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) and in particular on the lack of consultation with local and regional authorities and in this regard welcomes the encouragement from the European Council in March 2006 to continue its work on the NRPs;

1.6

considers that implementation, and commitment to implementation, by all stakeholders is obviously vital to a successful SME policy and feels that in this regard the Commission should have set out in the communication some specific targets and deadlines to help measure delivery;

1.7

acknowledges the priority that the Austrian Presidency has given to SMEs and welcomes the decision of the European Council in March 2006 to include ‘unlocking business potential, especially for SMEs’ as one the specific areas for priority action. The Committee would furthermore insist on a wide-ranging and open assessment of the implementation of the National Reform Programmes in future by the European Council and in particular a clear assessment on the delivery of the benefits of these programmes to SMEs;

1.8

supports the provision of an adequate budget for the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP), as it will be a vital instrument for Community SME policy;

1.9

believes that any entrepreneurship should be encouraged and supported; welcomes the fact that the communication recognises that the needs of women entrepreneurs, young people, minorities, migrants and older entrepreneurs are not being sufficiently met; points out that the groups mentioned cannot be treated as a single entity, and emphasises that each individual group requires its own measures — needs may vary in different countries and even within groups; also feels that the proposals outlined are limited to support for networking and that more concrete proposals are needed if entrepreneurship levels are to be raised among these diverse target groups, drawing from the European pact for gender Equality, adopted by the European Council on 23/24 March 2006, and extending it to the other groups;

1.10

highlights the value of local and regional initiatives in fostering entrepreneurial mindsets and promoting and delivering entrepreneur-friendly education at all levels within the school system, but considers that many education and training initiatives are not sufficiently responsive or flexible to meet SME needs;

1.11

welcomes the introduction of the European Enterprise Award competition as a means of promoting entrepreneurship, showcasing best practice at regional and local levels and encouraging potential entrepreneurs;

1.12

draws attention to the requirement for more positive attitudes to calculated and well based business risk and tolerance of business failure by society generally, but more specifically the banking and public sectors and calls on Member States to ensure that a more entrepreneurial culture is created throughout the EU and that greater value is attached to whatever previous business experience an entrepreneur may possess;

1.13

welcomes the proposed review of the Euro Info Centres (EIC) by the Commission as it considers that the performance of the EICs has been inconsistent across the Member States, together with their capacity to provide comprehensive supports and advice on internationalisation to the SMEs; likewise, it emphasises that the functions and responsibilities of the network's member bodies should be clearly defined, and that mechanisms should be put in place for coordination with other players, such as Europe Direct, in order to prevent duplication in the provision of information and advice services, and to facilitate efficient use of resources;

1.14

would welcome proposals to strengthen programmes to improve SMEs' access to information technologies (ICT), which will help them to be more competitive and access new markets;

1.15

notes the Commission's proposals in relation to improving access to public procurement for SMEs;

1.16

considers that efforts aimed at standardisation should not introduce any further bureaucracy that would impact negatively on SMEs;

1.17

welcomes the commitments of the Commission to simplify the rules and regulations to make it easier for SMEs to access Community programmes, but would welcome greater clarity on how this will be achieved and what the implications may be for organisations disbursing Community funds;

1.18

supports the commitment to the screening of forthcoming legislation and encourages the Commission to engage with SME representative groups in order to ensure that new legislation will not inhibit SME growth and innovation potential;

1.19

notes the important role accorded to the SME Envoy in ensuring that EU policy is SME friendly, but is concerned that sufficient resources be provided and more importantly that sufficient status and political leverage be given to the Envoy to ensure that the aims of the office are achieved;

1.20

welcomes the proposed integration of the ‘Think Small First’ principle across all EU policies and would like to see SMEs given enhanced priority within the impact assessment procedure for Community proposals;

1.21

would also support other initiatives for making SME policy development more coherent and predictable so that SMEs can anticipate consequences and be better prepared;

1.22

notes the success of the one stop shop model which has proven very effective in supporting and stimulating SME growth in several regions across the EU, recognises their potential as information sites for public procurement information and assistance in explaining the process of awarding public service contracts and calls for greater emphasis on this approach generally; this could take the form of holding conferences and seminars on best practice, which would help to disseminate the best regional initiatives in this area;

1.23

welcomes the commitment to increase SME participation in EU programmes and initiatives but considers that specific programme commitments would need to be closely monitored to ensure that these commitments are indeed being met;

1.24

would welcome a more explicit account of the role and level of assistance from the EU Structural Funds for assisting SMEs and the contribution of the other Community Instruments and would like to see a more coherent approach to the delivery of these programmes supporting SMEs;

1.25

recognises the importance of linking SMEs to research and technological initiatives and the difficulties encountered by SMEs in accessing and exploiting research, innovation and Intellectual Property, but calls for a differentiated approach to be adopted for smaller and non-technological SMEs in relation to supporting the successful adaptation of new ideas;

1.26

supports cooperation initiatives between local and regional authorities, enterprises and their associations, academies, universities and research centres, as an instrument of territorial industrial policy by establishing support networks to help SMEs to overcome barriers to improved competitiveness, better training and exploitation of innovation.

