14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

Rapporteur:

Mr Roman HAKEN

1.1.

The EESC is aware that the LEADER approach has demonstrated its viability over the past 20 years. It has helped rural actors assess the long-term potential of their local regions and proven an effective and efficient tool in the delivery of development policies. The European Commission has also promoted this partnership-based method of funding projects in the EU initiatives URBAN, URBACT, EQUAL, Local Agenda 21, Transition Towns and Territorial Employment Pacts. This is what gave rise to Community Led Local Development (CLLD), which is, in a way, a transitional change.

1.2.

CLLD is a dedicated tool for use at sub-regional level and thus complements other development support at local level. It has the capacity to mobilise and involve local communities and organisations so they can contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It also fosters territorial cohesion and enables particular policy objectives to be attained, including in relations with non-EU partners. It provides long-term growth through effective use of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) with a view to creating new jobs and businesses by incorporating community-led activities in climate change and sustainability in line with the Europe 2020 strategy.

1.3.

CLLD has to be transformed as quickly as possible into a SMART instrument so it can help local stakeholders find a way out of the economic and social crisis and in order to restore trust in European Union policy. The stress must be on innovative projects, new, good-quality jobs and businesses and on stepping up activities to address climate change, sustainable development and social inclusion in line with the new Europe 2020 strategy. CLLD is a new type of partnership geared to nurturing social innovation.

1.4.

The fact that most Member States have incorporated CLLD into their partnership agreements is proof of how important local development is now considered (1). This type of multilateral governance should be expanded to all activities underpinned by ESIFs, with perhaps some mandatory application (at least 5 %) in all funds. The EESC is in favour of all EU Member States using this instrument over time, while applying the principle of partnership and pooling best practice.

1.5.

The EESC welcomes the fact that the 2014 Greek and Italian EU presidencies have attached great importance to cohesion policy as a valuable means of boosting sustainable growth and overcoming the current economic crisis in Europe.

1.6.

The EESC anticipates that this opinion, too, will serve as an aid in implementing pilot projects (funded partially from European Commission resources) that would test the CLLD instrument in areas where it is not currently applied, namely the peri-urban and, more particularly, the urban context, thus widening its potential sphere of application. It supports its application in the period 2014-20 — where there is an interest in it — to all funds and to both rural and urban areas. It constitutes a combination of representative and participatory democracy: an instrument that representatives of public administrations can use to collaborate in partnership with organised civil society and the public.

1.7.

The EESC is convinced that it makes sense to enable local stakeholders — the public, economic and social partners, non-profit NGOs and local councils — to be involved in, for example, local development strategies in the place where they reside using the CLLD method. At the same time, following experience with the LEADER method in rural areas, the need now is to give urban CLLD substance so that towns and the public have some notion of what kinds of measures can be proposed in towns using it.

1.8.

The EESC is disappointed by the finding that public authorities are often not overly enthusiastic about CLLD, despite its efficacy. It is absolutely essential to engage in a strategy informing and giving expert advice to all those involved, specifically targeting public authorities and geared at encouraging the use of this opportunity to develop and advance local development strategies. The importance of ‘ownership of results’ in groups of this kind is key to the stability of development strategies over the long term and to meeting the Europe 2020 strategy goals. The instrument’s success very much depends on political backing at all levels (EU, national, regional and local).

1.9.

The EESC points out that the social and economic partners and organised civil society have to be more involved in CLLD, which requires building up their capacities for such a role. Hands-on involvement of all these partners in the partnership with public administration is the cornerstone for genuine representation of the interests and needs of the public.

1.10.

The EESC thinks that CLLD, being something new in regional policy, is not well enough known at local level, at national level in some Member States and in the platforms that could underpin the approach. To help implementation of the new CLLD instrument in European policies, a detailed evaluation and analysis needs to be drafted of how a particular Member State has approached it, including recommendations for effective implementation. This will also give rise a study with examples of best practice as well as accounts of failures to be avoided in future. The EESC is keen to take part in drafting such a study together with the relevant departments of the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions. This study could serve as a launchpad to set up CLLD intergroups as interinstitutional platforms.

1.11.

The EESC advocates the following for Community Led Local Development:

1.12.

The CLLD is not only fully applicable to ESIF resources, but can also be used to redistribute own resources (from local, regional and national levels). This is why it is important that development strategies, particular projects and their manner of implementation are not based on anticipated EU funding, but reflect the real need for a better quality of life in the local community.

1.13.

The Committee considers it absolutely essential to stick to the basic principles of the CLLD method. Properly balanced partnerships that involve the local community must be a pre-condition for getting grants. If local development is to be effective, local authorities must not be allowed to merely pay lip service — claiming to be taking a partnership approach but not in fact doing so — in order to get grants. An effective control and supervisory system has to be engineered to counter abuse of the CLLD principle.

1.14.

The EESC notes that this instrument offers elements that are far from negligible — and not just at a time of economic crisis: transparency of public budget streams, increased trust between authorities and the public and efficacy of the resources invested. The UN, OECD, the World Bank and other institutions are also employing similar partnership-based approaches. This is an expanded approach that supports the use of CLLD beyond Europe, for example in pre-accession negotiations on development policy and in the endeavour to meet the UN sustainable development goals for 2015 and climate change obligations.

1.15.

For the EESC, the possible challenges for the forthcoming period in CLLD are about simplification and curbing of red tape:

1.16.

The EESC suggests that different terms be used to designate different ways in which the CLLD programme is used, as in the case of rural local action groups and fisheries local action groups. Urban LAGS, for example, would be called Urban Partnerships and CLLD in the urban area would be called CLLD-U. This way it would be clearer what kind of area was involved and easier to distinguish between financing streams and where they were targeted. At the same time we suggest following the example of the successful LEADER programme and consider a new name form CLLD — an attractive acronym that would be a rallying cry for all those involved. The name is an intrinsic part of a propaganda campaign and the term CLLD can still remain in smaller print, as it were, as the name of the method.

2.1.

Fundamental principles of the LEADER method — their added value and application in CLLD:

2.2.

The Committee of the Regions: ‘regards CLLD as a key tool for harmonious development of urban and rural areas, strengthening capacity to develop ties with the surrounding peri-urban and rural areas’ (3).

2.3.

The European Economic and Social Committee has issued a series of opinions on cooperation and participation between partners, some of which are referred to in the footnotes (4).

2.4.

The European Commission has published documents for the implementation of CLLD based on LEADER experience entitled ‘European Structural and Investment Funds, Guidance for Member States and Programme Authorities, Guidance for Beneficiaries — Guidance on Community-Led Local Development for Local Actors’ (5) and ‘Guidance on Community Led Local Development in European Structural and Investment Funds’ (6).

2.5.

These should be better disseminated using a truly proactive information strategy. At the same time, a regular forum has to be provided where those taking part in CLLD can meet experts and discuss and compare approaches in various EU regions. The EESC could do some of the support work for this.

3.1.

Local Action Groups are the building blocks of the LEADER programme. These are local partnerships in which both sectors and areas of action are proportionately represented. They are legal entities with managerial and decision-making procedures. The total number of LAGs in the EU supported from rural development programmes and other LEADER-type measures is 2  402. They cover 77 % of the EU’s total area (7), which equals around 90 % of the rural area, and more than 50 % of the EU population (8).

3.2.

The LEADER method has proven to be such a success that it should be extended, as far as possible, to cover all rural areas in the EU. It is also important to ensure the compatibility of the rules underpinning international cooperation between the LAGs established in the various Member States.

3.3.

The programme’s proposed priorities for 2014-20 include:

4.1.

Places where urban and rural areas lie in close proximity are ones that offer potential for effective use of CLLD. This type of instrument makes it possible to react to developments in the area and so take on board its functional interconnections. Links between urban and peri-urban rural areas are very strong and merit a special approach.

4.2.

Peri-urban areas have their own distinct problems or challenges that can be tackled using CLLD. The key challenges are sustainable mobility, creating a socially cohesive society and fixing priorities for land use. The peri-urban area is understood as the hinterland of towns with a population above 25  000. One project worth mentioning is the joint OECD and EC Rurban research project, the purpose of which was to identify and evaluate formal and informal urban-rural partnerships and their contribution to local development (9).

4.3.

Since 2007, local development has also been used within the European Fisheries Fund to support the sustainable development of fishing communities through local action groups in fisheries (FLAGs).

5.1.

Since there is no agreed definition of an urban area, we are using national and local rules. For rural areas the criterion is that a town has a maximum population of 25  000. This can be used by extension to urban areas, in this case with a minimum population size of 10  000 and a maximum of 1 50  000. Public administration should be represented by those with responsibility in the area concerned, ideally in a combination drawn from the central municipal authority and from one or more boroughs (for example, particular districts, socially excluded localities, or urban areas with a specific problem).

5.2.

Inspiration can be found in the experience of cities collected thanks to their inclusion in the Urbact II operational programme and the European Knowledge Development Platform (10) (as well as the Urban Development Platform in the near future) (11). The experience of Transition Towns and permaculture communities is also worth mentioning, where several thousand local communities throughout the EU have conducted successful community-led sustainable development.

5.3.

The two decades of experience that rural areas have had means it is they who will be giving the lead to urban areas — initially, for example, for a transition period that will then be evaluated. This, combined with further expert support and coaching, will in effect ensure successful transfer of the method.

5.4.

Back in the 2007-13 programming period advisory bodies (Urbact Local Support Groups) were set up at urban level and took part in conceiving Local Action Plans. However, these were looser advisory groupings than in the LEADER and CLLD method and there was no strict requirement for particular sectors to be involved: their make-up depended on the kind of project at hand. The work of these local support groups was not supported financially by Urbact II operational programme. To make the partnership principle work better in the urban environment as well as well as the rural, partnerships have to be forged on the basis of CLLD and funding should be available to underwrite their operations. ‘[This] approach […] can also be applied in urban areas or in areas covering medium-sized and small towns together with their functional surroundings, as local or sub-regional development centres’ (12).

5.5.

Given the problems tackled in cities, one of a number of operational programmes could be the right instrument for funding pilot programmes via CLLD. We therefore propose that the CLLD method and the strategies it generates in pilot programmes should benefit from funding provided for in urban areas (for example, for the environment, preservation of cultural monuments and natural heritage, and so on) (13).

5.6.

It would make sense to gather examples of best practice from various Member States in urban development using the partnership approach that could be included in the study referred to in point 1.10. One guide to use for working in partnerships could be The partnership principle in the implementation of the Common Strategic Framework Funds — elements for a European Code of Conduct on Partnership (14).

6.1.

Community Led Local Development is intended to help the public develop their municipalities in a meaningful and sustainable way. Through CLLD they can take part directly in improving the quality of life in their communities: this is about real inclusive growth with visible outcomes at local level. Clearly, the introduction of CLLD requires funding for capacity-building if all the partners are really to function as such — and not merely as observers — and be actively involved in horizontal partnerships in the spirit of multilevel governance. Coaching and mentoring (i.e., education and training) from more experienced players also has to be facilitated. The present proposal also has to analyse and explain the reasons why LEADER method works and is a success and justify why the CLLD method should be extended to all ESIF programmes to make cohesion policy a success.

6.2.

Where the method has not yet been adopted, a mid-term evaluation should be used to launch it in the ambit of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) for the period 2014-20.

6.3.

One important aspect is pooling the expertise of social and economic partners, civil society representatives, and local and national government, which should be backed on all sides.

6.4.

It takes some time to put together CLLD strategies. Even so, it is important that enough time is available in the given period to implement them and enough money to fund individual measures. Overlong preparation that produces nothing on the ground (in the form of projects carried out) and hasty funding of activities (as drawdown periods run out) undermine the instrument’s credibility.

6.5.

Other problems that need sorting out if CLLD is to be used properly are red tape and excessive bureaucratic hurdles, late reimbursement of expenditure, and funding of projects up front from own resources or loans with interest shouldered by the final beneficiaries. It could be worth looking into crowdfunding, public-private funding, and organised participation of the banking sector, with State guarantees.

6.6.

Member States often introduce unnecessary ‘national’ administrative regulations over and above what the Commission lays down. This makes it much more difficult to get grants and, together with fear of possible adverse consequences, deters applicants. There are also national authorities that try to minimise the red tape involved in grassroots mobilisation and the administration of small LAGs. Nevertheless, this measure is likely to plunge the functioning of the entire system into crisis.

6.7.

The EESC calls for training for trainers: training of national or regional players should be provided as technical support under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, which sets out the general provisions. Equally, the right conditions need to be put in place to effectively set up regional, national and international networks, given that networks yield substantial dividends.

6.8.

It would make sense to gather examples of best practice from various Member States that could be included in the study referred to in point 1.10.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/9

Rapporteur:

Mr Stefano PALMIERI

1.1.

The EESC welcomes the special care that has been taken in drawing up the European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP), the aim of which is to bolster cohesion and competitiveness to meet the challenges that single Member States or regions cannot tackle satisfactorily by employing the usual means.

1.2.

The EESC notes that central to the development of the Alpine region is the Alps mountain range itself, which is very much the region’s calling card and serves as the economic, social and environmental fulcrum between all the areas involved in the strategy.

1.3.

The Committee points out the strong political commitment to the EUSALP by the countries taking part and that both national and regional governments are very much informed and involved. This awareness of the issue is the result of a cooperation process launched in the area back in the 1970s.

1.4.

The EESC thinks that the Alpine region’s distinguishing features — which include some of the most competitive territorial systems in the world, economic and social imbalances between ‘rural and mountain areas’ and ‘urban areas and cities’, the natural and cultural heritage and the very dense concentration of transport flows — are what define and shape it.

1.5.

While the EESC endorses the strategy’s overall approach and believes its goals, pillars and priorities to reflect what is in the discussion document, it nevertheless feels that these should be incorporated and improved when the action plan is drafted.

1.6.

The EESC notes that the area to be covered by the EUSALP is significantly above the European average in terms of economic development, environmental sustainability and social cohesion. Even so, the economic and financial crisis and the changes wrought by globalisation of the economy and markets are posing big, stubborn challenges to the macro-regions we are discussing. This is why the EESC maintains that achieving the overall aim of the EUSALP strategy — ‘to ensure that this Region remains one of the most attractive areas in Europe, taking better advantage of its assets and seizing its opportunities for sustainable and innovative development’ (1) — is extremely important for underpinning Europe’s economic competitiveness and social cohesion.

1.7.

It is crucial, the Committee believes, to strengthen the EUSALP’s comprehensive approach to development by specifying new and more qualitative goals as set out in point 4.4 below.

1.8.

The EESC would like to see the EUSALP action plan establishing greater interdependence between the priorities of competitiveness (pillar 1) and sustainability (pillar 3). This would make sure development goals were achieved without compromising the needs and chances of future generations.

1.9.

For the first pillar, the EESC thinks it essential to ensure sustainable growth and to foster full employment, innovation, competitiveness and cohesion in the Alpine region through mutual solidarity between upland and urban areas. The priorities will be discussed in point 5.2 below.

1.10.

Regarding the second pillar, the EESC endorses the promotion of territorial development based on cooperation between internal and external territorial systems, accessibility of services, sustainable mobility and upgrading transport modes and communication infrastructure. The priorities will be discussed in point 5.3 below.

1.11.

Concerning the third pillar, the EESC thinks it essential to redouble efforts to achieve sustainable management and protection of the environment and to upgrade the area’s territorial assets. The priorities will be discussed in point 5.4 below.

1.12.

The EESC believes that without strong governance and targeted financial resources for capacity-building the EUSALP risks failing to deliver and forfeiting its strategic value. With this in mind, and echoing the Council conclusions, the EESC would like to see an action plan built on complementarity between funding programmes, consistency between institutional instruments and the creation of new macro-regional projects (2).

1.13.

The EESC takes the view — already voiced in the conclusions of its opinion on the governance of macro-regional strategies (3) — that a bespoke governance system based on cooperation and coordination is needed for the design and launch of the EUSALP. With this in mind, the Committee thinks that for the strategy to work the EUSALP must have an effective multilevel governance (4) that can capitalise on both the horizontal dimension (civil society participation) and the vertical dimension (participation of local and regional authorities) that it combines with and reinforces, fully in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (5).

1.14.

The EESC would like to see organised civil society involved in capacity building and welcomes the launching of a permanent forum to represent and support the Alpine region’s social and economic partners.

1.15.

It is crucial, in the EESC’s view, to boost employment — especially that of the young and the long-term unemployed — and to beef up measures to encourage social investment and adaptation of social security systems.

2.1.

The purpose of this opinion is to assess the public consultation document on the ‘EU Strategy for the Alpine Region’ (6) (EUSALP), including in the light of earlier Committee opinions on macro-regional strategies.

2.2.

The Alpine region covers five EU Member States (Italy, France, Austria, Germany and Slovenia) and two non-EU countries (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) and covers an area of 4 50  000 km2 with a population of 70 million.

2.2.1.

The territorial systems within the EUSALP are intricately connected to the Alps, which are not only their calling card, but also form the economical, logistical and environmental nexus between these territories (7).

2.3.

In terms of the macro-regional policy the EU has been pursuing since 2009, the EUSALP’s geographical position not only acquires a strategic value from the cohesion policy perspective and continuity with the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBR) (8), the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) (9) and the EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region (EUSAIR) (10), but is also a crucially important element in spreading the notion of macro-regionalism towards the eastern Mediterranean (11).

2.4.

Since the 1970s, the Alpine regions, straddling the national borders that have historically divided them, have come to share a common awareness of the need to see the Alpine territorial system as a single entity to be preserved and enhanced. It is for these reasons that a series of interregional, transnational and cross-border initiatives were launched whose prime aims included promoting mutual understanding among the nations signing up in order to overcome linguistic, socioeconomic and ethnic differences in favour of greater integration at European level (12).

2.5.

The milestones in getting the EUSALP up and running — set to conclude with Council approval by the end of 2015 (13) — were the Conference of the Alpine Regions in Bad Ragaz (June 2012) and the Grenoble conference (October 2013).

2.5.1.

The Grenoble conference (14) adopted the Political resolution towards a European Union Strategy for the Alpine region, which identified the goals, the opportunities to be seized and the challenges to be met under three main headings: competitiveness and innovation, agriculture, forestry and tourism; energy, the environment and climate; and accessibility, communications and transport.

3.1.

The Alpine range is the element in the EUSALP strategy that permeates the entire territory of cooperation. The very diverse nature of the territory — mountain areas and surrounding foothills, accessible and remote valleys, lowlands and highlands, metropolitan areas and towns — is one of the main features distinguishing the Alpine region from other parts of Europe.

3.1.1.

To get a better idea of where EUSALP goals and priorities should be focussed, we have come up with five types of location that characterise the Alpine region: Alpine metropolitan areas; Alpine cities; expanding rural areas; rural areas in decline; and tourist areas.

3.2.

The Alpine region has many distinct features that merit special attention and distinguish the EUSALP from the macro-regional strategies for the Baltic, the Danube and the Adriatic and Ionian: it has some of the most highly developed regions in the world, with competitive economies, high living standards, and social and political stability; it also has glaring economic and social disparities between rural areas, plains and urban areas; a unique natural heritage and ecosystems; a cultural heritage that is a cornerstone of social cohesion and the development of the Alpine region as such; a concentration of traffic flows that has become problematic in terms of congestion and environmental protection.

3.3.

The overall aim of the EUSALP strategy is to ensure that this region remains one of the most attractive areas in Europe, making more of its inherent resources and seizing the opportunities for sustainable and innovative development.

3.3.1.

The way to do this will be by working on the three ‘thematic pillars’: ‘Improving competitiveness, prosperity and cohesion’, Guaranteeing accessibility and connectivity for all inhabitants’ and ‘Guaranteeing sustainability’.

3.3.2.1.

Although the Alpine region constitutes Europe’s largest economic area centre of production and has great development potential, lack of economic, social and territorial cohesion remains a problem. The mountains are a challenge for the area’s even development. The EUSALP seeks to foster the region’s innovative economic development by configuring a more balanced model that heeds both the diversity of the territories and their specific characteristics. Support must be given to a competitive economy that can amalgamate prosperity, energy efficiency, quality of life and the traditional values that mark the area out.

3.3.3.1.

Balanced territorial development has to be fostered through environmentally friendly mobility models, sustainable transport systems, communications services and infrastructure. The Alpine region holds a strategic position in Europe’s transport system, lying across both the north-south and east-west axes. It includes Europe’s most important transport hubs and many Alpine passes that have territorial systems with particular environmental weaknesses. It is crucial to bring into play a coordinated policy that can satisfy the needs of transport, the wellbeing of the population and a healthy environmental balance. Given the disparate nature of the Alpine region and its complex geographical make-up, the concept of connectivity has to be extended in its case to embrace infrastructure and communications services.

3.3.4.1.

Preserving the Alpine heritage and fostering sustainable use of natural and cultural resources are absolute musts for the region. Water, mineral resources, a variety of very biodiverse landscapes and a rich and diversified cultural heritage are hallmarks that have to be husbanded and enhanced. Capitalising on the potential of resources such as water and biomass in an environmentally friendly way is crucial to boost the area’s competitiveness and cohesion, since it can help achieve strategic aims such as energy self-sufficiency and the region’s energy storage capacity.

4.1.

The Strategy for the Alpine Region enjoys strong political commitment and high recognition in the countries involved and is not just a challenge, but also a great opportunity for the EU itself. The EUSALP brief is to build up the economy, link up different areas and protect the environment of an area that is hugely important to Europe’s economic competitiveness and social cohesion.

4.2.

Developing the EUSALP requires a structured dialogue between the various stakeholders to identify and tackle particular needs together. Environmental, economic and social characteristics need to be scrupulously heeded, as do the strong mutual dependencies between urban and rural areas. This means that a broad and transparent dialogue has to be launched between stakeholders to piece together a strategy that enjoys broad support.

4.2.1.

It is important that policies mesh with one another and further territorial cohesion. Some matters regarding economic innovation, transport modes and the environment are interdependent and cannot be approached in isolation at local level. They need the broader perspective that the macro-regional level has to offer.

4.2.2.

With reference to the communication on the governance of macro-regional strategies (15), the EUSALP’s multilevel governance needs an effective horizontal dimension (civil society involvement) that combines with and reinforces the vertical dimension (participation of local and regional authorities), in full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

4.3.

The EUSALP is, in the EESC’s view, a crucial instrument in underpinning the Alpine region’s work in areas such as economic globalisation, climate change, the information society, the knowledge-based economy, demographic change and movement of goods and people.

4.4.

The EUSALP will make it possible to enhance the development of the Alpine region by deploying a comprehensive approach that makes the economic, environmental and social dimensions functional and interdependent. With this rationale in mind, and in order to illustrate this holistic approach with tangible objectives, the EESC has picked out five strategic goals that should be included in the action plan:

4.4.1.

Fostering a dynamic SME system and a flourishing business sector that can create jobs. The EUSALP must expand the capacities of the territorial systems competing in a global economy, supporting the retention and creation of good-quality jobs.

4.4.2.

Helping to make the most of traditions and social diversity. The EUSALP must help to preserve the identifying features of the areas involved while at the same time building on local knowledge and traditions as a way of furthering economic development and social inclusion.

4.4.3.

Promoting balance and fairness in access to services of general interest throughout the Alpine region. The EUSALP will serve to maintain and adapt the offer of services of general interest to meet the needs of those living locally, especially in geographically handicapped areas.

4.4.4.

Encouraging shared responsibility and cooperation between Alpine territories. The EUSALP must be enlisted to underpin new approaches in shared responsibility and fair cooperation between Alpine region areas, such as vertical links between large cities and rural and tourist areas.

4.4.5.

Nurturing protection and sustainable management of biodiversity, landscapes and natural resources. The EUSALP must be used to fortify the protection and sustainable management of biodiversity, landscapes and natural resources, striking the right balance between conservation work and initiatives to achieve a rational use of ecosystem services and products. Work also needs to be done on the adoption of environmentally friendly management models that distribute the benefits yielded by ecosystem products and services more fairly among different parts of the Alpine region.

4.5.

The EESC thinks the EUSALP must operate in line with the decisions adopted by the Council. These stipulate, on the one hand, that macro-regional strategies should require neither additional resources, nor further regulation, nor management bodies (the three ‘no’s’) and, on the other, that action plans must be founded on complementarity between funding programmes, coordinated institutional instruments and the creation of new projects on a macro-regional scale. Capacity building requires particular attention.

4.5.1.

The EESC thinks it essential to involve organised civil society representatives alongside public authorities in capacity building. One way to do this could be to set up a permanent forum to represent the social and economic partners.

4.5.2.

The EESC believes that the considerable sums the EU has already put into regional programmes through the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 (16) are sufficient and should be used effectively to implement the strategy though action that is better coordinated and embedded in a unified strategic approach. Additional funding possibilities will be on hand in the 2014-2020 programming period though Community instruments such as HORIZON 2020 (17), COSME (18), CEF (19), EaSI (20), Erasmus+ (21) and LIFE (22).

5.1.

The EESC thinks it is vital for more detailed priorities to be framed for EUSALP’s three pillars if the strategic objectives set out in the consultation document and the specific objectives in point 4 are to be met.

5.1.1.

The main challenge the Alpine region strategy should help to tackle is harmonising and improving the balance between economic, environmental and social sustainability goals.

5.2.1.

The EESC thinks it essential to make sure there is sustainable growth and to foster full employment, innovation, competitiveness and cohesion in the Alpine region, consolidating and diversifying particular economic activities to foster mutual solidarity between upland and urban areas.

5.2.2.1.

Encouraging the innovation and competitiveness of SMEs by improving credit-access systems, building up the capacity of companies to seize opportunities offered by the 2014-2020 EU programmes and the innovation procurement system (especially pre-commercial type procurement (23)).

5.2.2.2.

Helping to boost developments in the green economy, including through the creation of new businesses, thus capitalising on the environmental characteristics of the Alpine region and the major production and innovation capacities that mark the area out.

5.2.2.3.

Promoting Alpine region products through brand awareness (i.e. labels of origin and regional marketing). Making the most of ‘ecosystem products and services’ (24) is a further added value supporting the area’s competitiveness.

5.2.2.4.

Bolstering collaboration between science and technology parks, universities, research centres and SMEs and boosting the capacity of research infrastructure and its ties with cutting-edge institutions of world standing. It would be good when drafting the EUSALP action plan to lay down a cross-cutting priority to support research and innovation work.

5.2.2.5.

Framing a joint strategy to transform the Alpine macro-regional space into a world-class, sustainable tourist destination, making the most of its natural, cultural and historical heritage.

5.2.2.6.

Making sure the ‘employment’ priority stays at the heart of the EUSALP, paying particular heed to the young and the long-term unemployed. It is crucial to support the creation of stable and good-quality jobs, which also serves to tackle the problem of seasonal employment that afflicts above all the upland and rural tourist areas of the Alpine region.

5.2.2.7.

Supporting initiatives to create a single area for work, to foster labour mobility, to instigate transnational traineeships and work experience, to map out international training and career pathways, and to grant full recognition of academic and professional qualifications. Particular attention needs to be paid to the qualifications of those working in tourism, who suffer more from the seasonal nature of work.

5.2.2.8.

Encouraging cooperation between the various territorial dimensions that define the Alpine region and reinforcing the role of metropolitan areas and cities as engines for competitiveness and social cohesion.

5.2.2.9.

Helping to bring about action to encourage social investment and the adaptation of social protection systems by framing policies compatible with the European Commission communication on social investment for growth and cohesion (25).

5.2.2.10.

Promoting measures to facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities and prevent discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or gender.

5.3.1.

The EESC endorses the promotion of territorial development based on cooperation between internal and external territorial systems, accessibility of services, sustainable mobility, and upgrading transport modes and communication infrastructure.

5.3.2.1.

Nurturing the adoption of innovative approaches to provide basic services (education, healthcare, social services and mobility) for upland and rural areas in order to eradicate the digital divide and to roll out broadband throughout the area.

5.3.2.2.

Expanding the use of ICT in all areas of general interest (administration, health services, jobseeking services, distance learning, e-commerce for Alpine products, etc.) and ensuring adequate availability of public services to meet the needs of the Alpine region’s various territorial systems, striking the right balance between density and accessibility of services provided.

5.3.2.3.

Promoting integrated transport systems that facilitate exchanges within various territorial systems and improve management of goods and passenger transport in order to cushion the environmental impact and augment the benefits for local communities. Two of the essential elements needed to help sustainable development of transport in the Alpine region are a shift of goods from road to rail and measures to curb the use of secondary Alpine road corridors (for example, uniform tolls for all Alpine transport corridors).

5.3.2.4.

Developing plans for interoperability and logistics at macro-regional level and enabling multimodal connection of infrastructure hubs (ports, airports and freight terminals) with the global network and with links to internal waterways.

5.3.2.5.

Promoting thematic transnational networks on aspects relevant to Alpine development, such as risk management, tourism, sport, forestry, agriculture, energy and technology services.

5.3.2.6.

Upgrading Alpine governance through more active civil-society involvement, at the same time supporting awareness-raising and making people better informed about the principal issues affecting the Alpine region.

5.4.1.

The EESC thinks it essential to strengthen commitment to the sustainable management and protection of the environment and to enhance the area’s territorial assets.

5.4.2.1.

Accommodating action to support the Alpine region’s economic development with climate change commitments, detaching the growth and competitiveness of the territorial systems in EUSALP from consumption of natural resources and raw materials.

5.4.2.2.

Making Alpine region local communities more aware of the value of ecosystem services and the fair and sustainable management of natural assets. The Alps are one of Europe’s most important sources of water: for this reason it is absolutely crucial to step up work to improve the management of the area’s water reserves and catchment areas.

5.4.2.3.

Endorsing initiatives to further harmonise action to preserve the biodiversity of Alpine region landscapes and action to use them in an environmentally friendly way.

5.4.2.4.

Developing transnational instruments and procedures for preventing and reducing risks (floods, landslides, avalanches, forest fires, etc.), integrated forest management (both in terms of environmental value and economic resource) and management of problems caused by land use (soil compaction and urban sprawl).

5.4.2.5.

Supporting conversion to a post-carbon energy system by launching initiatives on energy efficiency, by creating decentralised distribution networks based on renewable resources, and by improving settlement models and public transport based on the concept of energy saving.

5.4.2.6.

Developing and bringing on line integrated mobility systems in order to diminish reliance on cars and subsidising public transport as a service of general interest and, where possible, transport powered by renewable energy.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/17

Rapporteur:

Mr KRAWCZYK

1.1.

To address capacity shortfall the EU’s existing airport assets need to be used more efficiently. More intermodality, better connectivity, more efficient use of secondary hubs and small airports, bigger aircraft and optimisation of processes could be appropriate solutions. So too would adoption of the Airport Package, and implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) and SESAR. Airport capacity must become a full-fledged pillar of the SES.

1.2.

In the long-term, airport capacity will have to be built in the form of infrastructure such as terminals and runways. The main aim of airport expansion must be to improve connectivity on a sustainable economic basis. EU hubs must be provided with effective possibilities to meet growing demand, which includes the shortening of planning processes in order to be able to respond quickly to any demand that arises.

1.3.

Airport expansions — where justified — should form part of a balanced approach. First, airports have a positive economic impact on the neighbourhood. It is clear to the EESC that this positive impact has to be safeguarded. Second, environmental issues have to be assessed in a transparent manner. Third, airport expansions have a public dimension. This requires a public dialogue whose interlocutors include, for example, air traffic control, airport authorities, airlines, regional parties, local residents, government, etc.

1.4.

The EESC is convinced that it is critically important that Member States take immediate measures concerning land-use planning and management. Otherwise airport development will be hindered by many unforeseen and unnecessary obstacles and also, in some cases, existing airport capacity will be threatened.

1.5.

Existing regional airports should only be developed where there is clear demand for more traffic. Member State governments should identify capacity challenges and define strategies to meet them. Except in the case of public obligations the EU should stop financing development of new regional green field capacity, without prejudice to the rules of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

1.6.

The EESC considers the new EU guidelines on state aid to airports and airlines to be very valuable, because they provide legal certainty. The continued existence of non-sustainable regional airports will finally be verified based on common criteria.

1.7.

If capacity crunch is to be addressed with confidence by airports, consistency and clarity of regulatory treatment is essential to providing the necessary incentives to ensure long-term investment in infrastructure.

1.8.

Airport capacity also has a political dimension. The EESC strongly believes that the EU, together with Member States and stakeholders, including the social partners, has to make a general strategic decision on which airports will be important for the system and should be brought forward in the coming years. To maintain the competitiveness of EU aviation in globalised markets a European integrated aviation strategy, taking into account economic, environmental and social aspects as well as jobs creation, is urgently needed.

1.9.

There needs to be an assessment of airport infrastructure projects co-financed in recent years by the EU. The EESC welcomes the European Court of Auditors’ commitment to carrying out this important work. The conclusions and recommendations of this work should be the subject of a public debate.

1.10.

The EESC believes that the European Commission (EC) should simplify and streamline the structures that manage EU aviation and EU airports in particular. The Commission needs full and reliable data and information on EU airports’ operations. These data are currently not available. The EESC calls upon airport management and public authorities to provide them.

2.1.

Airports in the EU are valuable assets, yet several major airports will suffer from increasing congestion in the coming years while many others will remain underused. It could be argued that there is enough capacity across the EU, but the question is whether or not it is in the right place.

2.2.

In recent years, public discussion on airport capacity has been conducted mainly in two contexts: the loss of central airport hub capacity to non-EU/non-European competitors such as Turkey and the Gulf countries; and the ‘Ryanair Syndrome’ of low-cost airlines rapidly boosting traffic at smaller regional airports but not being stable users in the long run. However, the problem runs much deeper than this.

2.3.

In 2007 the EC published its Communication on ‘An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe’ in which it identified a growing gap between capacity and demand at a number of EU hubs (1) and proposed several measures aimed at better use of existing capacity. In 2007 the European Parliament (EP) adopted an own-initiative report in response to the Commission’s Action Plan, in which it welcomed the EC’s Communication and addressed the importance of the airport capacity crunch.

2.4.

In 2011, the EC published another Communication (2) on capacity as part of the so-called Better Airport Package, which identified capacity and quality as the key challenges for European airports.

2.5.

Eurocontrol launched and re-launched its study ‘Challenges of Growth’ in 2004, 2008 and 2013, predicting a capacity crunch in the coming 20 years.

2.6.

Such a level of activity proves the urgency of the capacity issue. Significant results have already been achieved by the aviation industry. Capacity and efficiency optimisation have taken place in all fields of action. Improvements include:

2.6.1.

Since 2004, the Single European Sky (SES) initiative has worked towards better use of the European airspace, mitigating the negative consequences of fragmentation of the European airspace. Airports involved in the SES also contribute to SES objectives within the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme. Without capacity on the ground, the success of SES is in jeopardy.

2.7.

The Commission is currently working on detailed ideas for future airport strategy with stakeholders in the European Observatory on Airport Capacity. The mission of this Observatory is threefold:

3.1.

There are more than 450 airports in Europe, and yet European airports are still facing an impending capacity crunch.

3.2.

Airports Council International Europe (ACI) groups airports as follows:

3.2.1.

In a point-to-point system, passengers travel directly from origin to destination without changing.

3.2.2.

Both systems are complementary; they merely have different objectives: the hub and spokes system is aimed at achieving maximum connectivity, whereas the point-to-point system is meant to achieve the highest possible degree of mobility and flexibility.

3.3.

The EU has financed an extraordinary number of airport-related infrastructure projects. The EESC feels that there is a lack of publicly available information about these investments and about their efficiency in providing additional connectivity and efficiency for the public.

3.4.

The EESC considers the newly introduced EU guidelines (3) on state aid to airports and airlines to be very valuable, because they provide legal certainty. Furthermore, the guidelines differentiate between airports that are needed, for instance, for public services, and airports that are redundant, i.e. airports that are neither able to cover their operating costs nor needed to safeguard public services.

4.1.

The aviation markets of the future will be the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. The average annual growth of passenger flows in these regions will amount to between 6 % and 7 % until 2032. The average growth rate in Europe and North America will be around 3 %.

4.2.

Eurocontrol, in its latest Challenges of Growth report of 2013, has identified a capacity squeeze within the next 20 years. In the most likely scenario, 1,9 million flights will not be operated due to capacity constraints in 2035. This is equivalent to 12 % of demand. 20 airports in Europe will be highly congested for more than six hours a day, whereas presently this is true of only three.

4.2.1.

The capacity growth that does take place will not be evenly distributed across European airports. The biggest growth will be in Eastern Europe, while intra-European traffic and the traffic share of North-Western Europe will decrease. The EESC notes this development and believes that airports in Europe must rise to these challenges.

5.1.

The EESC believes that it is essential to enhance European competitiveness and appeal as a destination for investment in the aviation sector. Ground capacity is critically important here.

5.2.

The EESC is convinced that implementing the SES is long overdue and needed to meet the capacity crunch challenge. Just minimising delays would have an immediate effect on the capacity of the system and the airports within it. The EESC agrees with ACI that ground capacity ought to be a full-fledged pillar of the SES and that objectives for ground capacity should be in line with those of the SES.

5.3.

The Challenges of Growth study by Eurocontrol proposes six measures, which, in combination, could reduce the amount of unmet demand in 2035 by 42 %. This amounts to 8 00  000 additional flights, or 50 million passengers, which could then be operated. These solutions include:

5.3.1.

The EESC understands that these measures are to be implemented to reduce unmet demand, but feels that they may not be sufficient to meet all future demand. Furthermore, not all of these measures are applicable to every airport in the EU.

5.4.

The EESC also believes that the adoption of the Airport Package, as proposed by the EC, would also help to bring about better use of existing airport assets. The EESC calls for ambitious results from the ongoing work in Parliament and Council in line with what it had proposed in its Airport Package (4).

5.5.

Ultimately, it would appear that the solution to the problem of insufficient airport capacity includes construction of new capacity alongside optimisation of existing capacity. This is difficult since many airports are no longer in a position to invest in further capacity. Eurocontrol, in the 2013 edition of its ‘Challenges of Growth’ report, states that ‘lack of revenue, difficulty in obtaining finance, and growing resistance to transport infrastructure projects’ have made some airports reconsider their expansion plans.

5.6.

The EESC strongly recommends carrying out an assessment of the merit of EU investments in airport related infrastructure thus far. The EESC welcomes the EU Court of Auditors’ announcement that it is working on this issue, and recommends using a broad control sample.

6.1.

Airports face several challenges when they plan to enlarge their infrastructure. These challenges or obstacles can be grouped as follows:

6.1.1.

Airports tend to be very cautious about investing because of the recent economic crisis. On the one hand, revenues have tended to go down. On the other hand, airports face increasing security and safety costs (operating costs). Recent improved state aid decisions and the new state aid guidelines make it more challenging for smaller airports to remain viable. Securing financing for infrastructure projects has become a serious challenge for airports.

6.1.2.

On a regulatory basis, airports have to fulfil a multitude of requirements. Administrative procedures are very complex, especially when it comes to security and environmental issues. The EESC by no means denies the importance of environmental requirements. Nevertheless, there has to be a balanced approach to these issues. The European Commission has already made good progress, for example with Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports, as part of a balanced approach. The European aviation sector is an industry sector well placed for ‘green growth’. The EESC warns the European Commission in particular against implementing non-integrated solutions to tackle environmental issues. The Committee highlights the need for integrated and global solutions. With this in mind, a useful first step could be for the European Commission to commission a large-scale project aimed at mapping out and documenting existing environmental restrictions impacting the capacity of European airports.

6.1.3.

A rather new problem lies in growing public challenges in the form of increasing resistance from the population to infrastructure projects. Major EU hub airport extension projects have been put on hold, some of them for more than a decade — examples include a possible third Paris airport; additional runways at Frankfurt and Munich airports; and the UK/London discussion on how to best extend capacity in a multimodal metropolis environment.

6.1.4.

Public resistance as a result of noise pollution, amongst other things, is growing. On the other hand, airports and airlines spend huge sums on noise mitigation measures. For example, Vienna airport has launched a noise protection scheme covering 12  000 households. The estimated total cost will amount to around EUR 51 million, of which EUR 37 million will come directly from Flughafen Wien AG. The budget of Liège airport and Charleroi airport for repurchase or noise insulation of 20  816 households is EUR 444 million. London Heathrow spent EUR 37 million on noise mitigation measures in the period 2007-11.

6.1.5.

Member State governments should identify capacity challenges and define strategies to meet them. In this context, there is a clear need for strong leadership at European level to coordinate these national strategies on capacity and to provide financial guidance and support as appropriate. There should be very strict criteria for EU financing of green field airport assets. The EU should restrict financing of such projects to those that are financially viable or meet public obligation criteria.

6.1.6.

The EESC would like to point out that the discussion on capacity also has a political dimension. The EESC strongly believes that the EU, together with the Member States and stakeholders including the social partners, has to make a general strategic decision on which airports will be important for the system and should be brought forward in the coming years. The balance of the EU’s priorities concerning the hub-system and the point-to-point-system should be assessed and reviewed if necessary. An integrated European policy is needed more than ever, taking into account the economic, environmental and social aspects as well as job creation.

6.1.7.

In addition in the Commission, several DGs are working on related matters: MOVE, EMPL, COMP, JUST, etc. Their remit depends on the precise policy area, and there are many links to different areas such as international relations, state aid, SES and multimodality. This has not proven efficient while seeking to take an integrated, whole-value-chain approach to EU aviation, which is now imperative. It is urgent that the Commission’s aviation, and in particular its airport-related, activities be much better integrated.

6.2.

Like any production process, the physical capacity of an airport is subject to constraints, i.e. factors reducing actual capacity. In the case of runway capacity they include:

6.2.1.

In addition to this, all drivers of airport capacity are usually impacted by operating procedures and regulations, for instance special approach and departure procedures or airspace design requirements in response to noise considerations. Actual airport capacity is usually much lower than physical airport capacity. The ‘balanced approach’ of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provides the most effective method to address noise at and around airports in an environmentally sensitive and economically responsible way.

6.2.2.

The EC tends to take only runway capacity into account in its work on airport capacity. As shown above this approach is incomplete, and the EESC encourages the European Commission to take other decisive airport capacity drivers, such as airspace capacity at surrounding airports, into account in its work on airport capacity as well. The interaction between airports and airspace (or air navigation service providers) is critical in addressing the airport capacity crunch. However, the way this interaction is managed differs considerably across the European Union and even within some Member States.

6.2.3.

It is critically important that Member States take measures concerning land-use planning and management. This is often in the hands of local or regional authorities who should appreciate the role of airports in national and European networks, especially in central hub areas where pressure for the usage of land for other purposes is great. The EU needs to agree on common principles in this regard and to provide a consistent legal and planning framework to optimise decisions on new capacity.

6.3.

A consolidated common market in EU civil aviation needs to emerge. However, the EESC warns that hubs should not be favoured at the expense of regional airports. Both are complementary and should remain integral parts of what are referred to in TEN-T policy as the core and the comprehensive network. This sometimes results in congestion and growth going hand in hand.

6.4.

The EESC encourages the Commission to look at the European airspace capacity issue both from the perspective of international competitiveness — which is, of course, key — and in terms of the smooth functioning of the EU’s internal market. Better and more rational use of regional capacity could help to alleviate pressure on busy hubs. The ongoing test of remote air traffic control towers (e.g. in Sweden) are in this context interesting as a tool to lower operating cost at such regional airports while maintaining the highest safety levels.

6.5.

The Commission’s role is crucial. However, it has not been fully sketched out in detail: in order to do more than monitoring and chivvying all players to be more efficient, the Commission would first of all need full and reliable data and information on EU airports’ operations. These data are currently not available, and nor are there criteria for what an ‘efficient airport’ should be, or official figures on EU-level public funding for airports.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/24

Rapporteur:

Carlos TRIAS PINTÓ

Co-rapporteur:

Petru Sorin DANDEA

1.1.

The slower recovery in Europe than in the rest of the world is symptomatic of a degree of dysfunction that a deeper economic and monetary union must address. This opinion supports the process of deepening EMU, particularly in the euro area, from the aspect of the role of taxation. Progress in coordinating direct taxation has been and will continue to be hard to achieve because it remains in the competence of Member States and is rooted in the fabric of how each Member State has chosen over the centuries to finance its perceived necessary government expenditures. Any change to taxation must result in a more globally competitive and sustainable tax regime.

1.2.

In order to allow the proper functioning of Economic and Monetary Union, the new legislature must lay the foundations for and move gradually towards a fiscal union capable of overcoming the huge diversity of national rules which hinder real integration and the creation of a single market and furthermore towards an enhanced common budget for the euro area.

1.3.

Together with the ECB monetary pillar, in the medium term there must effectively also be a ‘common budget pillar’ ensuring macroeconomic stabilisation within the EMU, particularly in the event of ‘asymmetric shocks’.

1.4.

Correcting the shortcomings and loopholes in taxation policy entails taking more ambitious steps within the euro area with a view to reducing and standardising the range of different taxes, extending tax bases, aligning tax rates more closely, and strengthening cooperation and information exchange mechanisms in order to combat fraud and evasion.

1.5.

The new legislature must cooperate closely with the OECD and G20 in seeking a speedy solution to the global problem of base erosion and profit shifting. The OECD has made good progress in introducing a global model for taxing corporations which seeks to capture tax where the economic substance is located. It should form the basis for corporate taxation in the EU.

1.6.

In order to move towards a deeper fiscal union, it is essential to continue budgetary surveillance under the Two-pack and to swiftly introduce an own resource fund in the euro area to reverse macroeconomic imbalances (1).

1.7.

The Committee fully supports the continuation of the European Semester process, which should be reviewed to ensure its effectiveness. The individual Country Specific Recommendations could be a tool in moving to common ground.

1.8.

The meagre common budget of barely 1 % of EU GDP must be increased, especially in the euro area. Commission President Juncker’s political guidelines ‘A New Start for Europe’ call for the budget to be oriented further towards jobs, growth and competitiveness. The EESC supports this approach and emphasises the need to use the review of the Multiannual Financial Framework at the end of 2016 to lay the foundations for an increased budget to fulfil the proper functioning of the monetary union.

1.9.

The Commission should follow up on its Communication of March 2013 ‘Towards a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ (2) and introduce a Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument directed at contractual arrangements for Member States to undertake reforms with a national and European benefit to address imbalances which could not be undertaken without financial assistance. This fund should develop into an own resource fiscal capacity capable of giving temporary assistance in combating regional shocks (3).

1.10.

The euro area budget should help the monetary union to function better, give fiscal backing to achieve a full banking union, and to offset asymmetric shocks. These functions were lacking when the economic crisis struck, dramatically exacerbating inequalities that required fiscal measures.

1.11.

The EESC is aware of the complexity of the issue, and proposes a raft of measures to be adopted gradually, in keeping with the objectives set out in the European treaties (4):

Short-term (6 to 18 months):

Medium-term (18 months to 5 years):

2.1.1.

The 28 EU Member States have set out on the path of integration, with stronger commitments and obligations within the euro area, guided by monetary union, now strengthened by an evolving banking union and the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

2.1.2.

Taxation policy currently covers more than 600 distinct taxes. These provide the bulk of revenue, equivalent in total (taxes and social security contributions) to 39,4 % of the Member States’ GDP (13) and 40,4 % in the euro area. There is a need to bring more coordination to the tax policies of Member States in the euro area to complement the single monetary policy of the ECB.

2.1.3.

Making progress towards fiscal union, in the case of the euro area, would mean being able to rely on its own resources and make a start on effectively supporting important structural reforms in the economies in difficulty as well as to implement solidarity-based and redistribution policies which are essential to offset asymmetric shocks.

2.1.4.

Compared to other advanced economies the EU, and the euro area in particular, has lower rates of growth (GDP) and employment. Most economic integration theories suggest models that comprise both monetary and fiscal union. The TFEU however imposes decision-making by unanimity in matters of taxation, making the adoption of legislation far more difficult.

2.1.5.

The euro area’s lack of macroeconomic efficiency can be attributed in part to the mismatch between fiscal policy, which is highly decentralised and within the ambit of the Member States, and monetary policy, which in the euro area countries is increasingly centralised under the authority of the ECB.

2.1.6.

The ECB’s limited powers prevent it from financing budget deficits by creating money. This might be positive for price stability and the value of the currency, but not for growth, employment and other objectives. There has been little progress in the EU towards fiscal union since monetary union. This makes it difficult to ensure mobility of labour and capital, and to respond to the crisis and asymmetric shocks.

2.2.1.

The minimal tax policy coordination applied to date is barely sufficient to prevent the distortion of competition between Member States and to mitigate the competitive race to the bottom which mainly affects nominal and effective rates of corporate and personal income taxes; this could have a positive impact if handled in a concerted way between the Member States. Unfortunately, for the moment this is a negative-sum game in which the winners are income on capital and highly mobile labour, with the great majority losing out.

2.2.2.

Although fiscal integration requires a system of transfers and an authority, the EU budget is limited to 1 % of GDP. Net transfers make up a minimal part of these resources, despite the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy and the Europe 2030 project.

2.2.3.

The roadmap towards a fully-fledged Economic and Monetary Union, drawn up in 2012 (14), proposes moving in the medium term towards an economic, monetary and fiscal union, by means, among other things, of more specific initiatives, while in the short term it is planned to strengthen fiscal and economic governance (Six Pack, Fiscal Pact and Two Pack); the European Semester and its Recommendations; and lastly the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU signed by 25 countries, outside the TFEU. The system is one-way, rigid and unwieldy, failing to provide the flexibility needed to tackle the immediate economic situation in a crisis situation and to introduce a euro area policy mix.

2.2.4.

In fact, it is remarkable that so far only measures on the expenditure side have been launched while completely neglecting the revenue side of a fiscal union.

2.2.5.

In addition to the absence of a fiscal supervisory authority, the troika acted in a politicised way, imposing austerity policies on countries which required aid, drawing criticism from the European Parliament (15) and the EESC for their lack of effectiveness and transparency.

2.2.6.

The EESC supports the Commission President, Mr Juncker’s, political guidelines ‘A New Start for Europe’ that call for the EU to replace the ‘troika’ with a more democratically legitimate and more accountable structure based around the EU institutions, with enhanced parliamentary control both at EU and national level.

2.2.7.

Meanwhile, policies of fiscal devaluation pursued in some of the most vulnerable of the euro area countries resulted in damage to the European social model (16) rather than increased competitiveness, as the reduction of the burden on labour as a factor of production had scarcely any impact in terms of improved growth, employment and the debt situation, leading to unnecessary loss of tax income. In some Member States however, correcting some imbalances seems to begin to show beneficial effects.

3.1.1.

The difficulty of making progress on integration in the field of taxation has been illustrated in two areas: financial transactions and transactions in the digital economy; the Commission must give a rapid response, in line with investigations by the Competition DG, the recommendations of the Commission Expert Group on Taxation of the Digital Economy (17) and the OECD’s first proposals (18) for a coordinated international approach to combat tax avoidance by multinational enterprises, under the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project (designed to create a single set of international tax rules to end the erosion of tax bases and the artificial shifting of profits to jurisdictions to avoid paying tax).

3.1.2.

As the planned financial transaction tax applying to the whole EU has so far progressed no further than the February 2013 Directive on enhanced cooperation involving only 11 euro area countries (19), its application should be extended at least to the euro area (overcoming the lack of progress of the last months).

3.1.3.

The EESC welcomes the proposal to amend the Directive on Taxation of savings income (20) to improve the quality of information and ensure more effective prevention of tax evasion.

3.2.1.

Every year the EU loses far more tax income than the United States or other countries where there is less of a black economy, tax or employment fraud and tax evasion (21). In order to prevent dysfunctions such as tax havens, the extensive and complex tax structures require greater homogeneity, simplification and harmonisation between countries. The process should begin with the euro area, coordinated by the Commission and the Euro-group, using a European simplification body of the kind that already exists in some countries (22).

3.2.2.

The EESC also believes that convergence of tax policies should be a priority in the framework of the European Semester (taking advantage of some Country Specific Recommendations), since this is the forum for coordinating economic policy efforts between the Member States in order to achieve the Europe 2020 objectives too, with the help of the other policies.

3.2.3.

The EESC calls for a fairer and more effective system, with tax reform and harmonisation geared towards transparency, broadening the tax base and prevention of aggressive tax avoidance, thus enabling rates of tax to fall and the burden to be redistributed.

3.2.4.

The EESC recommends limiting the system of exemptions, depending on the nature of each tax by means of rigorous economic and social cost-benefit analyses, in line with the international principle of tax expenditures, which has been consolidated since 1968, and considering that during the last five crisis years tax-benefit systems were able to contain a considerable part of the increase in market inequality in most EU Member States, according to Commission studies (23).

3.2.5.

The EESC urges the EU to take a more active part, through euro area representatives, in discussions on coordinating its harmonisation and simplification work with the OECD (24), the IMF (25) and the G-20 (26), beginning with transfer prices, fraud and the black economy and, above all, problems of fairness in the distribution of the burden of taxation.

3.2.6.

The EESC considers that the BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) action plan (27) will be essential to combating tax evasion and aggressive tax planning at global level. It therefore encourages the G20, the OECD and all the Member States to develop it, creating an embryonic EU agency acting as a VAT clearing house and tackling tax fraud, in order to eradicate the problem of ‘carousel fraud’ (28) in intra-Community transactions, which is more damaging than the black economy itself.

3.2.7.

Lastly, given that tax exemptions and reliefs result in effective tax rates that are far lower than the nominal ones, they should be coordinated with European objectives on employment, productive investment, business competitiveness and social inclusion, as well as with the Union policies which shape the European social model.

3.3.1.

The EESC calls for priority to be given to harmonisation of company taxes to progress towards a coherent budgetary and fiscal union (29) so that SMEs do not pay the highest effective tax rates. The EESC also considers highly reprehensible the practice of some Member States of granting special, unpublicised tax reliefs to selected multinational corporations; in this connection it calls on the European Commission to do everything possible to eliminate such practices. This state of affairs leads to a distortion of competition that is incompatible with the whole purpose of the single market.

3.3.1.1.

One of the first and most important levers should focus on creating a ‘common consolidated tax base’. This position was officially put forward by the Committee in 2006 (30) and confirmed subsequently (31). As long ago as 1992 the Ruding Report pointed to the need for common rules to define the tax base starting with minimum and maximum rates.

3.3.1.2.

In the spirit of the ‘monetary snake’ designed to resist currency fluctuations before the introduction of the euro, the Committee suggests that the authorities responsible are encouraged to cooperate establishing a ceiling and a floor for corporate tax. Exemptions which are less conducive to increasing employment or productivity should also be eliminated in a coordinated way.

3.3.2.

The EESC welcomes the proposal for a directive on parent companies and subsidiaries in different Member States, one of 34 measures included in the Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion  (32) presented by the Commission at the end of 2012. It would however prefer this to be implemented by means of a regulation.

3.3.3.

Regarding intra-EU trade in goods and services, there has been more progress on the harmonisation of VAT, where the harmonisation of tax bases has improved but there are still major differences in rates of tax.

3.3.4.

Finally, in view of their strategic character, the EESC recommends that priority be given to tax incentives for research and development (33).

3.3.5.

Care should be taken to ensure that any measures envisaged do not harm the competitiveness of European companies.

3.4.1.

Natural persons are subject to both direct and indirect taxation. It has to be borne in mind that indirect taxes are regressive by nature and especially upward harmonisation of indirect taxation is regressive and can have a drastic effect on the lowest-income sectors of the population without countervailing income supplements.

3.4.2.

Harmonisation of the direct taxation of natural persons is limited to specific cases and the tax burden has ceased to converge.

3.4.3.

At least in the euro area, the number of chapters in personal income tax law and the cost of social security contributions should be revised in order to prevent social dumping, make the ‘tax wedge’ on labour more uniform and thus facilitate its mobility (34). The progressive nature of such taxation should be extended to income from capital and the wealth by which it is generated, once again making property, inheritance and gift taxes an instrument of control. Furthermore these kinds of taxes have less dampening effect on demand than taxes on labour.

3.4.4.

The need to place more emphasis on investment rather than consumption makes it important to harmonise and set up convergence snakes for the taxation of income on savings (35) and dividends received by natural persons and cross-border pension benefits.

3.4.5.

The EESC supports the search by the Commission for ways to make tax structures more growth-friendly, and to look at the role that taxation can play in meeting consolidation needs in the context of broadening tax bases like housing taxation. So the recommendations made by the European Commission to Member States in the European Semester were to make further use of recurrent taxes on property, for the purpose of consolidation or as part of a tax shift away from labour (36).

3.4.6.

The EESC also proposes that additional measures be adopted to harmonise environmental taxes, taking the Commission’s 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies as a starting point.

3.4.7.

The public will help to combat the serious problem of tax and labour fraud if there are incentives to do so. Instruments like the service voucher or tax exemptions and relief for other personal support services, which combine the objectives of promoting social welfare and bringing the black economy into the open, should be strengthened.

3.4.8.

In order to combat the informal economy, the EESC proposes that tax incentives be introduced for the use of forms of payment, such as cards and mobile phones, which leave a trace and encourage financial and digital inclusion, by means of harmonised tax reliefs or exemptions for individuals and companies who reduce their use of cash.

3.4.9.

Similarly, public cooperation could be stepped up by means of economic incentives for detecting possibly fraudulent transactions, modelled on what is normal practice in the US.

3.5.1.

The great diversity of taxation encourages fraud, corruption and the black economy. The EESC calls on the Member States of the euro area to take on greater powers in the four major areas of taxation: direct taxation of natural and legal persons (including taxation of capital income and property as well as other wealth related taxes), and indirect taxation in the form of VAT and special taxes.

3.5.2.

Making progress on fiscal governance inevitably means a gradual hand-over of sovereignty by the Member States. In this way, tax collection could continue to be predominantly a matter for States, with checks, inspections and distribution of revenue being handled between the Union and the States. To this end, the EESC proposes the establishment of an EU tax authority, beginning with the euro area.

3.5.3.

In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, local taxes must be respected, but the EESC recommends launching a campaign of simplification by reducing, grouping and standardising many existing taxes.

3.6.1.

A supranational fiscal policy (37) would be an effective instrument for achieving the aims of the Treaties, particularly cohesion and sustainability policies.

3.6.2.

The EESC calls for the establishment of an additional federal budget, at least in the euro area, which could collect taxes and gradually take on those policies which can be better implemented in common: unemployment insurance linked to active labour market policies (38), research and development, defence, a common mechanism to compensate for the debt interest burden (39), etc.

3.6.3.

Lastly, the EESC strongly supports the initiatives taken by the OECD and G-20 in the field of international tax cooperation and to combat tax fraud, and urges that automatic exchange of tax information become the international standard.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/33

Rapporteur:

Mr Gonçalo LOBO XAVIER

Co-rapporteur:

Mr Nicola KONSTANTINOU

1.1.

The European packaging industry faces several challenges. Its critical role in a number of sectors places the industry in a central position as regards the competitiveness of the European economy. Europe must retain leadership of this industry and should keep up trends concerning environmental sustainability, safety and branding issues in packaging. The EESC believes that this leadership must be based around four key pillars: resource efficiency; R & D and innovation; social dialogue; sustainability and adaptation.

2.1.

The packaging industry serves a wide variety of purposes in our daily lives: protection (prevents breakages, spoilage and contamination, increases shelf-life); promotion (product ingredients, features, promotional messages and branding); information (product identification, preparation and usage, nutritional and storage data, safety warnings, contact information, opening instructions, end-of-life management); convenience (product preparation, serving, storage and portioning); utilisation (provision to consumer, retail and transport units); handling (transport from producer to retailer, point of sale display); and waste reduction (processing, re-use of by-products, storage and transport energy).

2.2.

Given the immense variety that exists within the sector, the packaging industry necessarily requires a vast and varied approach. As a valuable sector, it is necessary to adopt a careful attitude which takes account of its diversity, the need to comply with rules and legislation and, of course, the competitiveness of the sector.

2.3.

While there are a number of critical concerns common to most sectors, individual subsectors naturally face their own set of specific problems. This is due to the fact that specific products are subject to different requirements, particularly in terms of standards and certifications.

2.4.

The use of packaging to communicate innovation and quality is an opportunity for Europe. To this end, several measures aim to identify clearly the quality and innovation of the products contained in a given package. This is a never-ending challenge that is crucial for differentiating EU products from those originating in other parts of the world.

2.5.

The EESC believes that there are two further issues that are also vital for this discussion: the logistical aspect of the packaging industry and access to the raw materials used by the sector.

In light of these two issues, it is easy to see just why the challenges facing the European packaging industry are so enormous.

The main objective of this document is to inform the European institutions of a number of recommendations which the EESC/CCMI consider to be critical for boosting the European economy in general and the packaging sector in particular. As in other areas, Europe must once again lead the way and call for compliance with rules and legislation that genuinely help the economy and that are carried out in a sustainable manner with a view to boosting the internal market: confidence and compliance with legal requirements should be the watchwords, not protection.

2.6.

The specific case of the materials used is a critical issue that requires careful analysis in order to respect the open market and ensure a level playing field for all market players.

2.7.

The EESC considers that establishing a coordinated and inclusive dialogue between sector stakeholders will ensure that the sector remains sustainable and provides decent employment in the long term and is better able to cope with change and adapt to the needs of consumers and wider societal demands. In this respect, social dialogue’s potential to strengthen the sector is not being fully realised and this needs to be addressed urgently.

2.8.

If the sector needs to adapt to change and transform to meet market requirements, the only way to achieve sustainability and equitable remedies is through a multi-channel approach to stakeholder engagement. In order to address issues related to the sector, its structure, competitiveness and related issues such as employment, skills, adaptation and the future viability of the sector and its workforce, properly structured and organised social dialogue should be encouraged by the Commission. In addition, to provide a platform for the expression of interests by a wider audience (i.e. society and consumers, workers, employers, governments, etc.), a channel of two-way communication between the various actors and institutions ought to be created. In this way, all concerned parties can be involved in the sector and in its broader and central role in society.

3.1.

The European packaging sector encompasses a broad range of activities and although it shares similar problems with other industries, the sector faces a number of unique and significant challenges at the present and in the short to medium term. The packaging sector comprises glass, metal, plastic, wood and paper packaging companies which, in total, employ over 6,5 million people in Europe (3) (Eurostat).

3.2.

The packaging sector represents not only a diverse range of products, but also a variety of different processes that are distinct and which are utilised to create products for specific markets and particular uses, each requiring different environments and producing a variety of challenges and characteristics.

For instance, energy use is a significant cost factor for glass packaging companies. Moreover, since up to 80 % of waste glass packaging is recycled, glass recycling is a significant contributor to the EU targets for recycling and lowering the region’s carbon footprint.

3.3.

The connection between the materials used for packaging is also an important aspect and the increased transport costs for the transit of materials, such as corrugated board and tubes to be used for packaging, has had a negative effect on the packaging sector. Thus, the impact of energy costs throughout the sector’s supply chain — note the distance that products, such as printed material, travel before they are used by packaging companies — is passed on to the packaging sector.

3.4.

Metal can be recycled over and over again without any diminution in quality, which creates additional value to the sector’s contribution to the EU recycling targets.

3.5.

Container glass is used to produce bottles and jars and other packaging products and is the largest sector in the EU glass industry, representing about 60 % of total glass production and employing 90  000 people in the EU (Eurostat). Employment in the glass sector overall has declined due to increased automation, industry consolidation and low-cost competition. Imports from outside the EU provide increasing competition and there has been a rise in the number of production plants in countries close to or bordering the EU with lower labour costs and laxer regulations; this creates short-term excess capacity and puts pressure on prices.

France, Germany and Italy are the largest producers in the EU, accounting the next largest producers in the EU. Glass is a resource efficient material and can be recycled an infinite number of times. For instance, energy use is a significant cost factor for glass packaging companies and less so for others. As up to 80 % of waste glass packaging is recycled, glass recycling is a significant contributor to the EU targets for recycling and lowering the region’s carbon footprint. However, due to the materials they use and the products produced, other segments of the sector will rely to a lesser extent on energy.

3.6.

If we consider the use of paper or similar materials, the sector’s supply chain is complicated by the fact that the companies responsible for processing paper and paperboard packaging — for products such as cartons, corrugated cardboard, boxboard and containerboard — tend to produce paper themselves and are part of a circular process involving the pulping and de-inking of used materials as well as the use of raw products from wood.

3.7.

On the other hand, plastic packaging also has its specific features: not all packaging subsectors are represented by several industry bodies. Plastic packaging supplies markets other than those mentioned above — with end-users such as car manufacturers, cosmetics companies and companies producing health products and containers for pre-packed food. Yet there is just one single industry association for this subsector. Plastic packaging is also linked to environmental issues, such as the production of plastic bags for shopping and the difficulties associated with their disposal and the decomposition of their constituent components.

3.8.

In this scenario, this variety of production processes has created a plethora of business representative bodies, which in itself creates barriers to cooperation between companies and worker representatives over such significant issues as environmental sustainability and change management. The segmented nature of packaging subsectors, such as metal packagers, is demonstrated by the large number of trade representative bodies. For example, the producers of aluminium are often the same companies that produce aluminium packaging and have their own trade organisation (European Aluminium Association). However, specialists in metal packaging that produce beverage cans (made of steel and aluminium) have their own trade organisation; and for packaging companies specialising in steel products, there is yet another trade association.

3.9.

Due to the sector’s importance, both in terms of its contribution to GDP and employment, these sector-specific issues require particular attention. However, being such a segmented sector, the packaging industry serves the needs of upstream businesses right across economies, and far beyond its traditional markets.

3.10.

Product packaging serves a number of needs and covers issues such as product protection (prevention of breakage, spoilage and contamination), promotional information (product identification, branding, preparation, usage, nutritional and safety information), information on handling (transportation and point of sale display), reducing packaging waste (processing, storage and transport energy) and, important within the context of efforts to reduce carbon emissions, packaging design is an important aspect of maximising the space available for the transportation of goods. The role of packaging itself in reducing waste has become relevant as online companies, such as Amazon, have become very large users of packaging and the question of ‘the responsible party’ ought to be addressed.

Amazon, for example, utilises certified ‘easy opening packaging’ systems. By eliminating plastic and straps, since 2008, Amazon has radically changed its approach for 2 00  000 products from 2  000 manufactures, thereby reducing cardboard consumption by 5,4 million square metres, the generic materials by 11  203,7 tons and the total volume of boxes by 410 thousand cubic metres. In reality, the consumer bears the ultimate responsibility for waste packaging, but the producer, or intermediate user, ought to have an interest in the amount of packaging which eventually becomes waste.

3.11.

The issues referred to below require thorough examination to provide an overall understanding of the current state of play and to produce potential solutions to ensure that the European packaging sector remains competitive and sustainable from an environmental point of view and provides decent employment for the thousands of workers dependent on it.

3.12.

Any change in the availability of raw materials will influence both the price and availability of finished packaging products, and has the potential to seriously disrupt the sector’s activities. Consequently, an examination of the drivers and trends of raw materials ought to be undertaken to enable the industry to anticipate future change without the associated and potential disruption. The metal packaging sector, for example, is particularly under pressure from both sharp increases in the cost of raw materials and energy prices.

3.13.

In 2012, the Commission launched the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials, with the aim of addressing the challenges associated with the supply of wood-based and mineral raw materials.

3.14.

Demand, mainly from Asia, has driven up the price of secondary raw materials for paper packaging, the producers of which are unable to simply pass on these additional costs to their customers. Chinese demand has contributed heavily to the increase in the price of recycled materials for paper packaging (the price of recovered paper has almost doubled since 2006, while in the same period the price of recycled paper has increased by almost 50 %). These increases are likely to continue in the foreseeable future.

4.1.

According to Eurostat metal packaging (comprising steel and aluminium) for the packaging industry employs around 60  000 people in Europe, out of a total of 3 55  000 in the European steel industry, and Metal Packaging for Europe estimates that 80  000 people are employed in the aluminium industry, extending to 2 55  000 employed throughout the entire European aluminium value chain. However the sector has suffered, and continues to suffer, job losses, either as a result of consolidation in the sector or from overseas competition (4).

4.2.

The challenge for the sector’s employers and workforce in Europe is to ensure that the sector maintains its competitive edge, fully utilises technological innovations and produces goods that are environmentally sustainable and of a high quality.

4.3.

Competition from overseas continues to exert downward pressure on the working conditions of the sector’s workforce — those we rely upon to create wealth, utilise innovative technologies and, fundamentally, to maintain the sector’s operation and sustainable future for future generations.

4.4.

The European packaging sector continues to suffer from over-capacity and this compounds the impact of overseas competition and acts as a dampener on wages and working conditions. The downward trend in employment in the sector illustrates the impact of both competition and over-capacity.

4.5.

The packaging sector has the potential to provide wider benefits to Europe’s economies due to its capacity to recycle materials. More and more packaging materials are either being recycled or are themselves products of recycled materials from other manufacturing sectors. The environmental benefits of recycling are obvious enough, and are featured regularly in Commission documents. However, the packaging sector can improve the recycling rates of Member States. At the same time, it has the potential to close the loop of the circular economy by preventing the export of dubious waste materials and denying access to European markets to importers of packaging which does not comply with environmental best practice (5). Metal and aluminium packaging companies, whose products represent 16 % of the total volume of aluminium products in Europe, rely both on the extraction of the raw material (Bauxite) and the recycling of scrap metal.

4.6.

The protection of consumers, by providing critical product information or advice regarding product usage, is also a significant and important aspect of the European packaging industry. Consumers rightly expect packaging to protect the goods they buy and, in the case of food and drink, to preserve and prevent health risks associated with contaminated foodstuffs. Retailers have similar expectations but, in addition, the packaging of the goods they sell ought to maximise the shelf life of a product.

4.7.

The future shape and structure of the industry is, to a lesser or greater extent, dependent on innovation and investment in technology: 3D printing, for example, offers an opportunity to the sector and consumers but the success of its introduction and operation in the sector will rely heavily on cooperation within the sector and the expectations of consumers. The industry must take advantage of the available technologies and adjust, through proper dialogue.

4.8.

Good practice, to transform the sector and to adapt to change, is continuously developing but requires the assistance of the European institutions to maximise its potential. The EU may offer assistance, in terms of financial support or the creation of a forum to further develop discussions among the social partners, and the sector ought to engage with the EU in this process.

4.9.

Sustainable and workable solutions will only be achieved if the two sides of industry work together and social dialogue at national and European level provides such an opportunity. Therefore the creation of a Sectorial Social Dialogue Committee for the Packaging Sector is essential to begin tackling a number of the issues raised in this document.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/39

Rapporteur:

Mr Ludvík JÍROVEC

Co-rapporteur:

Mr Patrizio PESCI

1.1.

In order to maximise the benefits offered by wood products in the carbon balance and to enhance the competitiveness of the European woodworking industry (1) and its capacity to drive innovation, the European Economic and Social Committee has drawn up the following recommendations.

1.2.

The EESC recognises that European and national legislation is having a big impact on the woodworking industries. For this reason, the EESC invites Member States to explore all opportunities related to using wood as an environmentally-friendly material in order to boost the competitiveness of this sector, promote employment and support investment in research and innovation.

1.3.

The EESC calls on the European Commission, in consultation with interested stakeholders, to draw up European guidelines on wood supply in order to increase wood supply and promote sustainable use of wood sources. Resource efficiency principles should be included. The recommendations set out in the Good practice guidance on the sustainable mobilisation of wood in Europe (2010) should be taken into consideration and, if necessary, developed.

1.4.

The EESC recalls the importance of excluding ‘pallets and recovered post-consumer wood’ from the definition of ‘tertiary biomass.’

1.5.

As pointed out in the EESC opinion on ‘Opportunities and challenges for a more competitive European woodworking and furniture sector’ adopted in October 2011 (2), and in line with the principles set out in the recent EU Communication on ‘Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe’, the EESC highlights the fact that the ‘cascade use’ principle (use, reuse, recycling, energy recovery) — when economically and technically feasible in accordance with specific national and regional features — represents the optimal way to maximise the resource-efficient use of wood. The EESC is pleased that following its request to recognise the importance of the cascade principle of wood, this principle has been transposed into several EU documents such as the European Industrial Renaissance, the New EU Forest Strategy and the Commission staff working document on ‘A blueprint for the EU forest-based industries (woodworking, furniture, pulp & paper manufacturing and converting, printing)’ accompanying the Communication on ‘A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector’. However, the EESC cannot support the notion of legally binding rules and is in favour of an open market-based approach and the freedom of market participants.

1.6.

Management options for building materials should include measures to avoid recycling materials, such as wood, going to landfills. The EESC calls on the EU Commission and the interested stakeholders to define guidelines and recommendations on wood waste collection and solutions for the treatment of post-consumer wood.

1.7.

The EESC calls on the EU Commission to introduce a norm that properly reflects the acoustic characteristics of enclosed spaces, given that that wood can play an essential role in acoustic insulation. In fact wood has the capacity to insulate rooms acoustically from external noises and to reduce reverberation time. Opportunities related to wood applications should be explored.

1.8.

The EESC calls upon the Member States and interested stakeholders to define national action plans designed to enhance the use of wood in buildings and green infrastructures. Local authorities should be directly involved in the implementation of these action plans.

1.9.

Recognising that wood does not enjoy the same familiarity among builders and architects as other materials, the EESC invites Member States to set up initiatives in order to promote a wood culture. Moreover, the representatives of the European woodworking industries and the European social partners should define coordinated national campaigns in order to give a more attractive image of the sector.

2.1.

The European woodworking industries generate an annual turnover of around 122 billion euros on a production value of over 115 billion euros. According to Eurostat, the woodworking industries consisted of more than 3 11  000 companies in 2012. About 1 26  000 companies were active in the furniture business as well. Within the woodworking industries stricto sensu, the sawmill industry accounted for roughly 40  000 companies, while the other sub-sectors of woodworking products counted some 1 45  000 companies. Despite improvements, these figures may not reflect the actual situation since small companies are not necessarily taken into account, depending on the Member State reporting. In the furniture and construction elements sectors, the number of small companies is considerable. Therefore, the real number of firms could be estimated at more than 3 75  000 companies.

2.2.

Throughout the EU, the woodworking sector has seen a steep fall in the number of jobs in 2012. The average fall amounted to 4,4 %, but the figures ranged from — 3,2 % in Germany to even — 13,7 % in Spain. Croatia and Denmark showed the biggest increases in the number of jobs while Spain (– 13,7 %), Cyprus (– 13,1 %) and Slovakia (– 11,5 %) experienced the biggest falls in 2012.

European and national policies have a strong impact on the competitiveness of the woodworking sector. As highlighted in the EU Competitiveness Report 2014, production, labour and raw material costs tend to be much higher in Europe than in many other regions leading to a high risk of delocalisation for large parts of the sector. For this reason, Europe should demand that products entering the EU market have the same social, environmental and safety standards as the ones produced in Europe. Moreover, the EESC highlights the fact that Europe’s woodworking sector continues to face significant increases in production costs, especially as regards resins and energy. European energy costs are three times higher than in the USA.

2.3.

The development of renewable energy and related subsidies is reducing the availability of wood raw materials and is increasing their price. In 2012, approximately 15 % or 182 million cubic metres of the total wood harvested in the ECE region was estimated to have been wood fuel. From the most recent ECE/FAO Joint Wood Energy Enquiry (JWEE 2011), it appears that wood energy is the principal component of renewable energy, accounting for 38,4 % of all renewables. According to the recent European ‘Study on the wood raw material supply and demand for the EU wood-processing industries’ commissioned by the European Commission to Indufor (3), ‘the amount of wood used for energy purposes in the EU would be equivalent to today’s total wood harvested, were the renewable energy target to be achieved by 2020. By 2016, a shortfall of 63 Mm3 of wood vis-à-vis the wood requirements anticipated by EU Member States in their National Renewable Energy Action Plans will occur.’

2.4.

Considering the new European Communication on the ‘energy and climate framework 2030’ and the demand of increasing the share of renewable energy to at least 27 % by 2030, the EESC considers it essential to consider various ways to improve wood mobilisation in the EU — for example by taking into account the recommendations in the Good practice guidance on the sustainable mobilisation of wood in Europe, which was published in 2010 — and to identify solutions for avoiding any distorted competition between the different users of biomass resources.

2.5.

With this in mind, the EESC invites Member States to evaluate the amount of wood biomass in the country or region that is clearly available for energy use and the volumes the woodworking industry already uses as raw material.

2.6.

Moreover, the EESC deplores the persistence in several Member States of provisions limiting the use of wood in multi-storey buildings as well as discriminatory fire regulations. Fire regulations form the main obstacle to the use of wood in buildings in many countries. European standards for fire safety in buildings have been agreed, but fire safety will continue to be a national responsibility. These regulations should be removed immediately because they clearly represent market barriers to the expansion of wood products in the construction sector (4).

2.7.

Finally, the EESC deplores the exclusion of the European wood-based panel and sawmill sectors from the list of sectors deemed vulnerable to carbon leakage any longer. The removal of these sectors from the list will most likely intensify the already ongoing delocalisation of the abovementioned manufacturing sectors to countries outside the EU. Keeping both sectors in the list is essential in order to limit the negative impact of the competitive pressure that all companies are suffering due to the tremendously increased wood costs caused by the competition with the biomass energy sector. From 2008 to 2013, the European wood-based panels sector alone closed 51 plants, which resulted in a capacity loss of 10  386 Mm3. Some of these closed lines have been dismantled and reassembled outside the European Union’s borders. Maintaining manufacturing industries within European borders must represent a priority for all policy makers and in particular for the European Commission. For this reason, the relevant general directorates of the EU Commission are urged to take measures in order to guarantee the competitiveness of the European industries and avoiding delocalisation of manufacturing sector.

2.8.

One effective measure to ensure the competitiveness of European industry and to prevent the delocalisation of production could be a new energy/carbon tax which would stop the discrimination of European producers.

3.1.

Global warming constitutes a major political concern. Indeed it seriously impacts human health and natural resources. The choices we make about the materials we use can have a significant effect on the carbon dioxide emissions that are one of the main causes of global warming. The terminology of ‘green’ and/or ‘environmentally-friendly’ products are assuming wider acceptance among producers and consumers. At the same time national and European policies are set in order to encourage these products. The EESC considers that the LCA (5) (Life-Cycle Assessments) represents the appropriate environmental management tool for the future.

3.2.

Europe can drastically reduce CO2 emissions by increasing the carbon sink created by its forests (by optimising their management) and by enhancing the use of sustainably produced wood products. It is scientifically proven that the use of wood products in construction and everyday life has a positive effect on the climate. The amount of carbon stored in trees and related wood products depends on the tree species, growth conditions (environment), the age of a tree and the density of surrounding trees. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that substituting a cubic metre of wood for other construction materials results in a significant average of 0,75 to 1t in CO2 savings. Additionally, 1 m3 of wood stores 0,9 t of CO2.

3.3.

A recent Yale University-led study entitled ‘Carbon, fossil fuel and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests’ (6) discovered that using more wood in building and bridge construction would substantially reduce global carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel consumption. The researchers found that increasing the use of wood products to the equivalent of 34 % would have profound and positive effects. Between 14 % and 31 % of global CO2 emissions could be avoided by storing CO2 in the cellulose and lignin of wood products.

3.4.

The EESC calls on the European Commission to support Member States and the European forestry sector in identifying and putting in place measures and, possibly, incentives for the use of harvested wood products with long life cycles (7). The longer the wood is used and reused, the longer it locks in carbon dioxide. Wooden material waste (stricto senso) can be minimised mainly because all parts of wood can be used and reused efficiently, whereas it can ultimately always be burnt to recover its energy (8). If Europe wants to effectively tackle climate change, the Member States and European institutions should encourage the use of wood products and create a favourable political context in which the life cycle of wood is maximised.

4.1.

Constructing and operating buildings has significant environmental benefits. Globally, buildings are responsible for 20 % of all water consumption, 25 to 40 % of energy use, and 30 to 40 % of GHG emissions. The choice of products used to build or renovate has a significant impact on the environment. For this reason the EESC recognises that wood plays an important role in the development of sustainable and environmentally-friendly buildings. The opportunities relating to the use of wood in construction are not fully exploited and this affects the competitiveness of the woodworking industries. The EESC wants to analyse how to improve this situation without creating any detrimental effects for other materials.

4.2.

Wood has long been recognised as an environmentally-friendly material for a wide variety of products. Life cycle assessment studies worldwide have proven that wood products offer great environmental advantages. Wood is one of the few 100 percent renewable building materials, it stores CO2 and it is a natural insulator due to air pockets within its cellular structure. It is a safe, sturdy and dependable material — even under high stress conditions such as hurricanes and earthquakes as well as during a fire.

4.3.

End-of-life management options for building materials include elements such as reuse, recycling and recovering. The present situation shows that a lot of construction waste still goes to landfills, increasing the burden on landfill loading and operation. Materials such as wood can be recycled directly into the same product for reuse or can be reconstituted into other usable products. The EESC points out that recycling requires reprocessing that is usually not economically feasible unless efficient collection is organised near the material source. For this reason, the EESC calls on the EU Commission and the stakeholders involved to collect all good practices existing at national level in order to define guidelines and recommendations on wood waste collection and solutions for the treatment of post-consumer wood. Reducing and recycling construction and demolition materials can reduce overall construction and disposal costs as well.

4.4.

The construction industry is the biggest user of wood products. In a country such as Finland, approximately 70-80 % of Finnish wood products end up being used in construction. Timber frame construction has recently gained ground in several European countries, most notably the UK, Ireland and France. Nevertheless, the EESC recognises that the use of wood can contribute to the development of the green economy and for this reason it should be promoted.

4.5.

The EESC recognises that knowledge of the advantages of using wood in construction is rather limited. This is not only the case for architects; end-users too often do not know enough about wood properties. This limited knowledge often leads to the limited utilisation of wood and consequently to problems that negatively affect the image of wood. Moreover, the lack of skilled workers in timber frame housing construction curtails the development of this construction method in many European countries.

4.6.

The EESC calls on the European woodworking industries and the related social partners to set up coordinated information campaigns in order to give a more attractive image of the sector. Young people should be encouraged to choose education and training schemes which properly prepare them for a career in the woodworking industry.

5.1.

The EESC highlights the fact that most woodworkers are trained on the job, picking up skills informally from experienced workers. Most woodworkers learn basic machine operations and job tasks in a few months, but becoming a skilled woodworker often requires two or more years. Employment is also created by providing workers with training and education adapted to the needs and demands of the labour market. Moreover, the EESC reiterates that research and innovation programmes will boost jobs and growth across the EU. For this reason the woodworking sector is encouraged to exploit the opportunities available under the Horizon 2020 programme.

5.2.

The recent EU Communication on Resource efficiency in the building sector should be ambitiously implemented by Member States in order to secure investments in renovation of buildings and create employment.

5.3.

The EESC recognises that acoustic noise in public areas has a serious impact on human health (10). Not only is wood an important environmentally-friendly material, but if used as insulation material it might have a number of social and health benefits. Indeed, wood can play an essential role in acoustic insulation and as an absorption material. Wood has the capacity to insulate rooms acoustically from external noises and to reduce reverberation time. The EESC calls on the EU Commission to introduce a norm that properly reflects the acoustic characteristics of enclosed spaces. Given that wood can produce sound (by direct striking) and can amplify or absorb sound waves originating from other bodies, opportunities related to wood applications should be explored. Wood also has a scientifically proven positive impact on indoor air quality/comfort.

5.4.

At national level, there are several initiatives for educating people about the opportunities for using wood as an environmentally-friendly material, but real coordination is lacking. The growing consumption of wood products is clearly related to information campaigns that should be carried out at national level. The main objective of educational campaigns about wood is to create positive attitudes — technical and cultural — in favour of the use of wood.

5.5.

As an interesting example of good practice, the EESC would like to recall the initiative entitled ‘WOODDAYS’. The event (11) was launched on 21 March 2014 in Milan. It was a 10-day programme focused on growing cities and smart, resource-efficient urban densification with wood. The event was set up in order to position wood as a building material with hitherto unrecognised potential in a setting where timber construction will play a major role in the future — right in the heart of our cities. This event will be duplicated in other European cities: Bratislava, Ljubljana and Brussels.

5.6.

The EESC would point out that the major green building programmes vary somewhat in their treatment of the use of wood products. While some focus on performance rather than the material used, other programmes place ‘restrictions’ on wood as an acceptable material (without any such ‘requirements’ for other building products). Increasing the use of wood would also impact the EU economy positively in a variety of ways. The EESC accordingly recommends setting mandatory targets for the use of wood in construction following France’s example.

6.1.

Increasing the use of wood in construction and in everyday life requires solutions and measures in order to enhance wood mobilisation (including solutions designed to recover more wood, wood products and residues from industrial and post-consumer waste, for reuse and recycling) and extend the life cycle of wooden products.

6.2.

A sustainable and continuous supply of wood raw material is crucial to maintaining a competitive wood products industry. The recommendations set out in the Good practice guidance on the sustainable mobilisation of wood in Europe (2010) should be taken into consideration and, if necessary, developed.

6.3.

In recent years the wood supply has come under strong pressure, primarily due to European and national measures promoting the use of renewable energy sources, which have partly resulted in burning wood. The EESC recalls the importance of excluding ‘pallets and recovered post-consumer wood’ from the definition of ‘tertiary biomass.’ Such materials are a major raw material input into some of the product types manufactured by wood-based panel manufacturers and can, in some cases, account for up to 95 % of the wood input (12).

6.4.

The EESC would highlight here that the ‘cascade use’ principle (use, reuse, recycling, energy recovery) — when economically and technically feasible in accordance with specific national and regional peculiarities and the balance between wood demand and supply — will represent the optimal way to maximise the resource-efficient use of wood, the natural raw material. However, the EESC cannot support the notion of legally binding rules and is in favour of an open market-based approach and the freedom of market participants. Using wood in a ‘cascade use’ approach not only secures optimal economic usage of the raw material, it also provides important climate benefits through the continuous carbon storage and substitution effect, prior to its use as a source of energy.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/47

Rapporteur:

Anna Maria DARMANIN

1.1.

The EESC welcomes the Commission Communication on ‘European film in the digital era — Bridging cultural diversity and competitiveness’ (COM(2014) 272 final), which rightly raises some points for discussion and reflection concerning this very important sector in Europe.

1.2.

The EESC emphasises that there needs to be an appropriate balance between the audiovisual sector’s value in a business and commercial sense and its value to Europe from a cultural heritage perspective. Intrinsically these two aspects cannot be dealt with separately.

1.3.

It is high time that one or more innovative and new business models for the sector be openly discussed with a view to taking up opportunities existing within the digital world. The EESC therefore encourages the sector, the Commission and also national governments to be open and willing to discuss and promote such business models.

1.4.

Financing is an area that needs to be looked into; competitiveness must be sought but not at the cost of the cultural dimension of film in Europe. Finance is primarily up to the Member States. Nonetheless, an open debate on methodologies for ensuring the maximisation of financing and alternative methods of financing should be looked into. This includes public funding to attract private funding; a more rational use of public resources and complementarity between EU and MS funding; and private funding from new players such as internet providers and telecoms companies.

1.5.

Strengthening the creative environment should also be a key priority for the roadmap of the sector. Such an approach should be addressed within the Commission communication and should cover the educational environment, the working conditions of people within the sector, the development of creative talent, creative expression, how to add value and European film literacy and language.

1.6.

The EESC endorses the idea that the audience should be at the heart of discussions about the audiovisual sector, as they are not only the beneficiaries but often also the ones who shape trends and hence lead development.

1.7.

The EESC believes that greater emphasis should be placed on data collection at European level for a better understanding of the industry.

1.8.

The EESC would emphasise that the Commission communication should also highlight, as one of the challenges, the current situation regarding working conditions within the sector, covering workers, the self-employed and SMEs, some of which are currently, in various ways, facing precarious work conditions, partly resulting from the particularities of the industry itself but also as a result of lack of competitiveness where it is being attempted to save money from working payments.

1.9.

Film literacy is considered by the EESC to be an important aspect in encouraging more Europeans to appreciate and seek out European films. The EESC therefore recommends that the promotion of film literacy be taken up at European level and also at national level.

1.10.

Accessibility is another area in which the EESC believes greater effort should be made, so research and innovation should be aimed at overcoming barriers such as language and disability.

1.11.

The European Film Forum proposed by the European Commission should encompass all stakeholders within the audiovisual sector, and is an important tool for bringing together all players within the audiovisual sector to address the key issues facing the sector. The EESC supports this long-awaited consultation forum and emphasises that it is essential that all stakeholders within the sector be equally involved; this also includes smaller stakeholder groups, including consumer and employee representatives.

1.12.

Key challenges and opportunities within the digital era should be the focus of such a forum, channelling policy and strategy into specific measures within the sector.

1.13.

Furthermore, the EESC stresses that although it is fast changing and may be perceived as a challenge for the sector, the digital world (including the prospect of satellite communication in line with the EU’s plans for 2020) nonetheless offers a multitude of opportunities for the film industry.

2.1.

The film industry in Europe, one of the instruments of our cultural diversity, is greatly distinct and also very creative. It is a strong asset to the mass of cultural heritage within Europe and yet an industry under significant threats due to a number of challenges.

2.2.

The Commission has in the past issued a number of directives related to specific areas of the film industry, such as intellectual property. This communication is the first in the recent past to focus on the entire industry.

2.3.

The Commission paper highlights the particularities the European film sector is facing, namely:

2.4.

The Commission document therefore sets out to identify and address these challenges as an initial basis of discussion. These areas being:

3.1.

The EESC welcomes the initiative of the Commission to set out the basis of discussion amongst all stakeholders and other players within the audiovisual sector in Europe. This dialogue is imperative and has been needed for a long time, not only to reap the benefits offered by the changing digital world and emerging technologies but also to strengthen further this diverse and complex industry.

3.2.

The EESC agrees with the EC on the specific challenges, which have been highlighted within the document. However the EESC would also add another challenge that has been omitted within the document, this would be the current work environment that workers, self-employed and entrepreneurs are facing within this sector.

3.3.

Within the areas of focus to be addressed the EESC is in agreement with the areas outlined within the document. However the EESC would also add as necessary areas to be discussed and addressed being:

3.4.

Furthermore, the EESC stresses that although it is fast changing and may be perceived as a challenge for the sector, the digital world nonetheless offers a multitude of opportunities for the film industry. This includes the prospect of satellite communication in line with the EU’s satellite infrastructure plans for 2020 and making use of satellites to distribute films in a more flexible, environmentally-friendly and cost-efficient way to cinemas.

4.1.

The EESC supports the concept that public funding need not necessarily be augmented within the sector but rather optimised for the added value of the industry. Public funding is up to the Member States and EU funding should further enhance the effectiveness of the local funding. Such public funding ought to be used however to attract more private funding.

4.2.

The funding model for the audiovisual industry needs to be based on support devoted to different kinds of products and on a blend of direct grants and leverage financing to facilitate private investors to enter the market. The role of leveraging of public funding is essential to obtain a more rational use of public resources and to concentrate the effort on cultural products.

4.3.

The EESC emphasises that there is a fine balance between achieving competitiveness and creative expression; public funding should not just be addressed to one or the other but should also be balanced out accordingly.

4.4.

In addition to the questions raised by the Commission within the public funding sphere as a basis of debate, the EESC would also add the following:

4.5.

The Commission communication refers to private investment as a means of funding for the industry. The EESC recommends that new players within the digital sector contribute towards the financing of the industry, such players being for example the telecoms companies and the content providers.

4.6.

Single initiatives are not enough; governments and the EU have to develop a financial infrastructure for the audiovisual industry aimed at implementing and fostering several financial and non-financial services — including capacity-building services — devoted to the whole production chain of the industry: development, production, distribution.

4.7.

The EESC has been part of the debate in Intellectual Property Rights, the Digital Single Market and the AVMSD. Nonetheless the EESC supports the notion of exploring out of the box business models that make sense within the current technological changes of the digital era. The EESC also emphasises that there is a need to better streamline all the current policies that exist for this sector.

4.8.

New business models need to be explored and tenacity to make bold decisions should be supported. However the EESC emphasises that to achieve this it is necessary that all stakeholders are openly and comprehensively involved in the discussions towards changing business models. Moreover such a debate ought to be driven by the industry itself.

4.9.

The EESC firmly believes that this aspect is crucial to the success of the industry and therefore calls upon all stakeholders to be open to such new business models, not only so as to reap the full benefits offered by the digital era but also in order to adapt to rapidly changing consumer behavioural patterns.

4.10.

There is a need for a cultural change in the producers’ and broadcasters’ mentality: in the future, products devoted to cinemas and TV will co-exist with cross media products: producers and broadcasters have to develop different business models in relation to the different nature of the products: they have to think of different budgets and different release strategies according to the nature and the commercial potential of the specific products. At the same time, governments have to rethink the public funding model according to a more balanced blending of supports.

4.11.

The EESC would be cautious about simply tweaking current business practices without looking into practices from a completely innovative angle. For example, simply establishing more flexible release windows may not necessarily address the business solutions that the digital era requires.

4.12.

The EESC advocates that the cooperation between films schools is essential for the further enhancement of the sector. Furthermore the EESC emphasises that such aspect of the sector, the film schools, also need to be involved in the stakeholder discussions being held at a European level.

4.13.

A reality that requires further consideration within this area is the particular challenges faced by the film schools whereby technology is so fast changing that in many occasions film schools are using out of date technology for the training of their students. Hence many times producing professionals who are then not ready for the technological environment they are faced within the industry itself.

4.14.

The EESC supports the notion that the audience should also be at the heart of the driving force within the sector. For this reason the EESC emphasises further the requirement of proper data at a European level and also the involvement of consumer organisations within the stakeholders’ discussions, such as the European Film Forum.

4.15.

The EESC believes that greater emphasis should be placed on data collection at a European level for a better understanding of the industry. Such data collection should not only include the element of audiences within the sector but also the use of funding at different levels, the competitiveness of the sector and also the working environment and conditions.

4.16.

The EESC also recognises that there is a need to develop a data source at national and EU levels which will also include data used by financial intermediaries to assess and manage the investment risk.

4.17.

The EESC strongly believes that the area of working conditions and the working environment within the sector should be an area of discussion and focus. Currently the sector is so diverse that often a lack of data on working conditions results in a lack of focus on this area.

4.18.

Precarious work is unfortunately becoming even more widespread within the sector, partly resulting from the particularities of the industry itself (production taking place within a short timeframe for example) but also as a result of lack of competitiveness where money is attempted to being saved from working payments.

4.19.

Hence the EESC invites the Commission to include this challenge within the focus of the Communication and also address it in the discussions. Stakeholders representing the film sector workers need to be involved within the stakeholders’ discussions and the European Film Forum.

4.20.

The EESC supports the initiative of the Commission to establish the European Film Forum. It is overdue that the sector gets together so as to discuss the issues raised as pertinent for the competitiveness of the industry within today’s digital era.

4.21.

The EESC emphasises that it is essential that all stakeholders be equally involved within this sector. This also includes the smaller stakeholder groups, the less ‘powerful ones’ and also the representatives of the consumers and of the workers.

4.22.

Whereas the television sector is not as severely affected as the film industry by the digital era, it is important to also include this sector and discuss it within the wider debate as this is also an important component of the audio visual sector.

4.23.

Film literacy is considered by the EESC as an important aspect in attracting more Europeans to appreciate and seek out European films. Hence the EESC recommends that the promotion of such film literacy be taken up at European level and also at national level. This would not only benefit the industry itself but would also highlight an important element in the manifestation of European cultural diversity. Whereas the specific model of film appreciation in schools may not necessarily work, the EESC believes that models and campaigns should be created that will highlight the success, beauty and art of the European film sector.

4.24.

Language may be considered as one of the barriers to audiences across Europe and also overseas. Language is a physical barrier but also part of cultural diversity. Furthermore, film is a powerful tool for foreign language uptake. Nonetheless, the EESC believes that H2020 funds should also be directed towards an innovative approach to dubbing in a cost-effective manner through leading and upcoming technologies.

4.25.

Furthermore the EESC strongly encourages the audiovisual sector to use the tools available to ensure that the sector’s products can also be enjoyed by audiences with visual and/or auditory limitations or impairments. Research efforts should also be devoted to making such tools for accessibility more cost-effective.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/52

Rapporteur:

Ms Mall HELLAM

1.1.

Building mutual trust and ensuring that Russia and EU civil society can interact freely, and providing as much support as possible to Russian independent civil society organisations (CSOs) have never been more important.

1.2.

The Human Rights and Democracy framework should be promoted more actively, and the political role of the EU Special Representative for human rights increased. Civil society and human rights issues should be part of all bi- and multilateral dialogue with Russia. Human rights dialogue should be maintained and civil society stakeholders with relevant expertise should be brought to the table whenever possible. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should meet with civil society and CSOs whenever visiting Russia.

1.3.

The EU should coordinate and speak with one voice, addressing the issue of political challenges as well as the crackdown on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media in Russia. The EESC encourages the EU to closely monitor and regularly comment on various aspects of the civil society situation in Russia.

1.4.

However, a bilateral approach should not be underestimated as a means of making progress in talks with Russia. The EU should retain a clear position on sanctions and responsibility for the civil society crackdown. But a great deal of flexibility will be needed to move on from this low point in EU-Russia relations. A bilateral approach might be a good way of relaunching relations.

1.5.

Perceiving EU-Russia civil society cooperation as a potential part of the future PCA (1), and providing a separate funding line for the independent EU-Russia civil society dialogue platform might also be a valuable strategic investment. Despite extraordinary political circumstances, the EU should continue exercising soft and smart power-based (2) efforts to normalise the situation and prevent Russia’s (self-) isolationist drift. In this regard, the previous EESC opinions’ recommendations on the Northern Dimension (3) (including the Arctic Policy (4)), the Baltic Sea Strategy (5), the Black Sea Synergy (6), the Eastern Partnership (7), and the Danube Strategy might be consulted.

1.6.

The EU should maintain an accurate account of the democratic processes and challenges for the participants in the dialogue. The rapidly deteriorating situation surrounding rights and freedoms — as has been the case in Russia in the last two years — needs to be recognised and remedied now. The EU institutions and the Member States and especially those who have not been involved should invest in and support exchange programmes and programmes for civil society cooperation with Russia and support Russian democratically-oriented and issue–based NGOs such as defenders of human rights, environmentalists, consumer associations, various social partners, as well as other independent professional interest organisations, etc. Appropriate steps to facilitate and liberalise visas should be taken on the basis of certain conditions.

1.7.

Diversity is the key to a healthy European civil society: the EU should engage with a wide range of thematic and regional civil society stakeholders — despite and especially against a backdrop of Russia’s growing monopolisation and isolation, retreating to authoritarian modes of behaviour. The EESC calls for more people-to-people contacts and in particular for more large-scale exchanges in the field of education and intercultural dialogue as a tool to improve mutual understanding and confidence. New platforms and formats of cooperation between civil society organisations from the EU and Russia should thrive. The EU-Russia Civil Society Forum (similar to the Eastern Partnership CSF) might be considered as one of the existing development platforms that are well suited for this purpose. Involvement of the social partners also merits attention within this or a similar platform.

1.8.

The EU should review the procedures for financial support to NGOs through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). In the light of the ongoing crackdown and persecution campaign, a relatively high share of co-funding would represent a huge burden for many Russian NGOs and their partners. Therefore, it is important to increase funding opportunities and arrange a safe way of accessing these for the Russian NGOs or NGO coalitions. For example, the EIDHR is advised to increase the budget for the Russian Federation (suggested rise from EUR 3 to 9 million per year). In order to facilitate the flexibility and accessibility of support mechanisms, re-granting formats could be considered.

1.9.

Opening up the European Neighbourhood Instrument ENI to Russian participants as part of cross-border and multilateral programmes with counterparts from the EU and the Eastern Partnership states might present another valuable opportunity. The EESC also recommends extending the Partnership Instrument (PI), which is currently allocating EUR 10 million per year for cooperation with Russia, to allow applications from civil society institutions. Lastly, the mandate of the European Endowment for Democracy can be extended to Russia. Relevant regional and cross-border cooperation programmes should increase their support to civil society.

1.10.

The EU’s current funding policies should not be exclusively about aid projects. Institutional support and a professional upgrade are essential for the sustainability of civil society in transitional economies like Russia. Boosting the capacity of CSOs including the social partners, supporting technical/IT and managerial skills development within the NGO community as well as fostering cooperation with EU-counterparts are important in order for Russian civil society to move on.

1.11.

The EESC calls for the development of an urgent action/alert system for groups and individuals in danger or acute need. This should include, for instance, better access to asylum, granting visas and visa extensions, fellowship, etc. It is also of utmost importance to assist and support civil society activists who already have been forced to leave Russia due to political reasons.

1.12.

The EESC calls for exchanges and ties to be stepped up between Russian civil society and Ukrainian civil society stakeholders — with structural leadership and support from the EU. The EESC suggests seeking opportunities to bring Russian partners into large regional projects with the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries, particularly in the field of democracy, environment, public health, transport, energy efficiency, etc.

1.13.

The EU should seek more structured involvement of independent civil society representatives in EU-Russia governmental dialogue, including on such mutually important topics as migration, intercultural relations, climate change, data security, informational security, etc. The EU should also draw up new interactive and transparent formats of citizen participation in both Europe and Russia. A meeting of the EU High Representative with civil society stakeholders operating outside the EU could be one step towards meeting this objective.

2.1.

The EESC and Russian independent civil society organisations should look into ways of enriching human rights dialogue between the EU and Russia and finding new avenues for continued dialogue.

2.2.

In order to strengthen interaction between European and Russian civil society, the following steps should be taken:

2.2.1.

Consider enlarging the EESC-Russia follow-up committee with the objective of creating an opportunity for more members to participate in the exchanges with Russian partners;

2.2.2.

Strengthen the cooperation between the EESC and the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum in order to monitor developments in Russian civil society and explore ways of fostering dialogue between EU and Russian independent CSOs (including environmental, consumer, agricultural, social and other professional and issue-based organisations, etc.);

2.2.3.

Establish and develop contacts with a broad spectrum of independent social partners (e.g. employers’ associations and trade unions) in Russia;

2.2.4.

Support, expand and prioritise engagement efforts in the field of fostering cooperation and civil society in Russia and Ukraine and the rest of the Eastern Partnership space, including labour relations; consider a special role for the EESC in organising cooperation between Russia and Ukraine at civil society level;

2.2.5.

Due to the political situation, the EESC has suspended the joint workshops with the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation (CCRF). However, the committee maintains issue-based contacts with the CCRF and will also establish contacts with the Russian Ombudsman office and other relevant institutions and professionals.

3.1.

In early March 2014, the Russian Federation took active steps to annex the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukraine. Since April 2014, Russia is believed to have been waging a proxy war in eastern Ukraine, through its increasing support of pro-Russian separatists in the ersatz Donetsk Peoples Republic and Luhansk Peoples Republic and direct incursion into the territory of Ukraine. This tests the current European security system that has been in place for decades and broader post WWII international agreements. Starting from summer 2014, the EU and the US have imposed an array of sanctions on Russian individuals and businesses in response to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in eastern Ukraine. On 21 September 2014, Moscow and other big cities saw, in all likelihood, the largest anti-war protest in many years (estimates vary from 25 to 50 thousand people).

3.2.

President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government spent 2013 and 2014 tightening their grip on power, and marginalising any potential opposition. In recent years, the Russian government has enforced a series of harsh laws in response to massive protests between December 2011 and mid-2012. Among other restrictions, the laws increased controls on NGOs, the internet, and dramatically increased fines for participating in unsanctioned street protests and expanded the definition of treason.

3.3.

The human rights and civil society situation in the Russian Federation is deteriorating. The amendments to the law on Non-Commercial Organisations (also known as ‘foreign agents’ law) in combination with other legislative novelties penalise advocacy work, demonise NGOs in the public eye and therefore prevent the development of civil society. The growing number of recent court cases against civil society organisations is a worrying feature. The overall social and political climate has been increasingly hostile toward NGO and independent voices.

3.4.

Other restrictive legislation such as a ban on the propaganda of ‘non-traditional sexual relations’ to minors generates stigmatisation and increases discrimination and homophobic violence. Also, a number of recent legislative and administrative moves unleashed a crackdown on the independent media in Russia.

3.5.

In its conclusions from 16 July 2014, the European Council ‘invites the Commission to re-assess EU-Russia cooperation programmes with a view to taking a decision, on a case-by-case basis, on the suspension of the implementation of EU bilateral and regional cooperation programmes. However, projects dealing exclusively with cross-border cooperation and civil society will be maintained’. In the given circumstances it is necessary to consider how the EU institutions and civil society can help improve conditions for civil society groups in Russia and strengthen genuine civil and social dialogue.

4.1.

In recent years, key international stakeholders — within the UN, EU, European Parliament, CoE, OSCE — have shared their concerns on the shrinking space for civil society in Russia.

4.2.

Russian civil society — in the broad understanding, including all sorts of non-profit associations — has seen a significant change since the early 1990s. More recently, NGOs have been joined by many loosely organised coalitions and groups of citizens uniting to work on charitable projects, education, ‘rights literacy’, etc., although compared to the formative period around 20 years ago, the contemporary Russian civil society community is facing an unfriendly climate for individual initiative and social activism.

4.3.

Since Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin in May 2012, a stream of repressive laws has been passed, and the authorities have acquired very broad powers to restrict core freedoms. To mention a few, Russia’s amended definition of treason allows for the penalising of international human rights advocacy. Huge fines have been imposed for participation in ‘unsanctioned’ rallies. The law forbidding ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ widely discriminates against LGBT people. Heads of NGOs personally have become potentially criminally liable for not observing the novelties of the NGO law.

4.4.

Essentially, civil society in Russia is facing an existential dilemma (8). Some human rights observers believe the scale of this crackdown on civil society is ‘unprecedented in the country’s post-Soviet history’, and it has even ‘intensified as the Ukrainian crisis started unfolding’ (9). At the same time, the State has made available a lot of funding for the so-called ‘socially-oriented’ groups, adding this line of division within the NGO community.

4.5.

Politically motivated persecution of activists and the harsh treatment of the ruling establishment’s opponents and critics are ongoing. It is worth noting that several political prisoners were given amnesty and released before the Olympics in Sochi in 2014 (including Mikhail Khodorkovsky and members of the punk group ‘Pussy Riot’). However, during the same period several dozen protesters of the Moscow’s Bolotnaya square rally on 6 May 2012 were put on trial and charged with ‘organising mass riots’ and using violence against the police (10). The proportionality and relevance of the charges were continuously questioned by local and international human rights institutions.

4.6.

Amendments to the existing NGO legislation (known as ‘the foreign agents’ law) enacted in November 2012 (11) became one of the central pieces of the crackdown on civil society in Russia and marked the start of a campaign to marginalise Russian NGOs.

4.7.

Disturbingly, the ‘foreign agents’ and many subsequent repressive laws in Russia set the wrong tone for the development of civil society in the broader region (12). The very notion of a ‘foreign agent’ immediately brought back the heavily loaded and hateful rhetoric of the Soviet era — and the clear connotation of NGOs as ‘spies’ (‘agents’).

4.8.

Initially, the new law obligated all NGOs that receive foreign funding and engage in so-called ‘political activity’ (or advocacy in English) to register as ‘foreign agents’ with the authorities. Failure to do so became punishable by suspension of the organisation’s activities, with no court order. The implementation of the law in February 2013 started with a nation-wide campaign of inspections of over 1  000 NGOs (13) (when later commenting on related criticism, Vladimir Putin acknowledged some ‘extremes’ in the application of the law).

4.9.

Over 60 human rights and civil society groups — many of them prominent — were charged with ‘administrative offences’ and have appealed against the charges and fines resulting from inspections (with different measures of success). Moscow-based NGO ‘Golos’, the most outspoken election monitoring group, has been suspended along with a few other NGOs. With court proceedings still under way, 13 NGOs filed a complaint to the European Court of Human rights. No NGOs registered themselves independently (14).

4.10.

In June 2014 the law was amended again and the Ministry of Justice acquired the authority to designate NGOs as ‘foreign agents’ at its own discretion, by-passing any judicial involvement. The first six groups appeared on the ministry’s website almost immediately after the law entered into force (15). As of 1 October 2014, 15 NGOs were put on the list, many of which deal with strategic litigation and legal support (16).

4.11.

There are very few state institutions in Russia dealing with civil society and human rights issues: the Ombudsman office, the Presidential Council for the Civil Society and — to a certain extent — the Civic Chamber (17). The latter has been the EESC’s partner organisation for formal contacts with the Russian side (18). However, these institutions’ capacity is insufficient to address the latest negative developments around NGOs and civil society groups in Russia.

5.1.

The Tripartite Committee is Russia’s official body for handling labour and industrial relations (based on the ILO concept). The Committee comprises 30 representatives for each of three parties: Russia-wide trade unions, the Russian government and employers’ associations. Currently the Committee operates within their General Agreement for 2014-2016 (19). The collective agreements are negotiated and signed at the level of a concrete entity.

5.2.

Both employers and unions are represented by large associations in the Committee. The Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) (20) is a leading association of 361 employers within major industries. RSPP representatives sit on the Tripartite Committee meetings on the employers’ side. The RSPP offers mediation of disputes to its members and promotes business cooperation with the EU companies. RSPP’s members together oversee about 6 million employees, the Union signed the Social Charter of the Russian Business, and is a party to the Global Compact and General Reporting Initiative (GRI). Alliances of entrepreneurs include the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (21) and ‘Opora Rossii’ (small to medium-sized companies), etc.

5.3.

The trade unions movement in today’s Russia has never had a strong independent voice; however, there are several reassuring examples on that front — quite often localised within the motor car industry.

5.4.

The dominant player in the field is the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), the successor to a similar model of ‘union of unions’ that existed during the Soviet times (VTsSPS). FNPR has attempted to become a bridge between trade unions and the authorities; at the same time, it has been criticised for a clearly pro-governmental stance and overall lack of involvement in strikes and street action, etc. Another leading alliance of unions is the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) (22). There are smaller ones such as ‘Sotsprof’, Union of unions of Russia (SPR), etc.

5.5.

Though Russia is a signatory to all major ILO conventions, observance of socioeconomic and labour rights in Russia remains a point of concern, also shared by the EESC.

5.6.

Freedom of assembly as a labour right is a deeply problematic area — according to activists, it is almost impossible to go on strike without breaking the law (23). At the same time, Russian legislation lacks a clear definition of discrimination — hence employers might easily discriminate against potential and current employees on the basis of gender, age and union membership. Underprivileged groups of employees — such as prisoners or minorities — are particularly vulnerable, and trade union activists lack effective legal protection from pressure and persecution (24).

5.7.

The Centre for Social and Labour Rights, Russia’s only thematic think tank, reported on 1  395 cases of labour-related protests in 2007-2013, and their number is growing by the year (25).

6.1.

Freedom of information and media in Russia is under attack. Following the recriminalisation of libel, an array of new laws targeted at restricting the press and the internet was adopted in 2014. Several independent media outlets — print, radio, online — were closed down or forced to change their owner, staff and editorial policy. These recent moves are in indisputable contradiction with the letter and the spirit of Russia’s international obligations.

6.2.

The law on Information and Information Technology (changed in February 2014) now allows websites to be blocked on the prosecutor general’s request, if they allegedly contain ‘extremist’ content or call for mass riots or unsanctioned gatherings.

6.3.

Anti-terrorism legislation was amended in May with new regulations for bloggers with a readership of over 3  000 daily visits. Such bloggers must now register with Roskomnadzor and will afterwards need to comply with Russian mass media legislation regarding their blogs (including restrictions during elections, etc.). They also may be required to disclose their real name and other information and be held accountable for the third party comments on their posts. Non-registration is punishable by a fine.

6.4.

The EU and the international community are gravely concerned about another legislative initiative that suggests limiting foreign investment in media companies in Russia to 20 % from January 2016.

14.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/59

Rapporteur:

Gerd WOLF

1.1.

The Committee strongly supports the objective set by the Commission, as well as the proposed measures to achieve it. However, their implementation largely falls within the remit of the Member States.

1.2.

In view of the Commission’s limited ability to leverage Member State policy in this area, the Committee appeals to the goodwill, constructive attitude and decision-making power of all the relevant players to prioritise this urgent but difficult task, and to bring it to fruition using a persistent approach that does not result in additional red tape.

1.3.

In the Committee’s view, the following tasks should be given priority:

1.4.

For more detailed remarks, the Committee refers to the sections which follow.

2.1.

This communication relates to efforts to achieve an appreciable increase in the potential of research and innovation (R&I)‘which is a key driver of renewed growth. This is to be made possible by raising the quality of investment within the Member States’ growth-friendly fiscal consolidation strategies.

2.2.

To this end, the Commission proposes that:

2.3.

The Commission intends to support Member States in this, drawing on the experience gained under the Innovation Union flagship initiative (1) and the European Research Area.

2.4.

Moreover, it is imperative that the innovation ecosystem in the broadest sense be strengthened, with the right conditions put in place for European businesses to this end.

2.5.

Clear progress has been made since the launch of the Innovation Union, but further efforts are needed to:

2.6.

The Commission invites the Council to discuss this matter on the basis of its communication and proposals.

3.1.

Bound up with the historical process of the Enlightenment (2), research and innovation have within a short period of time brought humanity the greatest increase in knowledge, health, technical skills and prosperity that has ever been achieved; they are the engine of future economic growth and social progress.

3.2.

This is also recognised by countries outside Europe, which is why there is increasing international competition for knowledge and innovation. In Asia, especially, major scientific and technological centres are now being built up, and research spending and innovation capacity are rapidly being further developed.

3.3.

The Committee strongly supports the aim declared in the communication and the measures proposed to this end, which are in line with the Committee’s constantly reiterated recommendations (3).

3.4.

All the more pressing, therefore, is the question of the implementation of the proposed measures and the resources available to this end. As the Commission observes, the relevant problems and tasks largely fall within the remit of the Member States.

3.5.

The resources of the Horizon 2020 programme are the main tool available to the Commission for guiding the financing and direction of the Member States’ R&I policy. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, these resources can only provide limited leverage.

3.6.

The Committee therefore appeals to the goodwill, constructive attitude and decision-making power of all the relevant players to prioritise this urgent task, and to bring it to fruition using a persistent and gradual approach that does not result in additional red tape.

3.7.

To this end, all Europe’s Member States need help moving forward. More specifically, the aim is to build and strengthen modern and excellent R & D capacity and innovation centres in all Member States — especially those that are less advanced in this area — and to align university courses and facilities with this objective. Europe needs world-class universities, which is why universities and research centres as a source of innovators and ideas should be given priority for support.

3.8.

Above all, this will require corresponding structural reforms (including international quality assessment), and that money from the EU’s Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund be allocated and used for these tasks in a targeted manner; the Commission will have to require and monitor this. Doing so will unleash synergies and narrow the innovation gap within Europe.

3.9.

Where there is no modern and effective system of science and research, it will have to be built up by drawing on shared experience and learning from best practice. This will mean calling on excellent and experienced providers and giving them the necessary scope, responsibility and guaranteed financing. The concept of ‘twinning for excellence’, in which existing clusters of excellence act as partners, can play a useful role here.

3.9.1.

However, the Committee cautions against excessive standardisation and the accompanying loss of systemic competition, which is the essential breeding ground for future innovations. Accordingly, it also cautions against overly formalised assessment criteria. On the other hand, international peer review is the best available, and essential, tool for assessing and safeguarding the required quality of R & D across Europe, despite potential weaknesses in assessing revolutionary ideas.

3.10.

There is sometimes an extremely long time lag between R&I investment and the point at which the resulting innovations succeed, making it especially difficult to anticipate and identify a causal link.

3.11.

However, it has long been apparent that a country’s economic performance and prosperity, where it is not primarily based on access to natural resources, correlates strongly with its investment in R&I and its resulting innovative capacity.

3.12.

It follows that Europe requires an efficient and open common research area attracting the best talent from around the world, towards which its immigration policy is geared, and in which the constituent national science systems cooperate more effectively at European level and are more closely linked externally with the most successful international institutions.

3.13.

Similarly, Europe needs policy measures as well as a social climate that promotes, welcomes and rewards innovation and puts in place the conditions for committed entrepreneurship. This will require, among other things, the identification, evaluation and, where appropriate, mitigation or removal of administrative, economic and social obstacles, thus improving and strengthening the innovation ecosystem.

3.14.

This will require a research and innovation policy in the EU Member States that interlocks national activities with European and international initiatives and fosters collaboration between policy-makers, science, business and civil society, including at European level, while also being interlinked with local and regional initiatives.

3.15.

For, alongside publicly funded R&I, it is above all businesses that themselves invest substantially in R & D that succeed on the market with new products, services and processes. These businesses — including enterprises in the social economy — make a substantial contribution to securing Europe’s position on global markets through innovation, and to creating and retaining jobs in Europe.

3.16.

Sadly, this is not true of all large companies. One reason may be a systematic aversion on the part of management to the market risks (4) tied up with what are known as disruptive technologies. The aeroplane was not invented and developed by the shipping or railway industries, nor were the innovations developed by Microsoft and Apple the work of the electrical goods and electronics companies that previously dominated the market.

3.17.

That is why new ideas often come from entrepreneurial figures and inter-disciplinary teams, and even from outsiders, or are brought to the market by them. SMEs, start-ups and enterprises in the social economy thus have a particularly important role to play, which means that promoting and protecting them sufficiently must be a key pillar of any effective innovation policy.

3.18.

As already discussed in detail in the opinion on the Innovation Union (5), there is also great potential for innovation in the whole spectrum of human interactions and organisations, including enterprises in the social economy. They encompass the entire gamut of scientific, economic and social activities, as discussed in other sections. At the same time, innovations need not only result from systematic R & D, but can also develop from field work and the experience gained there. They include:

Once again (6), the Committee expressed its support for the Commission’s objective of promoting such innovations to the fullest extent.

4.1.

The Committee reiterates that, while there are strong reciprocal links between research and innovation, the two display different characteristics and flourish under different working conditions (7). The key is to recognise these different working conditions on their own terms, but also to interlink them as much as possible.

4.2.

In terms of the use of public funds — i.e. revenues from taxes on individuals and businesses that are allocated through democratic processes — the Committee recently (8) argued that any support from the Commission (which, after all, comes from public funds) should focus on those tasks which are less likely to be supported using private funds. Typical reasons for this include:

4.3.

The Committee summarises its position on support for research and development as follows. This should:

4.3.1.

The Committee reiterates its calls (10) to at last effectively tackle the social risks and disadvantages to researchers resulting from necessary and desirable cross-border mobility and a lack of stable jobs. It therefore welcomes the Commission’s latest initiative (Resaver) (11) to facilitate the mobility of researchers in Europe by way of a new, pan-European pension scheme, which is meant to provide researchers with the opportunity to move between Member States without having to worry about whether or not they will be able to keep their pension rights. The Committee considers this a step in the right direction, without being in a position here to judge the suitability of the chosen approach.

4.3.2.

The Committee does not go over the specific research themes in this opinion, since they were discussed in detail in its opinion on Horizon 2020. Here, too, it repeats that the objectives of Member State programmes need to be sufficiently leveraged.

4.4.

The Committee summarises its position on support for innovation as follows. Innovations generally emerge: