30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/1

—

recommends that a common European policy on migration be recognised, paving the way for closer cooperation and coordination between the Member States and third countries;

—

urgently calls for the creation of a financial instrument aimed specifically at areas with the highest immigration levels, and at transit areas subject to massive inflows of migrants, such as the Canary Islands, Ceuta, Lampedusa, Malta, Melilla and southern Italy in general. In these areas, the mass inflow of migrants is an extremely serious problem;

—

recommends the adoption of all measures needed to put an end to human trafficking and the mafias which carry it out, and asks that this be made a priority for the EU and given the necessary financial resources. It is essential to prevent illegal migration and combat the informal economy that encourages it;

—

emphasises the key role played by local and regional bodies, owing to the experience they have gained through their relations with countries of origin and their measures to integrate migrants, particularly in the fields of healthcare (the area in which public spending is highest), housing, education and employment;

—

proposes creating a mechanism for following up opinions on immigration in order to ensure that the Committee is represented, by the chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Commission or the rapporteurs, in the European Commission's various initiatives in this field. This mechanism would enable the Committee to be actively involved in the different stages of the legislative process: a) the pre-legislative phase (consultation as interested party, impact analysis); b) the policy evaluation phase (annual reports on migration and integration, annual integration forum).

1)

Europe is undergoing the greatest migratory emergency in its history. The end goal of this migration is to reach European soil, making it more than a localised problem that only concerns the Member States and regions most targeted by this migration. The issue must also be considered from the perspective of Europe as a whole, the Member States and the countries of origin and transit: together, they must confront the new challenges generated every day by these migratory flows, including migratory population movements within the EU. The Hague Programme set up by the European Council in November 2004 outlines a work programme for creating a common migration policy and establishes it as an EU priority;

2)

there is a lack of reliable statistical data enabling accurate assessment of the relationship between legal and illegal migration and the migratory phenomenon overall. It therefore remains necessary to pursue the work of the European Migration Network in order to obtain objective, comparable information with a view to supporting common immigration and asylum policies;

3)

the integration of immigrant populations should be considered in terms of their inclusion in the labour market (with particular concern for female migrants), but also from a broader perspective taking, inter alia, educational, cultural, social and political aspects into account;

4)

integration is a two-way process that requires both the immigrants' will to integrate into the host society and their responsibility to carry it through, and EU citizens' desire to willingly accept immigrants. Awareness and education campaigns are therefore necessary in order to exert a positive influence on the behaviour of both groups;

5)

local and regional authorities, as direct recipients of this migration and major players in the implementation of integration measures (occupational, educational, cultural, social and political), must play a key role in defining migration policy, at as close a level as possible to citizens, in order to ensure that migrants are successfully integrated;

1.1

believes, in line with its previous opinions on the return of illegal migrants and the regional and local application of the Hague Programme (1), that immigration should be considered from a broad perspective that includes a clear vision of the most important measures required in the field of migration policy, and should not be based on fragmentary measures. All the necessary legislative, operational and economic initiatives must be considered in order to tackle the phenomenon from beginning to end, through development cooperation with countries of origin and the fight against illegal human trafficking, and by adopting the necessary measures to integrate all migrants who have settled in our countries and combating the informal economy, which exerts a strong pull factor and is a catalyst for exploitation; the Committee notes that criminal organisations help to encourage illegal immigration;

1.2

stresses that despite the increase in migration since the 1980s and the fact that the EU receives a high number of immigrants from developing countries (currently estimated at around 40 million people), there is still no common European policy for the regulation of migratory flows, and Member States therefore take unilateral decisions that make it difficult to adopt a common position;

1.3

points out that when it comes to managing migratory flows, we should not have to wait until events take a serious turn for the worse. Emergencies should not be a prerequisite for establishing association agreements;

1.4

considers that the association agreements signed with third countries should cover political, social, economic and cultural aspects, so as to establish a proper relationship of interdependence between migration and development, as recommended in the European Parliament's report on development and migration (2);

1.5

confirms that the key to preventing uncontrolled migration is full development cooperation, by implementing projects that generate employment; setting up an economic and trade forum, university networks and micro-credit funds for migrants; implementing measures to help migrants cooperate in their own countries' development; and installing infrastructures, particularly to provide drinking water (42 % of Africa's inhabitants have no access to drinking water), electricity (only 20 % have regular access to the power grid), health centres and schools. In this context, it will be crucial to help strengthen institutional frameworks, establishing a series of prior conditions (such as transparent management and democratisation of structures) in countries receiving development aid, so as to ensure that it is properly received and utilised. Overall, the aim must be to boost the quality — rather than quantity — of development cooperation; it is particularly important to guarantee that aid is implemented transparently, in order to ensure that it actually does generate development;

1.6

emphasises the key role played by local and regional bodies, owing to the experience they have gained through their relations with countries of origin and their measures to integrate migrants, particularly in the fields of healthcare (the area in which public spending is highest), housing, education and employment. As part of their cooperation with countries of origin, local and regional authorities have set up numerous agreements and projects, such as the shelters for returning young people opened by the Community of Madrid in Morocco, under the AENEAS programme;

1.7

notes the Declaration of the Fifth Conference of Parliaments of EU Capital City Regions (held on 26 and 27 April 2006), which states that, owing to their prosperity and vitality, capital city regions exert a strong pull on people from other countries seeking new opportunities; and, in this context, considers that measures should be implemented to avoid mass arrivals outside the regular channels via airport, sea and land border crossings, and that adequate planning is required in order to integrate these people into other regions of our countries;

1.8

also stresses the position of the capital city regions, which support the development of a common European migration policy that fully covers all issues relating to the complete integration of immigrants into society. Only through integration will it be possible to share the values of democratic life and respect for human rights that underpin the political systems of the EU; therefore, emphasises the importance of setting up initiatives to teach migrants about the official language or languages and culture of the host society, and to help them feel that they are important and share responsibility for their own futures;

1.9

believes that migration is a challenge for all: everybody has a part to play, from administrations — European, national, regional or local — to European citizens and migrants themselves. This is the only way to solve their problems, and for everyone involved (including the countries of origin) to make the most of the opportunities offered;

1.10

believes, as a result, that it is necessary to improve cooperation:

1.11

recommends the following:

1.12

calls upon the Commission and Member States to apply policies to channel the remittances sent by migrants towards productive investments in their countries of origin, making it easier for them to access micro-credit. Remittances should be channelled so that they can be linked up with investments made via the development cooperation funds; also recommends establishing a requirement for cancelled debt to be transferred to productive investments which could be linked up with remittances, so that migrants find it most profitable to invest their savings in these projects;

1.13

calls for the establishment of a guarantee fund to ensure the durability of micro-projects and maximise their impact on development, and supports the creation of an economic and trade forum and of networks of professionals from the EU and developing countries;

1.14

urges Member States to work together with local and regional authorities in drawing up migration policies and establishing national plans for integration and employment, as the measures required to implement them are applied at local and regional level;

1.15

urgently calls for the creation of a financial instrument aimed specifically at areas with the highest immigration levels, and at transit areas subject to massive inflows of migrants, such as the Canary Islands, Ceuta, Lampedusa, Malta, Melilla and southern Italy in general. In these areas, the mass inflow of migrants is an extremely serious problem, as there are not sufficient resources to provide them with adequate humanitarian care. It is important to note that the income difference between the countries on either side of the EU's southern border is the highest in the world;

1.16

urges the EU and its Member States to recognise the particular nature of mass illegal immigration via the coasts of the EU's island regions, the human tragedy that it represents, and its consequences for security and cohesion in Europe. The EU should exploit the potential of the regions forming its maritime border as a platform for developing mutually beneficial relations with third countries;

1.17

believes, in line with its previous opinions on family reunification, on local and regional application of the Hague Programme and on the Green Paper on a policy of return for illegal residents, and in accordance with the European Parliament's position in its report on development and migration (3), that measures should be implemented to increase the legal certainty surrounding migration, in a number of areas:

1.18

supports, in accordance with its Opinion on the Green Paper on a policy of return for illegal residents (4), the development of measures to boost and prioritise voluntary — as opposed to forced — return. It would be beneficial to set up incentives to keep potential migrants in their countries of origin. In the event of forced return, particular attention should be paid to vulnerable groups. In any case, cooperation with countries of origin is essential;

1.19

points out that, in accordance with the international conventions on children, it is in the child's best interest for him to grow up in a family environment, whenever possible. Aid should be provided in the countries of origin, and children should be educated and trained there so that they may find jobs close to their families. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, States must combat the illicit transfer of children abroad;

1.20

believes that the European fund for integration should be managed such that it takes account of the specific requirements of local and regional authorities, and supports their involvement in the negotiation of national programmes and the relevant operational programmes;

1.21

calls upon the Commission, in line with the European Parliament report on development and migration, to prepare the necessary financial instruments for the integration of migrants into the political life and society of the host country, through linguistic, cultural and civic training, without undermining the preservation of their identity. It also points out that consideration should be given to the specific problems relating to the integration of their descendants (children and grandchildren);

1.22

considers that particular focus should be given to education, the policy area most conducive to integration, as the school pass rate among migrants is far lower than the average for other EU citizens, and points out that, to ensure that migrants are integrated, it is essential to lay down the instruments needed for their inclusion in the education system and the labour market. To this end, the Committee proposes:

1.23

considers it important, in accordance with the Commission's Handbook on integration, to:

2.1

believes, with regard to legal migration, that it is important to bear in mind that those whose skills lead them to emigrate are those who will be able to stimulate development in their countries of origin;

2.2

considers that, as stressed in its Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, vocational training or voluntary service (5), brain drain should be taken into consideration. While it is important to leverage the opportunities that this brings our economies, we should also make it easy for migrants to return to their countries of origin in order to boost development there, and should allow them to re-enter in order to continue or complete their training, thus creating a constant flow of experience and advantages for the host and source countries;

2.3

believes that circular migration is an important foundation on which to strengthen migration's positive contribution to development;

2.4

supports the Commission's basic goal of guaranteeing a common framework of rights for all third-country nationals in legal employment already admitted in a Member State; highlights, in particular, the need to address the question of recognition and equivalence of degrees and other qualifications so as to prevent migrants from working below their competences;

2.5

stresses the importance of job accessibility for the successful integration of migrants, and points out the contrast between the simplistic approach, which is geared exclusively towards the need to welcome more migrants and simply legalise the workforce, and the regional and local efforts to combat exclusion, marginalisation and xenophobia, and the implementation of measures to integrate women, whose link with their children is key for the integration of the family;

2.6

considers that legal migration should take family reunification into account as a cornerstone of migrants' social integration, for the strategy would otherwise be incomplete. Nonetheless, family reunification as a catalyst for integration must only be promoted insofar as it is limited to the family unit, consisting of parents, children and grandparents;

2.7

emphasises local and regional authorities' concern for the issue of gender, as it is important to consider the double discrimination that women suffer on the basis of both their gender and ethnic background; therefore, calls on the Commission and Member States to step up dialogue with countries of origin in order to promote women's rights and gender equality;

2.8

supports the Commission's position on temporary workers and considers it necessary to draw up more favourable regulations for the mobility of temporary workers. However, it is important to prevent temporary work from becoming a channel for illegal migration. One possible solution would be to include temporary work within the framework of cooperation projects with countries of origin, so that the workers have an incentive to return home once the temporary job is over, in order to continue work in the context of a cooperation project. Within these programmes, it could also be possible to encourage the arrival of temporary workers not just from countries that are geographically close, but also from more distant places, such as Latin America, benefiting from today's falling travel costs;

2.9

believes it essential, in line with the Commission, to improve data collection for the effective development of a European migration policy, which in all cases should take labour market requirements as a determining factor when it comes to admitting migrants. It is unsustainable for 90 % of migrants to be illegal before becoming legal;

2.10

welcomes the willingness expressed by the Commission in its document to strengthen the role of the European Job Mobility Portal, which provides information, via the Internet, from the EURES (European employment services) cooperation network. This offers information, advice and employment (job search) guidance to workers and employers, to inform, guide and advise candidates on mobility, job opportunities and working and living conditions in the European Economic Area and help employers who wish to hire workers from other countries; the CoR could contribute by informing the Commission of web portals managed by local and regional authorities that could be important sources of information for all those involved (6);

2.11

supports the European Commission's proposal that Europe should make itself attractive to skilled workers, outstanding students and researchers. It should also be possible (contrary to the current situation in some Member States) for students to work during their studies, as this could help them to make the transition to the labour market. It would be useful to set up specific mobility programmes for foreign students, as has been done throughout the EU with successful schemes such as Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci, in order to prevent brain drain and facilitate training, since these students are an invaluable human resource for their countries of origin;

2.12

believes that the possibility of jointly issuing work and residence permits should be examined, as this would reduce red tape and increase control; therefore, proposes that work and residence permits be standardised throughout the EU;

2.13

supports the Commission's belief that migration is not the solution to Europe's ageing population; it is only a tool that can relieve, but not resolve, the demographic deficit in Europe;

2.14

welcomes the importance that the Commission's Communication places on cooperation with countries of origin, and supports the strengthening of existing financial instruments relating to migration, and the creation of other, specific instruments;

2.15

points out that, on an internal level, the management competences of regional and local authorities mean that they are directly involved in immigration issues; stresses, therefore, that they could bring real added value to the experience-sharing activities and discussions planned by the Commission for 2007 in the fields of awareness-raising, information and training (7);

2.16

offers to help the Commission conduct the impact analyses that it intends to carry out before putting forward concrete proposals on legal migration, and to help it in the systematic consultation of local and regional authorities (8).

3.1

supports, in particular, the need for cooperation with third countries in order to prevent illegal migration and, in this context, supports the European Council's decision of 15 and 16 December 2005 to allocate 3 % of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument to the increase of financial aid in areas directly linked to migration;

3.2

considers it necessary to promote association agreements with countries of origin, which should be concluded before there are migratory and humanitarian emergencies, and which should cover cooperation in combating illegal migration and in returning and repatriating illegal migrants, along with aid for development and for the creation of job opportunities for the native populations of these countries;

3.3

believes it essential to develop all the sources of information available in the countries of origin relating to migration, its scale, existing legislation and possibilities of channelling this through legal avenues;

3.4

supports the European Commission's aim to set up a rapid assistance mechanism for Member States experiencing severe pressure on their external borders; and urges the Council to grant the Commission the resources it needs to carry out this task properly;

3.5

emphasises the proposal in the Commission document relating to the need to bring an end human trafficking and the mafias which carry it out, and asks that this be made a priority for the EU and given the necessary financial resources. It is important to be aware of the scale of the humanitarian disaster this represents: figures from various international organisations suggest that one in three migrants does not survive the journey to the destination country;

3.6

in this context, warns that European countries receiving migrants must avoid delegating the task of returning them to border countries that do not show sufficient respect for human rights, so as maximise the control of human rights;

3.7

emphasises, in this context, that the European Employment Strategy and general guidelines must encourage legal employment through steps such as the reduction of non-wage labour costs and the easing of tax pressure on low-paid or low-skilled workers, as this could help to reduce the appeal of undeclared work and thus the hiring of illegal migrants. These measures to flexibilise the labour market should boost the legal employment of migrants;

3.8

supports the promotion of information campaigns on the advantages of legal migration and the dangers of illegal migration, and the Commission's initiative to launch a study in 2007 on current practices and the effects of regularisations in Member States, which will form the basis for future discussions and the establishment of a legal framework for Europe-wide regularisation.

3.9

believes it necessary for Member States' diplomatic representations, as well as intelligence services, to be coordinated at EU level so as to be able to identify and combat, in cooperation with the competent local authorities, the criminal organisations carrying out illegal trafficking of migrants.

4.1

supports the future EMN's mandate to provide the Commission, Member States and the general public with objective, reliable and comparable information in the field of asylum and migration, and agrees that it should be made publicly available (except where confidential), in accordance with the data protection agencies;

4.2

concurs that concrete tasks such as data collection and analysis, research, publishing of opinions and recommendations, and awareness-raising activities should be allocated to a single body, as such streamlining generates economies of scale and facilitates coordination; and

4.3

adds a further task: the EMN should also coordinate the transposition of Community legislation by the different countries;

4.4

suggests, in line with the European Parliament (9), and with a view to guaranteeing close cooperation between stakeholders and the bodies responsible for data collection, appointing a liaison in each one, and setting up a web for use by stakeholders and specialised users only. There should also be a link between the national and international organisations which deal with these matters, and which need to seek cooperation methods in order to solve problems;

4.5

advises, as regards the structure of the network, selecting option one, i.e. ‘attaching the network to the Commission’, as it would facilitate monitoring, coordination and relations with other European institutions. With regard to the operation of National Contact Points, the national representatives should be responsible for data collection and studying problems. The role of contact points should be to collect, analyse (where possible) and transmit data to the network and national players in accordance with national provisions on the tasks and activities of the contact point. The network should have guaranteed independent status vis-à-vis the governments of each country, and its structure should include regional and local bodies. In all events, the fluidity of information transmission must be guaranteed;

4.6

considers it essential, through this network:

5.1

considers it necessary to step up annual migration and development reports, which would provide statistics to help plan migration and implement a suitable migration policy. Public policy cannot be planned without sufficient information, particularly in this field;

5.2

calls for information exchange to be stepped up through existing networks and the future European Migration Network, between Member States and with their local and regional bodies. All players should have access to as much information as possible;

5.3

stresses that any idea to be implemented must translate into programmes, and that any programme or legislation to be developed must subsequently be analysed in order to assess its utility and quality of management; welcomes, therefore, the Commission's initiative to draft an annual assessment report on migration and integration;

5.4

supports the Commission's proposal to set up an annual integration forum in which experts, migrants, public administration staff (including local and regional levels) and all other stakeholders can share best practices and obtain workable conclusions. The Committee considers it vital to exchange best practices, whereby local and regional authorities can make a concrete contribution, in order to drive forward and standardise the results of policies applied in this area. In any case, the necessary steps must be taken to obtain extensive and accurate data about migration, which will be taken into consideration when these policies are implemented. The forum should also take annual reports into account, and contact should always be maintained with all the players involved.

6.1

Recommends that a common European policy on migration be recognised, paving the way for closer cooperation and coordination between the Member States and third countries;

6.2

considers it essential to boost the quantity and quality of available data and to accurately assess labour market requirements, if a European policy on immigration and control of migration flows is to be implemented in an effective manner;

6.3

recommends promoting codevelopment as a means of harnessing the potential offered by immigrant communities living in EU countries with a view to boosting development in their countries of origin, and calls for the study of creative alternatives for channelling legal immigration through the removal of existing obstacles to taking on migrants in their countries of origin;

6.4

recommends the adoption of all measures needed to put an end to human trafficking and the mafias which carry it out, and asks that this be made a priority for the EU and given the necessary financial resources. It is essential to prevent illegal migration and combat the informal economy that encourages it;

6.5

stresses once again that, on an internal level, the management competences of regional and local authorities mean that they are directly involved in immigration issues; proposes, therefore, creating a mechanism for following up opinions on immigration in order to ensure that the Committee is represented, by the chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Commission or the rapporteurs, in the European Commission's various initiatives in this field. This mechanism would enable the Committee to be actively involved in the different stages of the legislative process:

6.6

requests, therefore, to be represented on the Commission's formal and informal working groups on migration policy; believes that this follow-up would enable the Commission to benefit from the practical experience acquired by local and regional authorities in the field of migration;

6.7

calls for the inclusion of regional and local authorities in the European Migration Network;

6.8

asks to contribute to the web portal on immigration that the Commission wishes to set up, by informing the Commission of web portals managed by local and regional authorities that could be important sources of information for all those involved;

6.9

calls for the existing legal and financial instruments to be stepped up, and for a new instrument to be created in order to ensure the integration — particularly through education — of recent immigrants and their descendants (children and grandchildren);

6.10

proposes that a first summit be held on ‘The role of European regions in managing migration flows’, facilitating exchange of opinions and experience between regions in this field.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/10

—

Housing is not only about bricks and mortar, but also concerns the areas and communities where we live. Tackling the housing agenda means working towards safer, cleaner, greener areas of our cities and regions where people are able to develop their lives and interactions. Housing issues are also about access to employment, transport and services and creating a high-quality environment. Therefore although housing is not a specific competence of the European Union, many EU policies have a direct or indirect effect on housing issues. This includes policies concerning the urban environment, energy efficiency, renewable energies, noise pollution and health, but also completion of the internal market in services and competition.

—

New Member States can use up to 3 % of the allocation of the Operational programmes concerned or 2 % of the total ERDF allocation on housing and the opinion contains practical advice and examples of good practice from across the EU to provide support for this spending. This includes ideas around optimising the physical relationship between landscape and buildings, homes, jobs and local services; energy efficiency and sustainable development; and avoiding ghettoisation in housing areas.

—

All Member States can look at the role of training in building sustainable communities. Training local people in the skills needed to improve their housing areas, develop green spaces and improve energy efficiency can provide solutions to neighbourhoods in decline and constitute a new source of employment.

1.

The result of the compromise of the Heads of Government on December 2005, in which housing has been designated as eligible cost in Structural Funds only for the New Member states in a limited proportion under the ERDF regulation (article 7.2): 3 % of the allocation of the Operational programmes concerned or 2 % of the total ERDF allocation. Expenditure is also limited to multi-family housing and social housing and has to take place in the framework of urban development programmes. New instruments created under structural funds by cooperation between the Commission and the EIB as JESSICA which will allow for financing projects in a wider framework of urban development;

2.

the fact that housing is not a specific competence of the European Union, but many policies have a direct or indirect effect on housing issues. In particular this includes policies concerning the urban environment, energy efficiency, renewable energies, noise pollution and health, but also completion of the internal market in services and competition;

3.

local and regional authorities in the European Union are generally responsible for housing issues in their areas, and urban settings provide the greatest challenge on housing issues;

4.

access to decent housing is a key condition to maintaining social and territorial cohesion within the European Union. Therefore, there is a strong link between housing and the Lisbon Agenda. Decent housing is fundamental to the competitiveness of regions. Without sufficient good-quality housing, regions cannot attract and retain workers, resulting in economic decline.

1.

Housing is one of the key factors in combating social exclusion and unemployment, making our towns, cities, rural areas and regions better places in which to live and work, encouraging harmony within and between communities and also in working to meet sustainable development goals;

2.

many regions and cities of the European Union are going through, or need to go through, a process of renewal in areas where there is poor quality housing, housing market failure, compounded by a decline in the economic base, deterioration of the physical fabric and provision of social infrastructure (education, health and community relations) in their neighbourhoods;

3.

housing is not only about bricks and mortar, but also concerns the areas and communities where we live. Tackling the housing agenda means working towards safer, cleaner, greener areas of our cities and regions where people are able to develop their lives and interactions. Housing issues are also about access to employment, transport and services and creating a high-quality environment. This is the ‘sustainable communities’ agenda. There are two dimensions to this agenda that need to be addressed: territorial and social.

1.1

There is a legacy of inadequate housing and excluded communities as a result of decades of neglect in many of the old, and particularly in the new, Member States of the EU. Lack of investment in housing has, in those cases, led to ghettoisation of poorer, excluded communities, leading to disaffection and occasionally resulting in social unrest and violence, as has been seen recently in some Member States.

1.2

Urban planning is an essential foundation of future strategies and it is important to align housing strategies with the spatial strategies of regions. Old Member States have experienced both successes and failures in this area, in seeking to combat urban sprawl and traffic congestion in favour of more attractive, liveable cities, supporting and creating a sense of place at a local/neighbourhood level. New Member States need to take into account these experiences to avoid making similar mistakes.

1.3

Neighbourhood renewal action will vary according to local circumstances, but should be holistic and include measures to improve education, health and other public services, enhancing training, employment and economic opportunities, introducing proactive neighbourhood management, tackling anti-social behaviour, improving environmental quality and design, and ensuring good public transport services. [See Annex, example 4]

1.4

Priority needs to be given to re-use of derelict sites, reclamation of Brownfield land to maintain more compact cities and prevent urban sprawl and encroachment into rural communities. This is often more expensive in the short term but there are long term benefits in community cohesion, reuse of resources and employment. Infrastructure subsidies and incentives at a local and regional level are good tools to promote this over new-build/Greenfield development.

1.5

Priority also needs to be given to the regeneration, maintenance and improvement of historical housing stock, through measures to support renovation and reconstruction, and to settling young people in historical town centres and in coastal and inland rural centres which have been abandoned or have ageing populations.

1.6

Setting up Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) to exploit derelict areas and provide a means to rehabilitate run down multi-occupancy accommodation can change not only the physical presence of such properties, but can enable neighbourhoods to become more attractive places in which to live and work.

1.7

Compact neighbourhoods, with housing which is designed to a high quality and of mixed tenure and size, have a density of development and population which will be able to support integrated services, shops and transport, ensuring their economic viability. Housing supply must also be linked to provision of public services and attention paid to maintaining optimum population levels in order to be able to sustain essential services. At a time of urban renewal in housing, maintaining populations can be difficult and services suffer as a result. Member States should recognise the importance of continuation of services at a time of substantial change within a community.

1.8

A holistic view to planning is needed in order to understand the physical relationship between landscape and buildings, homes, jobs and local services. Projects need to fit well together and with the space which surrounds them. When renovating housing, or creating new housing, regions and local authorities need to take into account issues such as design, in order to both ‘design out’ crime and create quality areas, sustainable development and heritage, alongside the needs and aspirations of their local communities and the wider impact on cohesion.

1.9

Appreciation of a neighbourhood's history and heritage can be a key factor in attracting investors and residents. Utilising, rather than masking, a rich industrial or urban heritage can be a driver for recovery and change, creating desirable places to live with a strong identity to develop pride in the community. Therefore decisions on what to retain, refurbish or demolish should not occur until the physical, environmental, social and economic factors are considered.

1.10

Social Enterprises, including Housing Associations, occupy an important place in housing renewal in some Member States. They are able to provide stability and address issues of integration and accessibility of suburbs as well as giving support to communities under stress. Housing Associations as social housing providers have flexibility and a direct relationship to communities which can enable them to provide solutions to problems which fit the needs of the inhabitants. They are also employment creators and can work to attract public and private support for projects. [See Annex, example 1 & 2]

1.11

With climate change an increasing concern for government, energy efficient design of homes, providing affordable warmth, and thus tackling fuel poverty, are all important in the design of future housing. However, tackling poor insulation in older properties is also vital and can both provide employment and ensure energy conservation. One of the contributing factors driving many low demand areas is the poor quality of the built environment, of which housing is one component. When putting in place housing infrastructure planners need to consider environmentally sustainable options from the beginning. For example, installing geo-thermal heating facilities for water is not only energy efficient but will reduce heating costs. Avoiding waste in energy is essential for the EU to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol. This question should be taken into account when undertaking urban renewal processes and housing interventions, especially in the framework of the EU Directive on Energy Efficiency of Buildings.

1.12

Housing design within neighbourhoods must consider how the spaces between houses will be used and how public spaces can assist in the interaction between people. For examples streets need to be built for people and not just seen as thoroughfares for cars. ‘Home zones’, where cars are secondary to the needs of pedestrians and residents is one example of spatial interaction. Utilising intermediate labour market schemes and horticultural training in such areas can change physical perception of an area, enhance the sense of well being of local residents and change under used land into more productive green space.

1.13

Planning neighbourhoods can already encourage people to adopt sustainable and healthy lifestyles, for example services and facilities at walking distance from homes, centres for recycling, parks and play areas and good access to public transport.

1.14

It is crucial on this front to communicate with the public and to involve them from the very outset of a redevelopment project in order to actively involve them in the process and to link the physical regeneration of the area with a regeneration of community spirit and social inclusion and solidarity. Above all, regeneration measures must benefit residents, and must not result in socially disadvantaged residents being driven out.

1.15

Training local people in the skills needed to improve their housing areas, develop green spaces and improve energy efficiency can provide solutions to the double problems of unemployment and disaffection, where neighbourhoods are in decline. [See Annex, example 5]

1.16

Often the focus of PPPs is on public infrastructure projects such as transport, waste management and utilities provision. Although the value of PPPs in urban regeneration has been recognised by some organisations, it could be developed further. A pre-requisite for this would be clarification of the Community legal framework regarding PPPs, since at the moment there is some uncertainty about the definition of ‘in-house’ entities, the classification of certain joint activities relating to social housing as PPPs and the classification of some low-cost housing bodies as institutionalised PPPs.

1.17

In varying degrees across Europe, urban regeneration poses a major challenge to city authorities and requires significant investment, whether financial, creative or managerial. Many cities are no longer able to meet these investment challenges on their own, whether this is because of shortages of public money, limited professional skill pools or simply because the associated risks are too great, or simply because there are legal restrictions (on taking out loans).

1.18

PPPs can assist here not only in providing access to additional capital finance, but also in helping to find the best solutions to bring each side of the partnership away from its purely traditional stakeholding role. The complimentary skills of private partners can offer project management and organisational simplicity to projects. Community organisations that are more flexible than formal municipal structures, close to informal networks and represent long-term interests of the local community can help provide efficiency and also help ensure public acceptance and support. Projects can therefore be delivered more rapidly and with greater long term sustainability.

1.19

However there is a risk that the entry of private financing can lead to an artificial inflation of prices in the housing market. This can have many adverse effects. Local communities can find themselves priced out of home ownership, thus forcing the break-up of communities with people having to move away from their local areas, families and support networks. This is where social housing can and should play a vital role. Social housing can reduce the impact of such inflation, and further provision can be made for local communities through shared ownership schemes, and the availability of low cost mortgages. These can retain existing residents, attract new residents to an area under stress, and provide a new economic stimulus for the local economy.

2.1

To assist the general population in accessing housing, efforts need to be made to have an adequate supply of homes for rent, encourage and assist people to become home owners and help them be able to maintain the physical fabric of their homes. Assistance can come in the form of reduction of administrative costs, maintaining low interest rates and tax incentives for certain groups, as well as facilities to access banking products. Incentives such as subsidies to maintain the facades of buildings and ‘green’ the front of buildings can also help in developing housing standards. [See Annex, examples 4, 5 and 6]

2.2

Building integrated communities across social, racial and faith divides, can often be met by meeting the housing needs and aspirations of different parts of the community. This can be in the form of mixed tenure possibilities, including shared ownership of housing and different sized housing allowing for extended family or single residence. The value of land can be used as a tool to create such low cost options, where the municipality is prepared to use its land holding for that purpose. The needs of faith groups, for example the requirement for running water for ritual washing, should also be taken into account when building new homes or allocating homes. Accessible, lifetime homes can also be important for disabled and older workers.

2.3

Citizens' housing choices may contribute to the concentration of people from ethnic background in particular localities. This is not in itself a problem, and there are many examples of successful communities with high concentrations of residents from one ethnic background. But it is unfortunate that in some areas, a variety of black and minority ethnic communities are concentrated in poor quality private housing and impoverished members of the white community on social housing estates. Lack of interaction, partly as a result of physical segregation, may lead to fear and mistrust, multiplied as segregated housing leads to segregated schooling and leisure activities.

2.4

The pattern of economic and social disadvantage facing many minority or excluded communities means that many ‘mainstream’ regeneration strategies and programmes aim to tackle these problems as part of broad-based packages of interventions. Housing action must play a part within these programmes, and should also be included as part of broader consideration of the impact of intervention and investment in delivering successful regeneration.

2.5

It is important that housing areas reflect the culture of the communities who live there. Local landmarks such as community centres, places for religious worship, local markets or specialist shops are important for building communities. Organisations such as Habitat for Humanity can provide mechanisms for creating new housing that is open to all, but particularly those who have a religious objection to debt or mortgages, offering a way of realising home ownership by non traditional means.

2.6

Demographic change and workers mobility in the EU are both factors which have an effect on housing needs and demands. In some cities and regions more houses are left empty as populations have moved to find employment in other regions, with the consequent drop in population. New complications facing many member states are the phenomenon of older parents having families later in life with fewer children being born, and older people living longer, which results in a demand for more single-person living accommodation. Regions need to be aware of both demographic challenges and the effects of immigration and migration of workers, and adjust their housing strategies accordingly.

3.1

The European Parliament to continue the debate launched with his initiative report (1), and incorporate into the report the proposal for a European Charter for Housing adopted by the Urban-Housing Intergroup as the EU cannot constantly ignore the concerns of EU citizens regarding housing as a major element in the growth and productivity agenda.

3.2

That there is a recognition of the role housing plays in supporting social and economic growth. Decent housing within sustainable communities, contributing to a high quality environment are places where people want to live. Attracting people will attract investment and encourage sustainable economic growth.

3.3

The use of the JESSICA instrument for housing in the New Member states as a tool capable of complementing other ERDF initiatives for urban renewal and urban development. In this regard, the CoR recommends integrating housing in the sustainable urban development strategies that can be financed by JESSICA. The use of financial engineering can be very useful in the implementation of effective housing policies, particularly micro-credits for housing renewal and refurbishment which can be assisted through the JEREMIE initiative.

3.4

The New Member States to increase the financial resources at the disposal of local authorities in order to effectively deal with the problems of sustainable urban development and housing, press ahead with national housing strategies (programmes) to promote the construction of local authority and social housing, and to make investment available for the development of infrastructure.

3.5

That priority needs to be given to re-use of derelict sites, reclamation of Brownfield land to maintain more compact cities and prevent urban sprawl and encroachment into rural communities.

3.6

That the public be involved in urban renewal projects, especially in the redevelopment of run-down neighbourhoods where both community spirit and relations and integration between inhabitants need to be re-established. The experiences of EU-funded projects (such as INTERREG IIIC POSEIDON) should be made accessible to the Member States and taken into account in this process.

3.7

That all Member States look at the role of training in building sustainable communities. Training local people in the skills needed to improve their housing areas, develop green spaces and improve energy efficiency can provide solutions to neighbourhoods in decline and constitute a new source of employment.

3.8

The CoR recalls with the conclusions of the Bristol informal Council on sustainable communities that it is necessary to increase the skills and the knowledge base of urban planners. In this respect, it calls on the Commission to take further initiatives, in particular in the field of cooperation and the transfer of good practice and calls for a European network to be set up to capitalise on and share good practice in the use of intelligent energy in housing, and in energy efficiency education for residents.

3.9

Undertaking a revision of the Directive of the EU on the energy efficiency of buildings and a careful survey of its implementation in the Member States. Energy in housing can be also promoted through EU programs such as Intelligent energy for Europe or the CONCERTO initiative (7th Framework Programme) in the period 2007-2013.

3.10

Focusing primarily on educating the public in saving energy; the remaining demand must be met using renewable energies as a priority. To this end, the CoR recommends channelling more funds into research and awareness-raising in this area.

3.11

Including housing as an important element of any EU urban policy, in view of the Leipzig Informal Council of Ministers in charge of urban affairs that will take place in May 2007.

3.12

That a holistic view to planning is needed in order to optimise the physical relationship between landscape and buildings, homes, jobs and local services. Measures at local, regional and national level must ensure that land is available for social housing in particular, and that it is used for its intended purpose.

3.13

The consideration to the fact that housing supply must be linked to provision of public services and the infrastructure necessary for the provision of public services be put in place when new housing is built. Attention should also be paid to maintaining optimum population levels in order to be able to sustain essential services.

3.14

The role of Housing Associations is recognised as they have both the flexibility and the direct relationship to communities which can enable them to provide solutions to problems which fit the needs of the inhabitants.

3.15

The consideration of the role of housing in the context of demographic change and also in integrating immigrant populations in EU immigration policy, recognising the specific role that regional and local authorities can play in this field.

3.16

The recently created inter-service Task force of the Commission in charge of urban affairs to deal with housing as an important element of urban policies.

3.17

Welcomes the Commission's recognition, in its communication on social services of general interest, of the role played by social housing in implementing the Treaty's objectives to strengthen social cohesion and fundamental rights.

3.18

Calls on Member States to simplify and make transparent the administrative procedures concerning housing renewal.

3.19

The use of the URBACT network and the new initiative ‘Regions for economic change’ as a potential tool for the exchange of expertise and best practice between cities and regions of the European Union.

3.20

That the European Union directive on energy efficiency should include the rehabilitation and regeneration of historical housing stock as a priority area for action with the aim of preventing the extension of built-up land, without first making use of all existing inhabitable housing stock, thereby avoiding the local burden of unnecessary new building.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/19

—

considers that the overall objective of the future EU maritime policy is to recognise and preserve the great potential of Europe's seas and to design an active maritime policy in such a way that future generations can also share in the environmental, economic, biological and cultural wealth of the sea;

—

requests the Commission to present a European Maritime Action Plan which is to include, among others, the following actions:

1.

oceans and the seas constitute an important basis for life on earth, maintaining a high level of biodiversity, helping to regulate the climate, providing important resources such as food (fish, seaweed, seafood etc.), energy and minerals as well as serving as a main transportation carrier, especially for the intercontinental trade;

2.

Europe is a maritime continent and needs an integrated maritime policy in the spirit of the preamble of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stating, inter alia, that ‘issues relating to the law of the sea’ are to be settled ‘in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation’, that ‘the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole’, that ‘international communication’ should be facilitated, and that an ‘equitable and efficient utilisation of their resources’ and ‘the conservation of their living resources, and the … protection and preservation of the marine environment’ should be promoted;

3.

a good European maritime policy has to take into account the complex and often divergent realities existing within the different geographical areas of Europe, with special emphasis being given to the diversity in nature and the availability of resources, as well as the extent of the utilisation, sustainability and interaction thereof;

4

the seas and oceans represent a value for humanity in themselves and therefore their sustainable exploitation and environmental protection should be objectives towards which the European Union must work actively;

5.

regional and local authorities in particular in coastal areas have a broad range of experiences resulting in a strong regional and local interest in the development of a future maritime policy;

1.1

welcomes the Green Paper which attempts to provide a holistic outline of the main elements for establishing a common maritime policy;

1.2

welcomes the holistic approach, integrating major sectoral policies such as transport, industry, ports, fisheries, energy, environment and tourism in a common European Maritime Policy;

1.3

acknowledges the Commission's view that this holistic approach has to be mirrored in an integrated governance approach on the European, national, regional and local level;

1.4

emphasises that the various aspects of the European maritime policy must address the need for international coordination in this matter, in order to ensure the effectiveness of sustainable exploitation and environmental protection of the seas and oceans;

1.5

supports the Green Paper's determination that the future European maritime policy takes into account the criteria established through the Lisbon Agenda and the Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment;

1.6

welcomes the broad and long lasting Commission consultation process involving all relevant stakeholders and citizens, whose views should be taken into account in the formulation of the future European maritime policy;

1.7

acknowledges that importance is given to the collection and transparent dissemination of information as a precondition for the effective bringing together of diverse sectoral policies and interests;

1.8

continues to offer to play a significant partnering role in the ongoing consultation process launched by the Green Paper and underlines the utility of a long-term publicity campaign involving local and regional authorities thereby ensuring that the European citizens who will be most directly affected by such a new policy not only understand what is being proposed but are also encouraged to put forward their views, ideas and concerns;

1.9

appreciates the importance acknowledged by the Commission to the role of the regional dimension in the management of maritime activities and underlines the relevance of regional and local authorities in shaping and implementing the future European maritime policy;

1.10

believes there is a need to give due attention to specific local, regional and eco-regional factors within the European larger and smaller sea basins such as the Baltic, the Black Sea, the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and the Northern Atlantic as well as the seas which surround the EU's outermost regions: the Atlantic Ocean and its African coast, the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, which are the seas which give the EU its global presence;

1.11

welcomes with favour the view of the Commission on the local and regional governments' role in the implementation of the principles and objectives established in the new maritime policy and reaffirms its willingness to be associated in the elaboration of the future policy priorities and be regularly informed on the developments of such a policy;

1.12

underlines that this draft opinion addresses two basic questions: ‘How can a new European maritime policy be implemented?’ and ‘Is there an added value of a future integrated approach versus the present sectoral maritime policy?’ that have to be answered with priority;

1.13

continues to consider that the overall objective of the future EU maritime policy is to recognise and preserve the great potential of Europe's seas and to design an active maritime policy in such a way that future generations can also share in the environmental, economic, biological and cultural wealth of the sea;

1.14

sees the need for collecting and proper analysing sufficient data and ensuring the access to information thereby enabling policy makers and stakeholders to make sound decisions based on a steadily improving scientific understanding, drawing on excellence in marine research, technology and innovation;

1.15

supports the participation of the relevant players from the different sectoral policy areas concerned, and welcomes the Commission's efforts towards making the general public more aware of the importance of the maritime sector in general and of this policy in particular;

1.16

considers that the implementation of an integrated European maritime policy should not hinder the parallel progress of the individual sectoral maritime policies, which should be developed in an environmentally sustainable way;

1.17

stresses that a European maritime policy must be defined and implemented on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

1.18

supports the idea of European territorial pacts and trusts that these pacts will make it possible to deliver the EU's key political goals and priorities flexibly, effectively and on a voluntary basis and to secure the effective management of tripartite contracts and agreements as initially proposed by the European Commission so as to arrive at solutions that reflect grassroots concern;

1.19

favours the development of concrete measures for the attainment of the major objectives described in the green paper such as the wellbeing of the people and communities, the sustainable use of the maritime resources, the development of good maritime governance and the increased awareness by Europeans of the European maritime heritage, while preserving the local and regional cultural diversity;

1.20

considers that a European Maritime Action Plan with a set of concrete bench marks including a three step approach should be set up: for each bench mark to define an objective, a detailed description and a proposal on implementation whereas the latter should be ideally taken by 2008, and the proposals for the financial measures by 2007.

2.1.1

to set up a catalogue of existing national, regional and local best practice examples, particularly with regards to regional economic clusters, research networking, public-private sector cooperation, spatial planning and good governance and to promote existing best practise examples and their transfer to other regions or entities;

2.1.2

to encourage and support regions in the development of such best practice examples and therewith to develop European centres of maritime excellence;

2.1.3

to strengthen the role of the coastal regions and islands as major defining, implementing and evaluating entities;

2.1.4

to create a European maritime platform in which a regular, efficient and resource-saving exchange of European, national, regional and local best practice examples can be supported and in which the Commission and the Committee of the Regions are included;

2.1.5

to evaluate and coordinate specific strategy plans, along the lines of those established within the Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment advocating the setting up of wider marine regions, the specific strategy plans for the European oceans, the North East Atlantic ocean and the Arctic Ocean and the semi-enclosed larger and smaller sea basins such as the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the North Sea, the Black Sea and the English Channel, that are suggested by the Commission to be prepared by the Member States. HELCOM has already begun the work with an action plan for the Baltic Sea, an ambitious and extensive project that can be seen as a pilot-project or study for the Marine strategy, which is why such a plan should be carried out in cooperation with them;

2.1.6

to support thematic regional networks aimed at developing common projects in the field of transport, strengthening and re-qualification of infrastructures, environmental protection, coordination of the fisheries activities, and commercial cooperation and to take the already existing fisheries councils into account;

2.2.1

to especially improve the regional data basis at the regional and local level on the basis of GIS-related systems and to include spatially integrated land and sea based data from satellites, planes and buoys such as local sea levels, movement of ships or climate data resulting in Ocean Monitoring systems;

2.2.2

to raise data on the economic and environmental aspects of individual marine resources and the social impact thereof; to introduce a standardised European marine register system;

2.2.3

to monitor fishery stocks in Community waters and migratory species, and to apply a data collection model to the exploitation of fishery stocks by encouraging the construction of a telematics network for fish markets linked to databases;

2.2.4

to follow the proposal of setting up a European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODN) underlining the view that this Network should be used to integrate existing and new maritime data, thereby enabling a long-term monitoring and a high quality risk assessment process, particularly with respect to such issues as safety in maritime transport, natural resource exploration and exploitation and protection of the marine environment and its biodiversity;

2.2.5

to take the integrative approach within future research schemes much more in consideration;

2.2.6

to support closer linkages among the existing European research institutes towards a network of ‘European Oceans Research Institutes’ in order to further encourage joint European maritime research. This would provide for top quality maritime research and make Europe a world leader in this field;

2.2.7

to pool research vessels and large-scale equipment within a European Maritime research network for uniformity of measuring systems, cost effectiveness and quality improvement and to support this approach by a joint procurement that could be promoted through the European Investment Bank;

2.2.8

to support the use of the renewable sources of energy identified in the Green Paper, inter alia offshore wind energy and wave energy, provided that they are compatible with other socio-economic and environmental activities and interests, and including further research and innovation in this sector;

2.2.9

to explore CO2 sequestation in exhausted marine oil and gas fields;

2.2.10

to strengthen efforts in respect of the development of scientific and technological breakthroughs in the field of marine research, such as blue biotechnology, navigational guiding systems and tourist activities, thereby addressing present and potential future threats particularly with regards to climate change, dwindling fish stocks, unsustainable tourism and the changing demographic patterns within coastal populations, and consequently to formulate and promote easily accessible incentives promoting research and development in such spheres of activity;

2.2.11

to formulate incentives to promote research and development in the field of sustainable fish farming, laying down production protocols to which producers must adhere, in the conviction that fish constitutes a key basic foodstuff and in view of the fact that fish farming is a highly resource-intensive process;

2.2.12

to intensify the analysis of potential threats to the European marine environment particularly through climate change and the ensuing rise in sea levels as well as in monitoring the tectonic activity beneath sea level, and to identify adequate responses thereto;

2.2.13

to encourage the implementation and development of production protocols for organic acquaculture;

2.2.14

to encourage and promote research to identify parameters to help define the level of environmental and social sustainability of all human activities (fisheries, aquaculture, sport, tourism and leisure, transport, energy etc.) involving use of maritime resources;

2.3.1

to put forward a strategy on how the European Union will hold and extend market shares within individual maritime economy sections in the world wide competition taking sustainability, cost and technology factors into account;

2.3.2

to work out in detail to what extent individual economy sections (e.g. energy, transport, tourism, fisheries and blue biotechnology and shipbuilding) are currently supporting European competitiveness and innovation, especially in view of the goals and priorities established in the Lisbon Agenda;

2.3.3

to present scientific data on whether and to what extent these individual economy sectors will contribute

2.3.4

to encourage the further development of the interface between research and industry, in particular maritime clusters. The establishment of a European maritime cluster conference could serve as an ideal forum in which marine scientists and industry can meet and interact on a regular basis;

2.3.5

to strengthen the role of transport in the framework of the future maritime policy, against the background that transport is one of the most important and cross-cutting maritime activities;

2.3.6

to support the notion of the identification of motorways of the sea, noting that this ambitious project will increase the volume of maritime traffic in European seas and oceans by their completion in 2010. For this reason, asks Commission to spur Member States to implement a more attentive environmental monitoring of the state of pollution on the main maritime routes and thinks that the new GMES technology could be successfully employed for this purpose;

2.3.7

to reinvigorate the efforts for completing the sea terminals, starting from those with clear inter-modal characteristics against the background that the realisation of some TEN-T projects affecting the maritime dimension are lagging behind;

2.3.8

to improve port infrastructure and transport links with the islands, specifying and implementing the necessary measures so as to include the outermost regions, and to ensure their access to continental markets, whilst ensuring that the frequency and pricing of maritime goods and passenger transport services, both with the continent and between islands within the same archipelago, are acceptable, and to step up the development of secondary networks in such a way that islands and, in particular, the outermost regions are fully connected to the ‘motorways of the sea’ without unnecessary delays;

2.3.9

to continue to work together with Member States and marine regions to strengthen, improve and develop shipping routes and to ensure that they are given proper consideration as part of the trans-European networks;

2.3.10

to forward a study on the advantages and disadvantages for the setting up of a common European flag;

2.3.11

to strengthen the role of the strategic ports as a priority for the development of the future maritime policy and in parallel to commission a study on the inter-connections between major and secondary ports and on the possible delocalisation and de-concentration of certain port activities towards smaller centres;

2.3.12

to set up a network of European maritime vocational schools for improving training and education of seafarers and formalising career paths as a tool for ensuring that Europe is equipped with a professional and qualified workforce and to forward a proposal for education and life long learning in all maritime sectors not only on sea;

2.3.13

to ensure the existence and enforcement of Europe wide minimum standards for employment and working conditions in maritime transport and all other maritime sectors and to prevent any abusive practices;

2.3.14

to develop a new framework for the establishment of a coordinated approach towards a sustainable maritime tourism in the EU, especially reflecting the needs of the regions, noting that maritime tourism is one on the strongest contributors to maritime economies with excellent growth potentials but which is also a contributor to the increase in coastal pollution, the unsustainable use of resources and the deterioration of the natural coastal environment;

2.3.15

to facilitate the further development of off shore wind farms in the EU. i.e. to foster projects showing up solutions dealing with the difficulties of multiple responsibilities on the national, regional and local level especially for the cable lines or with combined uses e.g. wind turbines and mussel farms;

2.3.16

to urgently forward a proposal on the development of new technological breakthroughs in the field of other renewable ocean energy sources, such as tidal flows or oceans streaming in which spheres of activity the EU could develop a strategic leadership at the global level;

2.3.17

to regulate the extraction activities of traditional maritime energy resources such as oil and gas on the basis of well defined environmental security standards and to implement effective monitoring of such activities;

2.3.18

to develop scenarios for coastal protection measures that may be necessary, based on the various forecasts for the rise in sea levels and changing weather conditions; existing scenarios like those set up from the Wadden Sea Forum should be considered;

2.3.19

to foster international agreements to ensure sustainable exploitation of shared fishery stocks (migratory species);

2.3.20

to implement research projects to develop anchoring systems which, in areas of particular value, can prevent the destruction of Posidonia oceanica plantlife;

2.3.21

to establish a coastal public structure integrating tasks such as environment inspectorates, frontier control, sea rescue services, fisheries inspectorates, health assistance, civil protection, for people working at sea;

2.4.1

to show how the existing environment can be successfully protected and restored as well as to define and to implement protection criteria at a common European level and to ensure the quality of coastal and off shore ecosystems and habitats;

2.4.2

to further clarify how the Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment and the Marine Strategy directive will be integrated in the future overall maritime policy, keeping in view the revised time frames suggested by the Committee of the Regions. In order to be as efficient as possible, these time frames should be coordinated with other major EU programs like the structural and the agricultural funds;

2.4.3

to coordinate and assist the marine regions in identifying ways for the successful protection of the existing environment and in particularly in establishing trans-regional and/or trans-national marine protection zones and developing concrete proposals for the significant reduction of radioactive discharges, of pollution caused by ships (in particular the gases emitted, discharges and ballast water, as the latter can contribute to the introduction of alien species) and of the damage caused by human activity to marine habitats of special interest referred to in the Habitats Directive, and to support efforts ensuring the quality of coastal and off shore ecosystems and habitats, also keeping in view the significant impact which economic activity can have on the state of the marine environment, particularly through the discharge of nutrients into the sea;

2.4.4

to work out in detail where and how environmental friendly technology can replace standard technologies and to provide financial incentives and assistance programmes encouraging and facilitating such a shift;

2.4.5

to intensify the pressure on, and to seek legal sanction against, those who are in breach of legal requirements and standards particularly with respect to the illegal dumping of waste at sea, illegal fishing, or the illegal transportation of persons or goods;

2.4.6

to better secure maritime routes and investigate the possibility to introduce mandatory pilotage for oil tankers and other ships with dangerous cargo and to investigate the possibility to introduce general mandatory pilotage in narrow shipping passages;

2.4.7

to support initiatives aimed at upgrading or improving port facilities for reception of oily waters and to favour technological innovations in shipping and the handling of oil, also in order to prevent the introduction of invasive exotic species;

2.4.8

to support and encourage international agreements to conserve commercially viable fish stocks of highly migratory species, in the awareness that applying conservation measures to Community fleets alone has no appreciable effect for the purposes of protection;

2.4.9

to facilitate the establishment of a network of protected European maritime zones and of a monitoring network, particularly between the Member States of the European Union and neighbouring countries, in order to promote exchanges of experience and best practices in the management field;

2.4.10

to support initiatives for the establishment of protocols for the management and handling of ballast water from ships, as this can be a source of the introduction of alien species, which can contribute to a loss of marine biodiversity;

2.5.1

to prepare a catalogue of existing individual funding instruments for maritime policies at European level, i.e. the structural funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development Regulation, the European Fisheries Fund, the lifelong learning fund or the 7th Community Framework Programme for Research & Development and to study their effectiveness with a view of determining whether such instruments need to be simplified or better advertised;

2.5.2

to present a compendium of those projects in the maritime sector already funded by the Commission;

2.5.3

to take the integrative approach within future funding schemes (from 2014 onwards) much more in consideration;

2.5.4

to examine the option of revising the EU financial system towards one single simplified system for all or most of the maritime issues within a European Coastal and Island fund;

2.5.5

to provide financial support for areas of particular biological, environmental and architectural value experiencing severe problems, whose economies depend largely on maritime activities;

2.5.6

to review the existing EU legal framework from a more maritime perspective and to address bottlenecks and missing links in the integration potential of policies, and the better regulation of the existing legal framework;

2.5.7

to devise and apply specific financial instruments in areas of high environmental and cultural value, typified by small-scale inshore fishing, sometimes combined with family-type farming, where existing financial instruments cannot be applied because their economic and size-related requirements are not met by such small-scale undertakings;

2.5.8

to introduce financial instruments for coastal regions and islands to help offset the costs incurred in actions carried out by such regions in upholding the general interest of the European Union, particularly in tackling drugs and people trafficking, illegal immigration and marine pollution and supervising Exclusive Economic Zones;

2.5.9

to develop further international cooperation and implementation of international law on the basis of UNCLOS;

2.6.1

to explore how spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management can be successfully applied, highlighting the special case of islands, to support the integration of sectoral policies in areas that might be required for different uses;

2.6.2

to develop a strong geography-related tool for the maritime sector of an instrument similar to the land-based INSPIRE spatial information system;

2.6.3

to urgently address the need for the setting up of a European coastguard service, identifying the particular needs with the different marine regions;

2.6.4

to identify ways for the better use of EU financial instruments towards (i) in the short term assisting those Member States or Regions that are directly affected by the ever-growing wave of illegal immigration, and (ii) in the longer term to assist third countries to attain a level of political and economic development thereby stemming the demand for their nationals to seek illegal entry into EU territory. In this context, supports the European Parliament's Budgets Committee proposal for the setting up of an Agency specifically responsible for tackling the issue of illegal migration and asylum seeking by third country nationals, which is to be situated in Malta;

2.6.5

to offer greater levels of support to regional and local authorities in addition to the national authorities in managing new migrants once they are on their territory;

2.6.6

to take into consideration the inland dimension and the interactions between inland areas, inland waterways and rivers, coastal areas and the sea, thereby making the various existing linkages transparent;

2.6.7

to ensure further development and implementation of the highest standards of ship safety in European waters to avoid shipping accidents on the high seas, in coastal areas and in ports;

2.6.8

to include specific programmes and measures for outermost regions and islands, given their particular conditions and difficulties, particularly in such spheres of activity as

2.6.9

to develop short- to medium-term strategies to curb the increasing abuse of Europe's oceans and seas, not least with respect to the illegal trafficking of human beings into Europe;

2.6.10

to analyse the operational disadvantages arising from the varying degrees of remoteness of maritime regions, drawing up maritime transport policies based on the concept of cohesion, in order to improve the integration of these regions into Europe;

2.6.11

to promote practical trials of integrated management of coastal areas through which organisational structures and procedures can be set up and promoted involving mechanisms for coordination between governments, as well as to promote social participation in the adoption of decisions affecting coastal areas;

2.7.1

to include a proposal to systematically raise public awareness of the maritime issue within an ongoing process including aspects of the common maritime tradition, culture and identity in Europe;

2.7.2

to forward a proposal on how the maritime dimension could be integrated within the upcoming European year of the intercultural dialogue 2008;

2.7.3

for the purpose of improving public awareness, to develop a systematic strategy for a modern maritime policy in order to have it firmly embedded at grassroots level and to ensure its actual implementation.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/27

—

suggests that the EIT governance structures are developed to balance the need for independence for the EIT for its day to day running, with the need for Member States and the EU Institutions to have the ability to safeguard the interests of the EU, for example through a quinquennial review by a Member State panel;

—

regrets that the proposal puts forward inadequate fresh funding for the research community. It insists that the existing EU funding streams for research are not top sliced but instead additional private sector contributions are specified and ensured by clear mechanisms. The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KIC) should be encouraged to become financially sustainable over time and also have their budget regularly reviewed against their performance;

—

recommends that in its initial stages, the EIT does not award its own degrees, rather develops a brand or label that is awarded by KIC partner universities;

—

recommends that the selection of KIC partnerships should take account of both their excellence and also demonstrated potential for excellence in education, research and innovation. It calls on the European Commission to specify how these criteria will be measured;

—

recommends to instruct the EIT to give a high rating to KIC applications that have strong partnerships with structured research communities and engagement with their regional and local authorities/bodies. SMEs should explicitly be listed as potential partner organisations.

1.

Positive steps forward have been taken with the Commission's second Communication and the proposal for a regulation on the subject of the creation of a European Institute of Technology;

2.

Although it is not possible that all research institutes in the EU will participate directly in the EIT, the aspiration of all to become part of it through a Knowledge and Innovation Community will change the research environment for the better through the strengthening of the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation;

3.

The improvement of the knowledge triangle, and in particular the development of strong partnerships between business and research, will make a significant contribution to the improvement of the EU's competitiveness;

4.

Balanced regional development can be enhanced if the EIT's Knowledge and Innovation Communities, which will centre around the best teams working with businesses, work together in synergy with regional and local economic development bodies;

1.1

welcomes this second Communication as a positive contribution to the debate on the establishment of a European Institute of Technology (EIT) and as a contribution to delivering Lisbon;

1.2

welcomes the balanced approach taken by the Commission in the preparation of the legislative proposal including the change of title for ‘Knowledge Communities’ to ‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’ (KIC) and it is pleased to note that local and regional authorities are included as potential KIC ‘partner organisations’, but has concerns with some of the detail;

1.3

supports the initiative which is designed to strengthen the relations between the three pillars of the knowledge triangle — education, research and innovation — and the proposal to address the recognised innovation gap in Europe;

1.4

re-states the view that successful research and innovation models cannot be copied at will and instead the EU should look at building upon successful models of best practice of strong relations between research, innovation and education in the EU;

1.5

recognises the importance of the EIT bringing on board all of the key stakeholders in the knowledge triangle, top research teams, industry and public authorities. A two tier system should be avoided at all costs;

1.6

acknowledges that some issues surrounding elements of the proposal still remain problematic;

1.7

regrets that the new legislative proposal puts forward inadequate fresh funding for the research community and that the proposal does not contain clear mechanisms for ensuring private sector financing;

1.8

insists that the existing funding streams for research (FP& CIP) are not top sliced but instead additional private sector contributions are specified;

1.9

underlines that the influence of local and regional authorities on the conditions that create interaction which leads to innovation is crucial;

1.10

reminds the Commission of the important role of local and regional authorities, particularly their economic partnerships, in setting down the conditions for interaction between the 3 parts of the knowledge triangle, such as stimulating cluster development, providing the infrastructure for incubators, stimulating investment from industry, etc;

1.11

further reminds the Commission that regional and local authorities are best placed to encourage SMEs to work within a research partnership and also to promote industry-university partnerships which are likely to thrive in the regional/local environment taking into account existing and future circumstances, policies, push and pull factors, etc;

1.12

further emphasises that the main focus of the EIT should be on innovation, knowledge transfer and applied research projects.

2.1

recommends that the EIT combines the strengths of both the EU's globally recognised excellent universities and their research teams and bodies, as well as the best teams from other universities and research bodies across the EU with potential to be excellent;

2.2

therefore urges the Commission to work with the universities and research bodies that have had a strong experience of the knowledge triangle in action. If the EIT fails to engage with Europe's top ranking universities and research bodies, then this will impact upon how it is viewed globally;

2.3

insists that the creation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities be a bottom up approach, initially selecting existing excellent examples of research/business collaboration;

2.4

is pleased to note that the selection process for Knowledge and Innovation Communities be open, allowing research teams with potential to aspire to the EIT. All universities and research bodies, both large and small, should feel that if the right structures, partnerships and policies are put in place that their best teams could eventually actively participate in the EIT. However, it regrets that the related key-criterion of ‘excellence in education and research’ does not refer specifically to potential excellence too and calls on the Commission to specify how the two criteria will be measured;

2.5

suggests that a way to reinforce the relationship between the research and private sector in a Knowledge and Innovation Communities could be to encourage/incentivise the KICs to become financially sustainable over time and calls for the legislative proposal to include this approach within its provisions;

2.6

opposes the Commission's proposal for the EIT to award its own degrees and recommends on the subject of degrees that in its initial stages, the EIT not issue its own degrees, rather that the EIT develop a brand or label that is awarded by a KIC partner university. Otherwise an EIT degree risks alienating leading universities;

2.7

suggests that in the initial years of the EIT it should restrict itself to branding a masters programme containing specific elements such as industry placements, interdisciplinarity, entrepreneurship training, etc;

2.8

insists on appropriate private-sector representation on the governing board, which rightly should have the autonomy to set the EIT's strategic agenda;

2.9

suggests that the EIT governance structures are developed to balance the need for independence for the EIT for its day to day running, with the need for Member States and the EU Institutions to have the ability to safeguard the interests of the EU, for example through a quinquennial review by a Member State panel;

2.10

calls on the Commission, when selecting KICs, to instruct the governing board in its guidelines to give a high rating to KIC applications from partnerships which involve regional or local authorities and have structured research communities involving scientific and technological cooperation between universities, research bodies and companies with medium- and long-term research planning;

2.11

reminds the Commission of the decisive cluster forming role which regions and local authorities play through their policies and investment into the infrastructure, that leads to strong university-industry collaboration;

2.12

suggests that as a means of judging the success of the EIT, the governing board be set targets by which its strategic direction be measured. Measurements of success could include indicators that evaluate the EIT's ability to offer concrete ‘marketable’ solutions to problems faced by SMEs, businesses and industry;

2.13

urges the Commission to avoid any dilution of the focus on the establishment of the European Research Council as the prime driver of fundamental research as a result of the strong and positive momentum behind the establishment of the EIT. As much as possible the governing board of the EIT should establish strong links with the ERC and establish structures to ensure complementarities and avoid silo working and duplication;

2.14

suggests that the EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities be set up gradually, learning from each experience, and adapting the structures as appropriate each time new KICs are formed, and is pleased that the Commission proposes a scenario of 6 KICs by 2013;

2.15

considers the following areas to be of key importance for establishing and managing of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities:

2.16

recommends that the staffing question be dealt with in a flexible way to ensure the engagement of the best teams of researchers in the EIT. Dual affiliation is felt to be a positive step forward in the question of staffing;

2.17

suggests that as a means of engaging top ranking teams of researchers and establishing a sense of commitment to the EIT, the KICs employ staff for a set percentage of their time. Maximum and minimum levels can be set on a case by case basis and adapted over the course of a KIC's duration;

2.18

urges the Commission in the preparation of its legislative proposal on the EIT to emphasise the important role of local and regional bodies which will provide essential support for KICs in particular and bridging the gaps in the knowledge triangle in general.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/34

—

does believe that, from an environmental standpoint, there are a number of reasons for developing soil policy at EU level. Soil contamination, for example, is linked to human and animal health and soil policy has a role to play here. In addition, climate change, the transboundary impacts of soil degradation, the pressure caused on other environmental compartments, and the Kyoto agreements require attention at a European level;

—

believes that a Directive which sets out to establish an inventory and assists the Member States to take action, as proposed by the Commission, may help to bring about sustainable soil management in the EU. This implies that the Directive should be of a flexible nature;

—

expresses its concern over the administrative burdens which may arise, for local and regional authorities, as a result of the following requirements: the identification of areas at risk; the obligation to review, every ten years, the areas identified as being at risk (Article 6); and the obligation to review the inventory of contaminated sites (Articles 10 and 11);

—

does not wish to see any direct obligations imposed upon the relevant authorities in respect of the actual cleaning-up and management of contaminated sites (Article 13);

—

believes that there is a need for the European Commission to draw up a set of guideline measures, comprising cost-effective measures, from which the Member States can draw inspiration to compose their own package of measures, exercising their own judgement.

1.1

Soil is of vital importance to the sustaining of human life. Soil provides an essential source of food and water and also plays a vital role in regulating various cycles, whilst providing a habitat for many organisms and serving as the basis for life above ground. For human beings and nature, it is vital that the soil is able to continue to fulfil these roles in an ongoing, optimal way.

1.2

All EU Member States have to contend, to a greater or lesser extent, with soil-related problems. There is no doubt that, in some parts of Europe, considerable and disturbing soil degradation processes have occurred and will continue to occur.

1.3

Soil is an immobile material, but soil degradation in one Member State can nevertheless have transboundary effects. The CoR believes therefore that the proposal is in line with the subsidiarity principle. The CoR also notes that only nine Member States have introduced a soil policy and that this policy is generally limited to certain aspects of soil contamination. The CoR does, in addition, believe that, from an environmental standpoint, there are a number of reasons for developing soil policy at EU level. Soil contamination, for example, is linked to human and animal health and soil policy has a role to play here. In addition, climate change, the transboundary impacts of soil degradation, the pressure caused on other environmental compartments, and the Kyoto agreements require attention at a European level.

1.4

Soil policy is a highly complex matter. In Europe there are over 320 different soil types, which are used for many different purposes. Soil does, for example, fulfil economic, social, cultural and environmental functions and is used in connection with agriculture, nature, construction and the building of roads and embankments. The threats confronting soil in the various EU Member States are highly diverse. This leads to very considerable differences between individual Member States and even between the various regions within individual Member States. The various measures adopted by the Member States also differ considerably. Besides these geographical differences, there are climatic differences between Europe's regions. These differences chime with the responsibilities exercised by regional and local authorities in the Member States in this field.

1.5

In view of this great diversity and the difficulties in elaborating common standards, the CoR believes that for the time being it is not possible to adopt uniform EU quantitative standards. It believes nevertheless that the strategy presented by the Commission is a first step in the direction of reaching agreement on common standards in the near future. Tailor-made measures are necessary to ensure real protection for soil. Soil is a policy area which needs to be fleshed out primarily at local and regional level.

1.6

In the majority of EU Member States, responsibility for soil policy rests with local and regional authorities. These authorities should therefore play a major role in the development of new methods and measures in the field of soil policy.

1.7

The European Union, for its part, has to play a supporting and stimulating role in the field of soil policy. EU legislation in this field should be rejected unless it is flexible and provides the Member States with adequate room for manoeuvre in framing soil policy.

1.8

The CoR endorses the objectives of the strategy and takes the view that they make a major contribution towards the establishment of a flexible, common European policy framework for ensuring sustainable soil management.

1.9

The description of the objectives of the strategy lead the CoR to infer that the focus has been placed on expanding available knowledge in respect of soil processes and obliging the Member States to take action in this field. They are encouraged to take action to combat soil degradation but the actual identification of the areas at risk, the objectives to be pursued with a view to reducing soil degradation and the measures to be carried out to achieve these objectives is a task entrusted to the Member States themselves. The CoR endorses this approach as it enables soil issues to be tackled in an integrated and well-structured way, thereby emphasising the local and regional nature of this issue.

1.10

With a view to implementing the proposed strategy, all the existing EU laws and policies of relevance to the soil issue should be systematically evaluated to determine the extent to which they are conducive to promoting sustainable soil in the EU. In cases where such laws or policies make an inadequate contribution to pursuing this goal, they should be adjusted accordingly. A plan of approach should be drawn up by the Commission in the short term with a view to achieving this goal.

1.11

For the abovementioned reasons the CoR takes the view that the proposed strategy should tie in more closely with the other strategies developed in the framework of the Sixth Environment Action Programme. In particular, there should be closer links with the strategies in respect of pesticides, waste and recycling, surface water and groundwater.

1.12

The CoR believes that information and communication have an important role to play in helping to bring about sustainable soil management. Threats confronting soil and how soil can help promote a sustainable society are two issues which need to be covered in this respect.

1.13

The measures taken by the Member States are characterised by considerable diversity (see point 1.4 above). The CoR believes that the quality of soil in Europe can be improved in an effective and practical way if Member States which have already introduced a soil policy transfer knowledge to the other Member States. The CoR advocates taking steps to enable those Member States already pursuing a fully-fledged soil policy share their experience with Member States which lack comprehensive legislation in this field.

1.14

The CoR attaches considerable value to the establishment of an open communication platform for exchanging information on best practice with a view to providing adequate protection of soil. In view of the variable nature of soil in the EU, there is a need to have a full picture of the measures which can be employed and which have proved their worth in practice.

1.15

The aim of this framework Directive is to establish an inventory of soil degradation in the EU. It provides criteria for enabling such an inventory to be compiled in a uniform and transparent way. Whether or not an area is designated as an area at risk, which measures, if any, are to be taken and the timeframe for such measures are to be determined by the Member State itself.

1.16

The CoR believes that a Directive which sets out to establish an inventory and assists the Member States to take action, as proposed by the Commission, may help to bring about sustainable soil management in the EU. This implies that the present Directive should be of a flexible nature and must not set out any quantitative and qualitative standards. These measures should be implemented on a voluntary basis by means of incentive and advisory schemes. Furthermore, an increase in documentation requirements should be prevented in order to combat unnecessary bureaucracy. At the same time, the present Commission proposals should not be seen as an invitation to far-reaching EU intervention.

1.17

The Committee believes that top priority must be given to national-level responsibility for achieving environmental standards, including liability and responsibility on the part of soil polluters and owners. This implies that there is a need to stipulate that, even when the polluter-pays principle is applied, the liability of not just the polluter but also additional obligated parties can be invoked. The Committee would stress that it must be prescribed at national level who, in the final analysis, is an obligated party.

1.18

The Committee expresses its concern over the fact that, for the purposes of formulating the specific requirements of the proposed EU Directive and, in particular, establishing the risk-assessment criteria in respect of soil contamination, recourse is to be had to a committee, in accordance with Decision 1999/468/EC (the ‘Comitology Decision’). A procedure should be selected in this case which takes account of the interests of all stakeholders and ensures adequate participation.

1.19

Article 16 of the Directive defines a large number of reporting obligations to be met mainly by local and regional authorities. In the CoR's view, these provisions should not impose a disproportionate burden on local authorities and regions. It should be pointed out in this context that the amount of attention, manpower and financial resources devoted to drawing up reports cannot, at the same time, be devoted to measures to prevent soil degradation, even though reducing soil degradation should be the primary objective.

1.20

The CoR underscores the importance of the integration of soil policy into sectoral policies and provisions at every level of administration (Article 3). In the context of the implementation of sectoral policies, restraint should be exercised with regard to the introduction of compulsory checks on the basis of existing data (soil tests). Checks are only an important requirement in cases where soil is at risk. In view of the fact that the policy is already of the nature of a framework policy, the stipulation of soil tests in the implementing phase is generally unnecessary. In the case of complex and wide-ranging situations, the establishment of an environmental impact report is, in any case, already obligatory.

1.21

The CoR expresses its concern over the administrative burdens which may arise, for local and regional authorities, as a result of the following requirements: the identification of areas at risk; the obligation to review, every ten years, the areas identified as being at risk (Article 6); and the obligation to review the inventory of contaminated sites (Articles 10 and 11).

1.22

The Committee notes that the Proposal for a Directive sets out a series of recording and reporting obligations, together with requirements in respect of the drawing up of plans and programmes which may be subject to a strategic environmental assessment (SEA); these measures would involve a considerable additional administrative burden. The EU provisions must, as far as possible, refrain from stipulating reporting obligations and the drawing up of plans and programmes subject to SEAs.

1.23

The Committee takes the view that public involvement should be limited to those cases which are covered by the environmental information Directive.

1.24

The CoR does not wish to see any direct obligations imposed upon the relevant authorities in respect of the actual cleaning-up and management of contaminated sites (Article 13). The authorities ensure that a clean-up actually takes place. All these matters must be considered in the context of the laws and rules applicable in the Member State concerned and in the context of the specific local soil situation. The authorities in question remain, of course, responsible for ensuring that the issue of contaminated sites is tackled.

1.25

The CoR expresses its satisfaction with the proposed function-orientated remediation of degraded soils (Articles 1.1 and 13.2). Measures are proposed depending upon the (current) use being made of the soil.

1.26

The impact assessment states that measures to reduce soil degradation offer a considerable social return on investment. The Committee endorses this conclusion, but would point out that, in order to achieve this return, there first has to be investment in soil. Experience has shown that the implementation of soil remediation projects, e.g. for local authorities and regions, is often thwarted by lack of funds.

1.27

The CoR regards the introduction of the soil status report (Article 12) as providing support from the EU for the drawing up of inventories of contaminated sites since, on the one hand, the proposed report would help to keep inventories of contaminated sites up to date and, on the other hand, the report would provide purchasers of sites from other EU Member States with the requisite information in a transparent way and therefore prevent them from incurring economic loss. The proposed report thus gives substance, in a practical way to the ‘polluter pays’ principle referred to in Article 4.

1.28

The CoR takes the view that, when measures for preserving soil functions are being identified, attention should be paid not only to social and economic aspects but also to safety aspects and the presence of subjects constituting archaeological, geological and geomorphological heritage (Article 8).

1.29

The Committee feels that the Commission's call for national funding mechanisms for the remediation of contaminated sites (Article 13) fails to take adequate account of the specific regional (funding) mechanisms already in place, which, in practice to date, have proved effective. The fear is that, in this area, EU rules will, if anything, be a hindrance.

1.30

In the CoR's view, one of the cornerstones of the Commission's proposal is the planned establishment of a platform for the exchange of information (Article 17). In view of their practical expertise and the experience which they have acquired, regional and local authorities should participate actively in the proposed exchange of information.

2.1

The CoR believes that there is a need for the European Commission to draw up a set of guideline measures, comprising cost-effective measures, from which the Member States can draw inspiration to compose their own package of measures, exercising their own judgement. Those Member States which have not yet formulated a soil policy or are currently in the process of doing so will only be able to carry out effective work in this field if they are in possession of adequate knowledge.

2.2

The CoR proposes that, rather than introducing wide-ranging European reporting requirements, Member States should be able to employ their own reporting system and that the European Commission should be given access to the information concerned (Article 16).

2.3

Risk areas can be identified very specifically and in a way which involves placing a more limited administrative burden on the authorities concerned if a quick scan is first carried out to determine which risks are or are not applicable in (parts of) the soil in the Member State concerned (Article 6). As regards the review of the risk areas and the inventories of contaminated sites, a complete review is unnecessary. It may be sufficient to update the information using monitoring data.

2.4

The CoR calls for the research agenda of the European Commission as announced in the thematic strategy to be fleshed out and for priorities and a timetable to be defined. The impact which climate change has on the soil needs to be clearly identified as a matter of the utmost priority. It is well known that climate change leads, or may lead, to the accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter. In view of the very important role played by organic matter in the functioning of soil, climate change may have a very considerable impact on sustainable soil management.

1)

Member States identify the risk areas and draw up an inventory (see subparagraphs b, c and e of the Commission text);

2)

the European Commission draws up a set of guideline measures, as referred to in Article 17 (see Recommendation 10);

3)

Member States draw up a package of measures (see subparagraphs a, d, f and g of the Commission text).

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/48

—

welcomes the Commission's thematic strategy, since it provides for an integrated and holistic approach to pesticides which promotes further, necessary environmental improvements in this field;

—

regrets that existing legislation has not been able to prevent pesticide residues in foods from increasing over the years, and therefore welcomes the fact that the thematic strategy is intended to step up the monitoring of pesticide residues in foods;

—

finds that the proposed system of zones, included in the proposal for a regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, does not take adequate account of geological, geographical and hydrological factors within each zone. These differences mean that the risk of dangerous pesticides filtrating and leaching varies, and this should be reflected in the legislation; regrets that the zones do not take into consideration existing standards for pesticide regulation in the Member States;

—

finds that the Commission's proposal for compulsory mutual recognition of pesticides within zones is not an ideal solution, since this could lead to an increase in pesticide contamination of surface waters;

—

considers that the legal basis for the Regulation (COM(2006) 388) should be extended to include Treaty Article 175, which covers the environment;

—

calls for quantitative objectives to be developed eventually for reducing pesticide use.

1.1

welcomes the Commission's thematic strategy, since it provides for an integrated and holistic approach to pesticides which promotes further, necessary environmental improvements in this field;

1.2

endorses the Commission's ongoing update of procedures and functions relevant to the European Food Safety Authority, thus ensuring that EU rules in this area are in line with the latest relevant scientific findings — thereby benefiting the environment and human health;

1.3

supports the objectives of the thematic strategy to improve protection of the environment and health by restricting the use of pesticides and encouraging research on less harmful alternatives;

1.4

agrees that data protection provisions should not include data produced through animal testing. This is to ensure that tests are not repeated unnecessarily and to help restrict as much as possible the use of animal testing;

1.5

welcomes the fact that the thematic strategy is intended to provide guidelines on the use of pesticides for which current Community legislation has been inadequate;

1.6

is pleased to note that the strategy includes tools for monitoring and reporting on progress made by the Member States towards achieving its goals;

1.7

recognises that sensible use of pesticides brings substantial productivity improvements, as stated in the Commission's impact assessment (SEC(2006) 894), but also recognises that use of these products still has a serious impact on the environment;

1.8

also recognises that the pesticide industry is a major employer in the EU, providing a total of 26 000 jobs; is therefore pleased to note that according to the impact assessment the thematic strategy will create a further 3 000 jobs in the sector, provide a minimum of EUR 380 million in profits for agriculture, and is also consistent with the objectives of the Lisbon strategy;

1.9

welcomes the fact that the strategy tries to increase safety in the use of pesticides, through inspection and certification of equipment, promoting safe storage of pesticides and training measures for distributors and professional users. This will make pesticide use more effective, benefiting all those concerned;

1.10

regrets that existing legislation has not been able to prevent pesticide residues in foods from increasing over the years, and therefore welcomes the fact that the thematic strategy is intended to step up the monitoring of pesticide residues in foods, and urges the rigorous testing for pesticide residues of imported foods and feedstuffs particularly from countries where restrictions of pesticide use may be less stringent;

1.11

is pleased that the proposal for a framework directive to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides refers to the Water Framework Directive. This is intended to strengthen the coherence of the EU's efforts to protect the environment; therefore calls for a reference to the Water Framework Directive in the proposal for a Regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market;

1.12

fully understands the Commission's wish to strengthen competition, dynamism and free trade in the European Union, but believes it is crucially important for the thematic strategy on pesticides to prioritise environmental considerations and public health;

1.13

therefore believes that the recommendation contained in the proposal for a Regulation regarding compulsory mutual recognition of pesticides within the three zones is inappropriate when set against the existing provisions. Different situations prevail in the Member States within the same zone, which means that each Member State must be able to continue to apply more rigorous pesticide standards. For example, untreated groundwater is used as drinking water in several Member States. Compulsory introduction of pesticides that were hitherto banned will threaten this practice, with economic consequences for local and regional authorities and for the Member States. The Committee would point out that being able to drink high-quality water direct from the tap is a quality-of-life improvement.

2.1

finds that the proposed system of zones does not take adequate account of geological, geographical and hydrological factors within each zone. These differences mean that the risk of dangerous pesticides filtrating and leaching varies, and this should be reflected in the legislation; regrets that the zones do not take into consideration existing standards for pesticide regulation in the Member States. If the zone-based approach is maintained, more zones should at least be created. If the zones system is adopted, a way should be found of providing for mutual recognition of plant protection product authorisations in neighbouring regions belonging to different zones, with due regard for the protection of consumers and the environment;

2.2

finds that the Commission's proposal for compulsory mutual recognition of pesticides within zones is not an ideal solution, since this could lead to an increase in pesticide contamination of surface waters, which would constitute a threat to aquatic organisms and in some cases also to regions' unique bird and vertebrate populations; considers the approach to be inconsistent with the general requirement of the Water Framework Directive not to worsen the situation with respect to bodies of water;

2.3

thinks that the objectives pursued through mutual recognition could be reached through increased cooperation and data-sharing between the Member States in the zones, with a view to prompt inspection of the resources that have been approved in another country in the zone; therefore believes that compulsory mutual recognition of pesticides is an inappropriate tool; thinks that if recognition is maintained, the consequences of the division into zones should be better elucidated with a view to adjusting the zones in any case;

2.4

calls for more rigorous environmental protection criteria, because the current criteria are not sufficient to maintain the existing high level of protection; but supports the introduction of exclusion criteria for the approval of active substances. Such criteria are justified on grounds of the health effects;

2.5

considers that the legal basis for the Regulation (COM(2006) 388) should be extended to include Treaty Article 175, which covers the environment. This would have implications when considering future questions of interpretation and Member States' environmental protection measures;

2.6

supports introducing the principle of substituting certain plant protection products with less hazardous products or non-chemical alternatives;

2.7

urges that the criteria for selecting alternatives be improved so that it is possible to replace more substances. The rules should also be improved so that it is possible for the Member States to substitute plant protection products based on the properties of their adjuvants;

2.8

urges that pesticides which can seep into the groundwater should consistently be included among high-risk substances in the Regulation;

2.9

calls for the authorisation of active substances in plant protection products not to be limited after the initial renewal at the end of 10 years. Failure to renew would have a negative impact on the environment and health if, for instance, new data requirements or new guidelines were introduced for the assessment;

2.10

opposes the introduction of a looser approval procedure for plant protection products containing active substances which are assessed as ‘low risk’. All plant protection products can carry a certain risk for humans and nature, and must therefore be subject to a thorough approval procedure;

2.11

recommends that the sale and distribution of pesticides is carried out under the supervision of an accredited expert or competent medical personnel;

2.12

calls for quantitative objectives to be developed eventually for reducing pesticide use, in line with the recommendations of the 6th Framework Programme; also calls for the promotion of production methods that make little or no use of pesticides, as is the case with organic farming;

2.13

calls for the incorporation in Articles 21 and 43 of the Regulation of a direct reference to the Water Framework Directive Article 4(1);

2.14

welcomes the fact that there has been a comprehensive consultation process on the thematic strategy which has included local and regional authorities; also calls for their involvement to be stepped up by including them in the Expert Group on the Thematic Strategy, which is tasked with advising on best practice and monitoring implementation of the strategy. Local and regional authorities must also be involved in drawing up and implementing the national action plans. Their unique understanding of local situations enables them to make a useful contribution in these forums, which should involve civil society.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/53

—

welcomes the initiative of the Commission to promote transparency. Greater transparency is crucial if EU institutions are to remain accountable and democratic; efficient and in touch with the needs of the public; recalls,in this context, that if the EU is genuinely to increase its democratic legitimacy, there is also a need for greater involvement of local and regional actors in the EU legislative and decision-making processes;

—

regrets, however, that that the local and regional dimension has not been mentioned in this initiative and urges the Commission to involve it more closely;

—

underlines that the EU is a multilevel institutional partnership in which regional and local authorities are involved in European policy-making at national and European level;

—

believes that it is necessary to stress once again the need to differentiate between EU institutions' consultation with elected local and regional authorities and their associations, on the one hand, and lobby organisations representing special interests on the other;

—

welcomes the fact that the European Commission has introduced an ongoing and systematic dialogue with local and regional authorities and their European and national associations in areas where they are responsible for transposition or implementation; nevertheless believes that improvements can be made to the way this dialogue is organised;

—

welcomes the greater transparency that registration of lobby organisations would bring;

—

does not believe, however, that an arrangement based on voluntary registration provides an adequate framework to ensure sufficient transparency;

—

is convinced that it is important to ensure an efficient and simple procedure for future registration. The register should be managed by the European Commission;

—

supports the Commission's ambition to strengthen transparency as regards the use of EU funds and encourages Member States to administer community funds under ‘shared management’. It is in the interest of all beneficiaries to be transparent about EU funding.

1)

Whereas transparency is one of the key elements in a democracy of multilevel governance;

2)

Whereas it is important to give greater consideration to the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and proximity in order to develop simple and clear European legislation that can be readily understood by European citizens;

3)

Whereas it is vital to ensure that regional and local players are fully involved, among other things through the CoR, in the core issues on the European agenda;

4)

Whereas regional and local authorities, if appropriately involved in the preparation of legislative acts, can play a key role in transposing and implementing them in their own areas;

1.1

welcomes the initiative of the Commission to promote transparency. The launch of the European Transparency Initiative is an important step by the Commission to promote the transparent functioning of the EU institutions. Greater transparency is crucial if EU institutions are to remain accountable and democratic; efficient and in touch with the needs of the public; recalls, in this context, that if the EU is genuinely to increase its democratic legitimacy, there is also a need for greater involvement of local and regional actors in the EU legislative and decision-making processes;

1.2

considers that with the transparency initiative, the European Commission has launched a necessary debate and believes that it is important to have the debate now, also in the context of the period of reflection and debate on Europe's future, because decision-makers need to ensure and demonstrate that the EU functions democratically and effectively. Ensuring transparency is one crucial way of bringing Europe closer to its citizens;

1.3

regrets, however, that that the local and regional dimension has not been mentioned in this initiative and urges the Commission to involve it more closely; recalls the Commission's statement in the White Paper on European Governance (2001) that it would ensure that regional and local knowledge and conditions would be taken into account when developing policy proposals;

1.4

welcomes the decision during the Finnish presidency in the second half of 2006 to strive for more transparency in the work of the Council. It is a very positive development that the Council has also agreed to allow more open decision-making and access to Council documents; believes nevertheless that this a first step in the right direction and urges the Council to open up more of its proceedings to the public. This is an important way for citizens to follow the decision-making process;

1.5

feels that the term ‘improper lobbying’ should be defined as accurately as possible so that lobbyists' activities can be monitored and any infringements penalised;

1.6

considers that the objective of transparency must be to bring the European Union closer to its citizens; in order to promote transparency and thus reduce the distance between the European institutions and citizens, and that it is of fundamental importance to encourage measures which, like those developed under the Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, endeavour to publicise the activities and competences of the Union among Europeans and among young people in particular, as is the intention with the Youth Forum.

2.1

underlines that the EU is a multilevel institutional partnership in which regional and local authorities are involved in European policy-making at national and European level. The best way to ensure that new EU law is relevant and practicable is to consult local and regional authorities on relevant issues, stepping up dialogue and forums for participation and decision-making. These authorities are responsible for implementing and transposing EU policies and thus play a major part in ensuring transparency;

2.2

recognises, however, that not only the European Union has an obligation to ensure transparency. The Member States, but also the CoR and all levels of government it represents should set an example by providing efficient service-minded and democratic public administrations. Consequently, local and regional authorities in the Member States should also be open-minded towards ensuring transparency in their own administration.

3.1

believes that it is necessary to stress once again the need to differentiate between EU institutions' consultation with elected local and regional authorities and their associations, on the one hand, and lobby organisations representing special interests on the other; stresses that, together with the local and regional authorities it represents, it is part of European governance and that it should therefore be directly involved in any initiative by the European Commission to improve the transparent functioning of decision-making in the Union;

3.2

calls on the European Commission to annex to any legislative or non-legislative proposal a list of meetings held and received position papers in the preparation of the specific proposal;

3.3

underlines that the structured dialogue between the Commission and the associations of local and regional government, which has been developed on the basis of the White Paper on European Governance, is an important step towards actually getting local and regional authorities involved; welcomes this development and stresses the central role it is called upon to play in this context;

3.4

welcomes the fact that the European Commission has introduced an ongoing and systematic dialogue with local and regional authorities and their European and national associations in areas where they are responsible for transposition or implementation. It is important to continuously develop this dialogue so that both parties can fully benefit from it. In this connection, it is particularly important to strengthen this dialogue in the drafting of those legislative proposals that affect regional and local authorities;

3.5

nevertheless believes that improvements can be made to the way this dialogue is organised and therefore suggests that:

3.6

calls on the Commission to improve the existing tools for providing feedback on its opinions, which contain concrete responses to the Commission's request for consultation and tangible proposals that take account of regional and local interests. Furthermore, the Commission should, as a minimum, explain or clarify the reasons for not taking its recommendations into account;

3.7

considers that the introduction of minimum standards for consultation in 2002 opened up new possibilities for a wide consultation of stakeholders and in-depth impact assessments prior to legislative proposals. These standards attach a specific importance to local and regional authorities, which has been confirmed in the Cooperation Agreement between the CoR of the Regions and the Commission. It is important that consultation is timely and gives the stakeholders a real possibility to respond to legislative proposals;

3.8

would like to see other forms of direct and pre-legislative consultation of regions and cities developed alongside the structured dialogue with the associations of local and regional government, under the auspices of the Committee, so that the voices of these stakeholders can also be regularly heard during the preparation stage of proposed legislation; notes that, in this connection, consultations were envisaged as part of the Commission's 2002 initiative aimed at establishing minimum standards for consultation and that, in this context, the CoR was asked to play a proactive role, by organising consultations on behalf of the Commission (4);

3.9

regrets that the territorial dimension is not given enough consideration in the Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative, and likewise in the new impact analysis strategy; therefore calls on the Commission to mainstream consultation of local and regional authorities in all work on multi-level governance and to extend the method of consultation it is already applying, successfully, in relation to the cohesion policy, to all policies with a regional or local impact;

3.10

believes that impact assessments must play a substantial role in reducing the administrative burden of EU legislation on local and regional authorities, as stated in the opinion on better lawmaking (CdR 121/2005);

3.11

reiterates its opinion that the preliminary assessments, apart from analysing the policy objective of a legislative proposal and the most appropriate policy instruments, must include an impact assessment of legislative acts at local and regional level in financial terms.

4.1

welcomes the greater transparency that registration of lobby organisations would bring. As part of the EU governance system, the CoR and its members are themselves the focus of lobbying activity and therefore agree that a system of registration/accreditation could improve the transparent functioning of the EU political process;

4.2

stresses that, owing to their-democratic legitimacy, local and regional authorities and their associations are clearly different from commercial lobbyists or special interest groups. Local and regional authorities are part of the European governance structure. Any registration must take this difference into account. Local and regional authorities should, therefore, not be listed on the register of lobbyists, in any way which could risk blurring the distinction between their role and that of other organisations on the list;

4.3

does not believe, however, that an arrangement based on voluntary registration provides an adequate framework to ensure sufficient transparency. A voluntary arrangement will not contain public speculation and mistrust in the institutions' consultations with private parties. Registration should be a requirement for access by all lobby organisations to any EU institution, as is already the case with the European Parliament;

4.4

is convinced that it is important to ensure an efficient and simple procedure for future registration. The register should be managed by the European Commission. There should be only one contact point for registration with all EU institutions and registration should be required for entire organisations rather than individuals. Given that the Committee already possesses information on regional and local authorities and the associations representing them, there is no need for every local and regional authority or their associations to register individually. The CoR could therefore pass this information on to the Commission so that it can be included in the relevant section of the register;

4.5

feels there is a need to specify the nature, frequency and required scope of the information to be provided by lobbyists.

5.1

supports the Commission's ambition to strengthen transparency as regards the use of EU funds and encourages Member States to administer community funds under ‘shared management’, i.e. the structural fund projects aimed at improving exchanges of best practice. It is in the interest of all beneficiaries to be transparent about EU funding;

5.2

welcomes the initiative of the Commission to create a website providing access to existing information about the beneficiaries of projects and programmes. In order to make available information which is comparable in respect of all citizens of EU Member States and hence transparent, the requisite data should be published on a central basis by the European Commission. It would be in the interest of the European citizens also to have a description of lessons learned and initiatives with a ‘human face’;

5.3

welcomes the Green Paper's proposal to create common community-wide regulations for publicising how EU funds are spent.

6.1

is satisfied that in 2001 the Commission opened access to unpublished documents of the EU institutions and bodies through a register of documents or following individual requests and underlines that in 2002 it followed this up by introducing a code of Good Administrative Behaviour which defines rules on public access to documents. Both initiatives are major steps towards ensuring the transparency of the European Commission;

6.2

looks forward to the planned revision of regulation 1049 and intends to contribute to this process.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/58

—

welcomes the Commission's Communication, and in particular the proposed development of a Strategy to effectively promote and safeguard the rights of the child in the EU's internal and external policies and to support Member States' efforts in this field;

—

welcomes the establishment of a Children's Rights Unit within the Commission and notes the important role accorded to the Children's Rights Co-ordinator in ensuring the success of the Strategy, but hopes that sufficient resources will be provided for these and that sufficient status and political leverage will be given to the Co-ordinator to ensure that the aims of the office are achieved; calls for clarification on the role of the Co-ordinator on how it will complement work at national level;

—

regrets that more attention is not paid to the situation of unaccompanied minors, the girl-child, children with disabilities and migrant, asylum seeker and refugee children, both within the EU and in the global context; including the provision of care services and protection to all the above children;

—

notes that the Strategy has the potential to lay the basis, at a European and national level, for a more effective partnership between decision-makers, local and regional authorities and non-governmental organisations;

—

regrets, however, that there is no acknowledgment in the Communication of the unique role of local and regional authorities in providing services to children and safeguarding their rights and underlines that these authorities are willing and able to be a partner in the development and implementation of the Strategy;

—

recommends that the necessary financial and human resources and political commitment be dedicated to progressing the Communication and developing the Green Paper and Strategy and suggests that the European Parliament consider establishing a specific measure to finance the Strategy and its proposed actions.

1)

under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are defined as all those below the age of eighteen years;

2)

all Member States have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, neither the European Commission nor the European Union is or can be a party to it;

3)

there are limited legal bases for children's rights in the EU Treaties; this has implications for possible budgetary sources;

4)

the central role of the family, and in particular the role of parents, and Member States' responsibility to assist parents in their childcare and childrearing responsibilities is acknowledged;

5)

the promotion and safeguarding of the rights of children and the creation of inclusive and child friendly societies is fundamental to the future of the European Union;

6)

involving children and young people — at an early stage — in the public domain is central to the development of an inclusive and democratic society;

7)

regional and local authorities are in a unique position to play a role in promoting and protecting the rights of children given their responsibility for the physical environment, public transport and access to education, health care, play and recreation, the job market for young people; and also for their role in monitoring children's living conditions through, for example, social assistance and data collection;

1.1

welcomes the Commission's Communication, and in particular the proposed development of a Strategy to effectively promote and safeguard the rights of the child in the EU's internal and external policies and to support Member States' efforts in this field;

1.2

recognises that investing in children now is an investment in our futures and a further deepening and consolidation of European integration;

1.3

regrets the deadlock in the EU constitutional process given that the Constitutional Treaty and the Charter for Fundamental Rights explicitly recognise the rights of the child;

1.4

welcomes the acknowledgement that Member States are bound to respect international treaties, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which has been ratified by each of the Member States; but is disappointed that there is not a stronger emphasis on the need for Member States to implement with a sense of urgency their existing European and international commitments to children's rights;

1.5

welcomes the acknowledgement that the almost universal ratification worldwide of the UNCRC provides a particularly robust basis for engagement between the European Commission and non-EU countries; but regrets that the Communication did not build on the potential to use the ratification by all EU Member States of the UNCRC as a framework for engagement between Member States;

1.6

welcomes the establishment of a Children's Rights Unit within the Commission and notes the important role accorded to the Children's Rights Coordinator in ensuring the success of the Strategy, but hopes that sufficient resources will be provided for these and that sufficient status and political leverage will be given to the Coordinator to ensure that the aims of the office are achieved; calls for clarification on the role of the Coordinator on how it will complement work at national level;

1.7

supports the short term actions proposed by the Commission to tackle some urgent challenges, in particular the creation of a single six digit telephone number for child helplines within the EU and one for child hotlines dedicated to missing or sexually exploited children, and believes that these lines should be augmented by an agreed protocol for dealing with inter-state child abductions. Furthermore, believes that the new child helplines should not duplicate but rather complement existing helplines at national and regional level and that the exchange of best practice in Member States should inform the establishment of these services;

1.8

notes that the Communication did not indicate that the Strategy will commit to minimum standards and include comprehensive objectives with clear targets and timelines;

1.9

notes that systems are currently not in place that can produce comprehensive, comparable and consistent data on indicators across the Member States; recalls that there is on-going work using the Open Method of Coordination to develop an indicator (or set of indicators) on child well-being, as well as statistical data on income related poverty, material deprivation and housing, and many different datasets also exist at Member State and regional/local levels;

1.10

points out that children are not an homogeneous group, their needs vary, for example, depending on the child's age, ability, gender, ethnicity and family structure;

1.11

regrets that more attention is not paid to the situation of unaccompanied minors, the girl-child, children with disabilities and migrant, asylum seeker and refugee children, both within the EU and in the global context; including the provision of care services and protection to all the above children.

1.12

regrets that no reference is made to the provision of quality ‘early education’ for children under six. Despite ‘childcare’ services being a long-term and priority policy goal of the EU and the adoption of EU quantitative targets;

1.13

notes that the Strategy has the potential to lay the basis, at a European and national level, for a more effective partnership between decision-makers, local and regional authorities and non-governmental organisations;

1.14

regrets, however, that there is no acknowledgment in the Communication of the unique role of local and regional authorities in providing services to children and safeguarding their rights and underlines that these authorities are willing and able to be a partner in the development and implementation of the Strategy;

1.15

emphasises that in developing the Strategy the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be fully respected;

1.16

welcomes the statement that ‘the place where children are living also influences their situation’; children may be disadvantaged due to inequitable access to quality education, healthcare, public transport, play and recreation facilities; information and opportunities to participate in civil society; and would like to see more attention paid to conditions in city, suburban and other specific areas identified by the Member States;

1.17

emphasises that many local and regional authorities directly fund and implement Development Policy in third countries, supporting infrastructure and key services, twinning with authorities, sharing experience and transferring skills, and that the potential exists for a greater focus in this work on children's rights;

1.18

welcomes the acknowledgment that children have the right to express their views on matters affecting their lives; and welcomes the proposed activities to involve children in the development of the Strategy. The involvement of regional and local authorities and children's organisations will be important to the success of this work;

1.19

welcomes the recently published United Nations study on violence against children (1). The report ‘urges states to prohibit all forms of violence against children, in all settings, including all corporal punishment, harmful traditional practices — such as early and forced marriages, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes — sexual violence and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (2); suggests that the findings from this study be fully considered during the development of the Strategy.

2.1

recommends that the necessary financial and human resources and political commitment be dedicated to progressing the Communication and developing the Green Paper and Strategy and suggests that the European Parliament consider establishing a specific measure to finance the Strategy and its proposed actions;

2.2

underlines that local and regional authorities be regarded as essential partners in the development of the Strategy, and calls to be included as a member of the European Forum for the Rights of the Child; with representation on the Inter-services Group; and that it be consulted on the development of the Coordinator's report and that this report be made public;

2.3

recommends that the Strategy commit to a set of minimum standards and include ambitious actions with clear targets and objectives, following a thorough analysis;

2.4

recommends that a balance be achieved in the Strategy between its focus on the global situation and the EU internal and intra-state actions and dialogue;

2.5

recommends that priority be given to the development of a set of comparable indicators and the collection of consistent data at Member State and, where possible, regional level;

2.6

calls for the provision of adequate resources, supports and mechanisms to facilitate the participation of children in the development of the Strategy, including children from disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds and children with disabilities. Children should be involved at an early stage in the process and through a variety of age appropriate methodologies, for example, art work, facilitated discussions, etc. Furthermore, acknowledges that local and regional authorities could also do more in facilitating such consultation of children on relevant policies determined at sub-national level;

2.7

reiterates its call for full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989; and underlines the importance of the following rights: freedom of thought, conscience and religion; protection of private life; protection from the use of violence, mistreatment and neglect; the right to health care; the right to education, schooling and training; and protection of minorities, as stated in its opinion on integration and migration (CdR 51/2006 fin), as well as the right to appropriate nutrition and housing;

2.8

in this regard, insists that the crucial role of local and regional authorities as the frontline providers of essential services to children, such as education and housing, childcare and other social services, is fully recognised as well as their role in planning, policing and maintenance of the physical environment ensuring that children have access to housing suitable and appropriate to their needs, as well as adequate play and leisure facilities and grow-up in a safe physical environment;

2.9

calls for an increased emphasis on the need for Member States to implement with a sense of urgency their existing European and international commitments, including commitments at legislative and practice level under the UNCRC, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe's instruments. This work should be integrated into the assessment of the impact of existing EU actions affecting children's rights;

2.10

suggests that the analysis not only ‘assess the effectiveness of its existing action’ but facilitate an assessment of the progress of Member States' in complying with the UNCRC, through comparative data analysis, as outlined in the Impact Assessment;

2.11

suggests that the analysis also include a review of whether all Member States have ratified the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (1993);

2.12

recommends that the Open Method of Coordination be used as a mechanism for engagement between Member States and for learning from best practice in relation to the implementation of the UNCRC and that local and regional authorities should be fully involved in this process;

2.13

recommends that EU and Member State policies take into account the diversity of children and their varying needs; for example, children disadvantaged by geographical location, age, gender, ethnicity and disability. Special attention will need to be paid to the impact of poverty, social exclusion, disability, discrimination and racism and the situation of ethnic minority and refugee children, and the implications of religious, linguistic and cultural diversity, both within the EU and in the global context;

2.14

suggests that the Strategy include specific objectives to ensure that children in all geographical areas have equal opportunities; this will entail strengthening activities on tackling child poverty and educational disadvantage. Regional and local authorities will play a central role in these measures;

2.15

recommends that, in addition to the short-term measures outlined, a measure be developed to enable transnational cooperation by police forces in relation to the checking of any criminal records of staff and volunteers who work with children; urges that the Strategy should consider the establishment of an EU register of sex offenders against children which can be accessed by police forces;

2.16

urges that the Strategy address ways to better develop family support services to prevent child abuse and filicide (the killing of a child by a parent). This could focus on supports to parents, prevention and early identification of child abuse; supports to victims of abuse and the establishment of a mechanism to review suspicious deaths of children in order to examine the effectiveness of state interventions prior to such cases;

2.17

recommends that the Strategy addresses the negative influence of television, computers and new technologies on children, such as access to adult or inappropriate images on the internet and also the sedentary nature of these activities with consequent implications for active lifestyles among children. A related issue is the negative impact of direct targeting of children in advertising and marketing. Measures to utilise technology for educational purposes should be encouraged, such as television programmes to assist children's linguistic and cultural competence, this will be particularly important for migrant children. Creative measures are also needed to promote cultural activities and make them accessible to children such as reading, music and theatre;

2.18

requests that the training programmes and tools developed as part of the Strategy be available to regional and local administrations to familiarise officials with new policy tools and best practice;

2.19

recommends that the communications strategy be based on the UNCRC, and that all information campaigns be launched at regional and local level, be age appropriate, available in multiple languages and accessible to children with disabilities;

2.20

recommends that EU development aid should provide for a percentage of its funding to be invested in interventions that benefit children and that the development policy of local and regional authorities in Third Countries should also enhance priority to the transfer of skills and policy experience on children's rights.

30.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/63

—

considers that the availability of broadband access at affordable rates across the EU is vital to ensuring quality public services, regional competitiveness and productivity and a more even development of the information and knowledge society, covering areas traditionally excluded. It considers that broadband connectivity should be supplied on the same basis as basic utilities such as drinking water and electricity;

—

considers very important the references made by the Commission to rural development, the use of Structural Funds and its assessment of the compatibility with EU rules of publicly-funded broadband access projects;

—

hopes that the new regulatory framework on electronic communications will develop a policy of radio-spectrum usage supporting the introduction of wireless broadband technology;

—

echoes the Commission's call for Member States to strengthen their National Broadband Strategies by increasing the involvement of local and regional authorities;

—

takes the view that inclusive eGovernment involves countering potential digital exclusion when services are provided online (the infrastructural and cultural digital divide), as well as developing social inclusion policies by means of ICT;

—

notes that the use of eGovernment should be aimed at both the restructuring and updating of public services, and at achieving the goals of efficiency, effectiveness, cost efficiency, impartiality, transparency, simplification and participation. It believes that there is a clear need for public bodies to share best practices;

—

recommends facilitating cooperation, the exchange of know-how, the sharing of re-usable solutions and initiatives towards greater transparency and public involvement in decision-making, particularly in parliamentary decision-making processes.

1.1

considers that the Internet is one of the most brilliant innovations of our time. Its potential to generate economic growth can bring about substantial benefits such as the creation of new services, the opening up of new investment and job opportunities, productivity gains, reduced costs and increased quality of life.

1.2

welcomes the fact that the diffusion of information technologies plays a crucial role in the achieving the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies, in terms of the improvement that they bring to the operations of existing businesses, for the growth of new and innovative businesses and the decisive contribution they can make in educating workers and citizens in general.

1.3

points out the importance of increasing the availability of information technologies at all levels of public administration, especially where public bodies are providing services directly to citizens.

1.4

stresses, however, that on-line services such as such as eGovernment, eHealth, eLearning and eProcurement can only become inclusive and more interactive when they become widely available to the EU's citizens and business community by means of broadband connections.

1.5

considers, therefore, that the availability of broadband access at affordable rates across the EU is vital to ensuring quality public services, regional competitiveness and productivity and a more even development of the information and knowledge society, covering areas traditionally excluded.

1.6

welcomes the fact that the Communication makes several explicit references to rural development, including possible ad hoc funding lines, is a clear indication of the significance attributed by the Commission to the potential benefits of a more widespread availability of broadband services. These benefits include increasing the competitiveness of rural areas and the balanced development of the territory — and generally, in areas with permanent geographical and natural handicaps — as well as the high added value that it can bring to businesses traditionally located in those areas.

1.7

considers very important, therefore, the references to policies coming under the remit of the Directorate General for Regional Policy — in particular, regarding the use of Structural Funds — and of DG Competition — specifically, its assessment of the compatibility with EU rules of publicly-funded rural broadband access projects.

1.8

fears that a common pitfall in broadband deployment is the risk of market failure, where private operators perceive little return on infrastructural investment in remote, rural, low-population-density areas or where hilly terrain makes it a particularly complex and onerous task. Such openness and flexibility is a significant and positive sign, given that broadband is so crucial to the socio-economic development of such areas.

1.9

points out, in support of this argument, that the Committee of the Regions has, on several occasions, analysed and discussed the range of solutions being implemented by local and regional authorities across Europe; what emerged clearly was that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. In particular, what may be suitable for a large urban centre may not be so for other areas, such as a small mountainous region, with a complex, rugged terrain, or sparse population in which extra efforts are required for the provision of any kind of service.

1.10

recognises the significant progress made in recent years in broadband deployment. However, in view of the EU's target of reaching at least 90 % of its population by 2010, a substantial disparity remains in terms of infrastructure, between urban centres and remote areas, and between the old and new Member States.

1.11

stresses, however, that this target of covering 90 % of the population is not enough on its own, if not viewed in tandem with other factors (geographical spread, population density, etc.). Indeed, in small communities, such as upland areas, which often have difficulty accessing basic utilities (fixed and mobile telephone services, terrestrial television, etc.) the other 10 % could represent the exclusion of entire low-population-density areas.

1.12

further points out, in relation to the broadband gap, the need to also focus on the gap between broadband deployment and actual usage. To bridge this gap, non-technical measures need to be taken at local level, aimed at promoting the use of broadband among older people and disadvantaged or traditionally less-receptive social groups, such as rural communities (e.g., Internet demonstration events, provision of public access points, etc.).

1.13

stresses, finally, that while building the broadband transport infrastructure and developing the services it carries, it will be vital to ensure that all security requirements at every level are met to ensure optimum levels of protection and user privacy.

1.14

points out that data comparable to that which exists regarding the EU-15 on broadband penetration, coverage and actual usage of online services, is not yet available for the new Member States on a regional level.

1.15

calls on the Commission, therefore, to carry out forthwith a study of the state of play with regard to infrastructure in the regions of the new Member States and in the less urban areas of the old Member States, with a view to identifying the action needed to update existing infrastructure to the standard required to meet the Lisbon objectives.

1.16

warmly welcomes the Commission's proposal to review the legislative framework on electronic communications.

1.17

hopes that the new regulatory framework will, with due regard for the subsidiarity principle, ensure non-discriminatory competition between operators and existing and future technologies, and will develop a policy of radio-spectrum usage based on the principle of technological neutrality. This is particularly important given that the recent introduction of wireless technology, which is particularly suited to overcoming coverage problems in rural areas or areas with difficult terrain, requires that sufficient spectrum be made available for broadband deployment.

1.18

entirely agrees the with the Commission's position regarding radio spectrum as set out in its four previous communications presented in September and November 2005 and in March and June 2006, when it advocated technological neutrality, transparency, efficient use of spectrum, and the fostering of a competitive and innovative environment conducive to the development of new technologies.

1.19

shares the Commission's vision that the use of frequencies should no longer be based on the logic that each band is allocated a specific technology, with services being carried on an assigned frequency (e.g., 900 MHz used by the eTacs mobile telephony service).

1.20

requests, therefore, that the Commission help to frame a strategy which allows flexibility in the use of technology within a given spectrum frequency.

1.21

stresses the importance of ensuring that the application of and compliance with the new regulatory framework based on technological neutrality leads to the provision of frequency for wireless communications, for broadband deployment, in order to alleviate the considerable disparity suffered by areas with permanent geographical and natural handicaps.

1.22

notes that broadband deployment technologies such as WiMAX could hold the key to overcoming the problems of such geographically disadvantaged regions. In this regard, it is interesting to note, by way of example, that this wireless technology is the subject of huge investment by operators on the US market.