19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/1

—

firmly agrees that the global threat faced from terrorism is a serious threat to democracy, human rights, and economic and social development across the international community;

—

underlines that local and regional authorities will be central to the implementation of the EU Counter Terrorism Strategy. In particular these authorities will drive the delivery of the Prevent pillar and forthcoming counter terrorism and de-radicalisation initiatives across Member States;

—

recognises the importance of the EU Anti-Radicalisation strategy which is implemented alongside the EU Counter Terrorism Strategy but stresses that these strategies must include space for localised implementation, drawing upon local experiences and understanding, developing clear frameworks for community intelligence and providing support and resource to local authorities to deliver counter violent radicalisation projects where necessary; underlines that the development of a regional and local public administration role in the prevention of terrorism and violent radicalisation should be conducted in partnership with the EU and governments of the Members States;

—

recommends that public consultation at a local level be conducted in Members States to establish a multifaceted understanding of local experiences and concepts of terrorism and motivations towards extremism. Member States should ensure that consultation and engagement opens up participation to those who do not normally interact with local democracy;

—

welcomes the second peer review of crisis management plans currently being carried out by the Commission; however calls upon the Commission to ensure that local and regional authorities play a full and active role in the review;

—

calls upon the Union to ensure that all counter terrorist policy has direct consideration for equality and human rights and ensures that interventions do not result in a negative experience for certain communities fuelling alienation and motivations towards extremism.

Rapporteur

:

Lord Graham TOPE (UK/ALDE), Member of London Borough of Sutton and of the Metropolitan Police Authority

1.

firmly agrees that the global threat faced from terrorism is a serious threat to democracy, human rights, and economic and social development across the international community;

2.

acknowledges that attention will inevitably focus on Al Qaeda inspired terrorism and the radicalisation across our communities into violent extremism; however recalls that many recent acts of terrorism have been committed by people born and raised within the country in which the act was committed or elsewhere within the EU, often in response to situations internal to the country where the attack took place, and may not have had religion as their principal motivation. Nevertheless, the CoR recognises that the threat faced from Al Qaeda inspired terrorism is a key security issue faced by the EU today;

3.

feels that the EU's counter-terrorism activities must have a twofold focus: (i) a direct assault on terrorist activities; and (ii) preventive action. The earlier the chain of causes that result in terrorist activity can be broken the better. In this regard, it may be very useful to step up research into the causes and motives that induce people to support, finance or take part in terrorist activity;

4.

acknowledges that religious factors cannot be ignored when dealing with terrorism. More must be done to spread the message that terrorist activity cannot be justified under any circumstances;

5.

thinks therefore that the EU must take the initiative and back moves designed to mitigate terrorism through religious and cultural dialogue;

6.

feels that EU cooperation with non-EU countries is a vitally important tool in the prevention of terrorism. Steps must be taken to bolster external cooperation strategies of this kind in a bid both to promote exchanges of information and to foster enhanced practical cooperation among police forces, and cooperation among customs administrations;

7.

underlines that local and regional authorities will be central to the implementation of the EU Counter Terrorism Strategy. In particular these authorities, alongside both national and regional law enforcement partners with powers to protect persons and property, will drive the delivery of the Prevent pillar and forthcoming counter terrorism and de-radicalisation initiatives across Member States;

8.

draws attention to the considerable progress made in the delivery of the other three pillars: Protect, Pursue and Respond across Members States since the framework legislation of 2002. Furthermore welcomes proposals in the current initiative to step up the fight against terrorism; to establish a legal basis for aspects of the counter-terrorism strategy including the criminalisation of terrorist training, recruitment and public provocation to commit terrorist offences, the prevention of the use of explosives by terrorists, the use of airline passenger information in law enforcement investigations, preventing and penalizing the funding of terrorism, and in recognising the need for technological research and development to assist policing across the Union to protect citizens from terrorist attacks;

9.

nevertheless states that, in stepping up the fight against terrorism, the EU should intensify investment into the development of the Prevent pillar in partnership with Members States, law enforcement agencies and regional and local authorities, together with the enforcement bodies accountable to them. Prevention of terrorism and violent extremism cannot be achieved through legislative means and enforcement alone. Furthermore, punitive measures alone will not be effective and efforts must focus on providing people who are particularly susceptible to radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism with positive prospects and a place in society;

10.

believes that an essential approach to dealing with terrorism is prevention based on combating the factors that are closely linked to and encourage radicalisation and are likely to lead to terrorism;

11.

recognises that terrorism is often global in nature and inspiration. However states that the impact of terrorism is experienced directly by citizens and communities in a real and individual way. Those planning and supporting acts of violent extremism live and act freely as European citizens and residents within our communities, using and interacting with local services, local democracy and local people. Drawing upon experiences across the EU, Member States therefore recognise the need to fully analyse, elucidate and address the reasons, motivations and processes that lead European citizens into the pathway of violent extremism and the Al Qaeda movement;

12.

believes that dealing with radicalisation requires targeted action at local level. The role of local and regional authorities, which have better access to susceptible groups, is particularly important in ensuring that people residing in the EU are as socially well-integrated as possible, without discrimination and under peaceful and democratic conditions;

13.

recalls that in 2003 the Congress of the Council of Europe adopted specific recommendations on the role of local authorities in tackling terrorism;

14.

welcomes efforts made by the European Commission to focus attention on the Prevent Pillar of the counter terrorism strategy and welcomes plans to publish a Communication on combating violent radicalisation in 2008. However would note that Prevent is a significant cultural shift for counter terrorist agencies and requires the knowledge, experience and cooperation of local and regional authorities;

15.

endorses the EU initiative declaring 2008 the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, since this is an excellent way of encouraging effective dialogue, tolerance and understanding between different cultures and faiths;

16.

underlines that the development of a regional and local public administration role in the prevention of terrorism and violent radicalisation should be conducted in partnership with the EU and governments of the Members States. Therefore recommends that a system of local and regional authority networks be established in each Member State in partnership with national governments, the police (with the involvement of regional bodies with exclusive powers to protect persons and property) and local communities to facilitate the exchange of good practice in relation to social integration, professional learning and understanding of violent extremism growing out of local districts and neighbourhoods;

17.

recommends that public consultation at a local level be conducted in Members States to establish a multifaceted understanding of local experiences and concepts of terrorism and motivations towards extremism. Member States should ensure that consultation and engagement opens up participation to those who do not normally interact with local democracy;

18.

intends to supplement the present Opinion by supporting the Commission and the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator in establishing practical guidance setting out best practice across areas conducting engagement and partnership projects to counter radicalisation;

19.

recommends that the CoR hosts an annual event to facilitate strategic learning through the exchange of experiences between local and regional authorities on a pan European level and to provide support to further develop local interventions for the prevention of terrorism and pathways to violent extremism;

20.

recognises the importance of the EU Anti-Radicalisation strategy which is implemented alongside the EU Counter Terrorism Strategy but stresses that these strategies must include space for localised implementation, drawing upon local experiences and understanding, developing clear frameworks for community intelligence and providing support and resource to local authorities to deliver counter violent radicalisation projects where necessary;

21.

recommends adoption of the provisions of the Prüm Convention on stepping up cross-border cooperation to combat terrorism;

22.

calls upon Member States and the police to develop clear and safe systems for the exchange of information between local and regional partners (including local and regional policing units) with counter terrorist and anti-violent radicalisation units;

23.

emphasises that systems in place to gather community intelligence must have clear consideration to security implications, fundamental rights of citizens and data protection in relation to the exchange of any information between local partners and the police. Citizens must be given the option of anonymously informing municipal authorities and police of potential terrorist attacks;

24.

also, considers it essential that the boundaries between police, police agencies and local authorities in relation to community intelligence are clear; that systems are established to provide local and regional partners with the reassurance that participation will not result in harmful effects to community relations; that information sources are protected and that non-policing partners provide a voluntary supplementary role;

25.

proposes that guidelines be devised by the European Union to support the development of information sharing and to ensure that systems are robust, fair and secure;

26.

calls upon Members States to support local and regional authorities to establish closer working relationships with police (including both national and regional forces) and criminal justice authorities to deliver counter radicalisation projects; and that projects are established and targeted from an informed picture using police intelligence alongside local and regional knowledge and experiences;

27.

suggests that support be given to intercultural dialogue and implementation of social integration plans at local level, so as to avoid radicalisation and use of force;

28.

recognises that the level of resources committed by Member States will vary according to the intelligence picture. However emphasises that continued engagement with communities remains necessary in order to scrutinise the effectiveness of current projects, to build a long-term relationship between the citizen, law enforcement agencies and governments in relation to counter terrorism, and to consider changing viewpoints and demographics. Resource and project focus should thus adapt accordingly;

29.

recommends that Member States and local and regional authorities develop projects with communities to undermine violent extremist ideology and to support mainstream voices. Such projects should be supported by robust professional guidance and evaluated independently to assess effectiveness. Therefore, CoR proposes that Member States and local and regional bodies jointly identify mainstream community leaders to discredit violent radicals and support credible alternative messages to those of these extremists;

30.

notes the well-known phenomenon that terrorism flourishes where people are disaffected with society and feel powerless and excluded. In a well-functioning democratic society, there is less of a risk that terrorist ideas and terrorist networks will gain a foothold and begin to grow. The CoR thus considers it vital that the promotion of democracy and compliance with civil and political rights should be a key element in any moves to combat terrorism;

31.

recognises that terminology is a complex and sensitive issue, and requires considerable knowledge and exploration by those managing counter radicalisation initiatives;

32.

recommends that Member States and regional authorities support vulnerable local institutions such as schools, further education centres, universities, mosques and religious institutions to identify violent radicalising activities on campus, to disrupt radicalisers and support those vulnerable to violent radicalisation in resisting extremist voices by providing positive and compelling alternatives;

33.

recommends that Member States work closely with prison and probation/rehabilitation services to identify, disrupt and deter violent radicalisers held in detention;

34.

believes that the delivery of such projects should be co-ordinated regionally with the police and police agencies and monitored by local and regional authorities or equivalent, reporting back to the central state to assess development;

35.

considers it essential that to support such projects, the European Union, Member States and police should develop EU networks — including policing units accountable to regions with powers to protect persons and property, and counter-terrorist units — to establish best practice, guidance, support and training for practitioners responsible for local delivery;

36.

recognises that the leadership role of local and regional authorities is critical to the delivery of prevention of terrorism strategies across Member States;

37.

recommends that local and regional authorities should increase the capacity of the community to resist violent extremists through providing strong leadership. Therefore recommends that authorities should seek to:

38.

believes that a transparent and accountable police service is fundamental to building trust and confidence in policing counter terrorism and generating public support for counter terrorist operations and national and local interventions to challenge violent extremism. Therefore CoR proposes that both Member States and regional authorities responsible for enforcement and protection of persons and property and with counter-terrorism units or commands consider ways in which accountability of policing can be strengthened locally, seeking support and learning from European and international partners where appropriate;

39.

calls upon the Commission to propose ways in which it can support Member States to consider how counter terrorist policing can be mainstreamed across the policing service, facilitating learning between Member States and forces where appropriate;

40.

recognises the importance of a police service that reflects the diversity of the population it serves in building trust and confidence and opening positive channels of communication between the police and the public. CoR therefore believes that positive discussions to promote diversity and equality of opportunity across policing should be facilitated at a local level across Member States;

41.

welcomes the second peer review of crisis management plans currently being carried out by the Commission;

42.

however calls upon the Commission to ensure that local and regional authorities play a full and active role in the review. Learning from a review into the July 2005 London bombings, it should ensure that a clear division of responsibility and chain of command is established as a matter of urgency between different agencies and bodies called upon to prepare contingency plans and provide emergency services;

43.

firmly supports the establishment of networks of associations providing support for victims of terrorist attacks and recognises the role of the CoR in facilitating learning across Member States;

44.

welcomes plans to provide support to research and develop technical solutions to assist in the policing effort across the Union to protect citizens from terrorist attacks; calls upon the Union to support technological solutions across the four pillars, including making the internet a hostile place for extremists expanding developments outside law enforcement alone. CoR therefore calls upon Member States to provide adequate resources for such development projects;

45.

calls upon Member States to set up coordination mechanisms in line with the law enforcement powers of local and regional authorities so that, within their remit, they may ensure public safety in crowded places, particularly in relation to designing out terrorism through planning processes;

46.

calls upon the Union to ensure that all counter terrorist policy has direct consideration for equality and human rights and ensures that interventions do not result in a negative experience for certain communities fuelling alienation and motivations towards extremism.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/6

—

sees a need to improve energy efficiency through technological innovation and development of environment-friendly transport alternatives. Transport should be steered towards the most environment-friendly and energy-efficient mode by internalising external costs;

—

believes that a common language should be established within the EU for managing rail transport;

—

considers that freight transport by rail shares much of the track used by passenger traffic. This can sometimes limits the capacity and reliability of both systems, not just in densely populated areas but also on interregional routes. The EU should, in cooperation with the Member States, draw up an inventory of such bottlenecks and work to eliminate them, seeking to make maximum use of existing and future infrastructure. In the long term, the EU and the Member States should encourage the construction of separate railway networks for freight and passenger transport, whenever a shortage of land is not an obstacle, starting with the most overloaded parts of the network;

—

considers that urban transport planning, particularly for freight delivery systems, calls for the special attention of local authorities, by making the organisation of urban distribution more efficient in both environmental and economic terms;

—

considers that by developing and improving inland ports, including multimodal facilities, local and regional authorities can play a key role in realising a sustainable freight transport policy;

—

considers that better connections are needed between rail and maritime solutions, which in some places still lack efficiency; supports the development of logistic solutions by local and regional authorities in inland areas, by setting up logistics platforms and dry ports, which are a key tool for improving the global freight distribution system and fostering development and cohesion in inland areas;

Rapporteur

:

José CORREIA (EPP/PT), Mayor of Tavira

1.

The Commission communications on freight transport have been issued in the wake of political concerns set out in the 2001 White Paper on transport and the mid-term review published in 2006. As part of this work, 13 seminars and conferences and more than 30 external events were organised; 160 written contributions were submitted. The Commission received a further 500 reports on bottlenecks in logistics.

2.

The White Paper review reflects the developments in the situation since 2001: ever-faster globalisation of production, uncertainty as regards energy supplies, faster global warming and the expansion of the European Union following the accession of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In the light of these developments, it is recommended that transport policy scope and instruments be extended in order to cope with these new challenges. There is in particular a need to boost the efficiency of various modes of transport, whether they are used on their own or in combination (co-modality).

3.

in view of the guidelines flowing from the studies mentioned above, a series of political measures clearly stand out for further development. These include:

4.

as well as:

5.

and:

6.

considers that with a view to the long term, reliable rail transport infrastructure with sufficient capacity needs to be created, in which freight traffic does not clash with other transport objectives or with other social interests, and that provides the conditions for supplying energy-efficient and environment-compatible transport;

7.

considers that from a short-term point of view, the first thing to do is to identify and remove bottlenecks and lack of capacity in the system;

8.

considers that freight transport, although viewed in terms of major national and international corridors, could not work without the contribution of local and regional authorities through whose areas the transport lines pass;

9.

considers that urban and regional planning for freight distribution is therefore of major importance in creating freight transport flows that save energy and are eco-friendly. Thus, any new transport policy has to rely on the active support of all players able to make useful contributions to its effectiveness, especially those who, because they operate at grass roots level, are in a position to resolve problems locally;

10.

efficient, environment-friendly freight transport is achieved in particular by using inland waterways wherever possible. This can also relieve pressure on connections between ports and hinterland;

11.

in the intermodal transport system, terminals, transloading facilities and ports are an important part of the infrastructure; The planning and localisation of these is a responsibility for local and regional authorities; It is important that towns are involved at an early stage in the planning of such plants, which means that the EU and national authorities should create long-term and stable conditions for urban planning;

12.

Since around 40 % of vehicles in the EU are used for the distribution and delivery of goods and services, and as most consumers are in cities, the large traffic flows that are created within cities need to be managed. The dissemination of best practices on urban freight transport policies should be envisaged;

13.

notes that the creation of regional or city transport authorities in various Member States provides valuable support for tying in different wishes, requirements and outcomes. The CoR stresses that it is important to respect the subsidiarity principle here;

14.

points out that local and regional authorities have an extra capacity for dialogue with producers and freight customers;

15.

special attention is needed on the distribution of services and goods in cities, as smart planning of urban logistics is a key factor in urban mobility;

16.

considers that in future, the location of terminals, centres of logistics distribution and shops themselves will require the growing involvement of local authorities;

17.

emphasises that logistics at regional level will be a new policy which will develop rapidly in the future. It will become essential to decentralise the management of interconnections to regional authorities, the definitions of the major international corridors remaining within the remit of Member States;

18.

considers that local authorities, with good urban policies, can help considerably in steps to speed up rail transport; such a contribution is invaluable;

19.

considers that ancillary rail services, particularly terminals and sorting centres, warrant special attention from the structural funds;

20.

considers that urban transport planning, particularly for freight delivery systems, calls for the special attention of local authorities, by making the organisation of urban distribution more efficient in both environmental and economic terms. To this end, efforts should be pursued to improve the ecological quality of vehicles and increase load factors so as to improve the ratio between number of journeys and tonnage of freight transported;

21.

By developing and improving inland ports, including multimodal facilities, local and regional authorities can play a key role in realising a sustainable freight transport policy;

22.

by using spatial planning policies, e.g. selection of business sites, local and regional authorities can promote inland waterways transport. Sites of water-related businesses, inland waterways and inland ports must then also receive strong support from the Structural Funds.

23.

highlights the fact that local and regional authorities play an increasingly important role in preparing logistics strategies for efficient and appropriate planning, infrastructure and coordination;

24.

a large proportion of freight transport clogs up transport networks in central Europe even when the destination of the journey is not there. So, in view of the capacity problems on central European transport networks it is very important that the EU provide support for the expansion of links and corridors which do not overload or which relieve pressure on these networks. The east-west transport corridors in northern Europe are examples of such links, which at the same time contribute to the development of these regions. The future strategy for the Baltic Sea that is currently being prepared will, among other things, highlight the importance of efficient transport networks and multimodal solutions in creating a sustainable and competitive region; It is of the greatest importance that the EU also continues to set aside resources for this type of initiative, for example through Structural Fund and sector programmes;

25.

draws attention to the fact that transport of freight by sea is of major importance for commodity-producing regions. Manufacturing industry needs a reliable supply of raw materials throughout the year. To ensure that sea transport remains viable even in winter, the use of ice-breakers should be made a priority and incorporated into the TEN-T;

26.

believes that the Community should pursue an integrated approach when planning infrastructure within the European Union and between the EU and neighbouring countries and regions. The EU's freight transport package should therefore be designed in such a way that it is consistent with other transport and infrastructure plans already drawn up and adopted by the European Union, such as the TEN-T and the map of cross-border transport corridors;

27.

recalls that in recent years, many regions have developed strategies of this kind in order to predict short-term future transport volumes and have drawn the appropriate conclusions. This entails increasingly intense cross-border and transnational cooperation on European logistical projects. One illustration of this trend is the Central and Eastern European chemical logistics initiative launched by the European Chemical Regions Network to enhance the long-term overall conditions for chemical industry production centres in Central and Eastern Europe through a coordinated strategy. Another example is the plan to build a rail corridor (EU4SeaRail) linking the Baltic, North, Mediterranean and Black Seas. Further important examples of transport corridors in Northern Europe are the Bothnian Corridor and the Northern Axis. The regions have also played a significant role in developing logistic areas enabling modal complementarity and interchange (particularly for freight) and allowing each transport mode to be used optimally, such as the PLAZA logistics platform in Aragon and its links with other platforms such as Eurocentre in Toulouse, or the various ports on the Iberian peninsula;

28.

considers that efficient transport between the countries of Europe could contribute significantly to economic growth. It therefore urges the Commission to take account of these considerations in preparing the future review of the TEN directives in 2009-2010, encouraging, first and foremost, the implementation of projects that have already been approved and included in the network as priorities, particularly for route sections that make efficient freight transport difficult, such as those which cross borders or upland areas.

29.

welcomes the efforts made to date, especially by the Finnish and German presidencies, to secure progress in this domain;

30.

broadly endorses the analysis and measures advocated in the communications making up this rail transport package;

31.

nevertheless, recommends that account be taken of the need for good links with local and regional authorities, as set out in the point above;

32.

is aware that any new effective freight transport policy cannot work without the solid cooperation of all the local authorities and regional governments concerned; it urgently calls for such sound links to be set up and will do its best to contribute thereto;

33.

recommends that additional efforts be made to make all the political authorities aware of this issue, taking into account the major importance of this sector for GDP and its direct and indirect impact on the economy and society in general;

34.

a review of Directive 96/53 would not seem appropriate. The proper approach to more environmental solutions — meaning more trains, not necessarily more lorries — should be maintained;

35.

points out that conurbations are the destination of a significant share of overall freight transport. Urban and regional planning of freight distribution is therefore of major importance in creating freight transport flows that save energy and are eco-friendly. The location of transfer facilities in relation to the general freight transport network is very important here. For this reason, there must be smooth interaction between the local and regional level and the general EU policy for freight transport logistics. The Committee considers that freight transport policy should be brought into line with the urban transport action plan;

36.

in the light of energy costs, views innovation regarding biofuels to be of the greatest importance but feels that this should be carried out with due regard for the requirement to maintain a broad global balance in farming production; it and therefore urges the European Commission to step up studies in this area;

37.

advocates liberalisation of all rail transport, subject to public interest coordination rules;

38.

favours maximum progress being made on dedicated freight rail lines;

39.

considers that transport networks should increasingly be integrated into logistics policies, bringing in local and regional authorities, developing the dry ports concept, and taking account of the obvious environmental concerns;

40.

considers that better connections are needed between rail and maritime solutions, which in some places still lack efficiency; supports the development of logistic solutions by local and regional authorities in inland areas, by setting up logistics platforms and dry ports, which are a key tool for improving the global freight distribution system and fostering development and cohesion in inland areas;

41.

highlights the need for future harmonisation of technological means and standards,so that rail transport can rapidly overcome the obstacles currently posed by differing electrical supply systems and variations in gauge;

42.

is convinced that the Kyoto Protocol and its implications for transport policy are bound to have a highly visible impact on goods logistics;

43.

considers that ideally, in the future high speed trains should cross the whole of Europe, providing connections from Lisbon to the entire Mediterranean, the Baltic and the new borders with third countries;

44.

suggests that more detailed studies be carried out to identify and take the necessary measures to remove bottlenecks in existing infrastructure and regulations; considers that in order to make faster progress in identifying these problems and seeking solutions, networks should be set up for the exchange of knowledge and good practices between centres specialised in logistics and intermodality, at local and regional level;

45.

considers that long-term strategies and action plans should be drawn up to expand the European corridors;

46.

supports measures to ensure neutral competition conditions between the Member States;

47.

is in favour of harmonising and simplifying rules and regulations, particularly the standards governing weights and measures, safety regulations regarding the securing of loads and parties' liability, equality before the law regardless of the place of establishment of the transporter, a common language for traffic control and imports from non-EU countries;

48.

considers that administrative obstacles should be surmounted by increasing the electronic transmission of documents wherever possible;

49.

recommends greater transport efficiency regarding the development and use of capacity in each mode of transport, and the development and promotion of intermodality;

50.

recommends greater efficiency of transport systems, enhancing logistics policy for ports and terminals for this purpose;

51.

considers that information on the local conditions and features of ports should be made available via Internet.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/12

—

wishes to ensure support schemes are accessible to renewable producers at all scales, including small installations and believes that, for consistency, support for renewable energy should be accompanied by the phasing out of subsidies for the production and use of fossil fuels (with the exception of possible support for cogeneration plans used to provide district heating) and for the production and use of nuclear energy. An exception shall also be granted to cases where carbon capture and storage is applied to reduce the carbon dioxide quantities emitted by fossil fuel use;

—

recommends ensuring maximum coordination between the principal European legislative acts in these areas, specifically the Directive on the energy performance of buildings, the Directive on energy efficiency and energy services, the third package liberalising energy and the various components of the ‘energy-climate’ package, including the Directive on renewable energy;

—

urges the Commission to amend Article 4 to require the involvement of Local and Regional Authorities in the formulation of national action plans, and to take this factor duly into consideration when evaluating the national action plans;

—

points out that setting a 10 % target for increased use of biofuels in transport will have the intended, positive outcome only if biofuels are produced from commodities obtained in a way that does not distort the natural balance of the environment, food supply or the economic balance of the market, or social balance.

Rapporteur

:

Paula BAKER (UK/ALDE), Member of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

1.

welcomes the Renewable Energy Directive, because it believes that renewable energy generation can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase the security of energy supply, promote technology development, increase employment opportunities and contribute to regional development;

2.

emphasises that, if the goals of the directive are to be achieved, it is imperative that a strategic alliance of regional and local authorities be established to ensure the bottom-up development of renewable energy;

3.

urges a legislative framework that provides long term stability for investment decisions so that innovative renewable projects, using the wide range of technologies now available, can become competitive against conventional technologies;

4.

welcomes the adoption of binding objectives for renewable energy. However, it points out that in order to ensure that the final objectives are effectively pursued without delay and achieved, the intermediary objectives as identified in Part B of Annex 1 to the draft directive must also be binding; and calls for local and regional authorities to be involved in discussions with Member States in the preparation of national Action Plans to ensure that there is adequate oversight of the intermediary objectives and that the implementing instruments to be adopted are defined at local level;

5.

fully supports the Commission proposal that Member States develop electricity grid infrastructure to accommodate electricity produced from renewable sources and to give it priority access to the grid, but stresses access must be at a fair and competitive price, whether this is achieved by Feed-In-Tariff or otherwise;

6.

similarly stresses the importance of grid infrastructure for gas, and heating from renewable sources and residual heat and to give these types of energy reasonable access to their relevant grid infrastructures;

7.

believes that grid suppliers should make, and bear the costs of, reasonable adjustments to give access to renewable energy sources, these costs should not be spread across all energy consumers;

8.

Supports the European Commission's initiative of urging national, regional and local authorities to apply policies promoting low energy and passive buildings. Although these policies must be dealt with separately, they are necessary, of the utmost importance and relevant as regards meeting the objectives of the renewable energy directive. The Committee recommends that the provisions on this subject included in the draft Directive on renewable energy be duly taken into consideration during the forthcoming adjustment of the Directive on the energy performance of buildings. Generally, it recommends ensuring maximum coordination between the principal European legislative acts in these areas, specifically the Directive on the energy performance of buildings, the Directive on energy efficiency and energy services, the third package liberalising energy and the various components of the ‘energy-climate’ package, including the Directive on renewable energy. Particularly in view of achieving binding national targets, attention must focus on national implementation of the Directive on Renewable Energy;

9.

considers that Local and Regional Authorities have experience and established competence to influence energy infrastructure and policies within their regions. Many European regions are already demonstrating a political commitment to promoting renewable energy in their regions; they have set concrete goals in this sphere and are pursuing them actively. They already influence energy infrastructure and policies by their actions in spatial planning, regional development, influencing the actions of individual citizens, and in many cases have fostered innovative applications of renewable energy (solar, ground source, biomass, hydroelectric power and wind) in relation to buildings and transport and other areas;

10.

notes that the shift from non-renewable to renewable energy sources implies an increase in relatively small scale, local, energy production, which will also reduce long distance electricity transmission losses and will involve and impact upon the activities of all Local and Regional Authorities;

11.

recognises that activities undertaken by local and regional authorities through which they may help achieve the goals of the directive include:

12.

urges the Commission to resist pressure to require Member States to set up centralised, single, administrative bodies dealing with applications and assistance for new renewable installations;

13.

cautions against ‘surplus energy’ standards being applied retrospectively to public buildings;

14.