1.27

supports the proposed reform of the State Aids rules to absorb, in part, SME risks, simplify procedures and adopt a more flexible approach to aid for SMEs;

1.28

acknowledges the role that the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development can play in supporting SME research activity, but calls for greater emphasis on innovation, development and technology transfer for smaller SMEs, given the limited research capacity of a majority of SMEs;

1.29

suggests strengthening programmes to boost networking between SMEs, as well as measures that help to establish networks between them. Boosting networks of ‘business angels’ in particular could be extremely useful in solving the problems faced by SMEs in accessing alternative sources of funding;

1.30

recognises the need to take SME concerns into account at an early stage in drafting of EU legislation and in the standardisation process, but calls for more explicit mechanisms and arrangements by which consultation with SME stakeholders can be enhanced;

1.31

acknowledges the creation of the SME Panels as a mechanism for responsive consultation on Commission proposals and for developing a communication between SMEs and the European Institution, but would have some questions regarding the representative nature of such panels;

1.32

highlights the importance of consultation with regional and local interests and calls for greater clarity on how the Commission intends to do this and on whether a more decentralised approach in assisting SMEs will be encouraged by the European Commission;

1.33

underlines the unique position that local and regional authorities have as key implementation agencies but also as partners to communicate with stakeholder groups and promote entrepreneurship;

2.1

urges Member States to consult the local and regional authorities on the National Reform Programmes and to see to it that these programmes deliver concrete measures to support the creation and development of SMEs and calls for a clear and explicit assessment of the benefits to SMEs arising from the implementation of the National Reform Programmes by Member States;

2.2

proposes that, as part of its on-going analysis of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the National Reform Programmes, existing experiences of local and regional policies for assisting SME development with a particular attention to industrial clusters and small firms network, will be identified with a view to drawing-up a guide to good practice;

2.3

calls on the European Commission to give more explicit recognition to the role that local and regional authorities can fulfil in supporting SMEs, providing an enabling environment for their development and continued survival by means of transfer, and as large customers for the goods and services that SMEs provide through procurement, and in this regard calls for more effective consultation with regional and local bodies on SME policy initiatives;

2.4

recommends that specific targets and deadlines be set for the implementation of the new measures contained in the communication, to help assess implementation, assist in dissemination of best practice and to ensure commitment to delivery;

2.5

recommends that greater recognition be given to the diversity of SMEs and calls for more tailored supports, including flexible training and education provision and sensitive legislation to meet these diverse needs and calls for a more differentiated approach to be adopted in Community Programmes for micro, smaller and non-technological SMEs in relation to supporting the successful application of new ideas;

2.6

calls on the European Commission, and the Member States, to work with local and regional authorities that have developed and are implementing innovative measures to support the entrepreneurial potential of women entrepreneurs, young people, minorities, migrants and older entrepreneurs, in order to inform the future development of Community policy in this regard and recommends that consideration be given to ring-fencing specific measures and allocations for these groups;

2.7

recommends that the review of the Euro Info Centres (EIC) proposed by the European Commission should address the adequacy of the financial provision to the EICs and also their capacity to provide comprehensive supports and advice on internationalisation to the SMEs in their catchment areas;

2.8

requests that local and regional authorities give greater consideration as to how they can better assist SMEs in their areas, and enable them to access market opportunities especially in the provision of goods and services through public procurement;

2.9

calls for greater efforts at reducing the impact of regulation on the EU's SMEs and in ensuring that efforts aimed at standardisation should not introduce any further bureaucracy that would impact negatively on SMEs and urges engagement with SME representative groups in order to ensure that new legislation will not inhibit SME growth and innovation potential;

2.10

recommends that sufficient resources, profile and political leverage be given to the SME Envoy so that the objectives of the position and expectation of SMEs are met;

2.11

calls for better coordination of SME policies and support programmes through the further development of the One Stop Shop model, such as e-government portals and procurement one-stop shops;

2.12

calls on the European Commission and the Member States to consider initiatives for making SME policy development more coherent and predictable, such as the suggestion to have two fixed dates per year where all new regulations would come into force, so that SMEs can anticipate consequences and be better prepared;

22.9.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/57

1)

WHEREAS respect of fundamental rights, cultural and linguistic diversity is a profoundly European asset that has to be preserved throughout the regions of the European Union and constitutes a priority for the CoR;

2)

WHEREAS all forms of discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation must be fought with equal intensity by recalling that all residents contribute to the richness of Europe;

3)

WHEREAS there is a difference between the protection of minorities and non-discrimination policies, equal treatment is a basic right, not a privilege, of all citizens;

4)

WHEREAS it shall be a right of each individual to be different and tolerance and respect should be a general attitude in life and based on reciprocity, not a favour granted to some and not to others;

5)

WHEREAS local authorities have an important role to play in upholding the fundamental right to freedom of assembly;

6)

WHEREAS local authority officials have a special responsibility to set a good example and promote good practice;

7)

WHEREAS local and regional authorities exercise considerable authority in matters pertaining to public records, education, police, health, housing and social assistance, without which fundamental rights could not be safeguarded;

8)

WHEREAS the Committee of the Regions initiated, following the request of the European Parliament, a collection of the good practice at local and regional level, and thus wishes to substantially contribute to the better protection of minorities and the implementation of policies of non-discrimination;

1.1

welcomes the European Parliament's resolution and agrees with it that the state of implementation of non-discrimination policies by the Member States is unsatisfactory; recognises however that even if the level of implementation varies in particular Member States, some of them being more proactive than others, the EU, its Member States, as well as regional and local authorities have already developed a comprehensive list of good practice;

1.2

agrees with the EP's standpoint that various local, regional and national authorities of Member States could better coordinate measures to combat all forms of discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, including anti-Semitism and attacks on minority groups, in particular Roma;

1.3

recognises that the local and regional authorities face a double challenge: on one hand in view of the responsibility of the regional and local administrations to combat discriminatory practice and to respect the principle of equality in access to individual, economic and social rights and, on the other hand, their active responsibility for promotion of fundamental rights, including the respect of minority rights;

1.4

underlines that the policies and rules applied by the local authorities have to be non-discriminatory, in law and in fact, and promote social, economic and political integration;

1.5

recognises that poverty, social exclusion and ghettoisation may lead to extremism, and therefore considers that efficient integration policies, including education and housing measures at a regional and local level, can indirectly help to prevent violent extremism and that special attention should be paid to young people living in urban ghettos;

1.6

indicates that there are positive actions aiming at ensuring a higher level of protection for members of minorities in several cities, municipalities and regions, which are based on the principle of a multicultural society and awareness of the EU's richness and diversity; thus proposes, taking into account evidence gathered by its members, an initial non-exhaustive catalogue of best practice at local and regional level, which is annexed to the present opinion.

2.1.1

considers that regional and local authorities should bring added value to the fight against racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia and attacks on minority groups, in particular Roma and third-country nationals, by encouraging diversity at grassroots and implementing the principle that diversity generates the wealth of society;

2.1.2

proposes that local and regional authorities should take appropriate, decentralised measures to increase the level of protection of the rights of minorities as well as to tackle racism and xenophobia in European cities and regions such as:

2.1.3

supports the Parliament's highlighting of the situation of the Roma as a particular concern; and therefore considers that the Roma community requires special protection, also taken into account its size and specificity;

2.1.4

believes the integration of the Roma to be a major challenge for regional and local authorities and calls on EU institutions, national governments and local and regional authorities to develop a common integrated and decentralised approach to facilitate political, social and economic integration and at the same time to promote the respect of diversity and tolerance. In this respect, proposes the following measures at local and regional level:

2.1.5

insists on the importance of a dialogue among religious and ethnic groups at regional and local level aimed at avoiding extremism and segregation, which could also lead to a common understanding of the equality and diversity of European societies;

2.1.6

supports the Parliament's highlighting of homophobia in Europe as a particular concern, particularly with regard ‘to a series of worrying events [which] has recently taken place in a number of Member States’.

2.2.1

considers that in order to achieve standards of equality in the provision of services, local and regional authorities need to consider setting policy targets and indicators that would help to measure progress in policy implementation and wishes to contribute to the drawing-up of such indicators;

2.2.2

recognises that standards and plans for equal treatment aimed at intercommunity equality strategies as well as race, gender, disability and sexual orientation equality will better recognise the importance of fair treatment and equal access to local government services and employment which have been developed as a tool to enable local and regional authorities to mainstream gender, race and disability into municipal policy and practice at all levels;

2.2.3

considers that local and regional authorities should deliver high quality local services accessible to all and responsive to the needs of the diverse neighbourhoods and communities of cities and provide a framework through which community cohesion and sustainability can flourish, by recurring to already identified best practice, such as:

2.3.1

points out that education is a fundamental means of integrating minorities into the social and political life of the countries in which they live and of teaching tolerance and respect for diversity, and that local and regional authorities play a vital role in this area;