26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/1

1.

expresses its solidarity with Ukrainian people who are peacefully demonstrating in defence of the democratic values in their country, the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

2.

strongly condemns all violence and all form of intimidation. The use of force cannot be an answer to a political crisis. Calls on the EU institutions to react firmly against the violation of human rights and of the rule of law;

3.

considers the immediate revocation of the repressive legislation adopted on 16 January 2014 that curtailed fundamental human rights and freedoms and which was in contradiction with international standards as a first step towards the reinstatement of the rule of law in Ukraine; urges the President to quickly make this effective by signing the repeal of the legislation into law;

4.

calls on all political leaders at each level of government to take decisive steps to de-escalate the situation and pave the way for a peaceful solution which would grant Ukrainian citizens democracy, stability, and guarantee the independence, freedom and integrity of their country;

5.

deplores the appeal of the ‘Council of the National Congress of Local Governments of Ukraine’ issued on 23 January 2014 which had endorsed the recent anti-democratic laws adopted by the national parliament;

6.

calls on regional and local authorities which are partners within the CORLEAP to fight for the European perspective of Ukraine and to use their political influence at the service of the Ukrainian citizens;

7.

recalls that CORLEAP has been established to facilitate dialogue between the local and regional levels of the EU and the Eastern Partnership countries and to support democracy, stability and the rule of law; undertakes to examine whether the structures in place are appropriate for these purposes and to explore the opportunities to enlarge the debate to include all relevant stakeholders;

8.

stresses that democracy and the respect of human rights are prerequisites for local and regional democracy. Endorses in this regard the recommendation 348 (2013) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe on local and regional democracy in Ukraine; supports in particular its call on the Ukrainian government to remove constitutional and legislative restrictions placed on the competences of local communities, and equip them with more financial autonomy;

9.

stresses that the governing capacity of regional and local authorities in Ukraine is limited and that sources of financing are restricted by the central government. Increasing disparities amongst territories create serious risks of destabilisation of the country;

10.

calls for Ukraine's full alignment with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and for administrative reforms allowing self-government to enjoy defined powers with a view to securing social, economic and territorial cohesion; proposes to regional and local authorities in Ukraine the know-how of European partners and restates its readiness to further cooperate with them in order to share experiences of good governance and territorial cooperation;

11.

calls on all regions and local authorities in the EU that are on particularly good terms with and work in partnership with Ukrainian regions and local authorities to act now to strengthen those links and to offer solidarity and support to their Ukrainian partners;

12.

calls on the EU and its institutions to act decisively to assist in deescalating the tension and ensure a peaceful solution is found which will fully respect the rights and freedom of the Ukrainian people;

13.

is committed to provide assistance to regional and local authorities and civil society to find appropriate solutions to the crisis;

14.

supports the EU's continued commitment to Ukraine's political association and economic integration based on common European values, and the EU's readiness to sign an Association Agreement; to this respect insists on the prior condition of a release of political prisoners, journalists and civil society activists, including Yulia Tymoshenko, whose imprisonment are incompatible with the norms and standards on justice and the rule of law enshrined within the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant EU legislation;

15.

instructs the President of the Committee of the Regions to submit this resolution to the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, the Greek Presidency of the EU and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/3

1.

welcomes the European Commission's communication on a new forestry strategy which addresses in a comprehensive and balanced way all aspects of sustainable management of the forestry and forest-based sector. Although forestry policy is the responsibility of the Member States, the strategy could serve to provide guidelines for sustainable forest management, forest protection, improving biodiversity and seeing forests as a resource in efforts to combat climate change and the contribution made by forests to mitigating the effects of climate change, not to mention the viability of the forest-based sector in general. It is to be welcomed that the economic and social dimension of forests is being considered, and that their importance as a source of local jobs is recognised, including through a forestry-wood sector which is able to create a specific value chain and the development of forest know-how;

2.

is pleased to note that the Commission recognises the multifunctional role of forests although we believe that more in-depth consideration should be given to the concept of multifunctionality in order to differentiate between European forests — and their management — according to the function to be promoted in each case. It is also pleased that the Commission refers to the principle of sustainable consumption;

3.

considers the timing to be ideal for a new strategy, as forests are coming under increasing pressure: climate change, together with the lack of forest management over recent years resulting from their low profitability, is altering their nature and species composition, greater use is likely to be made of forest biomass (1) as a result of policies to meet renewable energy targets, and the economic recession is altering anthropogenic pressure. The development of measurable and demonstrable sustainable management criteria, as well as promoting improvement measures in areas with low levels of resources and investments in infrastructure, could make a significant contribution to better protecting forests and to more sustainable use of Europe's forests in the long term. This is particularly important given that climate volatility is introducing new pressures and making environmental and economic forecasting less accurate;

4.

believes that Native/natural woodlands are important habitats and must be managed in compliance with forest and regional law. Member States and regions should therefore be able to decide not to authorise the planting of genetically modified tree and plant species;

5.

insists that the EU should respect the fact that forestry policy is a national competence. It is important that the updated forestry strategy take into account the different conditions prevailing in the EU's Member States and respect and complement their national forestry policies;

6.

calls on the Commission to clarify which of the strategy's objectives stem from the Member States' commitments relating to forests, distinguishing between international and European obligations, so as to simplify follow-up of those objectives. The Committee of the Regions also believes that all levels should emphasise the role of existing expert bodies and should avoid establishing new ones;

7.

points out that forests are influenced by economic conditions, not only directly but also over the long term, as there is often a considerable time lapse before effects make themselves felt. Phenomena such as arson, land-use change, illegal logging and poaching are becoming increasingly common. As a result, it is necessary to step up surveillance and carry out checks and cost-benefit studies on planned land use, and to make provision for possible long-term consequences. As there are wide variations in the use and ecological function of forests within the EU, regional circumstances must be taken into consideration here;

8.

is concerned about the rate of urban sprawl, which poses a threat to the natural environment and to peri-urban forests in particular, and calls for appropriate scientific tools to be developed to ensure that urban growth is planned with due care;

9.

points out that the UN and the EU, in its biodiversity strategy, have said that the goal of significantly reducing biodiversity loss globally between 2002 and 2010 has not been achieved. The poorest populations will be hit first and hardest by this likely loss of biodiversity. An informed public could, however, help to reverse this trend. The link between ecosystem health and sustainable development must be made clear, primarily by mobilising and informing ordinary people and the social partners. Scientific data should be made more accessible to the public through large-scale information campaigns, and by educating people to respect the environment. The European Union and Member States should put greater emphasis on forest-based activities in their own development policies and stress the creation of forest legislation and forest administration as well as the principles of sustainable forest use in development programmes conducted with third countries and development financing. This would support the EU's general development policy objectives, and Member States' forest administration authorities, universities and forest-sector organisations would have considerable expertise in the implementation of these objectives;

10.

notes that the forest-based economy already makes a significant contribution to prosperity, providing some 3,5 million jobs in the secondary sector alone. Notes also that there are regions in which the potential for sustainable growth and job creation in this sector has not yet been fully realised. By practising sustainable forest management and applying skills acquisition policies, for example through lifelong learning, as well as supporting research and development of new technologies, jobs can be created not only in traditional occupations but also in new activities that are generated;

11.

agrees with the idea of encouraging changes in consumption patterns and behaviour particularly by promoting the consumption of products of wood from sustainable forests. The use of wood and the replacement of products made from materials whose processing requires high CO2 emissions represent significant progress in improving the environment and achieving a low-carbon economy. As regards the shift to renewable sources of energy, of which forest biomass is a key source, responsible consumption must be encouraged so that energy production is as environmentally, economically and socially sustainable as possible;

12.

regrets that the European Commission does not give due regard to the use of forests for recreation purposes in its strategy, and that it fails to address the need for balanced consideration of aspects related to recreation, economic use and environmental protection in the use of forest resources, putting into practice the principles of sustainable development based on competitiveness, environmental protection and social factors;

13.

regrets the fact that the European Commission does not refer to the role of local and regional authorities in implementing the strategy. Their participation would ensure a balance between the ever-increasing economic exploitation of forests and sustainable development. Local and regional authorities should therefore be more actively involved in planning; the Committee suggests that they be represented in official policy-planning bodies such as the Standing Forestry Committee and the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork;

14.

points out that municipally-owned forests, covering 20 million hectares, represent the third-largest type of forestry ownership in Europe. Local and regional authorities are both owners and managers in charge of implementation and surveillance of numerous forestry-related policies;

15.

points out that local communities are in direct contact with forests and are the first to be influenced by policies in this area. They are the ones who shoulder responsibility and bear the direct costs of forest protection, as well as benefiting from the presence and proper upkeep of forests; however, they are also the first to feel the effects of forest degradation. Again, it is frequently local authorities who are responsible for collecting data and are in a position to directly assess the impact of policies. It is therefore clear that keeping local communities correctly informed is a matter of priority and that they must be given the wherewithal to meet their obligations. It is important to ensure decentralised and ongoing communication with local stakeholders with a view to shaping a conception of forestry which will secure local acceptance and implementation of multilateral forest development policies;

16.

calls on the Member States to pay due regard to the role of local and regional authorities in developing forest resources for recreation purposes, and to avoid burdening them with additional, superfluous red tape in their efforts to manage forest land for recreation purposes to the greatest possible satisfaction of local residents and visitors;

17.

observes that forest boundaries do not follow national borders, and nor do the benefits or problems associated with forests; therefore advocates stepping up large-scale cooperation, particularly in cross-border areas;

18.

notes that European forests vary in their characteristics, as well as in the specificities of the territories where they are located and in the risks to which they are exposed, and advocates that policies be tailored to local conditions to make for maximum effectiveness. The CoR recommends introducing special support measures and practical help in devising local and regional forestry plans for local and regional authorities in territories with particular features, such as sparsely inhabited areas, outermost regions, island regions, regions in the far north with unique ecosystems, and Mediterranean forests, which are coming under greater pressure as a result of climate change;

19.

considers that the protection of forests and the forestry sector, and their proper management, contributes to the conservation of a very significant proportion of the Natura 2000 network and hence of European biodiversity;

20.

notes that the public sector and local and regional authorities — as owners of a significant proportion of European forests and service providers — must ensure the multifunctionality and sustainability of those forests, quite apart from the fact that the proper sustainable management of forests' resources makes them one of the fundamental factors in those regions' economic development. They must therefore contribute to forest conservation and management as long as they are granted the necessary means to do so;

21.

agrees on the need to acknowledge that the EU does not depend exclusively on its own production and that its consumption has an impact on forests worldwide. As well as ensuring the sustainable forest management of all of the EU's forests, the objectives should include both increasing the wooded area and increasing the productivity of European forests, at least in the case of forests whose main function, in the context of multifunctionality, is production;

22.

considers, moreover, that the high percentage of privately-owned forests in Europe creates conditions which need to be monitored but also appropriately used. Improving the monitoring and the coordination of the activities of private forest owners as well as their training and support is an important aspect of the forest strategy. Member States should in particular provide incentives for the correct management of private forests, since failure to protect forests and the non-sustainable use of forest resources both pose a threat. Similarly, Member States should require private forest owners to ensure the long-term conservation of such forests by putting a project in place to manage their property and, in particular, to ensure regeneration processes. Forest owners and their organisations should be guaranteed the opportunity to participate in decision-making in the forest-based sector and in relevant decision-making at European, national and local level;

23.

recalls the situation of territories in which the process of forest regeneration is difficult due to the conditions of climate and soil. Especial attention should be provided to regions where there is a difficult topography and, thus, a greater difficulty to introduce mechanisation, as well as a climate most favourable to invasive species than to planted forestry species by providing measures to support private investment in the reconversion, conservation and development of the forest sector;

24.

also considers that forest management should be strengthened in public forests where activities are not economically viable, either because of the quality of the products they offer or because of a lack of infrastructure, and investments must therefore be made in these forests in order to improve them and/or access to their resources;

25.

considers that adopting the cascade principle for wood could be too restrictive, as not all regions have the infrastructure or companies providing the full range of options for processing and using wood. It would therefore be more realistic to promote the principle of efficient use of resources, as part of a comprehensive approach and under the guidance of local and regional authorities, with the aim of ensuring sustainable management of Europe's forests;

26.

welcomes the role that the Commission's Communication gives to the competitiveness and sustainability of forest-based industries as drivers for the sustainable management of European forests and considers that as well as working towards the goal of sustainable management, forest-based industries can by practising corporate social responsibility help to provide the general public with information on environmental questions related to forest products;

27.

welcomes and acknowledges the achievements of voluntary certification schemes and recommends that this be broadly underpinned by other measures, including financial instruments. Certification could serve as an instrument to help stem the flow of illegal timber and timber products;

28.

points out that the measures to be adopted could result in a loss of competitiveness for local SMEs by increasing their production costs; therefore proposes that action be taken to support SMEs, for instance encouraging more consumption of forestry products produced locally and, as far as possible, avoiding policies that increase red tape and administrative costs. Special care should be taken when concluding bilateral agreements with third countries to take into account any possible repercussions for the economic and social wellbeing of forested regions in those countries;

29.

believes that forest management plans must be promoted for European forests with a view to achieving the sustainable use of their resources, prioritising the least productive forests which have the greatest impact on climate change and have the greatest values in terms of conservation (Mediterranean forests, forests in the Natura 2000 network etc.);

30.

points out that the proposed strategy lacks measurable objectives and indicators, mechanisms for overseeing its implementation, and an action plan for its implementation, even though numerous policies and procedures at European and international level are mentioned. Lack of EU competence should not stand in the way of following up the strategy's implementation, given that forests have an impact on the whole continent of Europe and beyond;

31.

believes that the development of a region calls for an integrated approach in public policy. Despite the adoption of the 2014-2020 Common Strategic Framework, however, the Commission's communication does not have a multi-fund approach, while the targeted funding available under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development may not be sufficient to deal with the challenges facing forests. The Committee recommends that Member States also be allowed to adopt multi-fund (EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund) operational programmes for integrated territorial investments and not just community-led local development. and calls on all those involved to make use of the Horizon 2020 programme, which establishes the conditions for developing forest technology through research and innovation;

32.

recommends that the EC support scientific research and initiatives aimed at developing modern timber harvesting and production technologies which have a smaller environmental impact than traditional methods (including the planting of trees for energy use), as well as those which reduce management costs while promoting sustainable development;

33.

notes that the EU Resource-efficient Europe flagship initiative provides a framework for ensuring that long-term EU strategies in sectors such as energy, climate change and environment policy have a positive impact in terms of efficient use of resources. Moreover, the proposed strategy for forests and the forest-based sector could provide continuity between different policies and contribute to balanced economic, social and regional growth, which is one of the fundamental aims of the EU;

34.

urges the Member States and the Commission to make every effort to put the strategy's proposals into practice by drawing up a long-term action plan to implement the strategy, introducing management plans and action programmes, and improving communications and coordination between each other as well as with stakeholders.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/8

1.

welcomes the proposed regulation as a positive step towards the funding of the future economy. European Long-term Investment Funds (ELTIFs) have the potential to contribute to an increase in the capital available for long-term projects which support sustainable economic growth;

2.

draws attention to the fact that during the economic crisis public investment at the sub-national level has been drastically cut in Europe and therefore highlights the need to ensure that ELTIFs are not seen as a source of funding that could replace the transfer of national government funding to sub-national authorities;

3.

refers to the Committee of the Regions opinion on recommendations for better spending (1), which stresses the importance of local and regional budgets as a proportion of public spending in the European Union, which represented 16,7% of GDP in 2011, making up 34% of total public spending in the European Union, with direct investment playing a major part in these budgets, which is a key factor in rapid economic recovery;

4.

stresses the importance of understanding ELTIFs in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular how smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be promoted by investment in long-term assets. Similarly, by making progress towards the Europe 2020 targets, more capital can become available and long-term investment could develop into a more attractive prospect;

5.

highlights that the draft regulation does not introduce any substantial new obligations and that it potentially could provide clear benefits, and for that reason considers the draft regulation to be in compliance with the subsidiarity principle;

6.

underlines that the draft regulation seeks to create a common product label for which there is hopefully a strong public interest and which would lay down a foundation for a common, competitive and cost-efficient market for ELTIFs and therefore considers that the draft regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve a common legal framework for ELTIF;

7.

underlines that localities and regions are potential beneficiaries of long-term investment in tangible assets (such as energy, transport and communication infrastructures, industrial and service facilities, housing and climate change and eco-innovation technologies) as well as intangible assets (such as education and research and development);

8.

points to the EU Commission's impact assessment (2) relating to the proposal, which highlighted the existing regimes in some European countries. There is currently a fragmented European market for investment in long-term assets which is both a reason in support of the creation of ELTIFs and an obstacle to their efficient implementation. ELTIFs must strike the balance of attracting and generating demand of long-term investment while ensuring choice among investors. (ELTIFs favouring cross-border long-term investment);

9.

highlights the need for monitoring of the implementation of the regulation as it is another instrument that may help to make long-term capital available, and also because of the current fragmented European market investment in long-term assets;

10.

considers that the proposal for a regulation on ELTIF should be accompanied by proposals to be put forward by the Commission with regard to mutual recognition by Member States of disclosure and trade document requirements for the marketing of funds;

11.

warns that differing tax regimes among Member States, in particular with regard to different fiscal incentives and the risk of double taxation when investors are based in a Member State different from the one of the fund manager, could be an obstacle to pooling capital into ELTIFs and constitute a barrier to their development, especially where cross-border projects are concerned;

12.

supports the need for a degree of flexibility in holding periods and believes that it should be up to individual ELTIF asset managers to assess the need to define the potential life cycle of the fund or the terms under which (early) redemptions can be performed. Believes that imposing the upfront determination of the life-cycle of the fund could be contrary to the fund's, the investor's and/or the target investments' best interests;

13.

believes that in order to encourage the appetite of investors and asset managers for ELTIFs, certain structuring techniques, such as the use of SPVs (3) should be permitted. It is important to ensure that the fund is attractive to investors (including local and regional authorities) and that it can compete with other investments.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/11

1.

underlines the key relevance and role of the local and regional level in developing approaches to climate change and to the communities of the future; therefore deeply regrets the fact that local and regional authorities and the climate protection and energy saving measures they have already implemented have not once been mentioned in the Green Paper;

2.

calls on the Commission to use development, funding and monitoring schemes aimed at addressing climate and energy-related issues to support and encourage local and regional authorities and the Member States;

3.

considers it essential that climate change be limited to less than two degrees of warming compared with pre-industrial levels;

4.

considers it essential that a consensus be found on a binding international climate agreement at the UN's COP 21 Conference of the Parties in 2015, as decided at the COP 17 in Durban in 2011;

5.

recommends that the legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the EU as a whole be set at 50% of 1990 levels by 2030, and insists that the Member States should agree separately amongst themselves on how to share the burden of emissions cuts;

6.

points out that the EU's single, legally binding emissions trading system (ETS) for fossil energy production covers more than 40% of Member States' emissions (excluding aviation emission trading). The proportion of emissions covered by emissions trading, and the inclusion of potential new sectors (e.g. land and sea transport) in emissions trading, should be agreed in connection with the target for reducing emissions. In its current form the ETS is not delivering the expected results due to a number of systemic problems which lead to an insufficient carbon price;

7.

deeply regrets very low level of ambition presented in the EC Communication on ‘A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030’ (1) and considers it essential that binding targets be set respectively for renewable energy (not only an EU-wide target of 27% and voluntary for Member States) and energy efficiency in addition to the overall emissions reduction target; stresses that the possibility of achieving 100% renewable energy for the EU by 2050 requires the EU to set realistic intermediate targets for 2030 and 2040 to be able to achieve this ambition;

8.

considers it essential that the national targets for increasing renewable energy and reducing energy use be made binding by each Member State, and that to this end, countries take the introduction of regional strategies as their basis; this would be more cost-effective and accord with the subsidiarity principle both nationally and locally;

9.

is deeply concerned about the lack of funding opportunities at local and regional level and about the ongoing economic crisis, which hinder the central task of local and regional authorities in mitigating climate change and developing opportunities to adapt to it;

10.

in the context of competitiveness, welcomes the Commission's proposal to discuss the usefulness of a target for industrial energy savings which would be based on energy intensity relative to GDP or Gross Value Added;

11.

notes that, if the EU is to become truly competitive, it needs to fully embrace the economic, social, employment and environmental opportunities offered by the transition to a low carbon economy. Therefore considers it essential to be able to phase out subsidies for non-renewable energy and re-direct them towards renewable energy and energy efficiency; any auction revenues from continuing emissions trading, or any tax revenues if moving towards a carbon tax, must be directed towards effective measures by the Member States to mitigate and adapt to climate change;

12.

believes that energy independence and security of supply could be strengthened by further developing the single market for energy with the help of new interconnectors, small-scale energy production by consumers themselves, energy storage and smart grids, for example, and that diversity of sustainable energy sources acts as a buffer against price fluctuations, makes the energy system less vulnerable and can decrease disruptions in supply; care must be taken in implementing the single market to ensure this does not lead to fewer opportunities for expanding decentralised and local energy provision;

13.

is convinced that any further expansion of the single energy market in the form of new interconnectors must include a fair sharing of the burden between regions and that spatial planning requirements must be accommodated. Individual regions and landscapes must not bear a disproportionate share of the burden;

14.

underlines that keeping prices reasonable and managing the tax burden on the public should be borne in mind when shaping policies at EU and Member State level. It also believes that the Member States should be urged to adopt specific measures for households and consumers who are vulnerable from the point of view of energy prices;

15.

feels that it should be possible to better assess the long-term external benefits of phasing out non-renewable energy, such as public health and new jobs, and to marshal them in support of policy-making;

16.

underlines that discussions on a comprehensive framework for climate and energy policies should cover the use of sustainably stored carbon (including construction in wood as well as wood products or cork) as a substitute for emissions-generating products. Moreover, all natural carbon sinks should be included, boosting forestry resources and agricultural, woodland and grazing production systems, as well as organic and conservation farming;

17.

believes it is crucial to improve advice aimed at different consumer and demographic groups (according to age, sex, cultural background, socio-economic situation, etc.) and to enhance the professional expertise of those responsible for using energy;

18.

points out that local and regional authorities are chiefly responsible for long-term spatial planning, and with it the structure of communities in the future, including services that will be used by residents and businesses: clean water; sewage and waste processing; energy production and distribution; ICT networks; and roads, public transport and options for using soft transport. This basic infrastructure will provide the conditions for residents and businesses to adopt appropriate behaviours to reduce emissions;

19.

underlines that local and regional authorities have broad relevance and an important role to play in mitigating climate change, preparing for and adapting to changes, and addressing energy issues. By providing services for residents, local and regional authorities consume energy themselves and are major sources of public contracts. Local energy production and local investment support the regional economy and employment;

20.

regional markets play a key role within the EU energy market, making an outstanding contribution to the completion of the internal energy market;

21.

notes that local and regional government is recognised by various players (the general public, Member States, the EU, international institutions and organisations) as important in practical cases of adapting to, and preparing for, climate change. Extreme weather phenomena, such as floods and storms, together with the power cuts they can trigger, are local events that cause human distress, underlining the importance of fire and rescue services and energy management. Mitigating climate change and strengthening communities' resilience are not alternatives to each other, but mutually complementary activities;

22.

points to the alarming latest data published in September 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to which man-made global warming will amount to approximately 5 oC by 2100. Warming in the northern hemisphere may be greater than average, and melting permafrost in tundra regions could speed up global warming even further. Increasing drought and more rainfall elsewhere will threaten food production and accelerate population movements. Extreme weather phenomena cause human suffering and significant damage;

23.

believes that the UN's COP 21 Conference of the Parties on Climate Change in 2015 should achieve a consensus on extending the Kyoto Protocol with broad coverage. The countries that have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period of 2013-2020 produce 15% of the world's GHG emissions. Significantly expanding the protocol to cover other major industrialised and rapidly developing economies is key if a continued protocol is to be credible;

24.

a determined effort must be made to combat carbon leakage and the global effects of unsustainable consumption must be taken into account;

25.

notes that the EU is a major signatory to any climate agreement, being responsible for 10-11% of the world's total GHG emissions. The EU is aiming for green and sustainable economic growth and needed structural changes with a clear set of emissions reduction targets for 2030. The EU needs to be ready with its targets to negotiate on extending the protocol;

26.

notes that to achieve its objective of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020, the EU is using a common, binding ETS; binding national targets for renewable energy consumption; a target for energy efficiency; and an increase in biofuels as a share of overall transport fuels to 10%. There is also a consensus in the Energy Roadmap 2050 on reducing emissions by 80-95%. A low-carbon, green economy has been placed at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy;

27.

points out that the energy efficiency Directive should be being implemented now, and that the Directive on the energy performance of new and existing buildings has been passed into law. Energy and climate change have featured prominently in research and funding schemes, such as Intelligent Energy Europe. Low-carbon regional development will be a priority in the next Structural Funds programming period. There have also been efforts to source investment from the European Investment Bank's ELENA scheme. Consumer appliances have been targeted with the ecodesign and energy labelling Directives, with encouraging results;

28.

points out that the EU ETS covers carbon-intensive industry and energy production installations. A segment of emission allowances is allocated free of charge based on a benchmark system, favouring carbon leakage sectors (threatened by relocation of production in third countries) and heating and cooling production in combined heat and power plants. The emissions cap will decrease linearly by 1.74% per annum. Proceeds from the auctioning of certificates go to the Member States. Since the price is currently below EUR 5 for one ton of greenhouse gas emission, emissions trading cannot set the course for climate protection policy that was hoped for.;

29.

notes that emissions trading, which is to continue through to 2020, has led in recent months to certificate prices that offer little incentive for investment in low-emission technologies and therefore sees in the political agreement on so-called backloading, which provides for a time limit on the removal of surplus CO2 certificates, a possibility for countering this. In this way, a short-term, temporary stabilisation of the ETS can be secured;

30.

nevertheless believes that despite the agreement on backloading, structural reform of the ETS is needed. The ETS can be stabilised in the long term by ambitious EU climate policy objectives and a simultaneous reduction in the number of emissions certificates. In addition, a solution must also be found for the permanent removal of surplus certificates from the market;

31.

notes that the emissions reduction targets at EU level for 2020 are being met. Energy consumption has fallen in the Member States and there has been a shift towards renewable energy. Policy instruments have included national taxes, investment subsidies and feed-in tariffs. Unfortunately, taxes are being used primarily to repair governments' balance sheets, and only secondarily to steer energy use. The recession and structural changes in industry have reduced consumption and emissions at the cost of employment;

32.

notes that the binding targets for renewable energy and for energy efficiency should mutually reinforce each other. Since the overall aim is a reduction in the GHG emissions, energy savings should come from fossil energy consumption first and foremost but it is clear that even renewable energy should not be wasted and that the cheapest energy of all is the one that is not used;

33.

is concerned about the possible consequences of state aid rules related to ETS allowing Member States as from 2013 to provide compensation for part of the indirect ETS costs for the most electricity intensive sectors. Agrees with the European Commission that the 2013 framework for state aid rules on energy and environment needs to address this issue;

34.

underlines that the objective of making energy production within the ETS increasingly renewable needs to be coordinated with other efforts aimed at encouraging energy consumers to invest in their own renewable energy or cut their own consumption. The price of emissions allowances must be sufficiently high to encourage the shift in production towards renewable energy;

35.

believes that the target for reducing GHG emissions should be set at 50% of 1990 levels by 2030 and be made binding. A binding target on overall emissions, as well as targets for energy efficiency and renewables, would give the public, businesses and policy-makers confidence that GHG emissions will steadily fall;

36.

insists that Member States should arrive at a consensus on how to share the burden of meeting the 2030 target for reducing emissions. This burden should be shared in a fair way, taking into account each Member State's economy, prevailing emissions structure, measures already taken, and environmental conditions. Part of the target can be met using mechanisms under the UN climate agreement;

37.

feels that a decision should also be taken on extending the EU's common, binding ETS beyond 2020, and, in particular, on how emission reductions should be divided between the emission trading sector and other areas of activity. Emissions trading has an impact on energy production. Revenue from auctioning emissions allowances should be put towards measures to more effectively mitigate and adapt to climate change;

38.

notes that country-specific subtargets for renewable energy and energy efficiency can be used alongside emissions trading to achieve a binding common target for reducing emissions. These targets must be formulated in a way that provides an indicative choice of instruments, given the differences existing between countries. This is the best way to ensure cost-effectiveness, selection of the most appropriate measures and the order in which they are implemented, and to avoid potential overlaps and clashes between different guideline measures and policies, such as emissions trading;

39.

points out that conditions for using renewable energy sources vary between the Member States, depending on factors such as raw materials, natural environment and their energy production and transmission systems. Differences in the energy efficiency of buildings are also wide;

40.

believes that country-specific subtargets will allow the economies and businesses of the Member States to develop the skills, technology, new innovations, the development of rules for integrating small-scale energy producers into networks or for their own consumption, and use of local natural resources that are most appropriate for them. The results will be applied in the other Member States via the internal market. This also guarantees compliance with the subsidiarity principle;

41.

considers that the main goals of EU climate and energy policy should be to ensure an energy supply that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable as well as safe and secure. This requires improved energy efficiency, use of indigenous renewable energy sources and the development and introduction of innovative energy technologies. This will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health and the state of the environment, while also creating jobs;

42.

points out that global market prices, emissions trading, but also the current system for funding improvements in energy efficiency and the promotion of renewables, new technology and taxation, or various combinations of these factors, are making energy more expensive. These higher energy prices are certainly positive, as they encourage emissions reduction, and the development of alternative renewable energies and energy saving, while steps should be taken to ensure that the costs do not affect more vulnerable population groups or businesses unreasonably. The rational use of efficient, competition-based market economy instruments for the energy sector can keep price rises down to an unavoidable minimum;

43.

asks the European Commission to promote measures that facilitate the spread of micro-production of energy and its integration into the distribution grids and to ensure in this process that the consumers can fully benefit from affordable energy;

44.

notes that energy consumers can influence their own energy use and choices. Impartial advice for individuals or to mobilise various consumer groups is therefore very important. Energy audits indicate potential energy savings that could be made by improving maintenance and information systems. In addition, information systems could provide information on the energy savings achieved;

45.

believes that energy independence and diversity provide a cushion against price changes, improve economic and political autonomy and sustain economic activity. Renewable energy and energy-saving innovations create local vitality and new business activity;

46.

urges that the measures proposed by the European Commission be sufficient to empower consumers and combat energy poverty, and calls for special attention to be paid to protecting vulnerable consumers;

47.

points out that energy sources are different for each Member State. Energy independence can be improved by developing internal energy market policy. Security of electricity supply can be improved and consumption peaks evened out by linking transmission networks between different countries. For wind and solar power, linking smart networks or storing energy help to level production peaks;

48.

believes that to achieve the emissions reduction target for 2030, it must be consistent with and integrated and mainstreamed into the Union's other policies. A promising example of this is the focus on the 2014-2020 ERDF period being part of the effort to transition to a low-carbon society;

49.

notes that many of Europe's towns and cities have on their own initiative launched ambitious programmes and practical projects to slow climate change. International examples of local projects include Agenda 21, launched at the 1992 Earth Summit, which over the last two decades has enabled nearly ten thousand local authorities to implement policies and initiatives focusing on sustainable development and, in particular, on improving the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change, the Climate Alliance and the ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection. The Energy Cities group is doing useful work on energy issues. The ‘European Energy Award’ programme for energy efficient local authorities takes a comprehensive approach to encouraging them to greater energy efficiency, climate protection and use of renewable energies. More than a thousand local authorities are already signed up. The CEMR has produced a publication for local decision-makers entitled ‘Save energy, save the climate, save money’. One example of many local initiatives to achieve carbon neutrality might be that of Växjö municipality in Sweden, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. And in Finland, 14 carbon-neutral (‘HINKU’) municipalities are collaborating with local businesses, policy-makers and residents with the aim of achieving an 80% reduction in emissions while promoting the green economy. The municipal climate protection campaign (CCP Finland) includes 53 local authorities, and 115 local authorities have a climate strategy. The Covenant of Mayors initiative comprises thousands of towns and cities that have sustainable energy action plans and emissions reduction programmes. Many local and regional energy agencies set up with EU funding are now helping to provide energy advice;

50.

points to consumer-driven energy-producing cooperatives, such as the one in Beckerich in Luxembourg, and micro-generation by households or businesses to supply their own energy, as examples of new approaches. These are forcing traditional energy production players to change both the rules governing access to networks and the energy production costs associated with these new methods, and energy consumers are also becoming energy producers. For instance, bi-directional electricity transmission may be possible via existing energy networks;

51.

underlines the need to strengthen the impact of EU initiatives for local sustainability such as the EU Covenant of Mayors, the Smart Cities and Communities initiative and other EU-funded projects, Local Agenda 21 as well as the adaptation network for local and regional authorities that has been proposed in the EU strategy on adapting to climate change. In this regard, work should be stepped up to establish a common methodology for implementing adaptation plans and to foster pooling of experience between local and regional authorities;

52.

notes that buildings account for some 40% of energy consumption and over one third of EU countries' carbon emissions. For financial reasons and to minimise periods where premises are uninhabitable, renovations are deliberately done step by step and building by building. The energy consumption of new buildings should be close to zero;

53.

notes that particular care is called for in designing, building and monitoring new buildings and buildings to be renovated, as energy may be wasted through poor use and habits. It is important to employ proficient energy-saving practices, such as regular maintenance, renovation and monitoring of energy-generating and consuming plants, and guidance for users or residents of premises is crucial. The importance of EU countries pooling examples of best practice needs to be stressed;

54.

recommends that the Member States, and in particular local and regional authorities, adopt programmes aimed at reducing energy consumption in public buildings. Such programmes should cover not only energy plants but also the introduction of methodologies to involve building users in savings and efficiency measures;

55.

thinks that centralised heating methods in built-up areas, such as district heating, as well as co-generation (CHP), are energy-efficient and to be recommended in respect of air quality. District cooling is the most energy-efficient cooling method, harnessing for instance the cooler temperatures of waterways. District cooling saves considerable electricity compared with separate cooling systems for buildings and premises. It is important that the call for nearly zero-energy buildings be formulated in a way that does not discriminate against such communal energy supply systems;

56.

notes that renewable wood and processed wood products can replace concrete and steel, which require substantial energy to produce, as well as non-renewable natural resources such as gravel and coal. Building with wood provides a long-term carbon sink and is associated with low lifecycle emissions;

57.

points out that transport accounts for almost 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Member States, of which 60% come from private vehicles. With the Commission's proposal for a Directive on alternative propulsion systems, a wide choice of fuels will become available for road transport. It is not yet certain what potential technology or technologies will prove effective and marketable in the different Member States. Local and regional authorities can require use of low-emission fuels in public transport;

58.

points out that increasing importance is being attached to sustainable land-use planning, which must take into account bioclimatic factors in these times of climate change as regards energy consumption in urban areas and traffic, but also people's quality of life;

59.

stresses that, in addition to developing low-emission fuels, alternative propulsion systems and reassessing the use of public transport, more attention needs to be given to urban-planning, economic and social measures that can reduce traffic (e-government, teleworking) and change people's behaviour (car-sharing, self-limitation);

60.

points out that, in the area of energy production and distribution, but also with regard to public transport, there should be greater focus on participatory models in order to build greater consensus among the population and accelerate changes in patterns of consumption;

61.

stresses the importance of continuing to develop smart grids and strengthen remote energy supply concepts in order to ensure controlled, efficient distribution of power, heat and air conditioning.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/17

1.

is pleased that the European Commission attaches great importance to the internationalisation of higher education in the context of implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, and has drawn up proposals for the requisite strategic framework;

2.

agrees that greater internationalisation of higher education is not just essential from the perspective of the Europe 2020 strategy, but can also generally help to put Europe on track for growth in several ways, besides the undeniable local and regional impacts;

3.

with regard to internationalisation, feels it is significant that there have been major developments throughout the history of European higher education, as international experience is an integral part of certain professions and educational courses;

4.

emphasises that in a multilingual and multi-ethnic Europe, higher education institutions offering educational opportunities in more than one language, including minority languages, can play a very significant role, given that in such multicultural environments students can learn at least two European languages, thus helping to make these institutions attractive for mobile foreign students;

5.

stresses, therefore, the importance of language skills in all efforts to internationalise higher education and underlines the role of local and regional authorities as facilitators in the acquisition of such skills;

6.

in terms of internationalising higher education, feels it is vital for Member States and higher education institutions not to overlook European excellence in the field of philosophy, humanities and the arts which has traditionally played a key role in internationalising higher education, and significantly contributes to the competitiveness of the regions in which leading universities in these fields are situated;

7.

agrees that the shared achievements of European higher education do not only reflect innovation, research and curricula, but also the consistent implementation of the Bologna process, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), flexible Member State rules on introducing educational systems with joint and double degrees, and the introduction and dissemination of standardised diploma supplements;

8.

sees great potential in the dissemination of best practices and systemic solutions in the European higher educational system to neighbouring and pre-accession countries, not least because this will more effectively facilitate student mobility from those countries to Europe, and give Europe a stronger position in the competition for talent;

9.

particularly agrees that access to innovative digital training and educational opportunities can significantly help to integrate residents of peripheral areas, persons living with disabilities, and other disadvantaged groups in society and in particular in labour markets; in this connection, acquisition of digital skills, development of digital and online materials and curricula boosted by internationalisation, together with the development and recognition of non-formal educational systems, help to enhance competitiveness;

10.

agrees that student, researcher and teaching staff mobility should be a key component of internationalisation strategies, in view of the contribution of teaching staff mobility to knowledge transfer;

11.

emphasises that it is the task and responsibility of Member States and local/regional authorities to put into practice the Commission's recommendation that local and regional partners need to play a specific role in framing internationalisation strategies, and that they should be given an opportunity to do so;

12.

calls on local and regional authorities to respond as openly and actively as possible to requests for partnership. They should play a proactive role in developing innovative solutions to promote internationalisation, thus helping to enhance the international competitiveness of European higher education, at the same time as unlocking the comparative advantages of their own regions and making them more attractive;

13.

points out that although Member States, when programming CSF funds, can clearly take account of Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ objectives, the communication under review does not explicitly state this point in connection with internationalisation strategies, despite the fact that cohesion policy together with higher education, research and innovation instruments offer considerable added value insofar as their national, regional and local strategic frameworks also reflect territorial considerations;

14.

emphasises that enabling knowledge transfer from higher educational and research institutions is a key prerequisite for rural development and for competitive agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors, a fact reflected in the Common Agricultural Policy toolbox for the 2014-2020 programming period. In view of this, when planning and implementing measures to internationalise higher education, it is useful to take account of this potential for synergies at diverse territorial levels to ensure a pioneering role of Europe in this respect;

15.

points out that much still has to be done in many Member States in terms of achieving the R&D expenditure targets set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. However, additional revenue for higher educational institutions arising from internationalisation should not replace or reduce Member State action in this field;

16.

recommends that the planning of objectives and instruments in strategies framed at national, regional and local levels on the basis of partnership could be built on ex-ante territorial impact assessments;

17.

is disappointed that the Commission communication does not sufficiently explain the key role played by local and regional authorities in the process of internationalising higher educational institutions. This would have been consistent with the approach embodied in the U-Multirank system, which takes into account inter alia the extent to which higher education institutions are regionally embedded;

18.

is pleased that the Commission has precisely defined the possible levels at which Community intervention is justified, given that internal and external internationalisation are areas in which not only individual Member State action but also EU initiatives are needed, in view of the common goals;

19.

agrees that for their part Member States must provide adequate and appropriate support for the local and regional levels, and that where necessary they should develop broad-based partnerships, not least at regional level. In doing so they can help higher educational institutions to adjust more effectively to the economic, social and administrative needs and potential of a given region;

20.

emphasises the importance of the bidirectional nature of mobility, given that mobility must, in line with the principle of inclusive development, be consistent with the interests of both regions of origin and host regions. Failing this, migration, demographic and competitiveness problems can arise, which are clearly at odds with cohesion and solidarity objectives;

21.

emphasises that the very process of developing and implementing multilevel partnerships in the field of internationalising higher education is a socially innovative one, which can mobilise additional resources in order to achieve the shared objectives set by stakeholders from local and regional authorities, NGOs and the private sector working together in partnership;

22.

emphasises the need for consultation on as broad a basis as possible in the course of developing strategic partnerships. It is particularly important to ensure that individuals belonging to disadvantaged, potentially marginalised groups — on the basis of sexual orientation, or membership of racial, religious, language or ethnic minorities — are not penalised as a result of implementing internationalisation strategies;

23.

acknowledges and appreciates the Commission's efforts to date in terms of coordinating, simplifying and making more transparent the various European support options for higher education, innovation and research;

24.

emphasises that Member States should develop programmes and support mechanisms — national or targeted at regions in special situations — to assist higher educational institutions at local and regional level in implementing their internationalisation strategies;

25.

offers its support to the Commission in promoting formulation of decisions and decision-making relating to the internationalisation of higher education, based on research findings and assessments, in particular on analyses of the role played by local and regional authorities and of successful examples of both the modernisation and internationalisation of higher education;

26.

feels that it is not enough for universities and other higher educational institutions only to mention internationalisation issues in their mission statements; rather, regardless of their legal status and their current responsibilities in the field of internationalisation, all higher education institutions should look for the most appropriate solutions in line with their needs, and develop their own governance and planning structures together with channels for cooperation;

27.

feels that steps should be taken to ensure that non-State, private higher educational institutions — either operated by a foundation or in the form of one — should, like their State counterparts, be able to participate in internationalisation processes without any unjustified restrictions, and to enjoy full access to the relevant supporting measures;

28.

points out that in the case of operations, investments and other projects co-financed by the CSF funds, it is important to take account of the need to facilitate greater internationalisation of higher education, considering the needs and realistic potential of higher education institutions;

29.

particularly in the case of candidate countries, recommends that pre-accession and accession funds are also used to encourage the internationalisation of these countries' higher educational institutions;

30.

calls on the Commission and the Member States to take all the requisite steps to ensure that implementing internationalisation strategies boosts the potential of regions lagging behind, and that successfully internationalised higher education institutions include in their internationalisation strategies specific measures to promote knowledge transfer to higher education institutions which currently have less internationalisation potential;

31.

calls for the swift adoption by the Council of the European Commission's proposal for a recast directive concerning the framing of immigration-, migration- and visa-related measures so as to enable specific, flexible, transparent, sufficiently secure, and at the same time efficient, accessible and rapid management of international cooperation on research, innovation and higher education. This should lead to the timely transposition of this legislative instrument by the Member States and its implementation, in cooperation with local and regional authorities.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/20

1.

welcomes the Commission's communication on opening up education, and feels that this is a good time to stimulate high-quality, innovative ways of teaching and learning using new technologies with digital content. The general aim of the actions to which the communication relates is to improve results and the achievement of objectives, inter alia by increasing motivation and making learning processes more effective;

2.

notes that the priorities highlighted in the document primarily relate to:

3.

endorses the Commission's comment that the new technologies ‘allow all individuals to learn, anywhere, anytime, through any device, with the support of anyone’, but stresses that making this a reality will require considerable involvement of local and regional authorities from an early stage;

4.

agrees with the Commission's conclusions that:

5.

sees support for access to open educational resources (1) as a major challenge. Progress is already being made, but it should be carefully considered how this can be achieved systematically so that it includes everybody, not just those who spontaneously develop an interest;

6.

also sees getting education providers, teachers and students to acquire digital skills, and thus developing these ways of learning and teaching, as a major challenge. This must be stimulated, activated and accelerated. A certain number of study modules are already available to support teachers' and head teachers' digital competences;

7.

does not doubt that development will automatically generate a range of new technical possibilities, and that these possibilities will be taken up by individuals who are spontaneous early adopters. In the Committee's view, efforts need to be made at EU, national, regional and local level to ensure the provision of sustainable, secure systems that have an impact throughout the education sector, and to help ensure that these systems have an optimum effect on the educational environment. Not everyone has the same ability to make use of technical opportunities, so consideration should be given to special measures to prevent the gap between different groups from widening;

8.

feels that these efforts need to be systematised and structured to ensure that they are inclusive, regardless of factors such as schooling, type of school, educational situation, sex, age, social background, ethnicity and place of residence. Technology should also be implemented in a way that respects people's integrity and shared values. When introducing new technology for educational purposes and developing innovative ways of learning and teaching, it is necessary to ensure protection of individual integrity and the personal data held by teachers;

9.

agrees with the Commission that digital skills involve much more than just the technical ability to use a computer; they also include the ability to look critically and reflectively at information and to use interactive media responsibly. An interest in engaging in communities and networks for cultural, social and/or professional purposes also supports this skill;

10.

notes that one of the main objectives of the Commission's initiative is to launch a wide-ranging debate in Europe on open education resources, in order to develop new innovative and more effective ways of learning with new technologies and to take advantage of the new opportunities they provide to create and make use of contacts and networks associated with these ways of learning;

11.

supports this and considers that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in dissemination and implementation, and in discussing and appraising different initiatives to develop infrastructure. These efforts should therefore involve all levels of government — European, national, regional and local;

12.

notes that local and regional authorities are heavily affected by these development issues, both in their capacity as social players and as education providers. Well-educated citizens are also needed with relevant work and social skills to ensure further development and social cohesion;

13.

feels that, with regard to application of new technologies, the focus needs to shift from looking solely at individual teachers' IT skills and approach towards considering the context in which teachers work. There needs to be greater attention to and focus on the authority level, where curricula and policies can inspire greater use of IT in teaching;

14.

notes that the Commission communication highlights the fact that development in Europe is not keeping pace with and risks falling behind other parts of the world, and therefore feels that there is a real need to look more closely at the reasons why e.g. the US and certain countries in Asia are investing successfully in ICT-based strategies to transform education;

15.

therefore supports the Commission's proposal to use the new educational programmes Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 to support education providers in developing new business and educational models and launch activities to test innovative teaching methods, curriculum development and skills assessment;

16.

considers the development of criteria for assessing educational achievement that are appropriate to the new forms of learning and learning environments to be a key factor for the success of these new forms. The Commission has also addressed this issue in the past (2);

17.

points out that studies have clearly shown that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, education tends to focus on what is tested, or ‘teaching to the test’. If the traditional forms of national tests and exams are retained, these new skills are unlikely to have a really significant impact. In many overly traditional educational environments, using ICT tools and smartphones is seen as cheating;

18.

feels that new approaches to skills assessment often need to get away from the traditional segmentation of school subjects, so that they can include targets based on requirements for developing key competences;

19.

sees here a need to depart from traditional summative tests, which might be carried out using computers, towards continuous assessment throughout the learning process that captures dynamic changes and can provide on-going feedback on misunderstandings and mistakes. If students are working in a digital environment, tools can be developed to gather this information continuously and provide effective feedback. The possibility of more structured and transparent follow-up makes it easier for educators to monitor each student individually and take any necessary action at an early stage, as the Commission communication points out;

20.

also notes in this connection the effort initiated by the Commission to explore and test, in cooperation with stakeholders and Member States, digital competence frameworks and self-assessment tools for learners, teachers and educational institutions. Here, too, the Committee of the Regions would stress that it is important for local and regional authorities — as those actually on the ground — to be involved at an early stage and to act as a hub for development and change processes;

21.

feels that the Commission needs to play a significant role in promoting learning in different ways across national and language boundaries using new technologies and creative and innovative forms of learning. In many cases this will encourage and stimulate the development of foreign-language learning, but it should also encompass social subjects, culture, arts and science;

22.

considers it important for Member States and education providers to support innovative teaching and learning environments, for example via the European structural and investment funds. At the same time, in many cases there is a need for a review at national level, or at the legislative level, of what curricular requirements may hinder forms of learning and knowledge transfer that are different from traditional classroom-based teaching. A review of this kind may mean that education systems (and curricular requirements) will have to be reorganised to promote greater use of modern technical aids for learning, teaching, testing and assessing;

23.

points out that from a regional development perspective, efforts should be made to ensure that the gradually decreasing digital divide in terms of access to ICT equipment is not succeeded by a similar divide in terms of how the equipment is used. In view of this, additional programmes are needed, particularly for rural areas and disadvantaged groups — to prevent the emergence of a ‘secondary digital divide’, or in the event of such a divide already existing, to narrow the gap;

24.

notes that many currently available ICT-based forms of learning relate to university-level education. At this level, learners have often already acquired the ability to work independently to find and process information. It is now possible to study completely free of charge and obtain qualifications from Stanford, MIT or Harvard universities, without extensive access, qualification or selection requirements. This influx of millions of students is fundamentally changing the standard model of university education;

25.

believes it is important to ask whether, in 15 years' time, certain high-profile universities — most of them English-speaking — will dominate the higher education sector, and many nationally or regionally based universities could be perceived as less attractive, or whether this phenomenon will be of only marginal significance;

26.

notes that increasing international competition may affect different disciplines to different degrees. Subjects and courses of study with a significant national orientation, such as law or teacher training, where both syllabus and course books are for the most part country-specific, will probably be less affected than subjects that are international in nature, such as many technical and scientific fields, medicine and modern languages;

27.

notes that small and medium-sized enterprises have an ever larger role to play in European growth, as well as in regional and local growth. Global competition and new technologies are changing demands on knowledge and skills;

28.

points out that both organisations and individuals increasingly frequently need to adapt — learn new skills, and learn more — in order to keep pace with developments. This makes it all the more necessary for businesses and regions to develop innovative ways of safeguarding skills availability in the future. Lack of the right knowledge and skills is regarded as the greatest obstacle to this. The Committee sees greater public access to open education, such as online courses, as an important element in eliminating this obstacle;

29.

believes that specific efforts are needed to provide systematic, comprehensive support for the development of younger pupils. Studies have shown that children can easily learn to use e-readers at a young age. There is also a need to gather experience of how teaching and instruction using modern digital technology can support younger learners;

30.

considers the primary objective to be to support development of the right and interconnected skills more effectively, for example teaching children to show initiative, to guide their own learning and to assess their own progress. Some good initiatives are already in place, but the Committee highlights the need for efforts to ensure that all pupils can benefit;

31.

notes that, in general, Europe is seeing significant migration away from already sparsely populated regions, from rural areas and from small and medium-sized towns towards big cities. The Committee thinks that there is a need to study in more detail how new technologies can particularly support learning, information-gathering, communication and networking in more sparsely populated areas where pupil numbers are declining, schools are at risk of closure and children may therefore have to travel long distances to school. New technologies can hardly replace trained teachers on site, but there is a need to consider and promote ways of using ICT and appropriately equipped teachers to provide a wide range of education and training options that are relevant and of a high standard;

32.

would also draw attention to the requirements of adult education, which could be supported and developed. In the Committee's view, the facilities provided by new technology and teaching methods present new options for developing more flexible methods of adult learning, enabling people to combine studies at different educational levels so that they can acquire the skills they need to establish their professional status more quickly and regardless of where in a given region they live;

33.

notes that this, in turn, could be facilitated by providing ways at local and/or regional level of helping people to draw up individual study plans and with issues of validation and guidance; it should be possible for skills acquired outside of formal education or in another country to be recognised, e.g. by validation. However, the situation needs to be reviewed to remove any obstacles in national regulatory systems and to provide incentives for the various stakeholders — such as universities — to cooperate and participate;

34.

also considers it necessary to look into ways of documenting recognition of skills developed using digital technology and acquired online by means of validation in line with instruments developed at national and European level. To this effect, the creation of a genuine European area of skills and qualifications is of paramount importance. It therefore urges the European Commission to swiftly come up with a concrete proposal in this field;

35.

points out that successful learning that integrates the use of ICT creates an environment in which learners can be better equipped to meet the needs and demands of the current and future labour market. This is an extremely important issue at local and regional level;

36.

notes that new forms of learning will also generate new and different skills profiles that may often conflict with traditional training patterns, documentation and examination forms. This means that it may be necessary to develop and promote a prior understanding of this in the world of work. Local and regional authorities could play an active role in supporting employers and local/regional working life representatives in these matters;

37.

would stress that high-quality free educational resources are a cornerstone of successful education. The Commission communication highlights the importance of access to knowledge that is open, i.e. provided using tools that are accessible to all;

38.

joins the Commission in stressing that this need not be pure distance learning in its more traditional form. Instead, it involves providing educational resources alongside more conventional teaching materials, allowing a mix of direct teaching and online learning. According to the public consultations held, this kind of education is still far too fragmented and inconsistent in its application;

39.

considers it important for pupils and teachers to have access to appropriate modern equipment, and sees access to broadband as a key element in enabling everyone to participate. As pointed out in OECD reports and elsewhere, computers themselves are decreasing in importance, while internet access is becoming ever more important (3). Not only does the situation vary between Member States, but there are also significant variations in access within countries;

40.

considers it necessary to support regions that are lagging behind, so that all learners have equivalent facilities for using this technology, with strategic expansion of broadband being a key issue. In regions and areas that are excluded, young people are deprived of the new opportunities for learning and democratic education that can be developed elsewhere (4);

41.

shares the Commission's view that all schools, and ideally all classrooms, should be connected to broadband and given access to open databases, using structural and investment funds, and reiterates its previous comments that widespread use of ICT among higher education providers could help to increase student numbers in higher education in sparsely populated areas, island and mountain areas and the outermost regions (5);

42.

stresses, however, that it will be no good using the latest technology if it is not combined with the latest teaching methods. A traditional view of knowledge is that it will increase simply if more information is available, which puts the responsibility for knowledge on the pupils themselves. This is not an effective approach, and it is therefore important to distinguish between access to information and the process by which it is converted into knowledge, which is always done by the individual person;

43.

notes that this conversion process is highly dependent on a person's situation, prior understanding, interest and motivation, and that opportunities for digital learning and relevant educational activities should be seen in this light. New technologies could be used to deliver different forms of learning tailored to pupils'/students' learning styles. All learning styles can be supported much better now thanks to digital technology;

44.

notes that cloud computing is becoming increasingly common in a variety of areas, not least direct data storage, where providers offer a set amount of storage space to businesses and organisations, which can access it via the internet. Different types of internet have been available for around the past ten years. One of the basic principles is that users should not notice a difference between a file saved on a local server and one hosted on a server thousands of miles away;

45.

would draw attention here to a number of issues that arise when personal data and student files are stored with private operators, often in another part of the world. One question is whether these businesses are prepared to sign user agreements with numerous local, regional and national authorities in various countries. The Committee would welcome a more coordinated approach to this on the part of the Commission;

46.

also raises the question of who owns the rights to the materials produced by teachers and pupils, whether or not as part of their school work. More and more of them are creating their own teaching and learning resources, in addition to materials produced by others that can be adapted. There are many reasons why the quantity of self-produced material is increasing — including the fact that production equipment such as computers, camcorders and digital cameras are becoming much cheaper;

47.

notes that such equipment is also becoming easier to use, while users' own skills are increasing. Licensing procedures can enable creators of materials to choose which rights they wish to retain and which they are prepared to cede. This may involve clarifying legal rights over digital content such as web pages, educational material, music, videos, photographs and blogs, and in some cases will require licences tailored to the legislation in several countries. In the Committee of the Regions' opinion, it would be appropriate for the Commission to be involved in establishing technical solutions and robust frameworks in this area;

48.

notes that it is also important, not least for local and regional authorities, to clarify how long educational transcripts and similar documents can be kept publicly accessible;

49.

also raises concerns about ‘data mining’, i.e. how to respond to businesses using pupils' and school employees' data to be sold to others;

50.

believes that, as highlighted above, cooperation between the various parts of Europe will only be possible if particular attention is paid to disadvantaged areas to ensure that Member States and regions that are lagging behind the rest of Europe can use structural and investment funds support to develop local ICT systems and take part in joint projects with other schools in Europe, and to ensure that they have access to open education resources;

51.

points out that, for most people, the process of gaining knowledge is enriched by opportunities to collaborate in developing new ideas, asking questions and thinking critically. It is also these kinds of skills that are seen as increasingly important for today's and tomorrow's work and society. In the Committee's view, the templates now being developed through social media and computer and video games and the general increase in interaction in the media society, mean that the education and training systems of today need to integrate such arenas into learning;

52.

points out that the OECD study mentioned earlier (6) also shows that the most common IT activities involve teachers preparing exercises for pupils, browsing to prepare for lessons, and producing presentations. Much less frequently, teachers communicate digitally with parents to assess pupils' progress digitally or to evaluate digital learning resources. The Committee feels that this shows how important it is to boost and develop educational activities involving ICT, not least by means of opportunities to communicate with other schools and their teachers and pupils;

53.

considers it important to launch a joint European platform open to various stakeholders, in order to develop benchmarks and indicators to monitor more closely progress in information and communications technologies by various education providers in schools and other learning environments;

54.

notes that the development needs highlighted in the Commission's communication — in terms of the need to stimulate high-quality, innovative ways of learning and teaching using new technologies and digital content — significantly affect the local and regional levels, both in their capacity as authorities, education providers and (in some cases) operators, and in their capacity as customers with a need for and interest in well-educated workers and well-equipped citizens. Despite this, there is very little reference to the local and regional levels in the communication;

55.

calls for more prominent involvement and recognition, in future work on the subject, of local and regional authorities as arenas for discussion and action to secure the technical conditions for digital technology-supported learning, for the development of innovative education methods adapted to such learning, for access to open education resources, and for supporting the development of networks and contacts for this kind of learning.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/26

1.

welcomes the Report (1), a progress update on the implementation of the 2009 communication (2) which presented a schedule of actions to address health inequalities; acknowledges the thorough and interim nature of the Report but considers that there would be value in highlighting the degree of success of particular actions and in prioritising those to be continued and completed;

2.

believes that health and wellbeing of individuals and of the population is their greatest resource; notwithstanding Article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights considers that the extent of health inequalities between and within Member States is a challenge to the EU’s commitment to solidarity, social, economic and territorial cohesion, human rights and equality of opportunity;

3.

recognises that determinants of health status include a very broad range of personal, social, economic and environmental factors where the interrelationships between these factors determine individual and population health. Health inequalities largely arise from socio-economic disadvantage, in addition health and wellbeing are also directly affected by policy decisions taken by authorities at all levels, the individual choices people make about how they live, participate in their communities, by biological factors and by geographical considerations;

4.

emphasises that, given the diversity of influencing factors, inequalities in health cannot be reduced by the health sector alone, they require action by all those whose work promotes health and wellbeing through integrated and coordinated whole-of-governance plans, the Health in All Policies Approach (HiAP) and through the wider engagement of society; underlines that political and organisational leadership committed to strategically addressing health inequalities is a prerequisite to help drive and implement this;

5.

while recognising the diversity of health systems across the EU, underlines that regional and local authorities play key roles in the provision of public health services, in health promotion and disease prevention; equally, policies such as employment, housing, transport, planning, environment and public safety are some other functions of local and regional authorities ensuring that they are key actors in promoting public health and in reducing health inequalities; believes that it is often at the local and regional level that the intersectoral approaches that are crucial to reducing health inequalities can be developed and implemented in a more targeted and efficient manner and results demonstrated;

6.

is concerned that the current economic climate poses a significant threat as health budget cuts add to the well-documented demographic ageing challenges to make the funding of health services even more challenging. Reducing health inequalities must be seen as an essential step as many authorities within Member States face reform of their health systems to make them more effective and more sustainable;

7.

notes that as the Report simply states that ‘some health inequalities are related to differences that exist in the quality and effectiveness of health services across the EU’ (3); considers that the simultaneous publication of the Marmot Report on health inequalities in the EU  (4) may have reinforced this statement and possibly helped to focus the Report's conclusions;

8.

regrets that the Report confirms the persistence of significant and unacceptably large health inequalities between and within Member States. Over recent years, the level of inequality has improved for a small number of indicators, with no change for others and a deterioration for a few; draws attention in particular to the very high differentials in healthy life years between Member States at almost 19 years, thus while life expectancy may be increasing, people are living longer with chronic illness;

9.

welcomes the fact that mortality rates have decreased and life expectancy has risen. However, these improvements are at risk with increases in adverse trends related to obesity, diabetes and physical inactivity; the projected growth in incidence of chronic diseases promises an unhealthy and costly future unless tackled;

10.

barriers to accessing health services (including cost, distance and waiting time) are very high in some Member States, moreover the type and quality of medical treatment received is often a function of the services available where a person lives; draws attention to the societal benefits of incentivising medical practitioners and services to establish in disadvantaged and isolated areas;

11.

given the social gradient that exists with health status, considers that a key requirement in addressing health inequalities is that the concept of levelling up be applied rather than a statistical levelling out so as to improve the health of all sections of the population to that experienced by the healthier in society;

12.

welcomes the 2011-2014 Joint Action on Health Inequalities with participation from 15 Member States; supports extending this initiative with greater engagement and focus given the need for continuity in prioritising the issue and to build on successes achieved; also encourages consideration of more flexible co-financing mechanisms for Joint Action engagement;

13.

encourages at the appropriate levels of governance, the introduction and implementation of appropriately resourced overarching intersectoral strategies as reducing health inequality will necessarily require commitments from many Ministries and levels of governance who often compete for resources and are often compartmentalised in their perspective; national-level strategies can inform the development of regional and local level strategies and vice-versa;

14.

supports ongoing programmes for knowledge dissemination from successful projects to bridge the gap between research, policy and practice and to encourage take up of similar projects; however given the information overload facing policymakers and practitioners supports a focus on presentation in an accessible and concise way; in particular, calls for more succinct messages backed up by successful examples; moreover recommends developing and promoting a key portal to access information;

15.

welcomes the significant collaborative engagements between the European Commission and international agencies and public stakeholders and recommends the highest level of partnership with WHO Europe in coordinating policies, in sharing resources and in promoting initiatives, such as Healthy Cities, the WHO's Regions for Health Network and the global network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities; supports also, enhanced collaboration through the work programmes of relevant EU agencies;

16.

without requisite data it is extremely difficult to gauge progress, therefore urges all authorities to continue working towards standardised European Core Health Indicators (ECHI), which should be developed in close consultation with local and regional representatives; insofar as possible, this should facilitate sub-national efforts to tackle health inequalities; underlines that there is a need to avoid duplicating administrative burdens for data collection given the various obligations for national and international reporting;

17.

welcomes the EU programme of research on health inequalities and proposes that themes suitable for future research include: the effectiveness of interventions to reduce health inequalities; factors surrounding healthy life years differentials; greater analysis of longitudinal studies to gain better understanding of what is impacting health inequalities; indicators for mental health; and why some regions with relatively low GDP have good health indicators and vice versa;

18.

reiterates that achieving the goals of Europe 2020 are fundamental to addressing health inequalities and underlines the link between healthy populations and productive, sustainable economies; equally underlines that top-level targets must be translated into tangible and measurable achievements at local and regional level;

19.

stresses that getting people back to work and ensuring healthy workplaces are critical to population health; underlines that as a prerequisite to tackling health inequalities, reducing long-term and youth unemployment are overriding priorities; is concerned at the current and long-term impacts on health and mental health of those feeling excluded from contributing to society;

20.

stresses the need for strong social support networks as support from families, friends and local communities is linked to better health including better mental health, this is particularly so for the elderly with isolation, mobility and communication concerns;

21.

as advertising budgets for consumer goods and services crowd out health messages and as improving health requires the input of wider society, considers it imperative to involve the private sector whether through Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives or through legislative or fiscal measures, so as to encourage healthier societal outcomes e.g. reducing fresh food waste, clearer labelling, energy pricing etc.;

22.

supports analysis of how fiscal measures can be used to discourage tobacco consumption, the misuse of alcohol and the excess of saturated fats, sugar and salt in some processed foods so that their costs on public health and on other public services is better reflected. Equally, supports equivalent measures to incentivise healthier foods and healthier lifestyles to encourage behavioural change;

23.

considers that relevant governance policies should move towards health-proofing through Health Impact Assessments to ensure that the net effect of public policy is to improve the health and wellbeing of the population while at the same time reducing health inequalities;

24.

believes that giving children the best start is crucial, as the most effective time to intervene in reducing inequalities and improving health outcomes is before birth and in early childhood. Recommends that the health of children be afforded special attention in programmes to reduce inequalities and underlines the importance of the availability of quality childcare; such measures provide a greater rate of return than later interventions;

25.

draws attention to the successful impacts of evidence-based and cost-effective positive parenting programmes (5) to give parents practical strategies to help them manage their and their children’s behaviour, and encourages making such programmes more widely available, particularly to at-risk children and parents;

26.

considers that childhood obesity is now amongst the greatest challenges. With socio-economic division apparent at an early age, childhood weight tracks strongly to adulthood and drives the development and worsens the outcome of chronic diseases, as crippling for health economics as for personal health; looks forward to the proposed European Commission Action Plan to address this;

27.

as the WHO has attributed nearly 60% of the disease burden in Europe to seven leading risk factors (6); considers that tackling these risk factors and raising health expectations, particularly through education is key to reducing health inequalities and advocates increased targeting of groups through ICT and social media and via role models so that information on health and healthy lifestyles is presented in an accessible, credible form as longer-term health consequences may not be an immediate priority for some;

28.

calls on the Commission to foster the pooling of experience with regard to health education and healthy lifestyle promotion; and in the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment in relation to drinking, smoking, diet, obesity and drugs; moreover, calls on authorities within Member States to promote physical activity, healthy lifestyles and essential life skills programmes (health literacy, basic science, ability to screen information, numeracy for budgeting etc.) with particular focus on young people and vulnerable groups;

29.

as a confluence of factors can affect older people including lower incomes, chronic health conditions, isolation and mobility problems and with people living longer; emphasises the importance of achieving the targets of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Health Ageing and supports wide implementation of its Action Plans; moreover wishes to promote the Dublin Declaration on Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in Europe 2013  (7);

30.

stresses that public health programmes that reduce health inequalities can be cost effective — e.g. the screening, detection and treatment of risk groups where inherited conditions increase the probability of developing certain illnesses; the case can be made to give priority to such programmes (e.g. improving access to cervical cancer screening for low income women) on efficiency grounds;

31.

underlines the necessity of addressing health inequalities through authorities and services at local level and through active community development organisations that are best placed both to understand the needs of vulnerable groups locally and to get most beneficial engagement in programmes;

32.

while authorities within Member States are responsible for the organisation and delivery of health services, the Report and Commission actions to support and coordinate the efforts of Member States can be considered to accord with the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles; appreciates that various EU policies and funding programmes including social affairs, research & innovation, education, energy, rural development and regional policy have the potential to impact on health and health determinants and contribute to reducing health inequalities;

33.

welcomes the Commission’s set of Thematic Objectives as a means of focussing expenditure and the inclusion of reducing health inequalities as an ERDF investment priority; believes that the inclusion of health-related aspects across diverse EU programmes and funding streams is a further spur for high-level intersectoral strategies; endorses the relevant ex-ante conditionalities under the Common Provisions Regulation and considers that any consequential strategic policy framework must apply at the appropriate operational level to achieve the desired impacts;

34.

is concerned at the stated lack of capacity of health systems to bring forward investments to address health inequalities (8); stresses that capacity building to successfully attract and invest EU funds needs to be prioritised; as an aid to this, supports wider promotion of resources such as Equity Action’s Applying EU Structural Funds and re-iterates the need for well-promoted contact points within Member States;

35.

stresses that facilitating the engagement of local and regional health systems and authorities is critical in all phases of the ESI funds programming cycle to ensure that health improvements receive appropriate prioritisation, particularly in the application of discretionary elements of operational programmes as, within all regions, there are often localised pockets of deprivation;

36.

is disappointed that reducing health inequalities is not a specific objective under Health for Growth; more widely, encourages a balance between investment in infrastructure and in preventive healthcare measures; encourages a balance within infrastructure investment between large-scale hospital development (where eligible) and more accessible, integrated community-based care; underlines also the need for assessment of EU spending with a focus on effect, sustainability and return on investment;

37.

encourages uptake of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) facility by authorities and bodies in developing partnerships to facilitate cross-border projects to reduce health inequalities, for instance with respect to infrastructure and access to state-of-the-art medical equipment;

38.

with increasing demographic and budgetary pressures, welcomes wider EU initiatives to assist authorities within Member States to develop sustainable and effective health systems in particular by investing in preventive healthcare so as to reduce future longer-term costs and to restructure healthcare systems to provide equitable access to high-quality healthcare;

39.

welcomes progress on the Commission’s actions to address health inequalities and underlines that more needs to be done at all levels of governance; for instance, through the European Semester process there are opportunities to highlight health inequality issues within Member States; equally, local and regional authorities have the capacity to introduce and implement strategies to reduce inequalities at sub-national levels through evidence-based, cost-effective actions with resources concentrated on the most vulnerable;

40.

given the responsibilities of local and regional authorities, the CoR wishes to participate in relevant European Commission initiatives and would like to make its resources available in this regard; would welcome a further progress report from the European Commission within the next three years to update on progress;

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/31

1.

welcomes the Commission communication on strengthening the social dimension of the economic and monetary union (EMU), a text which is part of the roadmap for the completion of the EMU agreed on by the European Council of 13 and 14 December 2012;

2.

considers this communication to be a useful first step towards establishing the basis for a real social pillar within EMU, based on implementing the proposals it contains;

3.

notes that the European Council of 19 and 20 December formally approved the use of key social and employment indicators in the 2014 European Semester, but regrets that they will only be used to analyse social trends. Therefore reiterates its call to incorporate the social dimension of EMU into the governance, coordination and monitoring of economic policies;

4.

endorses the Commission's proposals intended to achieve a rebalancing of the euro area, whose main preoccupation has so far been the Stability and Growth Pact and the ‘six-pack’, and to argue in favour of adding a social pillar to the existing pillars of EMU (economic, budgetary, banking and political);

5.

insists that this future social pillar of EMU must be horizontal in nature, to ensure that better account is taken of the social dimension and the social effects of EMU economic governance. This is crucial both for the smooth functioning and the medium- and long-term viability of EMU and for the legitimacy of the European integration process;

6.

points out that the smooth functioning of any currency area requires a degree of symmetry between the economies of its members so as to minimise the frequency and impact of asymmetric shocks; also believes that the risk of competition between the member countries' social models in the event of such shocks has now been borne out, with a polarisation between the centre and the periphery discernible since 2007-2008 in respect of factors such as employment;

7.

avers that the point of strengthening the social dimension is to minimise the risk of competition between social models that might result from the surrender of economic adjustment tools such as exchange rates or from fiscal policies being framed at European level, and to counter the negative impact of the crisis and austerity policies;

8.

is convinced that the democratic legitimacy problem of EMU can only be addressed if Europe's citizens believe that the principle of social progress is also being safeguarded and that employment and social standards are not being treated as mere ‘fringe benefits’ of the macroeconomic adjustment process;

9.

stresses in this connection that almost all the key social indicators have breached previous highs: youth unemployment is close to 23%, the number of long-term unemployed has increased in most Member States, and the proportion of the population at risk of social exclusion in Europe is now 25%;

10.

notes that the crisis has reversed the process of converging regional GDP per capita and unemployment within the European Union, and that social imbalances are growing faster within the euro area than in the rest of the EU, hampering the economic performance of the euro area and the political stability of its member countries;

11.

concludes from this that the euro area is burdened not just by its members' budget deficits, but also by the social and territorial cohesion gap between the member countries and between regions, and that it is therefore essential to give the same priority to the social dimension of EMU as to economic policy coordination, whereby the focus should be on resolving structural problems;

12.

urges that the social dimension of EMU allow for national social models to be maintained and co-exist, and points out that this is not meant to entail a harmonisation of social systems but to uphold the principle of ‘united in diversity’;

13.

is convinced that the role of the EU is rather to pursue social policy objectives and develop fundamental rights and to introduce legally binding EU-wide minimum standards, whilst preserving the Member States' scope for action in social policy;

14.

calls for the social dimension of the euro area to be developed as part of an open enhanced cooperation approach whereby the current members of the euro area can be joined by those that have made a treaty commitment to adopt the euro, as well as the other EU Member States, given that strengthening of the social dimension would seem indispensable for the EU as a whole;

15.

reiterates its call for better coordination of economic and social policies between the European and national levels of government under the European Semester, and calls for local and regional authorities to be more closely involved in this coordination (1);

16.

urges that the process of coordination between social policies should ensure that local authorities are supported in their endeavours to implement appropriate employment and social policies. This approach requires that specific regional challenges be addressed in these areas and that sharing of best practice be facilitated at local and regional level;

17.

shares the Commission's objectives of ‘enhancing capacity to monitor employment and social developments’, ‘mobilising EU action and funding to tackle unemployment (...) in an effective and sustainable way’, ‘combining the steps taken on responsibility and economic discipline with more solidarity and financial support’, ‘reducing existing barriers to cross-border labour mobility in the EU’ and ‘strengthening the role of social dialogue’;

18.

repeats its call to the Commission to address in more detail the issue of public spending quality, by evaluating the option of separating current spending from investment spending when calculating budget deficits, so as to avoid hindering public investment that would bring long-term net benefits;

19.

by the same token, considers that social investment should be taken into account on a weighted basis when calculating budget deficits;

20.

supports the Commission's idea of introducing a new scoreboard of key employment and social indicators, as well as the incorporation of new social and employment indicators into the procedure for monitoring macroeconomic imbalances and the alert mechanism;

21.

considers that establishing such a system for identifying social disparities within the euro area is a positive step towards solidarity-based integration and marks the beginning of a rebalancing that is needed between economic and social policies in the context of the European Semester;

22.

regrets to note, however, that the range of indicators proposed by the Commission is too limited to fully capture the social situation and social trends in the Member States and that the choice of proposed indicators is not properly substantiated. The Commission is asked to provide a more detailed explanation before a final stance can be taken as to which indicators would be the correct ones to use;

23.

proposes, furthermore, that the social scoreboard take into consideration people over 65, i.e. pensioners, who account for a significant proportion of the poorer sections of society in certain Member States;

24.

therefore recommends that the Commission develop the social scoreboard even further, working with local and regional authorities on including indicators already in existence at local, regional and national level, as well as, where appropriate, additional indicators such as child poverty indicators, an index of decent employment and a minimum wage index, and that the data be presented in both statistical and monetary terms (showing, for example, the cost of young people not in education, employment or training, or NEETs, as a percentage of GDP), so as to give a more accurate picture of the economic consequences of the employment and social outlook and to transmit a stronger and clearer message to policy-makers;

25.

also suggests adding a gender dimension to the indicators that are adopted — for the unemployment rate, NEET rate and youth unemployment rate and at-risk-of-poverty rate — since recognising gender disparities in respect of social problems would allow more targeted, and therefore more effective, policy measures;

26.

recommends that the Commission make a special effort to ensure that the statistical data for the indicators used in the employment and social scoreboard are provided in good time, so that more relevant information is available at an earlier point;

27.

is concerned that because the scoreboard would be drawn up by aggregating national indicators, it might not show potential disparities existing at regional level; therefore suggests that more suitable tools be used to evaluate subnational disparities (2);

28.

laments the lack of any proposal for a quantitative reference for fixing alert thresholds; notes in this regard that the absence both of a recognised social protection floor at EU level and of any reference in the Commission communication to common social standards make it impossible to gauge at this stage what thresholds are envisaged by the Commission;

29.

considers that alert thresholds should in any case be set in close cooperation with the social partners;

30.

points out to the Commission that the scoreboard is just a retrospective statistical tool, and that a forward analysis and forecast are needed of current social trends to allow preventive, and not just corrective, action to be taken;

31.

asks the Commission to stipulate that in social matters the effort to address imbalances would not entail automatic triggering of sanctions if alert thresholds are exceeded. Rather, a mechanism should be used to prompt convergence towards joint objectives, and sharing of existing best practice should be encouraged;

32.

therefore calls on the Commission to explain what mechanisms will come into play if a Member State exceeds a given alert threshold;

33.

recognises the crucial role of labour mobility within the euro area in the current economic situation, and stresses its crucial contribution to promoting sustainable and inclusive growth;

34.

shares the Commission's view that the number of mobile workers in Europe is still too low for there to be a real European labour market, and notes that people who want to be professionally mobile should have more reliable and better-quality information, as well as individual support;

35.

observes that better-targeted language training could help to set in train changes in behaviour with respect to professional mobility. It is also crucial to introduce systems promoting training courses and apprenticeships, for both students and workers, in order to encourage mobility in Europe's regions;

36.

urges the Commission to work hard to remove obstacles to cross-border labour mobility in the EU. This relates specifically to obstacles of a legal nature (such as compatibility of national social security systems) and a practical nature (such as foreign language skills and intercultural training);

37.

underlines that the national coordination systems of the EURES service (to be set up from 2015) must commit to close cooperation with local and regional authorities, which play a key role in promoting labour mobility; notes that extending the EURES network into a pan-European system to support job placement and recruitment should not involve replacing or curtailing its advisory functions; on the contrary, the assistance provided by EURES advisers with practical questions about working and social security abroad — such as unemployment, sickness, specific issues of temporary agency work, reintegration measures, insurance against invalidity or accidents at work, and opportunities for further vocational training — should continue to have priority. EURES cross-border partnerships play a key advisory role in border regions in particular and their work contributes to labour mobility;

38.

recognises, however, that it would be a mistake to see promoting labour mobility as a powerful enough tool to offset the imbalances and asymmetric shocks in the euro area;

39.

points to the need for solidarity with those Member States that are most affected by the current crisis, as Member States are interdependent not just economically, but also socially;

40.

supports the Commission's proposal to develop more effective active inclusion strategies, and more effective deployment of social budgets; similarly, through the European Social Fund (ESF), steps should be taken to ensure better targeting of EU social funding in conjunction with partnership agreements and drawing up the 2014-2020 operational programmes; points out that the CoR has also consistently supported the new Programme for Employment and Social Innovation, the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative;

41.

laments, however, the fact that Commission proposals in this area do no more than mobilise existing tools whose objectives and scope are not necessarily suited to addressing the specific problems of EMU; therefore suggests that the Commission also consider the possibility of introducing incentive measures for EMU countries that implement reforms to achieve the social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to combat social imbalances;

42.

notes that the mechanisms for overseeing and coordinating economic and social policies will never be sufficient to eliminate the risk of asymmetric shocks, owing to the particular economic and industrial characteristics of each Member State;

43.

concludes therefore that EMU should acquire specific tools and mechanisms with which to take preventive steps to avoid or soften the impact of such shocks on employment and social policies in the Member States;

44.

notes that several academic studies, scenarios and simulations of the automatic stabilisers have been produced, and points out that other currency areas, in particular the United States, have developed their own automatic stabilisers which have proved effective. The Commission has not pursued this line of thinking, which would imply a revision of the Treaties. The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to draw up a green paper on automatic stabilisers in the euro area in order to select the studies, scenarios and simulations that could be most relevant to it;

45.

notes in this regard that a mechanism for cushioning against asymmetric shocks does not necessarily mean a support arrangement based on unilateral transfers from the centre to the periphery, but that it could take the form of an insurance system designed to protect all the EMU countries against the risks arising from the collective vulnerability linked to the euro area;

46.

repeats its call on the European Commission to take a closer look at the feasibility of an EU unemployment benefit insurance scheme potentially acting as an automatic stabiliser at EMU level (3). Such a system could be based on the short-term unemployment rate, which is particularly sensitive to economic cycles, with a view to avoiding unilateral budget transfers. It should also be underpinned by strict conditions, e.g. that the country should implement an active policy to combat unemployment;

47.

takes a positive view of the Commission's proposals for improving involvement of the social partners in the coordination of economic and employment policies and in the European Semester;

48.

strongly urges the European Commission to mount a similar effort with a view to involving local and regional authorities. The role of local and regional authorities is really crucial in implementing social and employment policies. Moreover, their unique experience and their expertise could be used to better identify social trends operating in EMU.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/35

1.

welcomes the fact that the European Commission has now launched a consultation on the review of the guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, which is open to all stakeholders and sets out a number of options. Regrets, however, that the CoR has not been formally consulted and that the time frame for this consultation is so tight, limited in practice to only six weeks;

2.

welcomes the detailed written response from the Competition Commissioner dated 7 November 2013, to the previous CoR opinion on state aid for rescuing and restructuring (1) and is pleased to note that a number of the CoR's recommendations have been taken up by the Commission in the new draft guidelines, including:

3.

reiterates its conviction that the process of modernising the state aid mechanism should focus on prohibiting aid likely to have a real and notable impact on the internal market and should reduce the bureaucratic burden for the actors concerned;

4.

welcomes the confirmation that the Commission has abandoned the goal of a quantitative, undifferentiated reduction in state aid, but feels that the draft guidelines insufficiently back up the assertion that ‘the revision also takes into account the Europe 2020 strategy’ (point 5 of the draft guidelines);

5.

welcomes the proposed introduction of the concept of ‘temporary restructuring support’. Calls for its maximum duration to be set at 18 months so as to prevent such support not covering a full financial year;

6.

endorses the Commission's proposed non-exhaustive list of situations of social hardship or market failure that justify aid as being in the public interest, including an unemployment rate in the region concerned that is higher than the EU average or the national average and the risk of interruption to the continuity of provision of an SGEI (point 45 of the draft guidelines). Calls on the Commission to specify the relevant territorial level for statistical purposes for measuring such failures;

7.

regrets the bald assertion that ‘state aid for rescuing and restructuring steel undertakings in difficulty is not justified’ because of the ‘present conditions of significant European and global overcapacity’ (point 15 of the draft guidelines). This analysis seems purely quantitative and short term in nature, whereas the strengths of the European steel industry lie in a shift towards high-quality, more specialised production. It should also take into account the estimates in the study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), according to which demand for steel will increase from 1,4 billion tonnes in 2013 to 2,3 billion tonnes in 2025. The Commission's analysis also seems to contradict the Steel action plan (2), which suggests that steel firms may benefit from public support under the state aid rules. Therefore proposes that specific guidelines be drawn up for the steel industry;

8.

as regards burden sharing, is in favour of option 1, which proposes a more flexible approach whereby the contribution by shareholders and creditors is to be determined in relation to the likely losses that they would have suffered in the event of insolvency (section 3.5.2). Reiterates its call, however, for the threshold for the firm's own contribution to be set below 50%, as is already the case for medium-sized companies under the current system;

9.

restates its proposal that it should be possible to include the shareholdings of the firm's subcontractors or employees when calculating the firm's own contribution insofar as they are clearly separate from any form of aid and demonstrate that the firm's actors have confidence in the viability of their firm;

10.

calls for the period applicable to the ‘one time, last time’ condition to be reduced from ten years to five years as is already the case for primary agricultural producers under the current system. Reducing this time frame would also ensure consistency with the durability of operations clause in Article 57 of the current general regulation on the Structural Funds, which enables the recovery of aid where the investment is not maintained for five years, or three years for SMEs. Reiterates its call for this ‘anti-relocation’ clause provided for in the Structural Funds to be applied to the mechanism for state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty;

11.

in the section on aid to SGEI providers in difficulty, wonders why the Commission does not address the scenario where option 2 is chosen in relation to burden sharing (point 106 of the draft guidelines);

12.

deeply regrets the Commission's proposal to lower the maximum amount of aid granted for a scheme to rescue and restructure any one firm, without proper explanation, to EUR 5 million, when it had been set at EUR 10 million in 2007 and the CoR had called for it to be increased to EUR 15 million to take account of inflation and other relevant factors (such as the impact on GDP and on unemployment);

13.

calls on the Commission to provide an analysis of the frameworks for state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty that exist in other OECD countries.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/37

1.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to create a comprehensive framework for implementation of the Lisbon Treaty to prosecute offences against the financial interests of the European Union by establishing a European Public Prosecutor's Office. The proposal provides a basis for a fruitful discussion;

2.

welcomes the proposal's objective of creating an independent institution to prosecute cross-border offences against the financial interests of the Union that involve more than one Member State, since, by having its own legal personality and financial resources, the Union would no longer depend exclusively on national law enforcement agencies, whereas at the moment it has no comparable tools to protect its own interests;

3.

also welcomes this objective because systematic prosecution of fraud and abuse encourages compliance, thereby securing the economic competitiveness of the Union and its Member States;

4.

underlines the importance to local and regional authorities in particular of effectively protecting the Union's financial interests, since a significant proportion of such offences are connected to the use of Structural Funds, and targeted and efficient deployment of European aid invested in local and regional authorities is vital;

5.

stresses the importance of protecting regions against (economic) damage and taking decisive action to combat misuse of European aid;

6.

particularly welcomes the Commission's announcement on improving legal education and training so that such offences can be prosecuted effectively;

7.

has no fundamental subsidiarity-related objections per Article 86 of the TFEU to giving a European Public Prosecutor's Office the power to prosecute offences against the Union, despite the impact this will have on national sovereignty in one of the most sensitive areas;

8.

in this connection, notes the concerns expressed in the course of subsidiarity checks by the national parliaments and the ‘yellow card’ they issued, obliging the Commission to re-examine and possibly amend its proposal; stresses that the concerns expressed partly relate to subsidiarity, while others criticise either the proportionality of the proposed measures or the procedure;

9.

notes that national/regional law enforcement authorities are already responsible for prosecuting offences against the Union, and emphasises, therefore, its interest and readiness to play a role in the rest of the process;

10.

notes the Communication of the Commission replying to the reasoned opinions of national parliaments and chambers (1); reminds the Commission that it has a fundamental obligation to justify its proposals for legislative acts as regards subsidiarity and proportionality; therefore calls on the Commission to provide the requisite, detailed grounds in good time and to ensure they are accessible to all parties involved in the procedure; points out that in its Communication the Commission does not adequately consider the sub-national dimension when assessing the sufficiency of Member State action, whereas the principle of subsidiarity as enshrined in Article 5 (3) of the Treaty on European Union differentiates between the central, regional and local levels; therefore urges the Commission to take the regional and local dimensions of subsidiarity adequately into account in future;

11.

stresses that the financial interests of the Union must be protected in all Member States without exception, which is why a supranational framework and institution can provide added value in comparison with national law enforcement;

12.

notes, moreover, that the added value of establishing a European Public Prosecutor's Office would be greatest if all Member States take part rather than only some, since the financial interests of the Union must be protected in all Member States without exception;

13.

regrets, therefore, that the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office through enhanced cooperation could entail significantly higher costs for Member States, because the existing structures (the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Eurojust) would need to be preserved and expanded;

14.

notes that some national parliaments have raised subsidiarity-related objections, and expects these objections to be addressed as the proposal moves forward;

15.

welcomes in principle the concept in the Commission proposal of establishing a central structure for the European Public Prosecutor's Office that would delegate to prosecutors in the Member States, who, as European Delegated Prosecutors, would act in a dual law enforcement capacity on behalf of both the European Union and their Member State;

16.

recommends, however, amending the proposal to effect that each Member State should have at least one national/regional member at the seat of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, so as to be able to take advantage of national/regional linguistic and legal expertise during investigations and investigative measures;

17.

welcomes the fact that experienced national/regional European Delegated Prosecutors with an understanding of local conditions and circumstances will be given responsibility for prosecuting complex cases, so that prosecutions are carried out quickly and successfully;

18.

welcomes the fact that the proposal, in its provisions on instructions from the European Public Prosecutor's Office to European Delegated Prosecutors, takes account of the fact that the latter are also national public prosecutors, and understands that the European Public Prosecutor's Office will consider the interests of national/regional law enforcement agencies when issuing instructions;

19.

underlines the need for close and trusting cooperation between the national/regional law enforcement authorities and the European Public Prosecutor's Office if investigations are to be carried out successfully with an understanding of regional procedures and circumstances;

20.

points out that the responsibilities of a European Public Prosecutor's Office concerning certain offences against, or directly related to, the financial interests of the Union should be limited in order to take into account the subsidiarity-related concerns that have been raised;

21.

recommends setting out the criminal offences that are to fall within the remit of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in an annex to the proposal for the sake of legal and procedural clarity, which will need to be ensured precisely and unequivocally;

22.

feels that it is important that investigations should be quick and effective, and that it would make sense to address existing enforcement shortcomings by appealing to Member States to step up their own efforts to tackle fraud and abuse;

23.

feels that the proposal to give the European Public Prosecutor's Office exclusive responsibility for prosecuting offences against the interests of the Union goes too far, and recommends that the Member States and the European Public Prosecutor's Office be given concurrent responsibility, whilst at the same time making it possible for the European Public Prosecutor's Office to take over investigations (evocation) if national prosecutors are already investigating and it turns out that the financial interests of the Union are at stake;

24.

underlines the need to maintain constitutional standards and safeguard the fundamental rights and existing national rights of the parties to any prosecution as part of procedural arrangements;

25.

emphasises that the powers and practice of the European Public Prosecutors Office must respect the body of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the constitutional traditions of the Member States;

26.

underlines that the Member States would also be bound by their own fundamental rights and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when implementing the Regulation, to the extent that this involved applying their own national law;

27.

feels that, in this connection particularly, the European Public Prosecutor's Office's powers to transfer personal data and information to the responsible authorities in the Member States in order to prosecute and prevent offences or to avert a direct and serious threat to public security should be appropriately regulated in such a way as to ensure that due account is taken of the data protection requirements provided for in the proposal with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties and the free movement of such data (COM(2012) 10);

28.

considers the standard established by Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JI of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data to be appropriate for the transfer and processing of personal data exchanged between the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the Member States; however, the possibility of further protection measures should remain open;

29.

feels that it is imperative that rules be laid down to ensure that information and personal data from the criminal proceedings of the Member States not be passed on to third states, international organisations or other third parties unless the authorities that have provided it have given their express consent;

30.

feels that it is urgently necessary to set out in the Regulation individual intrusive investigative powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, on the one hand, and the minimum procedural standards that must be observed, on the other;

31.

feels, moreover, that all intrusive investigative measures should be subject to review by a judge, and that the admissibility of evidence should be limited to procedures carried out by the European Public Prosecutor's Office;

32.

notes that, under the proposal, the responsibility of the European Public Prosecutor's Office would end once a judgment took effect, and that the proposal contains no provisions on enforcement of sentences, on which there will need to be rules;

33.

recommends setting out rules on procedural and enforcement costs;

34.

considers that in ‘mixed’ cases in which the financial interests of a Member State or other national legal entity within a Member State have also been damaged, concluding an investigation with a transaction for the sake of expediency should require the agreement not just of the suspect but also of the Member State concerned;

35.

believes that when a case is settled through imposition of a fine, the money from this fine should go to the State that brought the case;

36.

considers it important that injured parties whose injury has been caused by a prosecution should be able to make claims under the material and procedural law of the Member State, and in the Member State, to which they belong.

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/42

1.

believes that waste shipments are one of the most important areas of waste legislation where stronger enforcement is needed. In some Member States, waste shipments are adequately controlled but this is not the case in other countries, with ‘port hopping’ as a result. There is clear evidence of illegal shipments of waste directly contravening the Basel Convention and the WSR, in particular hazardous waste exports (such as WEEE) outside the OECD under a re-use label, and exports of non-hazardous waste to developing countries for disposal or treatment that is not environmentally sound;

2.

notes that joint inspections carried out by IMPEL-TFS (1) with 22 Member States found 863 violations out of 3 454 shipments, a non-compliance rate of 25%;

3.

stresses that effective enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) would contribute to:

4.

sees benefit in ‘upstream’ controls at the sites of waste producers and collectors in order to reduce pressure in ports;

5.

urges strong and active cooperation from the waste and resource management industry as limiting illegal shipments benefits EU treatment companies who utilise sound environmental methods;

6.

notes the result of the public consultation on the proposed amendments, in which 90% of stakeholders expressed support for EU legislative action on waste shipments;

7.

welcomes the proposed obligation on inspection plans, including the EU-wide definition of obligatory content, in order to promote regular and consistent planning of inspections in all Member States. Adequate inspection planning will help authorities to increase their capacity to carry out effective inspections;

8.

observes that poor enforcement in one Member State can lead to additional work and cost in another Member State, so there is a shared interest in developing harmonised inspection procedures and improved collaboration and intelligence sharing across borders;

9.

recalls that inspection plans are a key element of the IMPEL guidance on waste shipment inspections (2), but cautions that allocation of staff to inspection planning should not reduce the staff resource available for conducting inspections;

10.

supports the proposal that inspection plans should cover the entire geographical area of the Member State concerned, but would suggest additional wording to allow for this to be done on a regional basis;

11.

urges that plans should also include measurable targets, in line with existing best practice, which ensures that performance can be evaluated by decision makers;

12.

supports strongly the provision that inspection plans include a risk assessment concerning specific waste streams and sources of illegal shipments, using intelligence based data supported by police authorities, and encourages competent authorities to apply the recommendations of IMPEL in this regard, in order to better prioritise the use of limited inspection resources;

13.

considers waterway transports should also be part of inspection plans, reflecting the recommendations of IMPEL;

14.

calls on the Commission to implement a conversion table between customs codes and waste codes so that the international tariff codes used by customs authorities can be used to select high-risk shipments for inspection;

15.

shares concerns raised by the Council (3) that publication of inspection plans could aid those engaged in illegal waste shipments. Believes therefore that inspection plans at a strategic and not an operational level should be published;

16.

recognises that local and regional Authorities have a duty of care to their citizens to ensure that materials deposited with them for re-use, recycling, recovery or disposal are dealt with in a way that respects the environment and human health. Citizen's active cooperation with recycling and waste systems is adversely affected by awareness of environmentally damaging treatment of illegally shipped waste;

17.

urges therefore the publication of an annual report of inspections carried out, the outcome of those inspections and any penalties imposed;

18.

applauds the proposal to require the shipper to prove that an item being exported for alleged re-use is fully functional. This is the case for EEE (rather than WEEE) and for cars (rather than ELVs). This reversal of the burden should aid inspection authorities to identify illegal export of non-functioning items, i.e. waste, which might otherwise be destined for substandard re-cycling or treatment outside the EU. Such items should be treated in a European facility to avoid the leakage of valuable raw materials, as well as protecting the environment and health of people in third countries;

19.

welcomes the proposal that in the case of shipments destined for recovery that are suspected to be illegal the competent authority may demand proof from the shipper of the treatment methods, technologies and standards that will be applied at its destination. Further believes that this should be introduced for all relevant shipments under the WSR and that the end destination of all recycling should be published to increase transparency and public confidence in the waste and resource chain;

20.

supports the development of an electronic data interchange for waste shipments that could provide a secure database for the electronic declaration of shipments that included the supplier, the transporter, traders and the final destination of the material and stresses the importance of wide consultation with local and regional authorities and other stakeholders during its preparation;

21.

maintains that such a data bank should be accessible to all relevant public authorities (environmental inspectorates, customs, police) and include inspection results to assist authorities in targeting their inspections;

22.

observes that four countries already use an electronic data exchange for waste notification (4) which it is estimated that when applied throughout the EU could save business over EUR 40 million per year in administrative burden (5) and that the High Level Group on administrative burden has called for it to be used by all Member States;

23.

reiterates that an essential complementary action to the WSR amendment is further strengthening of IMPEL, ensuring adequate long term financial support so as to increase IMPEL's systematic use of peer-review inspections and its work on identifying and sharing good practice with its further extension to the regional and local levels (6);

24.

repeats its call to the European Commission to come forward with a general EU legislative framework on environmental inspections and surveillance, including inspection powers for the European Commission, to support the role of local and regional authorities in implementing EU environment legislation, to reduce unfair competition due to different or absent inspection regimes and ensure equity in legal action (7);

25.

recalls that environmental policy is an area where competence is shared between the EU and the Member States, therefore the subsidiarity principle applies;

26.

points out that waste shipments are international and without implementation and enforcement of legislation in the same way by all Member States there will not be a level playing field nor will risks to human health and the environment be managed, believes therefore that action at EU level is necessary;

27.

insists that consequences for the competences of local and regional authorities be fully taken into account in the implementation of the electronic data exchange by delegated act of the Commission. Therefore direct consultation to local and regional authorities or their representatives needs to be undertaken before tabling any delegated act;

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/48

1.

welcomes the NAIADES II package as a logical follow-on from NAIADES I, which was the first integrated approach at EU level for the development of inland waterway transport; fully endorses the Commission’s efforts to re-invigorate the inland waterway sector and increase its share of total transport so that it is used to its full potential;

2.

supports the prioritisation by the Commission of a modal shift from road to rail, inland waterway and maritime transport, whilst at the same time insisting on the internalisation of external costs of all modes;

3.

advocates the development of the inland waterway transport sector and believes that it offers a means to tackling the problem of congestion on the roads; and considers, by virtue of its safety record and environmental impacts, that it is a reliable, safe and sustainable mode of transport;

4.

highlights the role that local and regional authorities play in land-use and transportation planning, whereby effective spatial planning can facilitate the bundling of economic activities, create integrated clusters which reduce the need for transport movements and make multi-modal transport a more attractive option; furthermore recognises the importance of transport infrastructure to regional economic development and the role that inland ports play as economic hubs and the contribution that waterways make in reducing congestion at seaports and on other transport systems, wishes to highlight that local and regional authorities bear significant costs in terms of developing and managing key infrastructural assets and must be central in efforts to maximise the use of the capacity of inland waterways;

5.

recognises that, unlike other transport routes, inland waterways not only serve transport needs they are also significant in terms of water supply, flood protection, energy generation, recreational and tourism use, as important ecosystems and have an agricultural and fisheries function; in this regard encourages the inland waterway transport sector to maintain its leading position as an environmentally friendly mode of transport and continues to maintain a proper balance between its activities and the other (sometimes competing) functions of the waterways;

6.

supports public interventions to improve the sector’s operating conditions, infrastructure, environmental performance, innovation and integration into the logistics chain and believes that whilst inland waterway transport is liberalised and operates in an internal transport market such public investment can be justified given the significant impact of the economic crisis on the sector and the socio-economic and environmental returns it generates;

7.

considers that the NAIADES II package complies with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

8.

agrees with the Commission’s general assessment of the inland waterway sector: the pre-dominance of owner-operators and the fragmented nature of supply; its weakening position in relation to other transport sector operators and its long and steady decline in modal share compared with road transport; the overcapacity and resultant price competition; its inability to reinvest and innovate; plus the limited progress in addressing key infrastructural gaps and bottlenecks and the loss of competitiveness that the slowdown in the EU economy has brought to the sector;

9.

endorses, therefore, the key areas of intervention of NAIADES II and its objective to make the inland waterway sector a quality mode of transport, well-governed, efficient, safe, integrated into the intermodal chain, with quality jobs and a skilled workforce and adhering to high environmental standards; fully believes that the inland waterway sector can make a significant contribution to, and must be sufficiently embedded in, European transport policy;

10.

suggests that what is now required is full commitment from the Member States to follow through on key objectives, as well as for the inland waterway sector to take a more proactive and coherent approach to addressing some of the fundamental weaknesses of the sector;

11.

recognises the shortcomings of NAIADES I and suggests that for NAIADES II to be more effective, the European Commission, if necessary in conjunction with the resources under the PLATINA platform (1), develop a clear roadmap for implementation, with targets and milestones and with a more coherent approach to sourcing financial and other resources;

12.

cautions against inland waterway transport being considered in isolation from other transport modes, and believes that increasing the interconnectivity of inland waterway transport with other modes will help in attracting greater market share and strengthen the entire sector;

13.

welcomes that inland waterways have been embedded in six of the nine core network corridors of the TEN-T and hopes that the implementation and governance structures for these corridors will be sufficiently representative of all modes and that the potential and specificity of inland waterways transport will be adequately recognised in the TEN-T networks, so that key inland waterway bottlenecks and missing-links are suitably addressed;

14.

hopes that the long-term commitment to the core and comprehensive network goes some way to providing a stable legislative framework which should help in attracting new investment into the inland waterway transport sector;

15.

encourages the relevant Member States, in conjunction with local and regional authorities and other relevant stakeholders, to follow-up on commitments and submit the detailed proposals for inland waterways and ports projects to the Commission so that they could benefit from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) as well as from a potential increase in the co-financing (up to 40%) available for such projects; considers that both hard infrastructure but also soft infrastructural investments will help the sector realise its potential;

16.

calls on the Member States concerned to continue to take due account of inland waterways in the development of investment frameworks and state planning instruments and to take steps to implement existing commitments, in order to support the establishment and development of regional centres of economic activity;

17.

highlights the importance of ensuring that smaller fairways are maintained and up-graded, where relevant for navigation purposes, in order to maintain a comprehensive network and also to ensure that smaller operators in the sector remain viable;

18.

recognises the lack of an innovation culture and the underlying reasons for this in the inland waterway sector and agrees with the Commission that the sector needs to take ownership of the RDI agenda, identify future priorities and be more proactive in exploiting opportunities;

19.

suggests that local and regional authorities could contribute to the application of innovation in the sector by supporting adapted innovation policies and tailored use of resources and financial instruments;

20.

supports efforts by the Commission to reduce fragmentation and encourage synergy between market players; recognises that certain rules applying to the inland waterway sector are set at regional or national level and considers that the Commission, taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity, will have to find as much flexibility as possible in the process towards harmonisation;

21.

supports the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport but that this should not be used as a means to increase transport costs; considers that by calculating the correct price of externalities each transport mode will be more comparable, which could lead to the use of more environmentally friendly modes, motivate the sector to address external costs and would specifically benefit waterway transport;

22.

feels, on the other hand, that infrastructure charging for new or to maintain existing infrastructures needs to be carefully considered, as this would be an additional financial burden on inland waterway transport and the issue of charging other users of waterways would also have to be addressed;

23.

notes the Commission’s proposal to assess the barriers to the development of inland ports and would welcome further consultation on this with local and regional authorities concerned, before resorting to legislative procedures;

24.

supports efforts on greening of the fleet and reducing air pollutants and underlines that the approach should be technology neutral from the perspective of engine technology and fuel choice and must have the best cost-benefit ratio;

25.

suggests, however, that a determination of the possible energy and carbon benefits in greening the fleet requires careful assessment taking account of the age of the vessel, the performance of the current engine and the loading characteristics of the vessel, as well as, an understanding of the large embodied energy required in providing new engines; in this regard requests that an increased effort be made to improve the economic feasibility and standardisation of retrofitting equipment to reduce costs and improve emissions from all existing vessels;

26.

considers that there is currently a lack of incentive, either through legal instruments and/or financial measures, for the inland waterway sector to tackle emissions reduction effectively; the CoR therefore advocates an integrated approach, allowing a number of funds such as LIFE+, TEN-T and Horizon2020, to be used for the greening of the inland waterway fleet; and looks forward to the Impact Assessment on the different options being considered for emissions limits for large and small, existing and new vessels to tackle atmospheric pollution at source;

27.

questions the assumption in the Staff Working Document that LNG (2) is the only solution to air quality emissions and the seeming ease in the transferability of technology solutions from one transport mode to another, when there is still some debate as to the most appropriate technological solution for the sector to comply with standards; considers that LNG is a promising option, but is only one option and that the implementation timeframe seems to be unrealistic;

28.

points out that it will be difficult to support the development of environment-friendly inland waterway transport unless the stakeholders themselves are properly involved;

29.

supports the approach proposed by the Commission to improve the skills and qualifications in the sector, which should improve labour access and mobility, improve safety, raise quality of jobs and create a level playing field;

30.

notes the role that local and regional authorities can play in better integrating inland waterway transport-based logistics into their Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans;

31.

favours, where practical, the integration of appropriate information streams of other modes of transport into the River Information Services (RIS); recognises that while there are issues regarding: (a) the sharing of information that maybe commercially sensitive; and (b) the burden for operators in investing in intelligent transport systems nonetheless believes that a modified RIS could be a valuable tool for supply-chain management, optimising cargo flows and reducing costs and emissions;

32.

looks forward to the outcomes of the on-going evaluation of RIS and hopes that the Commission will be in a position to propose amendments to the RIS Directive, as the Committee considers that intelligent transport systems (ITS) are an important element in helping to facilitate efficient intermodal transport, the smooth functioning of inland waterways and reducing administrative burdens including complex cross-border requirements between EU and non-EU states;

33.

supports the intention to have a new approach to governance of the inland waterway sector to address overlaps in legal provisions and competences; in this regard welcomes the signing of the Administrative Arrangement between DG MOVE and the Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR) providing a framework for enhanced cooperation to support the development of the inland navigation sector; looks forward to the establishment of similar agreements with other river commissions;

34.

encourages the inland waterway transport bodies to strengthen coordination to improve how the sector is represented and to take direct responsibility for some of the objectives of the NAIADES II package;

35.

highlights the potential that the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) presents in terms of integrated development and governance of a river basin and considers that implementation of the EUSDR could greatly improve waterways transport on the Danube which has considerable capacity to increase traffic volumes;

36.

notes that there are a number of references to various EU funding programmes in the communication (ESF, CEF, Horizon 2020) but it seems there is not a coherent or systematic approach as to how these funds will help deliver on objectives;

37.

requests the Commission to produce its proposed Staff Working Document (SWD) on NAIADES financing as a matter of urgency; recommends that as well as identifying and quantifying the investment needs of the inland waterway sector that some attention is also given to providing clear guidance to the sector to access funding and that this SWD will be a useful contribution to the roadmap for implementation (proposed in Point 11 above);

38.

considers that the European Structural and Investment Funds can support key objectives of NAIADES but has some concerns that the core indicators to measure the results of these Funds, and the ERDF and Cohesion Fund in particular, only relate to road and rail infrastructure which would seem to incentivise investment in these modes over inland waterways, where such options are available;

39.

notes the reference to financial instruments and considers that there is some scope for European Investment Bank financing to be applied to the inland waterway sector;

40.

supports the rationale for the proposed amendment to the Regulation on a Community-fleet capacity policy, which if effective will make it easier to deploy the Reserve Fund and to use it on additional measures to promote inland waterway transport in line with the objectives of NAIADES II;

41.

supports the objective of the proposed Directive to separate technical standards from procedural aspects which should streamline the process for up-dating such standards as well as bring greater clarity and transparency for the sector;

42.

supports the pragmatic and flexible approach proposed whereby there will be reduced requirements or partial application of technical requirements for particular zones (Member States) based on the nature of their inland waterways;

26.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/53

1.

welcomes the Commission proposal's general objective of moving towards a single market for electronic communications in which citizens and businesses can access electronic communications services wherever they are provided in the Union, without cross-border restrictions or unjustified additional costs, and companies providing electronic communications networks and services can operate and provide them wherever they are established or their customers are situated in the EU;

2.

highlights the objective pursued by the Europe 2020 strategy and the Digital Agenda for Europe of achieving a growing, successful and dynamic digital single market for all sectors;

3.

underscores the importance to businesses and consumers of connections to electronic communications networks and of greater market integration, and stresses that the digital single market offers great opportunities for European society as a whole;

4.

points out, however, that changes to the European legal framework for electronic communications must take due account of the de facto and de jure situation in the Member States and regions;

5.

draws attention to the fact that — given the current digital divide within the EU, the inadequacy of ICT infrastructure, the lack of a level playing field and the significant disparities within and between Member States in terms of wealth and income — a gradual, multi-speed approach is the only possible way of developing the digital society and progressively achieving convergence;

6.

points out that some Member States have already adopted rules aiming to bridge the gap between urban and rural areas when it comes to broadband access. EU-wide rules will need to take account of the heterogeneity of the current situation in the Member States;

7.

reiterates that local and regional authorities have a key role and significant responsibility in ensuring equal and affordable broadband access in areas where the market fails, in leading pilot projects aimed at bridging the digital divide, and in developing new people-centred public e-services;

8.

points out that local and regional authorities in rural areas considered unprofitable by private operators have to get involved in financing digital infrastructure. In order to ensure that all citizens in all regions have equal access to new technologies, the Committee of the Regions urges the Commission to support local and regional authorities in their financing activities, firstly by authorising participation by the European Structural Funds in the financing of digital infrastructure in all EU regions, and secondly by recognising digital development projects in rural and sparsely populated areas as services of general economic interest;

9.

is concerned, in this connection, at the lack of funding for broadband expansion under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for 2014-2020;

10.

notes that it is essential to extend glass fibre networks to cover the last mile without delay, to route data transmission — including mobile communications — through the fixed network via appropriate routers;

11.

takes the view that EU-wide regulation must not put Member States with relatively small populations and territories at a competitive disadvantage;

12.

reiterates that information and communication technologies, which underpin an information society which is open to all, should address the needs of all members of society, including those at risk of social exclusion;

13.

emphasises that the processing of personal data foreseen under this Regulation should be a subject to existing Union and national legislation, including in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC;

14.

finds it regrettable that the proposal for a regulation has not been subject to a public consultation allowing all interested parties to express their views on the specific legislative changes proposed;

15.

is convinced that there needs to be an in-depth examination of these extensive proposals, and therefore feels that the Commission's timetable, under which the regulation would be applicable from 1 July 2014, is extremely ambitious;

16.

broadly welcomes the simplification of nationally fragmented authorisation procedures brought about by introducing a single EU authorisation, in the interests of regulatory consistency and predictability for the businesses concerned;

17.

calls for it to be ensured that a single EU authorisation procedure does not lead to greater legal uncertainty and reduce the predictability of regulations;

18.

notes that the proposed amendment to Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services entails a significant transfer of competences away from national regulatory authorities towards the European Union. In particular, the European Commission's power to require national regulatory authorities to withdraw draft measures reduces their room for manoeuvre in the long term;

19.

calls for it to be ensured that the power granted solely to the national regulatory authority of the home Member State to suspend or withdraw the rights of a European electronic communications provider (Article 6(1)) does not lead to a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’ or exacerbate ‘forum shopping’;

20.

stresses that the radio spectrum is a scarce public good;

21.

agrees with the Commission that efficient management of the radio spectrum is important in order to facilitate access for operators and promote innovation and cultural diversity;

22.

notes that the proposal to give the European Commission the power to set mandatory timetables for frequency management and to require national regulatory authorities to withdraw proposed remedies represents a significant transfer of competences concerning frequency management to the European Union;

23.

reiterates its concerns regarding the further transfer to the EU of competences concerning frequency management, which it raised back in 2008 with regard to the telecommunications package and which are not alleviated by the present draft regulation;

24.

points out that the measures in the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP), including the inventory to be undertaken by 2015, have not yet been completed and first need to be evaluated;

25.

notes that the Member States have legal and technical obligations that stand in the way of European regulation of the radio spectrum use and that can only be removed in the medium to long term;

26.

points out that an EU-wide reorganisation of the radio spectrum and spectrum allocation procedures must respect existing licences, which may be valid for up to 20 years;

27.

sees an urgent need to clarify matters with the competent authorities in the Member States before laying down a Regulation, given that some Member States are already planning the spectrum allocation for the ‘Digital Dividend II’, which is expected to take place in late 2014/early 2015,

28.

stresses that the Member States and regions must have enough reserved spectrum for innovative applications;

29.

considers it important to make use of the technological and legal possibilities of shared spectrum applications and innovative new technologies such as cognitive radio, ultra-wideband and white spectrum, thus enabling more efficient use of the spectrum;

30.

is concerned that the proposed change to the regulatory framework could lead to delays in radio spectrum allocation over the next 12 to 18 months;

31.

therefore rejects the European Commission's proposed measures to harmonise spectrum management, and notes that international agreements could be used to ensure consistent spectrum management while respecting Member States' sovereignty in this regard;

32.

suggests establishing an EU-wide status quo regarding spectrum allocation plans and timetables before developing a European spectrum regime, in order to use this information as a basis for drafting a long-term single procedure for spectrum allocation;

33.

recommends starting by defining a core element of spectrum policy that is of strategic importance to EU-wide network infrastructure policy, and suggests focusing on mobile networks, appropriate network access options such as WLAN, and an EU-wide LTE network;

34.

considers this restriction to the mobile spectrum also to be in line with the subsidiarity principle, as it means that the only frequencies allocated at EU level are those where this procedure is in fact expected to improve efficiency;

35.

specifically welcomes the proposal to facilitate the use of public RLAN connections, which will lead to more widespread publicly accessible internet connections;

36.

notes that the general authorisation for the provision and operation of unobtrusive small-area wireless access points — in accordance with technical characteristics defined by the Commission — restricts the influence of local and regional authorities;

37.

welcomes the European Commission's efforts to ensure, by harmonising the rights of end users of electronic communications services, that citizens and providers across the EU have similar rights and obligations and can provide and acquire services across borders under the same conditions;

38.

shares the objective of ensuring that end users have non-discriminatory access to communications networks and services provided by businesses established in other Member States;

39.

supports the Commission's efforts to strengthen consumer protection and user rights in the electronic communications sector by providing consumers with more information about prices and supply conditions;

40.

considers the principle of net neutrality to be an essential prerequisite for enabling an innovative internet with open, dynamic and complex structures and for securing a level playing field for European citizens and entrepreneurs;

41.

agrees with the European Parliament that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality can be effective only through a consistent European approach, and therefore broadly welcomes the Commission's initiative to propose regulations in this field;

42.

points out that the openness of the internet is a key driving force for competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation, resulting in a spectacular growth in online applications, content and services and thus in an impressive rise in supply of and demand for content and services, and that it has massively accelerated the free movement of knowledge, ideas and information, even in countries with only limited access to independent media;

43.

agrees with the European Parliament that there are serious risks in departing from network neutrality and the best effort principle — such as anticompetitive behaviour, the blocking of innovation, restrictions on freedom of expression and media pluralism, lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy — which will be detrimental to businesses, consumers and democratic society as a whole;

44.

is convinced that Article 23 of the Commission's proposal contravenes the principle of net neutrality as set out above, and recommends that these provisions be completely revised;

45.

specifically highlights the risk to net neutrality presented by agreements between access providers and content providers on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service;

46.

is concerned that application of Article 23(2) could privilege financially strong businesses, or disadvantage smaller content providers and end users, and advises against undermining the position of accessibility as a defining principle of internet architecture, restricting the innovativeness of the internet and putting the cultural diversity of the net at risk;

47.

supports the call to ensure that internet service providers do not block, discriminate against, impair or degrade the ability of any person to use a service to access, use, send, post, receive or offer any content, application or service of their choice, irrespective of source or target;

48.

therefore specifically welcomes the prohibition on blocking, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services (Article 23(5)), but would note that the vagueness and lack of legal clarity of the proposed exceptions are liable to make the principle largely meaningless;

49.

is concerned that a legally unclear definition of ‘reasonable traffic management’ may jeopardise the welcome prohibition on shutting down networks, and that the blanket extension to cover the implementation of ‘legislative provisions’ (Article 23(5)(a)) is incompatible with the proportionality principle and data protection requirements;

50.

in view of the existing standards, recommends reconsidering whether the proposed rules on traffic management are necessary;

51.

supports the Commission's efforts to introduce appropriate measures to strengthen consumer protection and make the electronic communications market more transparent, and to make it easier for market participants to obtain reliable and comprehensible information;

52.

points out that the national regulations transposing the European legal framework for telecommunications often take account of significant specific national circumstances, and therefore calls for a detailed consultation of national regulatory authorities and consumer protection organisations;

53.

notes that the proposed harmonisation of end-user rights must not reduce the level of protection currently provided in the Member States, and advises the Commission to consider strengthening end-user rights by means of minimum harmonisation;

54.

warmly welcomes the reduction in maximum tariffs for regulated roaming calls and the ban on charges for receiving calls when roaming, and supports the Commission's efforts to prevent unjustified surcharges over the long term and to achieve uniform prices for national and international calls for consumers;

55.

supports the Commission's intention of using the option of bilateral or multilateral roaming agreements to apply domestic prices to both domestic and regulated roaming services;

56.

considers it important to ensure that the option of end users to opt out of the application of the domestic service rate in return for other advantages must not make it possible to circumvent the provision of roaming at domestic rates on a regular basis;

57.

urges the Commission to ensure that the guidelines to be adopted for the application of reasonable use criteria means that end users can in practice be confident in continuing their usual domestic usage patterns when in other Member States;

58.

draws attention to the risk that domestic call rates may be increased (in compensation), and urges the Commission to pay particular attention to this aspect when evaluating Regulation (EU) No 531/2012;

59.

notes that bilateral and multilateral roaming agreements must be examined critically to determine whether they restrict competition or are liable to strengthen the competitive position of providers that already have a strong market position;

60.

feels that the proposal for a Regulation includes a number of measures that need to be assessed in terms of compliance with the subsidiarity principle, such as the transfer of competence for spectrum regulation and spectrum allocation procedures, the veto rights granted to the Commission regarding measures concerning European electronic communications providers (EECPs), and the imposition of a standardised virtual access product, which may end up removing the requirement for physical unbundling of access to the local loop;

61.

points out that the choice of a Regulation as the legal instrument and the power to adopt implementing acts to harmonise spectrum availability, the timing of assignments and the duration of rights of use for spectrum (Chapter III — Section 1 — Coordination of use of radio spectrum within the single market of the proposed Regulation) raise concerns regarding compliance with the proportionality principle;

62.

is also of the opinion that a number of the individual topics in the proposal need to be examined in detail to assess the extent to which they are appropriate, necessary and adequate to complete the digital single market;

63.

concludes that, due to the above-mentioned concerns, large parts of the Commission's proposal are not yet ready for adoption;

64.

suggests that the provisions eliminating roaming charges should be implemented according to the proposed timetable, and that the remaining measures should be reviewed and revised following consultation with the main stakeholders and taking account of the objections raised;