In the light of the experience with NEEAPs, also calls on the Commission to allocate the necessary resources (including human resources) and to take the requisite steps (including legal action and financial sanctions) to ensure that the Member States submit high-quality National Action Plans for Renewables (NAPR) by the set deadlines, thus enabling the directive's objectives to be met;

15.

points out that, additionally, Local and Regional Authorities control large budgets for public purchasing and procurement of energy consuming products and services; stresses that in the formative phases of a shift to a much more dominant renewable energy Europe, the significant role of Local and Regional Authorities in specifying, innovating and negotiating with the renewable energy sectors should be strengthened;

16.

recognises that activities by Local and Regional Authorities to reduce the total demand for energy, by actions to improve energy efficiency, make an important contribution to achieving the aims of the Renewable Energy Directive;

17.

believes that, many of the actions (see for example Article 12) which will be included in the NAP will fall to Local and Regional Authorities to implement, Local and Regional Authorities have already undertaken significant action, and this experience should be utilised fully in the production, implementation and monitoring of NAPs;

18.

therefore urges the Commission to amend Article 4 to require the involvement of Local and Regional Authorities in the formulation of national action plans, and to take this factor duly into consideration when evaluating the national action plans;

19.

recalling the experience of the national energy efficiency action plans (NEEAPs), it calls on the Commission to publish, in good time, guidelines for preparing NAPs, including a model. The involvement of local and regional authorities in drafting the NAPs will be clearly identified as a major part of the process of preparing NAPs in any model, guide or other form of recommendation published by the European Commission on the subject of NAPs;

20.

urges the Commission to take steps to encourage take up of existing support schemes for renewable energy such as Structural Funds, access to EIB loans, the Intelligent Energy for Europe scheme under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), the various schemes and initiatives under the 7th Framework programme for Research, and the Commission's plans set down in its Communication on the Strategic Energy Technology Plan COM (2007) 723 final;

21.

wishes to ensure support schemes are accessible to renewable producers at all scales, including small installations and believes that, for consistency, support for renewable energy should be accompanied by the phasing out of subsidies for the production and use of fossil fuels (with the exception of possible support for cogeneration plans used to provide district heating).and for the production and use of nuclear energy. An exception shall also be granted to cases where carbon capture and storage is applied to reduce the carbon dioxide quantities emitted by fossil fuel use;

22.

wishes the Commission to recognise the contribution of, and ensure that sufficient support is made available to encourage research and development to harness clean, renewable maritime energies such as from wind, waves, tide and ocean currents. Points out that national and regional aid programmes, which offer solutions tailored to national, regional and local situations, have shown that they are capable of successfully promoting renewable energy. Therefore, although additional support from the European level continues to be desirable, national and regional aid programmes must remain the principal tools for promoting this form of energy. Any European-level standardisation of the terms and conditions of aid programmes is to be avoided;

23.

notes that the Commission proposal for EU wide Guarantees of Origin to validate electricity, heating and cooling from renewable sources conforms to the Committee of the Regions Opinion on Limiting global climate change (1) which called for a green energy certificate to be introduced;

24.

believes that the use of Guarantees of Origin also for trading and accounting is overcomplicated and suggests the Commission reconsiders and clarifies it, with a view to better guaranteeing the transparency and legal certainty of the system. It also suggests that at the same time, the Commission ensures that the system for trading in and marketing Guarantees of Origin does not jeopardise the implementation and efficiency of national or regional aid programmes, as well as considering a separate certificate for voluntary trading;

25.

considers that the contribution made by microgeneration must be taken into account in order that this element of each Member States' overall energy package is properly recognised and supported;

26.

notes that energy generation, distribution and use is changing rapidly and believes the rate of change will increase in coming years; therefore there must be widespread dissemination of information and training so that producers, installers and consumers of energy have appropriate understanding of new technologies allowing changes to take place efficiently and equitably;

27.

supports the Commission proposal that Member States ensure that appropriate information, guidance and accreditation schemes are established;

28.

stresses that Local and Regional Authorities have an important role in education and training, and are increasingly consulted by their citizens to improve the quality of information which is currently on offer; they will also be directly involved in implementing guidance on planning controls and standards for new buildings, therefore urges that Local and Regional Authorities are fully involved in the development and implementation of information, awareness, guidance, education and training schemes;

29.

notes that Local and Regional Authorities have promoted biofuel use by, for example, collecting used cooking oils to produce bio-diesel for municipal vehicles, and the generation of biogas from sewage and other bio wastes also for use in municipal vehicles and the generation of wood pellet supplies, primarily for heat but also in conjunction with CHP schemes, from locally managed woodlands, and waste wood. Initiatives in various European regions to establish ‘biofuel networks’ must also be supported. These networks coordinate the production and consumption of biofuels at regional level. Provided that biofuels are sustainably produced, taking into account all economic, environmental and social aspects, such networks can contribute to the development of regional economies;

30.

Believes that the 10 % target for renewable energy in transport is best met by increased use of electric vehicles powered by renewably generated electricity;

31.

maintains that biofuels produced from wastes, by-products and residues have two climate change benefits as they reduce transport emissions and they remove materials from the waste stream, and thus represent good management of limited resources, of which biomass is an example. Nor do biofuels produced in this way compete with food production;

32.

points out that increased use of biofuels in transport will have the intended, positive outcome only if biofuels are produced from commodities obtained in a way that does not distort the natural balance of the environment, food supply or the economic balance of the market, or social balance;

33.

notes that emissions of air pollutants that are damaging to human health, from biofuel use in transport vary depending on the source. Biofuels therefore have the potential to contribute to an improvement or a deterioration in air quality, which local government has a key role in managing;

34.

urges, therefore, that comprehensive research is undertaken on the tail-pipe emissions of different biofuels and that air quality impacts are considered alongside sustainability assessment, in a holistic manner;

35.

recommends that NAPs (national action plans), which local and regional authorities will be involved in preparing, should include detailed provisions on the commodities from which biofuels will be produced. NAPs should take account of the specific nature of the natural resources and agricultural potential of each Member State;

36.

urges that biofuels offering significant and quantified savings in greenhouse gas emissions are supported;

37.

understands that cellulosic biomass (2) and algae can be harvested with less interference to the food economy and less strain on land resources; as long as this is compatible with other marine activities; although production methods are still under development, green house gas savings of up to 90 % are claimed (3). Furthermore, vehicle fuels can be produced from waste by generating biogas through anaerobic digestion, with a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions;

38.

calls on the European Commission to develop further the environmental sustainability criteria for biofuels laid down in Article 15 of the draft directive. These criteria should, inter alia, provide a solution to the following questions, crucial to the general sustainability of biofuels:

Furthermore, following the examples of the above mentioned regional networks, it calls on the Commission to take into account the potential of regional production/consumption chains;

39.

urges rigorous assessment of biofuel sustainability in step with technological change and amendment of the minimum GHG saving as technology develops;

40.

believes that sustainability criteria need to be applied to EU produced and non-EU produced biofuels to give the public confidence in their purchasing decisions and in any schemes operated by their local authority;

41.

biofuels must be produced sustainably and in a way which minimises the climate impact. Under no circumstances should permanently wooded areas be cleared in order to make way for energy crops which, de facto, fix smaller quantities of carbon dioxide;

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/19

—

urges the Commission to speed up approval of legislation for including air transport in the ETS and to incorporate the maritime transport sector into the ETS without delay;

—

is concerned that the directive does not encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the waste management sector, an especially critical sector both for emissions and for land-use planning;

—

recommends that at least 30 % of the revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances shall be earmarked by Member States for local and regional authorities in order to promote the use of renewable energies and energy efficiency in end uses, so as to meet the Community's objective of using 20 % renewable energy by 2020 and increasing energy efficiency by 20 % by 2020; to promote measures for reducing greenhouse gases in non ETS sectors, in particular in the transport and waste sectors;

—

recommends measures to support certain energy intensive industries in the event of ‘carbon leakage’;

—

no more than six months after this directive has entered into force, the Commission shall, after consulting with all relevant social partners and the Committee of the Regions, submit concrete proposals for preventing carbon leakage from energy-intensive sectors and subsectors.

Rapporteur

:

Pietro MARRAZZO (IT/PES), President of the Lazio Region

1.

Notes that local and regional authorities make a key contribution to the success of European initiatives and play a critical role in implementing environmental, industrial and energy policies;

2.

endorses the practical application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in all Community policies relating to environmental protection and the climate; internalising the environmental cost of goods and services is an essential part of proper public policy guided by the principles of sustainable balanced and eco-compatible economic development;

3.

therefore appreciates the efforts made to date by the European Commission to build an effective carbon market that succeeds in pinpointing the price of the pollution from a tonne of carbon dioxide within a free bargaining system;

4.

welcomes the proposed adjustment and updating of the Emission Trading System (ETS), in line with the results achieved to date and the evidence uncovered during the first period under the system (2005-2007);

5.

considers that despite the progress made, it is necessary to further increase the transparency and long-term reliability of the ETS and to remain attentive to the social and environmental repercussions that the proposed measures will have, especially at regional and local level;

6.

notes that the simplification proposed by the Commission, including the possibility of excluding the smallest industrial installations and clarifying the concept of a combustion installation, will help to improve the reliability, efficiency and transparency of the carbon market as a whole;

7.

nevertheless asks the Commission to specify the equivalent measures that can be adopted by Member States to pursue emission reductions in small installations, going beyond the generic reference to possible fiscal policy measures (carbon tax);

8.

notes that with regard to the auctioning of quotas, it would be appropriate to move on from completely free allocation with a gradual changeover to public auctions; strongly supports the need to protect the poorer sections of the public from the possible rise in the price of industrial products and other energy sources, more specifically, electricity, also by helping them to increase their homes' energy efficiency;

9.

agrees with the Commission on the proposed change to the approach taken to date with the adoption of National Allocation Plans (NAP) for each Member State and welcomes the decision to define common Community objectives, as part of a single, mutually supportive approach for the EU as a whole;

10.

agrees with the Commission's proposal to include capture, transport and geological storage of greenhouse gases in the ETS and hopes in this respect that appropriate support will be given to research into related technologies that require further development and investment, provided that account is taken of the detrimental impact that carbon storage might have on the ecosystems in which it takes place;

11.

recalls the important role that research in the energy-environment field can play when it comes to cutting emissions and making changes and hopes that the directive will prove an effective instrument for securing a steady source of financing for such activities;

12.

stresses that the inclusion of new sectors and activities in the ETS must be assessed from the point of view not only of the risk that European industry may become less competitive on international markets, but also of the actual pollution produced by this sector, the potential for technological improvement of the sectors concerned and checks on the extent to which extra costs can be passed on to end users;

13.

therefore urges the Commission to speed up approval of legislation for including air transport in the ETS and to incorporate the maritime transport sector into the ETS without delay (see point 65 of Opinion CdR 22/2008);

14.

approves of the principle of cooperation and solidarity between Member States as introduced in the new ETS between countries that are technologically more advanced (whose industrial sectors are more energy efficient) and less-developed countries (whose economies have a higher energy consumption and need to increase their growth rates);

15.

appreciates the efforts made by the EU to date in taking part in international negotiations on implementing the Kyoto protocol, most recently at the Bali conference, and in defining common global strategies, particularly for sharing the burden between wealthy and developing countries; therefore hopes that the results obtained to date will be further strengthened and developed by agreements at the forthcoming Poznan and Copenhagen international conferences;

16.

calls for additional measures in the fight against climate change and an extension of the objectives set for the ETS in order to gear them to the target of a 30 % overall reduction in emissions following international agreements on the subject;

17.

stresses the need for the proposed international agreement to lead to equal treatment world-wide for the various sectors concerned; consequently, minimum requirements should be established which an agreement must meet in order to constitute an international agreement along the lines proposed in the directive;

18.

stresses the need to have proper cost-benefit analyses on the inclusion of new production sectors in the ETS so as to prevent distortions of competition arising between dissimilar sectors as a result of limiting greenhouse gas production;

19.

is concerned that the directive does not encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the waste management sector, an especially critical sector both for emissions and for land-use planning;

20.

notes that, alongside the emission allowance scheme, much needs to be done above all to effect a switch to environmentally sound modes of transport. National governments need to take responsibility here to expand rail and waterway infrastructure and promote intermodal transport generally;

21.

notes that the risk of falling competitiveness among industrial sectors has yet to be fully assessed by the Commission and that adequate measures for supporting and defending European economies are not yet provided for by the new directive; stresses in that respect the importance of a stable and attractive environment for investments and the urgent need to address the dangers of transferring emissions to countries with less binding environmental standards and lower costs (carbon leakage); calls on the Commission to submit proposals to the European Parliament and the Council at the earliest possible opportunity for Community-wide, fully harmonised rules for the free allocation of certificates. These rules should take account of the situation in the energy-intensive sectors and subsectors where there is a considerable risk of carbon leakage;

22.

calls for the efforts involved in the fight against climate change to be properly shared among the industrial operators involved and the end users, ensuring that the latter do not have to carry the entire burden of the additional cost of the strategies adopted in certain production sectors in particular;

23.

notes that the Commission's proposal does not give sufficient attention to the need to avoid a negative impact on poorer sections of society, owing in particular to the possible effect of the directive on electricity prices; therefore calls on the Commission to monitor the markets more closely, to increase consumer confidence and limit the risk of market manipulation;

24.

advocates rewarding the emissions reductions already achieved, when free emissions certificates are being allocated; in so doing, some installations which represent the benchmark in their production sector for the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production could be allocated 100 % free certificates.

25.

stresses that local and regional authorities are in the front line when it comes to dealing with the consequences of climate change and must therefore be properly involved in the adoption of any strategies to combat it and make changes;

26.

calls on the Commission, when revising the ETS, to consider not only the consequences on competition at national and international level, but also the dangers for the competitiveness and attractiveness of the various regions within the EU;

27.

therefore calls for due consideration to be given to the demands of regional development policies and notes that in order to promote a more transparent and effective carbon market, a number of industrial installations could be thoroughly restructured so as to rid the production system of the least efficient installations or those that are already in crisis; on that note, calls for action to support the process of industrial renewal and retraining of the workers concerned;

28.

recognises, with regard to the strengthening and adjustment of the ETS, the need to improve the overall coherence of actions and to set more ambitious objectives which, pursuant to the international agreements under discussion, stipulate a target of a 30 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020;

29.

considers that more should be done to involve the public in the efforts made by the EU to address climate change, with the help of local and regional authorities; this awareness-raising activity should focus both on encouraging responsible personal behaviour and on helping the public understand the major industrial and technological issues that often lie behind the strategies adopted;

30.

sees a need to step up the work of the local and regional authorities in the field of training and information for end users and operators of small and medium-sized businesses covered by the ETS directive.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/28

—

expresses concern about the lack of financial means for rural development. For further investing in the New Challenges, the scope should not only be on the resources of Pillar 1 and therefore urges to relate this concern to other EU policies, especially cohesion policy;

—

strongly suggests that synergies be fostered between rural development policy and other EU policies, particularly cohesion policy;

—

supports the growing call to invest in research on agricultural issues and to apply research outcome, welcomes the suggestion of the EC to seek synergy with the Knowledge Framework;

—

feels that in order to meet the new challenges, Europe must aim for a closed circle economy and therefore stimulate and support innovating agriculture as a whole;

—

feels that in order to fight climate change, integrated food strategies should be encouraged;

—

feels that when it lowers their carbon footprint, regions should be encouraged to develop and promote locally produced food and food-related products;

—

suggests that the proposed increase of milk quota should already be raised to 2 % annually, but also suggests that the Commission should secure the position of farmers in vulnerable areas, might this position be harmed as a result of these increased milk quota;

—

feels that Europe has the social responsibility to put maximum effort into the anchoring of the People, Planet and Profit principles into the outcome of current and future WTO negotiations;

—

wishes to state that local and regional bodies in most EU Member States have gained considerable experience and expertise in rural development, and would welcome an invitation to accept broader responsibilities for implementing and targeting the EU policy for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Rapporteur

:

Ms Lenie DWARSHUIS–VAN DE BEEK (NL/ALDE), Member of the Executive Council of the Province of South Holland

1.

looks at the strategic importance of farming and agri-food industries for Europe, considers the highly multinational sphere of action of companies and subscribes to quality production in all regions, agrees with the European Commission (EC) on the importance of a Common Agricultural Policy;

2.

agrees that equipping ourselves with a system that guarantees the European population a certain level of self-sufficiency in food requires crisis management when necessary; recognises that in the case of food production, the market cannot always reconcile the issue of farmers' incomes with total public demand, which justifies the Common Agricultural Policy;

3.

with respect to the recommendations already incorporated in the legislative proposals, stresses that many of the recommendations made in its outlook opinion on The Common Agricultural Policy Health Check (CdR 197/2007) are still valid; however, further simplification is necessary in addition to the legislative proposals submitted, in order to achieve actual relief from red tape for the regional authorities responsible for implementing the CAP and for farmers; here in particular, greater simplification in the area of cross compliance is necessary; in this context any extension of Annex III documentation must not lead to greater burdens; furthermore, when implementing the individual measures concerning the individual standards in accordance with Annex III, account should be taken of regional and natural conditions, which may be very different; attention should also be paid to existing regulations;

4.

contrary to what is outlined in its outlook opinion, pleads for the abolition of compulsory set-aside to be accompanied by optional environmental protection measures for certain areas within Pillar II;

5.

recommends that the proposals on increasing quotas in preparation for the end of the quota system be reconsidered in view of the current situation on the milk market; suitable instruments should be selected and the financial resources for them made available to the extent necessary, as these may prevent some of the enormous disadvantages caused by the abolition of quotas in less competitive and naturally disadvantaged regions;

6.

Thinks that the CAP Health Check cannot merely extend the 2003 reform without addressing the new international food situation; calls for caution to be exercised so that, during the Health Check, existing market instruments (except for the instrument of compulsory set-aside) are not irreversibly abolished. Given the current volatility of worldwide food markets, it should be possible to reactivate these instruments even if they are not currently in use;

7.

Agrees on the importance of the New Challenges and agrees that a powerful incentive is needed in all Member States in order to succeed in launching New Challenges operations;

8.

however fears that the form of modulation proposed by the Commission means that in general farmers' incomes could be significantly reduced, depending on the region;

9.

feels that the Commission should not underestimate the importance of the reliability of the agreed financial framework of the CAP until 2013;

10.

suggests that some of the freed-up resources could also be invested in other measures besides the ones to be created for the New Challenges, like in new Pillar I support measures for the Community sheep and goat sector which is of such great social, economic and environmental importance, and which is currently at serious risk of a drastic reduction in livestock numbers across Europe, and also in existing farm-related Pillar II measures, in various new Pillar II measures meant to help farmers adapt to the new Pillar I situation, or in other new Pillar II measures, meant to meet the costs of the various measures of multifunctional agriculture for the general public;

11.

feels that the balance between objectives and measures could differ for regions which up to now have already implemented many measures for coping with New Challenges or have already used their resources to a large extent in accordance with the New Challenges;

12.

feels that if European agricultural policy is to respect the fundamental aspects of European policy, the application of modulation must first be based on the conditions of production before global criteria for competition can be studied as a priority;

13.

believes that decisions on modulation are best taken at the appropriate devolved level to better reflect the diversity of local and regional needs. Member States and regions should have the scope to direct funds to Pillar II measures based on actual needs;

14.

in this opinion on the legislative proposals expresses concern about the lack of financial means for rural development in general and for the new challenges in particular accordingly states clearly that for further investing in the New Challenges, in the near future the scope should not only be on the resources of Pillar 1 and therefore urges to relate this concern to other EU policies, especially cohesion policy;

15.

in this opinion focuses on the scope of the proposals for Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on rural development, aiming for maximum results on the new challenges;

16.

in this opinion gives an opinion on the future CAP in global perspective, including issues with WTO relevance, such as intellectual property and EU quality and energy use labelling;

17.

in this opinion asks the Commission to invite the CoR to contribute to further debates and policy-making and announces new CoR initiatives, such as organising a stakeholder conference and formulating a vision paper for agriculture and rural development in Europe, focusing on the impact of regional decision-making and the ongoing efforts to create better environmental conditions in agriculture;

18.

emphasises the importance of the indigenous European agri-food industry and the critical significance of food safety and food security where the EU is now the biggest agricultural importer in the world;

19.

To provide for a smooth transition from milk quota expiry in 2015, a ‘soft landing’ is required, the Committee would favour annual milk quota increases of minimum 2 %, at least for those regions and countries with greater production potential. With very significant volume and price fluctuations now occurring, market management mechanisms should remain in place until the quota system expires;

20.

feels that the Common Agricultural Policy is important today and has the potential to remain important in the near future, as the performance of the CAP will continue to be debate in the perspective of increasing global demand for food, feed, fuels and fibres;

21.

expresses the view that in an increasingly globalised world European agriculture cannot do without a powerful European common policy with market regulation mechanisms which, whilst taking into account the geographic, social and economic diversity of the European regions, focuses on strategic objectives and consumer demand, offers possibilities for regional opportunity and involvement, especially on the new challenges, is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable and contributes to rural prosperity;

22.

shares the view of the European Commission that climate change, bio-energy, water management and biodiversity represent major challenges for the future — including for agriculture; in this context one should examine what contribution the CAP can make to accompanying the necessary adjustments positively; asks that appropriate consideration be given in the Member States and regions to making payments in advance;

23.

is concerned about the Commission's proposals to continue dismantling Community intervention measures, against a backdrop of market instability; considers that it is important to maintain market intervention instruments financed through the Community funds currently in existence;

24.

will continue its work to ensure that the necessary review of the CAP does not result in any re-nationalisation of that policy — hereby meaning that although executing and co-financing of policy can be allocated to the regions and the Member States, CAP policy itself, including strategy and budget, must be secured on a common level. Advocates the maintenance until the end of the financial period of the funding ceiling for the CAP adopted in the 2007-2013 financial framework;

25.

in the light of the present economic situation and the serious crisis affecting European countries, which is having a particularly harmful impact on rural society, recommends that the Commission avoid taking any steps that might serve to increase unemployment and intensify the loss of economic activity;

26.

considers that all direct aid should be linked to maintaining agricultural activity, although it could be decoupled from actual production; in this context, the health check should not serve as an opportunity to further untie direct aid;

27.

considers that both the historical and regional models should gradually move towards uniform, work unit-based aid at Community level, modulated in line with the goods and services supplied to society in the context of a multi-functional farming industry;

28.

points out that the Commission's proposal to set a threshold under which aid would not be covered could become a regressive measure in social terms and, taking into account regional diversity, could have a major social impact on numerous regions; therefore, considers that simplification measures should be applied within the internal context of each Member State;

29.

in light of the Commission's proposal to present a report before 30 June 2011 on the conditions for phasing out milk quotas, considers that any decision on the future of the quota system should be postponed until that date;

30.

notes the Commission's own acknowledgement that ending the quota system, or simply allowing quotas to increase gradually, could eventually lead to lower prices;

31.

suggests that in order to provide a safety net in response to excessive volume and price fluctuations, appropriate market management mechanisms should remain in place during the health check, and also after the expiry of the quota system;

32.

recommends that for as long as considered useful, also after 2015, the market instruments for milk and dairy products should be kept stand-by;

33.

urges the EC to establish an extraordinary Community budget fund, supplemented if necessary by State resources, with the aim of improving the viability of farms, situated in less competitive and/or naturally disadvantaged regions or circumstances;

34.

suggests that Member States should be allowed to support these farms in various ways, like by re-appointing Less Favoured Areas, by offering Pillar 2 measures and/or by applying Article 68, thus providing a safety net;

35.

calls for prudence, to ensure that during the health check, the market mechanisms for milk and dairy products are not eliminated; considers that those currently in place should be maintained;

36.

believes that the impact of agriculture on the environment is a major challenge and the EU should make greener agriculture a priority; would therefore stress the importance of an ongoing dialogue on environmental conditions in agriculture;

37.

is concerned, that attempts to use the ‘rural development’ umbrella to incorporate an ever-growing number of issues could be problematic and would question whether a number of these challenges would be best addressed through rural development programmes;

38.

in fact supposes a growing discrepancy between the means available in the second pillar and the impact of the objectives needed to be addressed, being as well the ‘new challenges’ as the ‘current challenges’, related to the economic, social and environmental quality of rural areas;

39.

believes that the CAP is primarily intended for agriculture and should not be transformed into just another aspect of territorial cohesion policy. when the CAP takes due regard of regional specificities and different production systems, it also contributes to territorial cohesion; that any proposals for change as a result of the Health Check must have sufficient regard to the various regional specificities and production systems that exist within the European Union;

40.

welcomes the proposal to make Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 more flexible, but also considers this measure inadequate to deal with the dismantling of market mechanisms proposed by the Commission, in particular the implications of ending milk quotas:

41.

puts forward the view that developing rural areas towards greater innovation, sustainability and quality of services for all inhabitants and economic stakeholders, goes far beyond just the framework of agricultural development;

42.

supports the growing call to invest in research on agricultural issues and to apply research outcome, welcomes the suggestion of the EC to seek synergy with the Knowledge Framework;

43.

urges the EC to ensure that the need to encourage innovation and modernisation of farms and other food-related enterprises, resulting from the necessity to address the new challenges related to establish new competitiveness is not hindered by state aid policy;

44.

strongly suggests that synergies be fostered between rural development policy and other EU policies, particularly cohesion policy and would welcome any opportunity to contribute to upcoming consultations on debates, meant to explore these synergies;

45.

underlining that the carrying out of all CAP measures has a local impact, stresses that the regional level is best placed to create maximum results in implementing a common policy; however, distortions of competition between Member States and regions must be avoided;

46.

wishes to state that local and regional bodies in most EU Member States have gained considerable experience and expertise in rural development, such as the execution of the PRODER and LEADER Programmes in the last decade and would welcome an invitation to accept broader responsibilities for implementing and targeting the EU policy for Agriculture and Rural Development;

47.

wishes to point out that it is the regional level that is most appropriate for setting measures to cut the CAP's administrative costs; considers that the possibility of exempting farmers who receive aid below a certain threshold from the compulsory modulation would in some regions represent a significant reduction in these administrative costs;

48.

points out that the shift from a historic towards a regional payment model, as encouraged by the Commission, will call for the need to apply far more geographically determined criteria and to address regional and local competences, such as water management, energy supply and spatial planning;

49.

expresses the need to back up the implementation of rural development policy with increased technical and educational support;

50.

stresses the need for local and regional authorities to provide more, comprehensive information for producers and consumers about agricultural issues in order to raise the awareness and sense of responsibility of the various social groups with regard to the importance of agriculture for our everyday lives and in order to draw attention to the important role which agriculture has played, plays and will continue to play in economic, social and environmental developments;

51.

Suggests that an additional element for classifying enterprises under modulation threshold is to be defined and introduced, making it possible to distinct large centrally managed enterprises from locally but under cooperation managed enterprises and allowing Member States to apply supportive measures, thus creating a soft landing for these cooperations;

52.

notes that a strong increase in the quantitative demand for agricultural commodities and food, caused by the explosive increase in the world's population, combined with the increase of prosperity and purchasing power, will occur in the near future and be sustained for the years to come;

53.

notes that the growth in population and purchasing power will also lead to a strong increase in the demand for high quality foods, processed foods, meat and dairy foods and that this in turn will lead to an increasing scarcity of food crops including grains, fibres and other agricultural feed stock and raw materials;

54.

Is concerned that the proposed increase of milk quota by 1 % annually from 2009 to 2013 may not be sufficient and suggests that the proposed increase should already be raised to 2 % annually, but also suggests that the Commission should secure the position of farmers in vulnerable areas, might this position be harmed as a result of these increased milk quota;

55.

Considers there to be a need for Community law to allow for a more ambitious framing of inter-professional relations, enabling, amongst other things, measures to be implemented at the regional or State level to regulate the profit margins of each link in the food chain without this being taken to represent a change to the rules of competition;

56.

considers that the CAP must continue to strive to achieve its objectives of providing EU citizens with quality food in sufficient quantities, with health guarantees, at fair prices, creating viable farms, preserving our rural heritage and protecting the rural environment and has evolved to meet challenges and changing needs, whilst at the same time establishing conditions of fair competition enabling European agriculture to maintain a strong presence on the world market;

57.

urges, in order to establish an according global level playing field, that uniform phytosanitary, veterinary and environmental standards be applied to food products for consumption in the EU whether EU-produced or from 3rd countries and urges that border inspection authorities, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) be provided with the necessary resources;

58.

notes that the production of food remains the focus and main task of agriculture, notes that the cultivation of energy plants makes an additional contribution towards achieving the goals of the Community's energy and climate policy and represents a potential creation of value for agriculture and rural areas and suggests that the topic should be readdressed under the New Challenges;

59.

feels that Europe has the social responsibility to put maximum effort into the anchoring of the People, Planet and Profit principles into the outcome of current and future WTO negotiations;

60.

suggests that the Commission should get an agreement on intellectual property covering geographical indications (acknowledged regional products) before signing an WTO agreement on agriculture;

61.

suggests, that the Commission should define a European Food Hallmark, based on currently prescribed criteria;

62.

wishes to emphasise that the new challenges facing the CAP cannot be addressed by the CAP alone; all Community policies must be used to tackle them;

63.

feels that in order to fight climate change, integrated food strategies should be encouraged, thus reducing food mileage, covering waste and energy management and establishing a labelling system, based on criteria defining origin, quality and sustainability and indicating the total energy consumed by the time the product reaches the consumer;

64.

feels that when it lowers their carbon footprint, regions should be encouraged to develop and promote locally produced food and food-related products;

65.

Is aware that Article 28 and Article 29 of the EC Treaty prohibit quantitative restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit and all measures having equivalent effect between Member States, but feels that the actions as mentioned under 60 and 61 of the opinion could be allowed, knowing that the Court of Justice allows actions that are in the common public interest, like fighting climate change; and there fore calls for further studying the options;

66.

wishes to add, that aiming for a certain level of regional self sufficiency for certain products would not contradict with importing from other countries;

67.

in this respect calls for export subsidies to be granted only if this is needed to relieve domestic markets and does not harm the expansion of markets in the developing countries;

68.

emphasises the importance of the indigenous European agri-food industry and the critical significance of food safety, food security and R&D capacity of developing sustainability-linked technology, where the EU is now the biggest agricultural importer in the world;

69.

feels that European agriculture can pre-eminently connect both the Lisbon (knowledge, research, innovation) and the Goteborg (sustainability) objectives and set a worldwide example;

70.

feels that the CAP, with a tailored second pillar, must result in a rural development geared to all economic activities in rural area and the new farming conditions, as well as to a more comprehensive rural development covering all rural areas in the EU, as well as to the most vulnerable areas such as those with natural handicaps (sparsely populated areas whose location holds back their development, upland, island and outermost areas) as well as to the most dynamic areas, such as periurban areas responsible for feeding the majority of EU citizens and up to the challenge of knowledge development, and integrating them into the major EU geographical groupings;

71.

notes that recent evidence suggests that the majority of the world's population is living in urbanised areas within city boundaries and that this population is dependent on rural land management efficiency for food and fresh water supplies and notes that urbanised areas in addition present a strong need for nature reserves and attractive and accessible landscape. If these are to be maintained in a sustainable way, sufficient support must be forthcoming for the income of the farmers who manage such areas, so that they can be competitive and keep their farms viable in spite of having to comply with more stringent requirements as a result of Community law;

72.

emphasises that the multifunctional EU agriculture model must contribute to combating climate change, embody the concepts of sustainability, competitiveness, diversity, food self-sufficiency, responsiveness to society, consumers and the public good where good farming practices, environmental protection and animal welfare are integral; these contributions of agriculture are in the public interest and represent a financial value that is worth promoting, if higher costs are not offset by fair prices on the open market; particular attention should also be given in this context to ensuring that the farming community benefits from economic and social progress;

73.

calls for the deletion of Article 13(2), which lays down the obligation that ‘Member States shall give priority to the farmers who receive more that EUR 15 000 of direct payments per year’ in line with the conditions for participation in the farm advisory systems;

74.

notes that climate change necessitates further water management measures including measures like water storage, controlling levels, preventing flooding, preventing shortage and managing fresh water supplies;

75.

feels that Europe must stimulate and support the use and production of truly renewable energy in agriculture, not only focusing on (second generation) biocrops and biofuels, but also on solar energy,, wind energy, hydroelectric power, geothermal heat and cogeneration;

76.

feels that in order to meet the new challenges, Europe must aim for a closed circle economy and therefore stimulate and support innovating agriculture as a whole, not only addressing knowledge institutions, but also promoting system, network and chain innovation and accordingly promoting modernisation of all enterprises which are a part of the food production, processing, waste management, transport and distribution chain;

77.

feels that professional land management must be implemented to ensure that fertile agricultural land is kept in good condition in order to secure sustainable use for food production for the internal and external market;

78.

feels that specific agricultural areas are of the utmost importance for preserving and restoring biodiversity and nature values and that these public interests represent a financial value, eligible for payments;

79.

feels that specific agricultural areas are of the utmost importance for offering leisure possibilities and that these public interests represent a financial value, eligible for payments;

80.

feels that specific agricultural areas are of the utmost importance for executing water management and that this public interest represents a financial value, eligible for payments;

81.

is of the view that while the CAP has successfully adapted to different challenges since its inception, considers that the Commission and its agents must do more to better inform and engage with citizens about the purpose, achievements and priorities of the CAP and that this should be a future communication priority of the Commission;

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/44

—

welcomes Commission communication as a satisfactory first introduction to the basic concept of pre-commercial procurement and the way in which it can be organised, although there are certain oversights with regard to the actual implementation of the procedure proposed;

—

emphasises that where local and regional authorities choose pre-commercial procurement in order to promote innovation as a way of addressing problems they are seeking to resolve through the effects of this instrument, they will be have to face various challenges that are not adequately analysed in the communication;

—

thinks that the European Commission should provide a clear and detailed guide, as well as training opportunities, to contracting local and regional authorities on how to use pre-commercial procurement of R&D services so that European law is not infringed;

—

also considers the guidance and training that must be provided to be all the more urgent given that pre-commercial procurement raises serious questions of intellectual and industrial property rights, a legal issue to which even the legal services of central governments have not yet paid particular attention;

Rapporteur

:

Dimitrios TSIGKOUNIS (EL/EPP), Mayor of Leonidio (Arcadia)

1.

calls for consideration to be given in the forthcoming debate to the role played by local and regional authorities in addressing major social problems, e.g. ensuring high-quality affordable healthcare geared to an ageing population, responding to climate change, improving energy efficiency, ensuring higher quality education and better access to it, and more effective management of security threats;

2.

since new, innovative solutions are likely to be called for in addressing the problems, since solutions either are not commercially viable owing to technological requirements or, where they exist, do not yet satisfy requirements — meaning that new R&D is imperative — proposes that local and regional authorities be actively involved in developing the new framework for pre-commercial public procurement and that their opportunities for effectively managing and implementing this new type of procurement be strengthened;

3.

maintains that including R&D in public procurement with a view to promoting innovative solutions allows local and regional authorities to make a key contribution to the medium and long-term profitability and effectiveness of the services they provide, and to promoting the competitiveness of European industry through innovation;

4.

considers that since a significant proportion of such spending falls to local and regional authorities, those authorities must be fully prepared to play a major role in promoting R&D across Europe;

5.

calls on the European Commission to take into account the political priorities of the Committee for the period 2008-2010, which include: implementing the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment; addressing the challenges of climate change; diversification and sustainable use of energy resources; improving citizens' quality of life, which includes cross-border cooperation on civil protection and access to better healthcare services; promotion by local and regional authorities of solidarity, and intercultural and interfaith dialogue, and promotion of all forms of local culture and traditions; taking part in dialogue on a common migration and asylum policy, especially in terms of exchanging best integration practice; prioritising the single market and strategically enhancing the quality of public services. These are matters relevant to local and regional authorities which are likely to be included as particularly promising within the sphere of public procurement in order to support R&D in information and communication technologies, these being the priority choice for pre-commercial procurement;

6.

welcomes Commission communication COM(2007) 799 final as a satisfactory first introduction to the basic concept of pre-commercial procurement and the way in which it can be organised, although there are certain oversights with regard to the actual implementation of the procedure proposed;

7.

emphasises that where local and regional authorities choose pre-commercial procurement in order to promote innovation as a way of addressing problems they are seeking to resolve through the effects of this instrument, they will be have to face various challenges that are not adequately analysed in Commission communication COM(2007) 799 final;

8.

believes that existing procurement legislation is already quite complicated, and that many local and regional authorities have particular problems implementing it correctly, so that they would be very hesitant to add another complicated mechanism, like this European Commission initiative, to their administrative system and procedures; therefore urges that the public procurement legislation not be applied to pre-commercial procurement;

9.

proposes that the Commission look into the possibility of whether the procurement directive could be amended so that innovations might, for example, be generated within the framework of partnership projects. The rigid procurement process is a major obstacle to new innovations. The requirement of fair and non-discriminatory treatment derived from the Treaty establishing the European Community should not be interpreted in such a way that, in practice, precludes companies and procuring entities from benefiting from companies' R&D efforts;

10.

believes that designing and drawing up very technical versions of public tenders to promote innovation calls for particular knowledge and skills which local and regional authorities do not generally have, considering that even in many national central governments such knowledge and skills are found in only a small number of departments;

11.

thinks that the various selection stages of the pre-commercial procurement process for R&D services similarly require a level of technical knowledge and understanding of the issues concerned that cannot generally be provided by local and regional authorities;

12.

notes that even if pre-commercial procurement of R&D services ultimately proves successful, it will still be difficult to mobilise and activate citizens politically at local and regional level. One factor that makes decision-making by local and regional authorities particularly problematic is that the public cost of organising pre-commercial procurement of R&D services is immediate and affects the ongoing management period, whereas the benefits are usually seen in the medium term and it may be some time before the general public becomes aware of them, usually longer than the time between two consecutive elections at local and regional level;

13.

is concerned that should the advisability of publishing a pre-commercial procurement tender for R&D services have been politically controversial, it is likely that following an election that produces a new local and regional authority consisting of parties that have expressed such objections, they will raise doubts about whether the procurement procedure will continue for a product that is already on the market, ultimately obscuring the real benefits that were sought by the contracting authority with the original pre-commercial procurement tender for R&D services;

14.

believes that a major political problem would arise for local and regional authorities if the successful bidders in a pre-commercial procurement procedure for R&D services were not based in the area where the contracting local or regional authority had its seat, or if they were even based in another Member State;

15.

suspects that if a pre-commercialisation tender for R&D services is unsuccessful, an eventuality which cannot be ruled out, especially in certain areas of R&D where the success rate is still quite low, local and regional authorities will find it very difficult to justify their action and convince the general public that even with this outcome it was better to issue the tender than to invest in existing, commercially proven technology;

16.

in view of the above-mentioned problems which local and regional authorities may face in relation to pre-commercial procurement of R&D services, proposes that the European Commission and the Member States should design and implement a series of measures that it considers essential to ensure that pre-commercial procurement of R&D fulfils its purpose at local and regional level, which will have a major impact on the wider R&D performance of the European Union compared with its competitors in the global market;

17.

notes that it should be borne in mind that if the introduction of pre-commercial procurement procedures for R&D services at local and regional level is not smooth and efficient, which seems likely, then R&D may be deprived of funding at European Union level;

18.

thinks that the European Commission should provide a clear and detailed guide, as well as training opportunities, to contracting local and regional authorities on how to use pre-commercial procurement of R&D services so that European law is not infringed;

19.

also considers the guidance and training that must be provided to be all the more urgent given that pre-commercial procurement raises serious questions of intellectual and industrial property rights, a legal issue to which even the legal services of central governments have not yet paid particular attention;

20.

urges the Member States and the European Commission to develop support structures which local and regional authorities can use whenever they decide to practise pre-commercial procurement of R&D services, to obtain clear and practical information and real assistance, especially regarding the most appropriate distribution of risks and benefits between the contracting authority and the successful candidates;

21.

given that pre-commercial procurement of R&D services entails clearly identifiable short-term risks at the local and regional level of the contracting authority, whereas the long-term benefits are difficult to identify and often vague, which causes understandable concern for local and regional authorities, emphasises that the Member States and the European Commission must provide clear support at various levels so as to ensure that all those concerned understand that occasional failures are a necessary part of such a procedure which involves seeking innovative solutions to chronic or more recent problems faced by European societies;

22.

notes that because pre-commercial procurement tenders for R&D services are open to candidates from all the Member States, they may unavoidably lead to at least partial transfer of resources for R&D funding from one region of a Member State to that of another Member State. At European Union level obviously this is not a problem, but at local or regional level it is a factor that may significantly hamper the funding of pre-commercial procurement of R&D services;

23.

urges the European Commission to demonstrate that pre-commercial procurement can be useful for the regional authority managing the tender procedure, even where candidates are not based in the region;

24.

urges the European Commission to encourage and strengthen large groupings of local and regional authorities which agree to conduct a pre-commercial procurement procedure jointly so as to reduce the risks that would be faced by a single local or regional authority organising the same procedure in a Member State;

25.

recognises that creating intra-European networks and establishing regular contacts between local and regional authorities with similar needs in the different Member States represent the only binding elements in inter-governmental/interregional cooperation and coordination relating to pre-commercial procurement of R&D services;

26.

supports funding of measures to develop and consolidate pre-commercial procurement of R&D services at local and regional level by re-allocating European Union budget resources that may be provided by the revision of the Common Agricultural Policy;

27.

believes that the single European R&D area (European Research Area, or ERA) could potentially be transformed and strengthened if pre-commercial procurement of R&D services was incorporated into the existing public procurement process;

28.

believes that the strategy of promoting pre-commercial procurement of R&D services would be substantially facilitated by utilising knowledge-intensive and technologically innovative local and regional universities, research centres and above all small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as part of a new framework of cooperation with local and regional authorities in the Member State where they are located and networking through them with local and regional authorities in other Member States and counterpart universities, research centres and small and medium-sized companies;

29.

emphasises that the creation in the various local and regional authorities of information/database points on the local and regional problems that need to be urgently addressed with innovative solutions, and providing information on local R&D capacity, can bring closer together regions facing the same problems, as well as research centres and companies with complementary or supplementary potential for finding innovative solutions through cooperation;

30.

proposes that funding through the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund should be targeted at measures relating to R&D via pre-commercial procurement in areas covered by the funds.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/48

—

agrees that there is a broad consensus in the EU on the need to modernise and improve vocational education and training in Europe. Quality assurance in vocational education and training is a key part of this aim

—

considers that the difficulties in recognising learning outcomes from different Member States, however, have put a brake on mobility in the EU and hinder genuine lifelong learning experiences

—

highlights that in many Member States the regional and local level is responsible for vocational education and training

—

welcomes the Commission's two recommendations, as they aim to propose solutions to the social and economic challenges of a globalising, knowledge-based world economy and they also aim to increase mobility within the European Union and encourage skills exchange. Consequently the CoR believes that it is necessary to develop areas which are important for citizens and activities which local and regional authorities are responsible for

—

considers that the main users of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework will be national/regional and local authorities in charge of quality assurance and improvement in education and training

—

asks that local and regional competent authorities be involved in the exercise of linking up national/regional qualifications frameworks to ECVET

—

highlights that the actual implementation and take-up of the system will be the real measure of its success. Local and regional authorities will be useful partners to promote this through their networks and to make ECVET credible and usable.

Rapporteur

:

Kent JOHANSSON (SV/ALDE), Member of the Regional Executive Board, Västra Götaland Region

1.

notes that vocational education and training are critical factors for achieving the Lisbon strategy's objectives of raising economic growth, competitiveness and social inclusion. Education and training, skills and lifelong learning form part of the CoR's key policy priorities;

2.

considers that the difficulties in recognising learning outcomes from different Member States, however, have put a brake on mobility in the EU and hinder genuine lifelong learning experiences;

3.

agrees that there is a broad consensus in the EU on the need to modernise and improve vocational education and training in Europe. Quality assurance in vocational education and training is a key part of this aim;

4.

highlights the fact that in many Member States the regional and local level is responsible for vocational education and training. Vocational training is financed from a variety of sources, although in most Member States it is financed by the government both at national and regional level, with a high rate of incidence of regional and local funding;

5.

sets out its views on two communications relating to European cooperation in the field of vocational training. It endorses both communications and welcomes the proposals contained in them. In the case of the first one, on the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training, the consultation process is well advanced while in the case of the other one, on the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework, the process is at an earlier stage. For this reason further consultations will be important and would be welcomed;

6.

welcomes the Commission's two recommendations, as they aim to propose solutions to the social and economic challenges of a globalising, knowledge-based world economy we live in. They also aim to increase mobility within the European Union and encourage skills exchange, and consequently the CoR believes that it is necessary to develop areas which are important for citizens and activities which local and regional authorities are responsible for;

7.

notes that the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) is a tool for describing qualifications in terms of units of learning outcomes with associated points, with a view to transferring and accumulating learning outcomes. It will aim to provide a methodological framework which is meant to facilitate transfer of credit for learning outcomes from one qualifications system to another, or from one learning pathway to another;

8.

considers that the main users of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework (EQAF), on the other hand, will be national/regional and local authorities in charge of quality assurance and improvement in education and training. As opposed to ECVET, the Framework aims at increasing transparency and consistency of policy developments in vocational education and training;

9.

agrees with the Commission that participation in the implementation of ECVET and EQAF must be voluntary but stresses that there is a need to create frameworks and guidelines for administering the scheme. User groups (ECVET users group and ENQAVET) must also have representatives with a direct mandate from local and regional level. Similarly, the private sector and the social partners should also be represented;

10.

points out that, irrespective of whether a particular country participates in the implementation of ECVET or EQAF or not, regions which have a statutory responsibility for the education system should have direct access to the joint forums engaged in developing the systems;

11.

stresses that it is of critical importance in future development work to achieve a good balance between the following two considerations: on the hand, the desire to increase citizen's mobility by improving the portability of credit systems and enhancing the quality of activities; on the other hand, the need to develop the diversity of the education systems which local and regional authorities in Member States are responsible for;

12.

underlines the fact that ECVET and EQAF are part of a broader range of initiatives in the education field, which also includes the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), Europass, the European Quality Charter for Mobility (EQCM), the Europe-wide principles for the recognition and validation of non-formal learning and the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (EQF);

13.

has pointed out in its past opinions that the constantly evolving requirements of the workplace involving new systems of work and adaptation to new technologies call for a continuously trained workforce. Vocational training, following a lifelong learning approach, can prove to be essential instruments in developing this, which is the core element of sustainable economic and social development (1). Specifically in the light of the demographic development a more effective use of the existing workforce has to be made;

14.

stresses that specific financial resources will be needed for the testing and further development of the systems;

15.

notes that cross-border learning and professional activity have a long history in Europe. They have been very important for the development of the craft sector, manufacturing, trade and business, laying the ground for rising prosperity at local, regional and national level;

16.

believes that cross-border learning and professional activity will take on great importance in a highly globalised economy and that up-to-date tools are needed to support mobility in this area; further believes that ECVET is one such tool;

17.

thinks that identification of skills needs takes place increasingly at regional level; has highlighted the fact that local and regional development is, of course, based on different starting conditions and circumstances but this should by no means be considered to be isolated from developments in the world at large; as old jobs disappear in regions and local communities, jobs are needed in new areas of production so as to prevent stagnation, social exclusion in the form of unemployment for example, high levels of sick leave and high levels of premature and unwanted exits from the labour market (2);

18.

points out that the labour market in Europe needs to be characterised by a high degree of flexibility coupled with reliable social security as outlined in the European Commission's document on ‘Common Principles of Flexicurity’ (3);

19.

has agreed with the European Commission in the past that national and European qualifications frameworks facilitate the validation of learning in all contexts (4);

20.

has welcomed the European Commission's Framework of Qualifications (EQF), and supported its double objective of improving transparency of qualifications and promoting mobility in the European Union;

21.

similarly to its request in connection to EQF, asks that local and regional competent authorities be involved in the exercise of linking up national/regional qualifications frameworks to ECVET;

22.

reinforces the European Commission's recognition of ECVET as ‘culturally and technically adapted to the (…) regional contexts’, and recalls that regional authorities themselves often have a role in identifying, developing and implementing qualification systems and lifelong learning in formal, informal and non-formal contexts;

23.

points out that, when examined from a life-long learning perspective, a large part of vocational training takes place in knowledge-intensive businesses or business networks and increasingly on a cross-border basis;

24.

notes that there are also many good examples today of cooperation in the area of vocational training between professional associations and regions in different countries which also include joint planning and mutual recognition (5). These initiatives should be encouraged and their potential tapped;

25.

stresses that various stakeholders should participate in a recognition system, not only the public sector but also private players, businesses and the social partners;

26.

welcomes the establishment of an ECVET users group that updates and coordinates the processes. Insists, however, on including regional and local authorities, as well as local companies and social partners, as members of the users' group in order to allow direct access to ECVET for them, respecting at the same time national rules and regulations;

27.

highlights the fact that it is often local and regional authorities that are able to put in place effective operational actions in VET;

28.

notes that ECVET is a unit-based credit system, providing a way of measuring and comparing learning achievements, and transferring them from one institution to another;

29.

welcomes the fact that it is compatible with all qualifications systems, especially with the European Credit Transfer System that supports and facilitate the mobility of university students within Europe and further afield;

30.

highlights however that the actual implementation and take-up of the system will be the real measure of its success. Local and regional authorities will be useful partners to promote this through their networks and to make ECVET credible and usable;

31.

believes that the effective use of ECVET requires that practical examples of how the system works are needed once it is up and running. This would help to a encourage a broader range of users to exploit the opportunities offered by ECVET;

32.

notes that greater efficiency in socio-economic terms in vocational education and training is determined by ensuring that vocational education and training is better geared to meet the constantly changing labour market demands of the knowledge society, in particular promoting a highly qualified workforce able to rise to the challenge of globalisation;

33.

stresses that education and training systems should not, as is sometimes the case, be developed in isolation from the enterprise, social and innovation environment of a locality or region as growth, competitiveness and the employment prospects of an area are increasingly dependent on the skills of its current and future workforce, as well as on the extent to which vocational education and training, and retraining, contribute to the ongoing completion and enhancement of skills;

34.

highlights the fact that it is therefore essential to link EQAF with the needs of the local labour market and calls for the accreditation of VET centres as part of this process;

35.

recognises the added value that EQAF brings in carrying forward education and training policy across the EU in particular the promotion of mutual learning, mobility and exchanges of best practice;

36.

welcomes the arrangements for an improvement cycle for EQAF and stresses that quality indicators should not be regarded as guidelines but rather as reference points which can be continually developed in various ways, for example in bilateral or multilateral contexts;

37.

emphasises that EQAF should not be restricted to being a statistical system or some kind of monitoring tool but should instead be seen as an instrument for ongoing quality development at different levels and by different players and stakeholders;

38.

believes that use of the reference framework should not be confined solely to national level, but that similar processes should also be encouraged at local and regional level. The same also applies to learning systems which are outside public education systems so as to ensure that they too can be improved and developed on an ongoing basis;

39.

feels that consideration must be given to the shape of the reference framework and to how detailed it needs to be in order to meet its objectives. The Committee thinks that the indicators must not be so detailed that implementation of the reference framework and follow-up would result in education systems being subject to indirect control;

40.

emphasise that the reference indicators proposed by the Commission

It would therefore be a strength that the various users can select the indicators that are most relevant to the needs of their particular quality assurance system;

41.

stresses that the local and regional dimension must be reinforced in particular through support for local and regional networks in this field and regrets that the Recommendation does not give adequate recognition of the importance of the involvement of local and regional authorities more explicitly;

42.

calls for a stronger direct involvement of the local and regional level in ENQAVET, the European Network on Quality Assurance in VET. Regions and businesses involved in EQAF should be encouraged to network and these networks should be supported;

43.

suggests the use of a label of quality for VET establishments, similarly to the ranking that already exists for higher education institutions;

44.

feels that improvements in vocational education and training are a considerable advantage for both individuals and society. Raising overall skills levels helps to improve economic indicators, such as productivity and unemployment, and social indicators, such as civic participation, criminality and healthcare costs;

45.

vocational training has the potential to promote social inclusion of groups which are at a disadvantage on the labour market, such as migrants and older people, and early school leavers;

46.

stresses that attention should be focused not only on groups within education systems but also on individuals who do not have access or have limited access to them or who fall out of them.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/52

—

underlines the importance of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean initiative which has put the Mediterranean at the top of the European agenda and stimulated discussions and thinking commensurate with the stakes involved;

—

is convinced that initiatives from either side of the Mediterranean that focus exclusively on a diplomatic approach will not achieve sustainable solution for as long as local democracy is not put at the heart of the debate, in terms of both strengthening it and of direct cooperation between regions and towns on both sides of the Mediterranean under the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean;

—

recalls that the territorial level is an level of governance from which solutions may be devised simultaneously adjusting to and responding to the challenges posed by globalisation, in close cooperation with other institutional levels. Local and regional authorities, particularly in Europe, have increasingly asserted themselves as a valid link in devising such solutions;

—

consequently repeats its call for local and regional authorities to be recognised as key partners in the Barcelona Process and Euro-Mediterranean cooperation;

—

resolves to promote the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), made up of a number of members of the Committee of the Regions, representatives of European and international associations engaged in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, and an equal number of representatives of regional and local authorities from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, as a permanent platform for dialogue, exchange and cooperation, and calls for its recognition as a consultative body within the future governance of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, on the pattern of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly with regard to national parliaments.

Rapporteur-general

:

Mr Isidoro GOTTARDO, Member of the Sacile Municipal Council

1.

Underlines the importance of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean initiative which has put the Mediterranean at the top of the European agenda and stimulated discussions and thinking commensurate with the stakes involved; hails both the pragmatic nature and the political vision of the project launched by the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union and supported by 16 partner countries from the southern and eastern Mediterranean;

2.

Welcomes the success of certain measures and initiatives that the Barcelona Process has thus far produced; regrets, nevertheless, the lack of significant progress in the area of peace, security and human and social development, as well as the lack of involvement of local and regional authorities;

3.

Emphasises that the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, in its new guise, should enable what was a purely intergovernmental cooperation system to become a project for dialogue between the citizens of the three shores and in particular for cooperation between the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean, bringing together their local and regional authorities in a framework of practical and agreed projects as part of an overall strategy based on citizens' needs and on solidarity;

4.

Considers that one of the conditions for successful cooperation between Euro-Mediterranean countries and for a stronger partnership through the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean is that new catalysing issues be identified in order to make the practical benefits comprehensible to citizens by turning declarations of principle into tangible measures, which entails strong involvement of local and regional elected leaders and clear, active communication;

5.

Notes that stronger action on the part of local and regional authorities and civil society in public policy is often limited by the weakness of local democracy and the lack of any real process of decentralisation in southern and eastern Mediterranean countries;

6.

Similarly, notes that decentralisation and participatory local governance do not always go hand-in-hand. In some States, both within the EU and beyond its borders, local and regional authorities share the challenge of increasing participation in elections and of promoting public participation and involving the associative sector in drawing up strategies and in developing major urban or regional projects;

7.

Is convinced that initiatives from either side of the Mediterranean that focus exclusively on a diplomatic approach will not achieve sustainable solution for as long as local democracy is not put at the heart of the debate, in terms of both strengthening it and of direct cooperation between regions and towns on both sides of the Mediterranean under the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean;

8.

In this spirit, welcomes the declaration by the Heads of State and Government of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, meeting in Paris on 13 July, underscoring ‘the importance of the active participation of civil society, local and regional authorities and the private sector in the implementation of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’;

9.

Nevertheless, considers that it would not be appropriate to give equal status to those who hold democratic legitimacy, such as local and regional authorities, and those who do not, such as civil society and the private sector;

10.

Also agrees with the Heads of State and Government of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership that to ‘increase co-ownership of the process, set governance on the basis of equal footing and translate it into concrete projects, more visible to citizens’ will allow relations between the three shores of the Mediterranean to be made ‘more concrete and visible through additional regional and sub-regional projects, relevant for citizens of the region’;

11.

Expresses the willingness and commitment of local and regional authorities to enrich the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean;

12.

Recalls experiences with introducing European policies, most of which require the commitment, resources and action of local authorities in order to implement them, and also highlights the solid experience and know-how of European local and regional authorities in tackling and management urban and rural matters concerning the environment, energy, transport, civil protection, migration, economic development and many other priorities for the Barcelona Process which remain valid, such as intercultural dialogue, education and the human and social dimension; therefore regrets that the development projects accompanying the conclusions of the Paris summit were not subject to prior consultation with the regional and local authorities, in spite of their necessary involvement in the future implementation phase, and emphasises the need in the future to correct this intergovernmental approach through the clear involvement of all the levels of governance concerned;

13.

In keeping with earlier opinions on this subject, stresses the importance of involving local and regional authorities not only during the implementation phase, but throughout the cooperation process, from crafting strategies, implementation and through to monitoring and evaluation of results. This applies in particular to fields where local and regional authorities have broad and direct powers, such as urban and spatial planning, water management, waste management and treatment, the environment and the local impact of climate change, local economic development, the management and enhancement of the cultural and historic heritage, local tourism development, basic public health, integration policies and social cohesion;

14.

Welcomes the imminent launch of the new CIUDAD programme within the existing European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which seeks to promote cooperation in urban development and dialogue in the Mediterranean region; agrees that the priority areas include environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, sustainable economic development and reduction of social disparities, fields where local and regional authorities have broad and direct powers, and where solid experience and know-how can be provided by the European local and regional authorities;

15.

Points out that the financial aspects of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean have not yet been specified and that local and regional authorities can serve as technical and financial as well as political partners in framing and implementing strategies and projects that meet both the real needs of citizens and the objectives of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean; also notes that the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean makes no changes whatsoever to the programming or financial aspects of the Mediterranean dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy;

16.

Recalls that the territorial level is a level of governance from which solutions may be devised simultaneously adjusting to and responding to the challenges posed by globalisation, in close cooperation with other institutional levels. Local and regional authorities, particularly in Europe, have increasingly asserted themselves as a valid link in devising such solutions;

17.

Consequently repeats its call for local and regional authorities to be recognised as key partners in the Barcelona Process and Euro-Mediterranean cooperation;

18.

Recognises the role and experience of the various networks and associations of local, regional national, European and international authorities engaged in decentralised Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, as well as their know-how and on-the-spot knowledge (1). For this reason, efforts must be more shared and the objectives of decentralised cooperation projects must be brought closer into line with those of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership in order to maximise the results;

19.

Restates its support for the declaration of the representatives of the local and regional authorities of the Mediterranean and Europe, meeting on 23 June 2008 at the Forum of local and regional authorities of the Mediterranean in Marseille;

20.

And against this backdrop, shares the willingness of local and regional elected representatives and their representative associations to create an institutional instrument ensuring that they enjoy permanent political representation and can contribute actively to the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, a powerful instrument for territorialisation, thus reiterating the call made by the Committee of the Regions in earlier opinions on the subject;

21.

Intends in consequence to set up a Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) made up of members representing, on an equal footing, regional and local elected representatives of the European Union and of the Mediterranean partner countries, on the pattern of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA) created to represent the parliamentary dimension;

22.

Urges the governance bodies of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean not only to grant political recognition to local and regional authorities, but to incorporate them formally and effectively into the cooperation process and into the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean;

23.

Therefore calls for the definition, in the new working documents, of the role of local and regional authorities as full partners in the cooperation process under the newly relaunched Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean;

24.

Strongly urges that local and regional authorities, alongside central governments, take part if possible from an early stage in preparing association agreements, strategic documents and action plans that are conceived on a bilateral basis between the European Union and the southern and eastern Mediterranean partner countries, and in particular within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy;

25.

And therefore calls upon the Euro-Mediterranean governments to set up mechanisms for structured national dialogue and consultation with sub-state (regional and local) agents, the social partners and civil society, by bringing in networks and associations of local and regional authorities;

26.

Resolves to promote the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), made up of a number of members of the Committee of the Regions, representatives of European and international associations engaged in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, and an equal number of representatives of regional and local authorities from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, as a permanent platform for dialogue, exchange and cooperation, and calls for its recognition as a consultative body within the future governance of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, on the pattern of the EMPA with regard to national parliaments;

27.

Urges the European Commission to harmonise, coordinate and closely link the new approach with the various Community programmes, projects and instruments (2) and with the existing Euro-Mediterranean counterparts (3) in order to harness the relevant experiences, avoid duplication of activities and accumulate progress;

28.

Proposes a feasibility study on adjusting existing structural support instruments to the Mediterranean setting, which would essentially comprise a policy of economic and social cohesion through which cooperation between the local and regional authorities of the European Union and of the Mediterranean countries would be based on a territorial dimension;

29.

Urges the governance bodies of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean to take this opportunity provided by the renewal of this process to move ahead with the reform of local governance and decentralisation in certain countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean, and to initiate decentralisation process in others;

30.

Proposes that priority be given to strategies for the institutional reinforcement of local and regional authorities and that administrative modernisation programmes and local and regional human resources training projects be introduced;

31.

Considers that giving greater responsibility to local and regional elected representatives will contribute to the emergence of multi-level governance bringing together different institutional levels in the process of deciding, preparing, implementing and evaluating public policies and development policies;

32.

Suggests that local human, technical and academic resources be mobilised when implementing projects, and that public participation be maximised, so that they take ownership of the cooperation process and the ensuing projects;

33.

Considers, lastly, that the dynamics of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean could offer all the actors at the various levels opportunities for learning, for new relations and for new means of mutual recognition, at the same time helping the various actors involved (central and decentralised administrations, local and regional authorities, civil society, etc.) to get to grips with a new approach to development and local democracy, and;

34.

instructs its president to submit this opinion to the French Presidency of the EU, the Co-Presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and to the Heads of State of the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/56

—

calls for local and regional authorities not to continue to be put into the same category as civil society and economic and social partners when it comes to partnerships, since they are elected bodies directly accountable to the EU's citizens;

—

points out that the absence of an EU-wide methodology for employing partnerships in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of territorial development programming and planning documents makes it impossible to judge whether the process involved a partnership in reality or in name only and what its real effect was;

—

recommends that the EP and the European Commission assess the possibilities of using the capacity of national and/or regional authorities in monitoring the implementation of operational programmes and spending under the Structural and Cohesion Funds, in order to verify the costs incurred and the results achieved;

—

is convinced that the Committee of the Regions should be given a greater role in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of EU policies, through the active involvement of Committee members in local and regional level dialogue;

—

is committed to planning and implementing initiatives to disseminate best practices in using partnership in setting policy priorities in the Member States.

Rapporteur

:

Mr Vladimir KISSIOV (BG/EPP), Member of Sofia Municipal Council

1.

wholly supports the initiative to examine and analyse partnership with respect to governance at national, regional and local level and project planning in the field of regional policy, in the preparation and implementation of programme and planning documents for territorial development;

2.

welcomes the efforts being made by the Member States and regional and local authorities towards the establishment and systematic introduction of partnerships between state, regional and local institutions and representatives of civil society, the social partners and business in the preparation of planning documents for developing and implementing regional planning and development policies;

3.

especially welcomes the fact that, in the Member States, governments are making efforts to promote a dialogue with regional and local authorities in determining not only goals, priorities and resources for territorial development, but also how it is implemented, in the context of European and national policies;

4.

stresses the leading role of towns and regions in the preparation of strategy documents, programme implementation and monitoring and the implementation of EU policies;

5.

calls for local and regional authorities not to continue to be put into the same category as civil society and economic and social partners when it comes to partnerships, since they are elected bodies directly accountable to the EU's citizens. For this reason, any partnership between national Member State institutions, EU bodies and local and regional authorities are on a qualitatively different level than other forms of partnership. The role of local and regional authorities, which are elected by the public and entrusted with state duties, must be clearly enshrined in general rules and documents;

6.

is convinced that the principles of good governance can be put into practice in the field of local and regional policy through greater involvement of representatives of civil society and economic and social partners.

7.

supports a comprehensive approach to structural policy governance within the European Union's multilevel system;

8.

believes it is crucial for good governance in the field of regional policy that policy instruments are applied in an integrated manner, all stakeholders are actively involved, and there is a clear focus on efficient and effective policy implementation which is based on horizontal and vertical integration of the various instruments so that clear and measurable results are achieved;

9.

acknowledges the role of European structural policy in providing effective support to the process of administrative decentralisation taking place in various EU countries as part of the development of regional planning and indicator-based management processes which have greatly contributed to improving public initiatives at local and regional level;

10.

believes that the current governance model in the field of structural policy provides a solid basis for the future direction of that policy;

11.

points out that the absence of an EU-wide methodology for employing partnerships in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of territorial development programming and planning documents makes it impossible to judge whether the process involved a partnership in reality or in name only and what its real effect was.

12.

regards as a success the moves to strengthen partnership with a view to developing a more sustainable policy for closer and stronger vertical and horizontal integration of governance and partnership at national, regional and local level;

13.

sees the efforts made by governments in the new Member States to introduce the principles of good governance into the process of drawing up and implementing programme documents as a democratic achievement;

14.

considers that national and regional authorities, along with the administrative authorities should draft and adopt a methodology for the use of partnerships in regional policy in relation to programme and planning documents. The methodology should clearly define the operation and minimum extent of partnership in all stages: preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Two levels of partnership which are quite distinct in terms of their quality, need to be taken into account:

The partners involved differ from each other with regard to their sphere of operation, specialisation, skills and potential contribution. This methodology should also take account of the fact there are various levels of decentralisation in the individual Member States and ascertain whether their local and regional bodies are the managing authority for some operational programmes;

15.

considers that, through their good practices, older EU Member States, particularly those which are highly decentralised, have made a substantial contribution to the improvement of the system of partnership in relation to good governance at national, regional and local level and project planning in the field of regional policy and could share best practices with other countries;

16.

argues that the inclusion of networks of partners in the elaboration and implementation of regional development policies provides considerable opportunities for the various actors and participants to express their interests and increases people's trust in government. It must be ensured, however, that the partners concerned have the right mandate to act, as well as the necessary expertise and capacity, and that their participation will make a real contribution. They must also have the necessary funding to play a proper role in the discussions. This funding could form part of the technical assistance and should also cover the drafting of truly warranted studies and research at EU, national and local level;

17.

calls on the European Commission, since this is something not included in a number of operational programmes, to authorise and encourage regional and local authorities, their national and supranational associations and other relevant partners to use technical assistance resources in the present programming period; this will enable them to carry out studies and analyses at local, regional, national and EU level to identify the needs and priorities for a new cohesion policy;

18.

is convinced of the increasing importance of strengthening partnership in relation to governance and project planning at all stages of EU policy making in the field of local and regional development — preparation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation;

19.

considers that governance and partnership in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of EU territorial development policy should be given an increasingly significant place in the EU's communication strategy;

20.

calls on the European Parliament and the European Commission to make broader use of partnership and governance and the open method of coordination in developing EU policies, so as to include a maximum number of stakeholders, especially local and regional authorities, as the level of government where a significant proportion of Community policies are usually conducted. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all regional and local authorities who are interested and have the skills required to manage European regional development programmes are designated Managing Authorities of operational programmes;

21.

insists that a connection be made between the issues of governance and partnership at national and regional level in preparing national, regional and local strategy and planning documents and the consideration and launch of initiatives to overcome challenges such as climate change, urban transport, the development of life sciences and biotechnology, scientific and research activities and innovation in EU and other regions.

22.

considers that, in the context of preparing the new economic, social and territorial cohesion policy, especially for regions with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, it will be of crucial importance to ensure that particularly the local and regional authorities and their national and supranational associations, but also economic and social partners and civil society have an input at the earliest possible stages in formulating national positions and priorities and preparing documents and that their views be given appropriate weight;

23.

considers it appropriate to continue the thorough examination of the Member States' practices and experience of using partnerships to set priorities for local, regional, national and supra-national development. The evaluations will support the implementation of simpler and more efficient forms of communication between the partners at local and regional level;

24.

considers that, given the varying degrees of decentralisation in the Member States, there are also differences in the process of consultation and in the way governance is conducted in relation to project planning;

25.

recognises the need for the participants in governance and partnership at national and regional level in the Member States over the next planning EU period to be prepared for doing so through tried and tested and effective methods for consultation with partners and civil society players, such as the handbooks on good practice, public-private partnerships and cooperation with civil society partners in consultations on future local and regional development planning;

26.

in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy's objective of developing a knowledge-based economy, recommends targeted measures to involve universities, scientific and research institutes and technology centres in the preparation of national positions and documents for the new programming period, not only at the national, but also at regional and local levels;

27.

considers it imperative that, as part of overall efforts to strengthen administrative capacity, the priority be to introduce targeted measures to include young people at the earliest stages in the preparation, discussion and programming of territorial development policies. This would have a profound and long-lasting impact on the implementation of EU policies as well as encouraging young people to take an active role in civic life;

28.

recognises the need to continue to enhance active partnership (at the initiative of local and regional authorities, and of non-governmental organisations) in the process of governance. To this end, considers that the Member States need to take action, adapted to their specific national circumstances, to encourage their communities of partners to organise themselves, so as to increase the involvement, responsibility and interest of civil society stakeholders;

29.

recommends that the EP and the European Commission assess the possibilities of using the capacity of national and/or regional authorities in monitoring the implementation of operational programmes and spending under the Structural and Cohesion Funds, in order to verify the costs incurred and the results achieved. This would help both to simplify procedures and to reduce their cost;

30.

considers that there is a need to develop institutional instruments to facilitate the implementation of horizontal and vertical approaches. These might include platforms, regional-level policy management and round tables, which facilitate communication within sector-based networks at political and administrative levels;

31.

considers that the role of the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation should be taken into account, and given fresh impetus, in the field of governance in regional policy. These new groupings are not simply an instrument for managing EU funds; above all they are a horizontal cooperation tool available to civil society in neighbouring regions;

32.

considers that, in evaluations of partnership in governance and project planning, the focus should increasingly be placed on qualitative rather than quantitative indicators. It is therefore essential that central, regional and local authorities' partners in the process of governance not be assessed in the same way, but categorised according to their capabilities and potential contribution;

33.

given the difficulty of ensuring that regional policies have a public impact, it is of the utmost importance that the requisite interfaces be developed at the different levels where policies connect with the various sectors involved;

34.

one of the major tasks of local, regional and central authorities must be to strengthen and bring about continuous improvements in administrative capacity. Annual evaluations of administrative capacity must be changed from a formality into an analysis of what has been achieved, which should then be made public and serve as the basis for future capacity-building.

35.

is convinced that the Committee of the Regions should be given a greater role in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of EU policies, through the active involvement of Committee members — in their capacity as representatives of the interests of local and regional authorities — in local and regional level dialogue with the public and civil society organisations. This is a prerequisite for the successful planning of territorial development as well as for building and extending administrative and communication capacity at local and regional level, with a view to overcoming the administrative deficit often cited in EU documents as an obstacle to development;

36.

will draw up annual recommendations for improving regional and local-level partnership, which will be incorporated as a matter of course into the annual high-level discussions;

37.

will support initiatives conducted by Member States, the European Parliament and the European Commission with a view to developing partnership with local and regional authorities, not only during the phase of monitoring the implementation of policies but also, and most importantly, during their drafting;

38.

considers that partnerships with NGOs and employers at lower levels of government should be supported, promoted and developed through diverse initiatives, particularly at the planning stage and during the implementation of specific measures;

39.

is committed to planning and implementing initiatives to disseminate best practices in using partnership in setting local, regional, national and supra-national policy priorities in the Member States. Local authorities must be involved in communication, since they are best placed to explain what the European Union means for people's everyday lives;

40.

will take all the necessary steps to make best use of the mechanisms for coordinating and implementing European, national and regional policies available through the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), as a means of decentralised international cooperation which can also be used for involving different partner groups more effectively in governance.

19.12.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/60

—

emphasises that the reduction of industrial emissions is most important in the case of air pollution; the Industrial Emissions Directive is an important European measure enabling member states to meet their emissions targets by 2020;

—

believes that with respect to air pollution the Directive is not ambitious enough and is disappointed with the weak emissions limit value (see Appendix I) for large combustion plants; the Committee would also like to point out that there is still a significant difference between the emission limit values contained in the proposal and those set out in the corresponding BREF (Best Available Technique Reference) document for large combustion plants; these values should be brought into line and strengthened;

—

strongly advises the inclusion of a practical revision system which enables the partial revision of the Directive (e.g. the technical chapters and emission limit values) via the co-decision procedure; is furthermore concerned with future adaptations of legislation that will be carried out according to the Seville process (see Appendix I), which is not a legal procedure provided for in the Treaty and is not subject to democratic scrutiny;

—

strongly disagrees with the Commission's proposal to establish criteria for granting derogations on the basis of local conditions under the comitology procedure;

Rapporteur

:

Mr Cor LAMERS (NL/EPP), Mayor of Houten

1.

notes that local and regional authorities in various EU Member States play a critical role in implementing environmental and industrial policies, and have wide competences in prevention policies and enforcement of pollution control.

2.

strongly supports pollution prevention and the polluter pays principle, and therefore appreciates this aim of the Industrial Emissions Directive.

3.

emphasises the importance of source-based measures. It is essential that the causes of pollution be identified and emissions dealt with at source, in the most economically and environmentally friendly manner.

4.

notes that in both urban and rural areas, the quality of air, water and soil are issues directly affecting citizens' daily lives. Large industrial installations in the EU still account for the release of a considerable proportion of key pollutants.

5.

notes that clean air and water policies have a cross-border dimension and therefore require action at EU level. It therefore welcomes the Industrial Emissions Directive because it is a European instrument to decrease industrial emissions at source.

6.

strongly believes that the proposal includes measures which are necessary and have a considerable potential for achieving environmental benefits. In this perspective, it appreciates the improved use of the BREF documents (Best Available Technique Reference Documents, see Appendix 1) as proposed by the Directive, since this will result in increased environmental benefits.

7.

emphasises that the reduction of industrial emissions is mostly important in the case of air pollution. The Industrial Emissions Directive is an important European measure enabling member states to meet their emissions targets by 2020. The inclusion of a lower category of large combustion plants, from 20 to 50 megawatts (MW). is therefore an important aspect of the new Directive.

8.

believes that with respect to air pollution the Directive is not ambitious enough:

9.

is therefore concerned that the Directive might lead to mostly short-term benefits. It is very much concerned about the possible limited long-term benefits (see paragraph 17).

10.

stresses that the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) permits (see Appendix I) should remain based on an integral approach taking into consideration the environment, production, technical feasibility, cost effectiveness and equally important, local conditions.

11.

agrees with the European Commission that the IPPC Directive is currently not properly implemented in all Member States. The IPPC Directive has been rather difficult to implement and the BREF documents have not always been used, also due to their rather technical and difficult nature.

12.

has noticed that permits reflect more the centralized and homogenized stated standards and requirements. Even though this seems positive, it is therefore becoming more difficult to detect what companies do, produce, treat or optimize by looking at the permits.

13.

holds the opinion that the Industrial Emissions Directive (which includes a review of the IPPC Directive) was presented only weeks after the implementation deadline of the current IPPC legislation, which was set at 31 October 2007. The review therefore occurs before the present IPPC legislation has had a chance to demonstrate its workability and efficiency, and more important, before its effect in terms of emission reductions could be fully assessed.

14.

believes that the consolidation of seven Directives into one Directive is a very ambitious approach, a step-by-step approach or a framework Directive with daughter Directives might have been preferable. A framework Directive would also present an opportunity for other, directly linked Directives, like the Suburban Wastewater Directive, to be included, without jeopardizing future revisions of the framework Directive.

15.

is in favour of the principle of Better Regulation. The Commission's proposal to consolidate seven Directives seems to correspond with this principle. To a certain extent, the new Directive simplifies permit issuing procedures. It believes, however, that the different parts of the Directive have not been consolidated completely and, because there are still considerable differences between the Directive and the BREF documents, not all practical difficulties will be solved.

16.

questions whether current inconsistencies and ambiguities in definitions are solved within this proposal. For example, it is unclear what effect the new definition of BAT (from best available technology to best available technique) will have. Taking into account the wider perspective of a technology instead of the sole technique, will connect better to business investment, will benefit a fair level playing field and thus will lead to more creative solutions for environmental challenges.

17.

is seriously concerned the consequences that consolidation might have on future revisions. The proposal now includes several different areas of technical expertise. The length and especially the complexity will make it very difficult, if not impossible to revise the Directive in the future, and to adapt legislation to future needs and to technological developments by setting more stringent operational requirements e.g. emission limit values.

18.

understands that the Commission proposes to deal with the problem of difficult future revisions via the linkage between the Directive and the BREF documents. The Directive sets minimum standards which have to be met and the BREF documents, which can easily be revised, will keep the system up to date according to technological developments and stricter associated emissions limit levels (BAT-AEL, see Appendix I). It has serious concerns about future differences which might arise between the BAT-AELs (in revisable BREF documents) and the emission limit values (in the Directive). There is a significant risk that the system might become outdated and thus might contribute little to future environmental developments.

19.

strongly advises the inclusion of a practical revision system which enables the partial revision of the Directive (e.g. the technical chapters and emission limit values) via the co-decision procedure. It is furthermore concerned with future adaptations of legislation that will be carried out according to the Seville process (see Appendix I), which is not a legal procedure foreseen by the Treaty and is not subject to democratic scrutiny.

20.

is satisfied with the recent improvements of the BREF documents and values them as useful reference documents. The main part of the BREF documents is however only available in English, which might cause difficulties for regional and local supervisory and permit issuing authorities. It therefore requests translation of the essential chapters of the BREF documents (for example those which establish the best available technique (BAT, see Appendix 1) for a specific industry) in all EU languages.

21.

finds it unjustified that the BREF documents are not used more often in the EU, and recommends an improved use of them. We therefore agree with the new status of the BREF documents, and the further obligation to use them in the permit procedure. It interprets the new status of the BREF documents as more binding, since these documents (which are at present solely reference documents, which have to be consulted, but are not obligated) shall be in all practical terms now obligatory.

22.

perceives that there are possibilities for improvements in the BREF documents. Innovations and improvement according to the production process are sometimes lacking. For example, monitoring variations in sampling are presently used to penalize companies, whereas they could also be used to improve techniques. Another example miss-match between the volatile organic compounds chapter in the Directive and the corresponding BREF document. As a result, it is feared that the cleanest approach might not always be prioritised. Innovations to improve the local environment should always be promoted by local authorities if possible and the quality of the BREF documents should be sufficient enough to aid competent authorities.

23.

believes the new status of the BREF documents will enhance policy consistency with a view to issuing pollution permits and in turn will contribute to establishing a level playing field for competing European companies.

24.

finds the Seville process (see Annex 1) a necessary and well-established process. In Seville BREF documents are created and updated on the basis of meetings between European Commission officials and experts from the Member States, industries and NGOs. The cooperation between these parties is vital to establish new best available techniques and to create new or revised BREF documents. Therefore this process should be further extended in the Directive as is presently the case.

25.

has noted that representatives of the local and regional authorities are not part of the Seville process and requests an invitation for these representatives to the Seville process. As permitting authorities and/or bodies in charge of inspections, regional and local authorities have important knowledge about best available techniques, and consequently the Seville process can be improved through the participation of representatives of local and regional authorities.

26.

would like to indicate that the new status of the BREF documents might have a negative impact on the Seville process (see Appendix I). Reaching consensus on best available techniques will be more challenging due to the new character of the BREF documents, as Member States, industries and NGOs might adopt a more strategic behaviour when determining a BREF. Due to production costs, industries would benefit from less innovating standards in the BREF documents. In this case, the Seville process might become a slow and opaque political process instead of a search for the best technical solutions.

27.

believes this situation might result in weaker documents. As a result, we will be left with an outdated and weak instrument, which does not stimulate innovation and would not improve environmental quality, but actually weakens the implementation of the new Industrial Emissions Directive.

28.

agrees with the aims of the new Industrial Emissions Directive to enhance policy consistency with a view to issuing pollution permits.

29.

would like to point out that local and regional authorities have competences in issuing permits that vary from Member State to Member State. For example, in Denmark both local authorities and the national government are responsible for issuing permits. In the Netherlands, municipalities and provinces issue licenses to the polluters, whereas in the United Kingdom, air pollution from major sources is dealt with by the central government. The dominant pattern of the involvement of local and regional authorities in this policy throughout the EU is that standard-setting takes place at the national level and enforcement at the sub-national level.

30.

points out that the innovation of cleaner production occurs in local communities. The development of cleaner production takes place between several parties, such as NGOs, companies and competent authorities. At present local authorities often only monitor. The Directive should also offer possibilities for the cooperation between the different parties (local administrations and companies) which would enable them to stimulate innovation. Good examples of this can be found both in the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as in East European countries like Romania.

31.

emphasises the need for some flexibility. Local circumstances vary and installations, even when producing similar products, operate differently throughout the EU due to differences in local conditions. Local and regional authorities create tailor made solutions for their geographical area. On the regional and local level there is always a concern for a balance between the adequate protection of the environment and economic motivations. Even if the improvement of the environment is the general policy objective, in every day life regional and local authorities decide between different environment parameters and often make trade-offs between the environmental impacts of different measures. When issuing permits the granting of derogations from emission values associated with best available technologies (BAT-AEL) is especially important for regions in those Member States where there has been a tradition of voluntary agreements with the industry and where the administrative discretion has not been drastically circumscribed by legislation.

32.

strongly believes, however, that flexibility should be limited; there should be a balance between maintaining a fair level playing field and local decision-making. Therefore it is pleased with the incorporation of emission limit values in the Directive itself, which will lead to a general environmental protection throughout the EU. Flexibility might lead to misuse, and therefore it is very pleased that the local consideration procedure comprises sufficient guarantees to prevents this, as permit issuers can only derogate on the basis of an impact assessment (Article 16(3)) and are obliged to make the justification available to the public (Article 26(3f)).

33.

strongly disagrees with the Commission's proposal to establish criteria for the granting of derogation based on local conditions in accordance with the comitology procedure (Article 16(3)) for the following reasons: